Categories: Andrew Coyne

Do nothing, say nothing politics rule Ottawa

Once, says Andrew Coyne, our politics was about big ideas and sharp differences. Not anymore.

by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:20am - 46 Comments

Compare the debate going on in the U.S. about health care reform. Sure, it’s messy, even crazy at times. But it’s a debate. Somebody is proposing to do something about an important national issue, based on his deepest philosophical beliefs. And somebody else is arguing against it, based on theirs. And while the leadership of the two parties butt heads over the President’s plan, individual congressmen and senators are drafting their own counter-proposals—actual legislation, on which they will vote; their many votes on various bills compiled into a record; on which they will be held to account at election time.

Nothing like that applies to Canadian politics. It doesn’t matter what ordinary MPs stand for, because all policy is set by the parties. And it doesn’t matter what the parties stand for, because at any given time they generally stand for the same thing, and because whatever they stand for today they will stand for its opposite tomorrow.

It is tempting to describe Canadian politics as a fantasyland. But “fantasy” implies something wondrous and magical, or at least interesting. In that sense, Canadian politics is the opposite of fantasy. It’s like a dream where nothing happens. You’re hazily aware that if something happened, it would violate all rules of logic or common sense. But nothing ever does.

The most positive deﬁnition I can offer of politics is that it is people behaving badly for good reasons. But our politics involves people behaving appallingly for no reason at all: there are no stakes, no important values are in dispute, nor is there even much power to be pursued for its own sake, all power (or such little as the federal government has) being located in the Prime Minister’s Ofﬁce.

It would be a compliment to say our politics was corrupt. At least corruption is a purpose. Whereas to call our politics vacuous is an insult to wastes of space.

Pages: 1 2

Tags: chretien, conservative government, dalton camp, Federal budget, ottawa politics, Stephen Harper

More by Andrew Coyne

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

…and neither party has anything serious to say about it.

That just about sums up the value of political commentary in this country. We have something in the neighbourhood of a dozen parties in Canada, but if ideas don't come out of the arse of either the Libs or Cons they simply don't exist to our pundits.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Compare the debate going on in the U.S. about health care reform. Sure, it’s messy, even crazy at times. But it’s a debate. Somebody is proposing to do something about an important national issue, based on his deepest philosophical beliefs. And somebody else is arguing against it, based on theirs. And while the leadership of the two parties butt heads over the President’s plan, individual congressmen and senators are drafting their own counter-proposals—actual legislation, on which they will vote

Maureen

the MSM has done just a terrible job – any little thing is taken out of context and used to bash what ever politician said it. No wonder politicians end up with the most bland comments on issues facing Canada. Look at how the MSM deals with violence of Muslim men towards female relatives – the media goes out of its way to make it just another routine case of violence rather than calling it what every one knows it is – honour killings. We don't have a debate on our refugee system without someone in the media bringing up racism. We don't have a health care debate because the MSM portrays anyone who wants more options as threat to Canadian 'values'. It took the media a very long time to even acknowledge that there is a problem with the human rights commissions in Canada – and frankly if the current federal government attempted to repeal section 13, you can bet that the MSM would be condemning them. Bloggers are the only ones really dealing with substantive issues affecting Canadians.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

99.999999999999999999999% of the blogs out there are even more demented and valueless than the emessem; especially the ones you're obviously reading.

Seriously?

Actually, I'll agree on this one, especially the first couple sentences. This isn't a conservative argument either, as I'm sure this problem would affect Liberals or NDP as well, had they actually formed government. Media thrives on sensationalism, and sensationalism feeds public resentment, and public resentment makes it difficult for the government to do anything significant.

Seriously?

Well, that's the problem with democracy, Mr. Conye.

If you are a leader in government, and your country happens to be a democracy, progress is inhibited for the following reasons:

1) If you make any significant change, even for good, The People will throw you out of office–unless the other options to replace you are obviously too weak, demoralized, incompetent, scary, or bankrupt to replace you (doesn't Harper's FU statement in December make sense now?)–this is because The People are by nature dim-witted and reactionary (which is why attack ads are so effective).

2) Making significant change sometimes includes an element of risk. If chance does not work out in your favor, your political career is over.

3) The painful truth is that there is no way to take care of all the people, all the time. No matter what decisions you make on EI, taxation, medicare, etc. someone or some group of people will be left behind. By at least putting forth the same plan as the opposing party, you will not have to shoulder the blame, as there is no viable alternative solution being put forward by any other party.

Because of this, I submit that in our government, it is arguably the Official Opposition which holds much of the real influence. They are free to bring up problems, propose solutions, and create pressure to act on certain social or economic matters (case in point: the Conservative Government is presently running a stimulus package). Remember that in the Chretien-Martin era, they were safely able to cut so much spending because that's exactly what the Official Opposition suggested should be done. If there's no difference between the political parties, then there's no political risk for the government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

"The People are by nature dim-witted and reactionary (which is why attack ads are so effective)"

But wait……..
Um……..
What about……..

Sigh!!!!!

It's horrible, but it's true.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Throughout all (or most) of history, the people for the most part have been "dim-witted and reactionary".
The role of government should be akin to the role of a teacher – to educate, to aim higher.
Instead, it seems we've set the bar pretty low.
Take no risks – do what you have to do to clench power.

Will we ever experience a time when a leader of a country will do something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Right…
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Throughout all (or most) of history, the people for the most part have been "dim-witted and reactionary".
The role of government should be akin to the role of a teacher – to educate, to aim higher.
Instead, it seems we've set the bar pretty low.
Take no risks – do what you have to do to clench power.

Will we ever experience a time when a leader of a country will do something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Right…
officerfarva

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

captcold

"this is because The People are by nature dim-witted and reactionary (which is why attack ads are so effective)."

Yep. 1/2 the people in a room are below average intelligence. But that isn't the problem with democracy.

The larger issue is why the parasites running the show are there only for their self interest and profit. Otherwise, they would do good for the nation, make positive change, and then go out and get a job.

Instead, we have a choice of Libservatives or Coniberals. And political lifers whose ambition far exceeds their talent, exploiting fear within the population for their own ends.

Welcome to Canada – Home of the largest opportunity cost ever recorded!

Seriously?

"Home of the largest opportunity cost ever recorded"

I'm pretty sure it's like this everywhere–it's a problem with democratic countries in general, not just Canada in particular. As for "parasites running the show only for their self-interest and profit", it's deeper than that in some cases.

Harper: I actually believe that Harper is trying to establish long-term change in Canada, which would set the country in a more conservative ideological direction, but in order to do this he has to establish the CPC as Canada's natural governing party and install conservative thinkers to the usual patronage jobs. It's the (very) slow route to change, and it means that by just being in government, Harper is actually doing something. He admitted that this was his plan in a Maclean's interview last year.

Ignatieff: As for Ignatieff, he wants to be in power so that he can make some big, historical changes that he doesn't believe the Conservatives are willing to make. This could be attributed to ego (if he pulls it off, his name will go down in the history books), but it's also because he believes he can get things done once he's in power. I think he's deluding himself, because The People would be their reactionary selves and kick him out of office, allowing the CPC to reverse many of his decisions (the other legitimate motive for holding onto power), but I don't deny his sincerity.

captcold

The 'people' themselves have been slowly trodding towards fiscal conservatism and social liberalism over the past 25+ years.

While it'd be nice to think some sort of ideological bend could be witnessed, brokerage politics and party rule dictate the actions of the leaders.

We need 2-term limits, and end to public financing of political parties, and ending patronage in government appointments.

:-) Yes, yes, I know…..

Seriously?

I'm going to have to disagree with 2-term limits, unless we can guarantee that the winning party has majority power over parliament (whether they have the numbers or not). Otherwise, the Opposition will start voting non-confidence until the leader of the governing party is no longer able to run, and then they would be able to walk through the resulting one-sided election since the other party would be in the middle of a leadership race. We'd be going through PM's every year or so.

I read this over a couple times, and I acknowledge that this paragraph needs to be read over a couple times to be understood. Sorry, I couldn't word that any better.
Seriously?

Oh, and it should be noted that fiscal conservatism does place a limit on social liberalism. Once you start pulling money back, where do the women's, LGBT, and minority groups get their funding? That's not a partisan shot, either, it's just an observation. If you're going to reduce spending, that means some social liberalism advocacy groups end up getting the shaft. That's the trick with money: there's never enough to go around.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

I think I've read this same column before. Or, at least, I've had these same agonized feelings of tortured despair over the shambles of power-hungry dictators-in-short-pants that we mockingly call our parliamentary system.
Seriously?

Hey, it's called a weekday ritual. Some people go to church every Sunday, some people take Fridays to go to the movies… apparently, writing about feelings of agonized tortured despair is what Conye does on Wednesdays.

(BTW Conye… just kidding around.)
Kirk

Well Said.
http://twitter.com/Kirkwest @Kirkwest

Well said Andrew. And that's the damnable pity of it.
A Kanukistanee

Quote: "Once, says Andrew Coyne, our politics was about big ideas and sharp differences. Not anymore."
ROTFL!
In Canada it's always been a choice of:
1) Left
2) Lefter
3)Leftest

In Canada even a moderately centrist government like Prime Minister Harper's is viewed as SCARY & EXTREME right-wing!
A US Democratic policy platform is viewed as SCARY & EXTREME rightwing
To get elected to even, at a minimum, a minority; a moderately centrist government like Prime Minister Harper's has to concoct some version of the same old leftard porridge we've been choking on since the Family Compact took over this country centuries ago.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Great piece. The contrast between our apathy and the Americans' passion is striking.

However, the real questions are

(1) How did our populace get so fearful of principled ideas and personal responsibility, and
(2) How do we reverse the trend?

A quick look at some of the ideological and social differences might provide some hints.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Great piece. The contrast between our apathy and the Americans' passion is striking.
However, the real questions are

(1) How did our populace get so fearful of principled ideas and personal responsibility, and
(2) How do we reverse the trend?

A quick look at some of the ideological and social differences might provide some hints.
Riley Robertson

I fail to see the value in a system where wingnuts with assault rifles show up at a PR-Company staged anti-universal healthcare demonstration promoted by bigotted right-wing looney Fox News hosts. That Harper has been moderated (short-term political headfakery, for sure) by a minority Parliament is a good thing. Just look at the Conservative braintrust and what they call for in columns, what they say at conferences, who they hang out with (various think tanks) and you will see what the Cons really want. There are no ideas in politics only because the media isn't covering them. There are lots of ideas out there but politicians can't express them. The real politics is happening elsewhere, laying in wait. Ideology is a very bad thing in the hands of someone with unbridled power (the PMO). Ideology is lazy, short-cut, non-thinking. It kills people. It causes a lot of trouble. We don't want ideology and radical ideas. We want commonsense policies that work to better the commongood, because that is the role of government — to do things together that the vast majority of people can't do on their own very well.
BobbyB

When governing our country is based on ideologies we all loose. Because ideologic change takes time and when we get there and it doesn't seem to fit the realities of where we are now we elect new ideologies and then go through the same time penalties trying to get them in place only to find they now don't fit!

Politicians need to be focused on the here and now! They need to stop promising something down the road and impliment things now. Say it, do it, pay the cost of it, and then we can assess where we are and decide the next set of things we want worked on and with whom at the helm! Not ideological but in this time in this place and solved asap!
BobbyB

Let's enforce fixed electiuon dates every 4yrs and then let the governing party lead and make the spend decisions and spend within that 4yr period and then let the electorate decide if that was worth it or not and whether we want to continue with the government that is there and move forward.

Which one of us or which MP has that crystal ball where they know exactly what we need 5yrs from now? I'll bet no one. So why make promises and why do we buy a pig in a poke expecting there to be a natural governing party? They all seem to be based on ideological values we haven't got the time (nor the resolve) to sit and wait while promised ideologies may or may not come to fruition!

captcold

Hey, maybe they should pass a fixed election date law…

Seriously?

Unfortunately, a truly binding fixed-date law would require a change to the constitution, as it would take away the Governor General's authority in this matter. Changes to the constitution are not easy to make, and are generally not worth it from a political perspective.

http://twitter.com/ChrisInKW @ChrisInKW

Changing the role of the crown requires consent of all the provinces. Even less likely than a Senate amendment.

This system has worked well for hundreds of years on many shores. Perhaps we should be looking inward for the change we seek… (cue the chanting Taoist monks)

Mulletaur

"Once, our politics was about something, big ideas and sharp differences, as it is in other countries."

Really ? When ? That sounds suspiciously like nostalgia for a time that never was in Canadian politics.

And which other (democratic) countries would we be talking about ? The only time or place I remember where there were big ideas and sharp differences is the United Kingdom during the Thatcher era, and we all know how that ended – poll tax riots. Perhaps you're right, big ideas and sharp divisions might make for a more dynamic society, but that's just not the way we roll in Canuckistan. You can't even get people to accept the idea of a parliamentary coalition without everybody screaming mutiny.

I can see a dilemma on the right, though. The NDP, for all its considerable faults, at least serves some purpose : it breaks ideational ground for the Liberals to till (and reap the electoral harvest). Nothing similar exists on the right. Reform held out some hope of doing so, but dropped all its ideas in its blind pursuit of power and through its various transformations. There really needs to be another party on the right of the Conservatives to break ground for them. Perhaps Wildrose will take on this role.

Cue Coyne, arguing in favour of proportional representation to enable this …

A Kanukistanee

Quote: "There really needs to be another party on the right of the Conservatives…"
Dream on, LOL! The free ride for the left is so-o-o-o over.
The left is ever so nicely cleaved in 3 and the "right"?… in Canada??! (..hah, you mean the centre ) is now beautifully unified.
Don't like it? Well, why don't the left, lefter, leftest ( I keel you if you speak English!!) parties amalgamate and we will have a 2 party system like the USA. Then and only then, we can get serious and will not be in a perennially Balkanized, multi-party minority government situation like Italy or some banana republic country.
Just a suggestion… : )

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Yes. We should eliminate as many choices as possible.
In fact, all parties should just merge together and form the Super party.
With this, we will have no problems. All we need to do is choose a supreme ruler!!

Unfortunately, in order for it to be a healthy democracy, the more choice, the better.
Sore – it is much more difficult and inconvenient, but c'est la vie!

I think "Past the Post" is no longer going to work, and we need to shift towards Proportional representation.
IMHO, it is a much more pure democratic system.
It may not resolve our problems – heck – it might even cause more – but at least voters are represented by %.

Let's not turn Canada into a Coke VS Pepsi scenario, which always provides to throw my favourite Bloom County reference of "Bah, they both taste like malted battery acid!"

Mulletaur

"In fact, all parties should just merge together and form the Super party."

Yeah, that's been tried. It's called a one party state, rhymes with totalitarian dictatorship. As you can see from the tripe chuckles posted just above you there, that is what Conservatives dream of, and anything which brings Canada closer to that is okay with them. Just like the latest Conservative propaganda which keeps referring to a "wasteful election". Only somebody who things dictatorship is an ideal form of government would consider any election in any way "wasteful".

James Morrell

It's hard to disagree with anything you've said in this article Andrew. Politics has become a giant tribal farce. He who best pulls the wool over our eyes wins.
http://skinnydips.blogspot.com Skinny Dipper

I mentioned this before and I will do it again:

If you support conservatism, vote Liberal.
If you support liberalism, vote NDP.
If you support socialism, vote Conservative.

kcm

OK yo got my attention…now why?

Avenger

Bad King Stephen must be de-throwned. If he ever gets that majority as the secret tape revealed he's going with that secret agenda: Tough sentences for serial killers, terrorists refused entry into Canada, balanced budgets, elected senate and who knows what other horrors await us.

kcm

Look quite frankly…seriously cum on! You have to convince the public to give you the keys to the car if you want to drive it unsupervised. Bottom line: SH has not convinced the public he's entirely trustworthy…personally i don't see that changing. Not convinced…then let him run on that Sudbury stump speech, i'd be interested to see how far it gets him.
Avenger

Secret Agenda is like the Boogey Man. It doesn't exist. However since it can't be disproved there are those who are going to fall for it. So far all I've heard form Iggy is Bad King Stephen must be driven out of the Kingdom. So far the public ain't buying it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Oh there is a plan I am sure. However, in a minority situation to say what it is would be tying one arm behind your back. Can you imagine Harper outlining in detail the cuts necessary etc just before an election. Even Iggy who hasn't got an economic bone in his body would jump all over it. Talk about a hidden agenda. So don't expect any party to explain how they would cover the deficit. If another minority results from the next election there will be no discussion at solving the problem of the deficit. Like it or not that is politics in Canada these days.
knick

Doesn't the quality of our politics/politicians speak to the complacency of the electorate? The fact that only about half of eligible voters bother to show up at the polls is reflected in the kind of people being elected. They are simply fulfilling our expectations of them.

kcm

Isn't it the old chicken and the egg thing though – which came first? Did the political establishment drive people away, or did public apathy create the ideal conditions for second rate people to fill the void?I can see it from both pov…but that probably just me. Was it Jefferon who said we need regular revolutions? I can't be bothered to look it up.

knick

I did considered the chicken-egg thing, but the fact is that we pay them, they work for us, it's on us if their performance isn't satisfactory. Maybe a revolution about now would be a good thing. Unless and until we demand better, we won't get it. Churchill, among others I think, said that we get the kind of government we deserve.

kcm

Jefferson. Sigh!
wml

Now that's journalism at its finest in my opinion. That's the type of information we want to hear. Telling it how it is based on fact without any political partisan overtones.

Bring us the facts than can be backed up in order to digest the contents for ourselves. This in the end will affect our next vote. Hopefully, other journalists will follow suit on this type of article as opposed to inflammatory articles to draw divisive senseless comments. Good show Mr. Coyne.
Moar Ethnics Nao

Well it's not like you and your comrades have been a fountain of ideas and innovation either, Coyneman. It's sort of like how after the coalition debacle the media and academics lectured Canadians about how they don't understand Canada's democratic institutions. Um, whose fault is that?

You need new blood in the newsroom dude, ideally non-white blood, to be perfectly blunt. The rest of us working stiffs have to contend with race and gender quotas, my white male friend, and you should too, especially since the media were the ones who pushed for it. That would help get new ideas into the public domain.

Here's an idea, one that should resonate with immigrants especially: let's ditch the Queen and become an independent country with our own head of state. The biggest myth ever told about Canada is that we became a country in 1867. Baloney, there was no such thing as a Canadian citizen until 1947.

The sun never sets on grudges, often legitimate, against the British Empire, and this being a nation of immigrants it's time to cut the cord.
Oemissions

This is the WORST bout of politics I have witnessed in Canada.
Harper is a sill boy and a bully trying to behave as a grownup.
Ignatieff seems a bit nobler but still playing games.
The only hope, until we get a proportional represenation system, is for Canadians to DEMAND that their elected MP be accountable to them and not the PARTY.