As if everyone didn’t already know, Paul Martin made it official by announcing his coronation date – er – leadership candidacy for the federal Liberals today.
Understatement of the year:
Martin [ . . . ] said he was optimistic about his chances.
Optimistic is one thing. But Martin’s probably already picked out the curtains for his office already.
I’m getting disheartened with federal politics in general lately. As messed up as Quebec politics are, at least I can go to the ballot box and vote for someone. But there’s nobody left to vote for on the federal stage. The Liberals – even with Martin at the helm – have totally lost my respect, and I don’t think I could vote for them again in good conscience. The Tory party is in shambles. The Alliance is the only party to stick up for what’s right on the foreign policy stage, but I disagree with them on virtually every domestic and social issue. I won’t even bother mentioning the NDP or the Bloc.
And it won’t matter what I do, come election time, because the Liberal dynasty is assured victory no matter what. I could vote for Mickey Mouse and it wouldn’t make the slighest bit of difference. In fact, maybe I will.
Sari — are you suggesting you would vote for a federal party based on its foriegn policy? I think you are taking your Israel/Palestine monomania much too too far.
Canadian foreign policy is important from a moral perspective to Canadians, but in terms of effects on foreign countries, it’s inconsquential. An Alliance government will not result in Greater Israel, an NDP government will not bring about a Palestinian State.
Your vote should be based on issues that matter on the federal level. BAsing a federal Canadian vote on a party’s Israel-Palestine position is like basing it on a party’s tooth fairy position.
A vote for a party includes a vote for all aspects of its responsibilities – domestic social policy, economic policy, foreign policy, etc. Are you suggesting you would ignore foreign policy when you vote?
I don’t think you can base your vote on a single issue, and I did say that I have no intention on voting for the Alliance, foreign policy notwithstanding. But should you ignore it? Not a chance.
It’s interesting — people vote for different parties for different reasons, and what matters to voters is always intriguing. (Usually it’s possible to sustain one’s intrigue without calling people names for not having the right voting reasons. But what do I know.)
I’ve voted various ways in the past.
In the last year or so I’d kind of thought the NDP might offer an option. But it’s entirely because of the NDP’s stance on Israel-Palestine that I swore off them, especially when Layton came in. Ikram should feel free to call me a, uh, monomaniac, obviously, or anything else he thinks sounds good. But what’s relevant here is that my reason for not supporting the NDP has almost nothing to do with what the party actually thinks about the Middle East.
In fact, I’m relatively confident that those who make NDP foreign policy are relatively clueless about Israel or Palestine; I doubt they’ve lived there, or speak Arabic or Hebrew, or know much at all about the situation to begin with. Rather, I’m pretty sure they see a groundswell they can tap into, and this is the way to do it. Which is not wrong, and is how politics works.
No, the reason the NDP on Israel-Palestine turned me off the NDP is that they took an issue which tops the news and animates the left — nowhere else in the world has so many foreign correspondents per square metre, or more international column-inches per death — and passed up a chance to contribute to a debate in favour of demonizing and stigmatizing. And I’m not just talking about Svend.
To me, that showed me a political party that was comfortable with being shallow, with speaking from ignorance, and — most important — that was ready to function through political narratives of heroes and villains, rather than trying to look for solutions and consensuses. I’d been looking for an alternative; what I found were more cardboard politics.
A party’s stand on Israel-Palestine isn’t always about foreign policy, I guess I’m trying to say. Sometimes it’s about a window into how they formulate policy.
Monomania too harsh? You’re right, it’s not far from name-calling. I’m sorry about the epithet.
A more complimentary turn of phrase is ‘laser-like-focus’. Or perhaps ‘single-mindedness’.
However you put it, this blog is primarily about Israel and the Middle East, and secondarily about Canada or Montreal. I don’t thinks a person’s blog is necessarily a reflection of their mind, but I know (from my own blog) that blogging is time consuming. If I wrote five entries a day about Israel, Palestine, India or Pakistan, I would have those topics on my brain nearly all day.
As for my voting, I rarely consider foreign policy. To my eternal shame, I voted Alliance last time, despite my dislike of Day’s Evangelical Christian world views (incl. Day’s Middle East views).
I agree with James that a party’s consideration of foreign policy may give insight on how the party evaluates issues. But you hardly need to look at Israel-Palestine to see that the NDP prefers cardboard good/evil politics to more nuanced views. Parties that have no prospect (or intention) of entering government are usually caricatures.
Parties like the NDP serve a useful purpose. It’s important to have someone representing all points of view, even if they don’t form the government. I’ll never vote for them in a million years, but they can afford to be more black/white specifically because they don’t have to govern in the grey area.
But you hardly need to look at Israel-Palestine to see that the NDP prefers cardboard good/evil politics to more nuanced views. Parties that have no prospect (or intention) of entering government are usually caricatures. Cynical, no? Maybe I’ll land there, too, but I’d like to think it’s possible for new thinking in politics. The NDP, I (now) agree, definitely isn’t it. The ADQ, provincially, probably isn’t it either, though I have the sense that as they sign candidates up they’re actually making their way to a policy platform — probably something to do with what you said, that they for a moment there, anyway, seemed like they might have a shot at winning, or close.
But, yes, when thinking about who to vote I’ll usually listen to what they have to say on just about any topic because my number one area of interest is always how they got to where they did.
Which is not to idealize — I take it for granted that policy positions are for the most part opportunistic. Still, it has a lot to do with the way they’re presented. When I hear the demonizing, the us-against-them, and generally caricaturing of People We Don’t Like, I get turned off very quickly. If I’m still listening, then I’ll pay attention to the actual content of the policies. In the past I’ve voted NDP (Broadbent days) and Liberal federally, PLQ and Equality and Green (my own little protest vote) provincially.
Foreign policy is a big issue in the US,
but most Americans, including those single-minded,
pro-Israel folks, tend to vote by how much
money is in their wallet.