[Zipperfish]

What Happened to Canada

$1:

The left has long admired Canada as an enclave of social democracy in North America: for its openly socialist electoral parties, its robust welfare state, and its more moderate policy profile. Recent developments, however, have thrown that reputation into question. The country is helmed by a prime minister, Stephen Harper, known for his brazenly right-wing views and executive unilateralism. Both federal and provincial governments have embraced austerity and eroded public services. And Canada’s newly aggressive exploitation of its natural resources has it trampling on civil liberties and reneging on its international obligations like, as Foreign Policy put it, a “rogue, reckless petrostate.”

These are not changes born in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people, but an agenda designed and implemented from above, articulated in an imported conservative ideology, to abet the interests of private industry. Some of that agenda, like the shocking attack on Canada’s environmental research community, has been implemented so swiftly and unilaterally that the public is just now catching up. Other aspects, like the undermining of the country’s universal health care system, have been imposed more gradually, a death by a thousand cuts combined with a relentless propaganda campaign.

What is happening in Canada is part of a much larger trend: the formidable disciplinary forces of late capitalism are exerting themselves everywhere, including in other western democracies, where governments are scaling back social programs while lavishing tax concessions and subsidies on industry. The European Union and the United States are similarly absorbing market shocks on behalf of business while allowing downturns to undermine the poor and working class. If Canada is becoming indulgent of, even slavish toward, its resource industry (the biggest contributor to GDP), it is arguably no more so than the United States in relation to its banking sector, which was never brought to heel despite causing the 2008 collapse.

Still, the drastic turn in Canadian politics and policy raises some urgent questions. Why hasn’t the population stopped the attack on its public services? Why have left-leaning parties lost ground at the polls while Harper and his ilk continue getting reelected? Why, in a society with a more collectively oriented spirit, has the political discourse taken a sharp turn to the right?

The answers to those questions tell a story to which the left should pay heed, for the hijacking of Canada’s social democracy was made possible in part by the utter failure of its left parties, and the prospects for wresting the country from the current conservative agenda depend on the success of grassroots movements of resistance.

...more

Great article. Gearing folks up for the election.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And Canada’s newly aggressive exploitation of its natural resources has it trampling on civil liberties and reneging on its international obligations like, as Foreign Policy put it, a “rogue, reckless petrostate.”

Pretty much stopped reading right there.

New exploitation.

So what have we been doing for the past 400 years ?

And Zippy, why are you linking an American magazine making comments about things
they obviously know nothing about ?


You posting drunk again ?

[Thanos]

$1:

brazenly right-wing views

$1:

embraced austerity and eroded public services

$1:

trampling on civil liberties

$1:

an imported conservative ideology, to abet the interests of private industry

$1:

like the undermining of the country’s universal health care system

$1:

Why, in a society with a more collectively oriented spirit, has the political discourse taken a sharp turn to the right

$1:

the hijacking of Canada’s social democracy

Holy fuck, thanks for the laughs. Haven't had a good jolly like that in a long time. I thought I was good with the Hitler/Third Reich jokes, but I got nothing on these guys. That's it. You've been a great crowd. Thanks for coming and drive home safe. I am outta here!





















(I actually hate doing this to a Zipperfish thread, because he's usually so seriously normal and sane, but I can't play favourites when it comes to batshit, no matter where it comes from. Pity, actually. )

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Holy fuck, thanks for the laughs. Haven't had a good jolly like that in a long time. I thought I was good with the Hitler/Third Reich jokes, but I got nothing on these guys. That's it. You've been a great crowd. Thanks for coming and drive home safe. I am outta here!

(I actually hate doing this to a Zipperfish thread, because he's usually so seriously normal and sane, but I can't play favourites when it comes to batshit, no matter where it comes from. Pity, actually. )

I'm always up for a good BBQ'ing of the fringe element, but the article - while a bit sensational, isn't wrong.

Our democracy is being eroded, a little bit at a time.

$1:

brazenly right-wing views

No one disputes the CPC are 'righties'.

$1:

embraced austerity and eroded public services

Documented.

$1:

trampling on civil liberties

Heard of Edward Snowdon?

$1:

an imported conservative ideology, to abet the interests of private industry

How about things like cutting funding to environmental monitoring, and making corporations responsible for their own environmental monitoring? No chance that will be abused is there? It's not like, for example, pipeline operators never report spills on their own even when monitored and required to do so by government supervision, is it?

$1:

like the undermining of the country’s universal health care system

How many times a week do we have to hear 'Healthcare is unsustainable"? A lie repeated often enough . . .

$1:

Why, in a society with a more collectively oriented spirit, has the political discourse taken a sharp turn to the right

Because the right chooses to wield the word 'leftie' like they would 'communist' or 'criminal'?

$1:

the hijacking of Canada’s social democracy

Did you see what they did to Shiela Fraiser in a Senate committee yesterday? And that was but one incident in a long line. Robocalls anyone? And when they were found to be violating Election law - they changed the law to allow their violations!

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And Canada’s newly aggressive exploitation of its natural resources has it trampling on civil liberties and reneging on its international obligations like, as Foreign Policy put it, a “rogue, reckless petrostate.”

Pretty much stopped reading right there.

New exploitation.

So what have we been doing for the past 400 years ?

$1:

Former PM Brian Mulroney appeals for fearless leadership on resource agenda
Brian Mulroney says the country needs risk-taking leadership to get domestic oil and gas moving overseas, as well as a plan to work co-operatively and bring Canadians onside.

The former Tory prime minister's speech Tuesday, organized by the progressive think-tank Canada 2020, comes as major pipeline projects languish in limbo.

They have been stymied largely by opposition from First Nations, environmentalists and ordinary Canadians concerned with the impact on their communities.

"Prime ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership," Mulroney told a rapt crowd that included politicians of all stripes.

"Leadership is the process, not only of foreseeing the need for change, but of making the case for change. Leadership does not consist of imposing unpopular ideas on the public but of making unpopular ideas acceptable to the nation."

Stephen Harper's Conservative government has faced criticism for not doing enough to create consensus and allay environmental concerns at home and in Washington. Environmentalists have been referred to as "radical groups," and the official Opposition as "treacherous" and "clowns."

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology ... story.html

And, that's from today's paper.

[andyt]

I think some of the attacks on the CPC had merit, as you point out Caleb. But I was disappointed to not read a real analysis of what the left did wrong, except apparently move right. Why would it do so unless Canadians have moved right? Is the rights propaganda that effective?

But is shows the conundrum. The spending ways of the left were unsustainable as a whole - too many rich programs with vague outcome measures and poor oversight. Also at one time the left was made up of frugal people like Tommy Douglas, now as we see they want to feed at the trough just as does the right. It's one of the big problems with unions, where the leaders want to match the living standard of the CEOs.

OTOH, the policies of the right cause their own problems. Concentrating all the wealth in the hands of a few, means the many have less and less to spend, and it's the spending of the many that drives our modern economics (a problem in its own right) Slashing education and research will just come to bite us in the ass, but I guess with the motto that we have to import the best and the brightest (which used to be a slur against the guys leading the US into Vietnam) we'll just import our way out. The jail em all and throw away the key approach will prove too costly, as it did in the US, but then the US has shown how you can privatize it and even make a buck or two off the poor.

So really both sides don't seem to have either the leaders or the vision of how to deal with the modern world.

[Zipperfish]

Yeah, more of a ra-ra piece for us lefties, than a sort of serious policy review. That said, , it's overzealous but articulating a lot of things we find wring with this and other recent/current governments. Particualarly the idea of politicians basically being in service to billionaires.

Time for the pendulum to swing back.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

So really both sides don't seem to have either the leaders or the vision of how to deal with the modern world.

Very true, that.

[DrCaleb]

[andyt]

I don't agree with Degrasse Tyson here particularly. Scientists and engineers can be as stupid in politics and outside their area of expertise as anybody. Law and business actually seem like closer to what politics is about than science. What's needed are renaissance men - people with broad rather than deep experience who know enough when to consult the experts on a given problem, and make sure they're not hiring x spurts.

The other thing that none of this addresses is character. We need people who aren't just self serving and aggrandizing. Not many of those seem to be drawn to politics, and why should they with the electorate being as stupid as it is.

[PostFactum]

With Canada? Canada is ok till beavers are satisfied

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I don't agree with Degrasse Tyson here particularly. Scientists and engineers can be as stupid in politics and outside their area of expertise as anybody. Law and business actually seem like closer to what politics is about than science.

But that's assuming government and politics are one in the same. Libertarians like me thing Government has a responsibility to do things on scales that people can't do for themselves, and then STFU. Politics just gets in the way of government efficiency.

As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If all we elect to government are lawyers and businessmen, and all we get are corrupt crooks - isn't it time to change the recipe?

andyt andyt:

What's needed are renaissance men - people with broad rather than deep experience who know enough when to consult the experts on a given problem, and make sure they're not hiring x spurts.

One thing that constantly drives me mental are portfolios like 'International Trade', 'Environmental Protection' or 'Technology and Innovation' where Ministers have only Law or Politics in their background. How are they supposed to know their department and make informed decisions if they know nothing on the subject?

So why don't they recruit Doctors to run Departments of Health? Economists to run Trade? . . .

andyt andyt:

The other thing that none of this addresses is character. We need people who aren't just self serving and aggrandizing. Not many of those seem to be drawn to politics, and why should they with the electorate being as stupid as it is.

Another axiom is that only the people who want power are drawn to it. The people who should have it stay as far away from it as they can.

[andyt]

The experts are the bureaucrats within the department. A good minister will hire good people and listen to them. In fact what I've heard, often the minister actually has very little power, the bureaucrats run the show. But it makes sense. The politician is the connection to the voters, supposed to do what the voters want, then let the bureaucrats figure out how.

As for your libertarian idea, sounds idealistic but I don't think I've ever seen an example of it. YOu can't take the politics out of government, even in a dictatorship, much less a democracy. Politics is the art of the possible - ie where the people are willing to be led.

I'm not sure what govt does now that people could be doing for themselves?

[Regina]

andyt andyt:

The experts are the bureaucrats within the department. A good minister will hire good people and listen to them. In fact what I've heard, often the minister actually has very little power, the bureaucrats run the show. But it makes sense. The politician is the connection to the voters, supposed to do what the voters want, then let the bureaucrats figure out how.

So you're saying that all federal civil service employees should be fired and new ones hired and trained every time there is a government change?

[andyt]

I am?