Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

What happened to you guys? You used to be cool

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, July 9, 2010 2:00pm - 0 Comments

Two of Stephen Harper’s senators are now openly quibbling with the idea of a fully elected Senate—another three apparently reluctant to say where they stand.

Boisvenu told QMI Agency he believes Canadians are more in favour of an elected Senate but he believes the chamber should be mixed, with 50% appointed and 50% elected. “If you look currently at who is in office, I’m not sure we always elect the best people,” Boisvenu said. “The danger of going with a fully elected Senate is that you risk getting people who are more interested in politics than ideas.”

… While a handful, like staunch Ontario Conservatives Bob Runciman and Doug Finley pledged full support for an elected Senate, senators Mike Duffy, Irving Gerstein and Glen Patterson refused to say whether they still support the government’s legislation.

Tags: Bob Runciman, Doug Finley, Glen Patterson, Irving Gerstein, Mike Duffy, Parliament, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Richard Neufeld, Senate, senators, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

I find this hilarious!

Harper never put any thought into it…it was just another half-baked political strategy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I trust this news will be met with countless breathless articles detailing how Harper has lost control over his caucus, right?

http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

Hope so!

http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

I often wondered how many Harper appointees would sing a different tune once they had drunk from the trough. Do you suppose Harper feels the knife twisting in his back?
http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

China still cool.
http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Well that didn't take long:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed Toronto-area realtor and former Conservative candidate Salma Ataullahjan to the Senate to fill a vacancy for Ontario.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/09/torie…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Toronto-area realtor and former Conservative candidate Salma Ataullahjan…

…who brings to the venerable chamber of sober second thought her expertise in selling condos and losing elections. Stephen Harper's commitment to transparency and excellence in governance continues…

MostlyCivil

If she came through the Bidding Wars, she's tough enough to handle the rigours of Senate life.

Or was that "rigor" of senate life? Sometimes, I wonder…

Anon 001

Harper replaced an ethnic-young-female with an old-white-male yesterday. Now, he's balancing that off. Besides, he was probably getting sick of all the praise he was getting for selecting someone qualified like Johnston; so now he's retreated back to form.

http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

And Pow just like that we have a newly appointed Senator. Care of the CBC "Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed Toronto-area realtor and former Conservative candidate Salma Ataullahjan to the Senate to fill a vacancy for Ontario."

Do you suppose Harper took a blood oath this time?

Emily

Right before the Omnibus bill ….the one the Senate is arguing about….is voted on.

Jan

Drive through swearing in under the portico at Rideau Hall.

Emily

LOL gonna have to be. The vote is Tuesday I believe.

James Wolfe

Mike Duffy, a real piece of work.Go get another Big Mac Mike, looks like you could use it…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

LeBreton. “I expect them to live up to their commitments.”

Were these Senate appointments really made in exchange for a perpetual binding agreement to support something that is politically important to the Prime Minister? I agree, this is not quite the same as asking for a direct financial kickback from the Senate salary of potential applicants… a financial kickback would not be nearly as damaging to Canada's democratic institutions.

Emily

'A verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on'.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

'A verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on'.

Neither is a written agreement—as both Peter Mackay and David Orchard would be happy to tell you.

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

Hey there!

He's here all week. Try the Alberta Beef!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Not sure Peter would be happy to tell you…

Mike T.

You can't bind a senate appointment to any sort of behaviour, as it would affect the nature of the office (heck, even if you appoint 8 extras to get a bill passed they wouldn't be required to do it.

But nobody should expect Harper to live up to purported changes anyway (*koff* fixed election law *koff*)

Anon 001

Wait a second … Mike Duffy. The Reluctant Senator. He is *not* speaking. Stop the presses.

Why hasn't David "Facts are for Fools" Akin published a breaking story on this yet?

Emily

Because Harper is still screaming at Duffy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Perhaps, I suspect he is not talking because his mouth is full. A Senator has to have priorities.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Mike Duffy. The Reluctant Senator. He is *not* speaking. Stop the presses.

Let's not too hastily take Duffy's silence for ambivalence. He might have just been swallowing the remnants of the Peugeot he had for lunch.

BCer in Mtl

If I were him I would not eat that last little after-dinner mint. The result might be very messy.

Jan

Time to get out the wanker label again, David.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I think Harper foresaw these kinds of developments some months back during a major interview where he admitted that the prospect of the Senate reforming itself became less evident as his experience with the chamber grew.

In fact, I'm even willing to concede to some who have long been of the belief that even Harper has always known that Senate reform will probably never happen, and he's used it as a hammer with which to bash opponents with glee.

I'm still not completely there yet. But I'm getting there.

And what does it say about our system that we can't do anything about an institution that is widely loathed except by certain elitist types?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

…except by certain elitist types?

…like Mike Duffy?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Not if he's still committed to democratic reform of the Senate.

Emily

LOL anyone you don't agree with is an 'elitist'.

Most people do not loathe the Senate…that's your inner Conbot talking.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Thanks for showing up, Nola.
Jan

What you hear is the sound of a tent folding.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

No, what I'm hearing is your typical childish taunt, bc.

Wow, you two were kicked off the Bourque boards, so you have to come over here with your act.

Good luck with that. There are rules here, you know.
Jan

What rule am I violating?
Emily

I understood Bourque shut down his board to everyone because of your smutty friends. I think you were that creepy guy who talked about controlling women all the time, and in disgusting terms.

I posted there a few times, but your crowd put me me off.

Thank goodness there are rules here.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Nola, you were a Liberal party smear artist over there, and you're coming awfully close to bringing it over here, too.

Stop lying. Stop attacking people personally. Stop posting one-liners against everyone who disagrees with your bizarre Liberal party agenda.
Emily

Are you supposed to be on medication or what? Because it's not working.

I don't know what you think you're doing, but I doubt Macleans thinks highly of it.

Bourque certainly didn't.

If you can't discuss a topic without doing your creepy dude thing, then take up another hobby.
Emily

No problem Fred.

Lord Kitchener's Own

This is shocking.

SHOCKING.

No one EVER could have seen this coming.

They're all still going to voluntarily resign after eight years though, right?

Right???

Stewart_Smith

It is interesting to note the articles about today's Senate appointment indicate that Salma Ataullahjan negotiated an agreement to "support the Conservative government’s efforts to reform the Senate, including legislation to limit Senate tenure and to allow provinces to elect their Senators" in exchange for a seat in the upper chamber. You will note that the above is silent about whether she would herself resign in 8 years.

Maybe Duff and some of the others want to renegotiate their deals.

Jan

So now we no longer appoint Senators, we negotiate with them? Weirder and weirder.

Emily

And in 8 years, when Harper is ancient history, it'll really matter…right? LOL

officerfarva

Looks like someone forgot to fill up the koolaid dispenser.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Oh good. Finally, the inevitable dog-whistle chasing Harperoids arrive and thumbs-down the dastardly opponents of Harper Thought. What took them so long?

Why suffer the futility of attempting to provide countervailing arguments in support of Harper's latest enormity when clicking a mouse on the appropriate spot is so much more satisfyingly feasible?

Sad, really.

Gaunilon

This comment would be bang on if it had anything to do with the way thumb-ratings inevitably go on Wherry threads. I note that commenter "Emily", pointing out how simultaneously amused she is that Harper made this choice without even thinking about it and that it was a "political strategy" has been thumbed up by at least eight people. Yeah!! Harper's an idiot! And an evil genius!! At the same time!!! Thumbs UP!!!! Terrific.

But taken as commentary on the way left-leaning comments tend to get uprated while those that don't reinforce the echo-chamber tend to get downrated, often without the courtesy of a reply and without regard to the quality of the comment, it's actually pretty accurate. And I agree, it really is sad.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

And I agree, it really is sad.

…he says, while confirming my point.

Thanks for that, Gauni, old chap.

Oh, and you might want to leap out of the reductive “left/”right” dichotomy you appear to be hermeneutically committed to. Unbelievably, some of us manage to comment not according to ideological absolutes, but according to the dictates of our IQ’s, something you’re welcome to try at your leisure.

Gaunilon

Sir_Francis (today): "Oh, and you might want to leap out of the reductive “left/”right” dichotomy you appear to be hermeneutically committed to."

Sir_Francis (yesterday): "Finally, the inevitable dog-whistle chasing Harperoids arrive and thumbs-down the dastardly opponents of Harper Thought."

I see. In your view we should label people with derogatory terms according to their voting preference, rather than the standard left/right categorization that most in polite society prefer to use. Also I think you mean "hermetically", just as an aside.

"Unbelievably, some of us manage to comment not according to ideological absolutes, but according to the dictates of our IQ’s, something you’re welcome to try at your leisure. "

Yes, I can see that you are careful to avoid all hint of ideological absolutes in your comments about those poor dog-whistle chasing Harperoids. Unfortunately, not all of us have an IQ as stratospheric as yours, so we just have to follow the dog-whistle wherever it leads.

"….he says, while confirming my point."
You know what they say about assumptions. I didn't thumb you down; I don't do that, regardless of whether I agree with a comment, unless I find it to be rude or slanderous (come to think of it, I probably should have). But if you look through this thread you'll find that every anti-Harper comment is thumbed up several times, even the rude ones. In fact, you'll find that on every Wherry thread, along with several thumb-downs for most pro-Harper points regardless of quality. So your whole point about people using the ratings as a quick way to get ideological satisfaction rather than actually thinking or responding is a good one, it's just that you've blamed the wrong side (on Wherry threads) in rather ludicrous fashion.

Now, if you go to a Steyn thread, there your point might be perfectly apt. But, of course, that would involve going to a Steyn thread and stepping well outside the echo chamber here.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Now, if you go to a Steyn thread…

Oh, I've been on plenty of those.

…we should label people with derogatory terms according to their voting preference…

My derogatory term was inspired by the facile thumbing-down typically performed by those I derogated, not their voting habits, which are unaccountable. At any rate, there are plenty of fairly exuberantly pro-Harper personalities on this board to whom I would never apply the term "Harperoid"—Madeyoulook, for one, Critical_Reasoning, for another.

…you are careful to avoid all hint of ideological absolutes in your comments…

The term "Harperoids" refers to a partisan commitment, which is quite easily communicable and identifiable. Ideological markers like "left" and "right" are far more nebulous and well-nigh valueless. For instance, you clearly took this particular pro-life Catholic, fiscal conservative commenter as "left-wing", which would come as a huge surprise to all of the liberal acquaintances of mine who think I belong in the 19th century.
Crit_Reasoning

A pro-life, Catholic, fiscally conservative, monarchist, Anglophilic, proudly un-American, Chomsky-loving, Harper-loathing, half-Caribbean Canadian with a fondness for dreadlocks.

Sir Francis certainly defies easy categorization. He's much too interesting and eclectic. :-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Heh. Were it not against my principles, CR, I would thumb that sucker up!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I think you mean "hermetically"…

No. I meant "hermeneutically", which refers to the act of interpretation, and just of Scripture. Hermeneutics is a branch of the philosophy of language, essentially a modern descendant of philology.

I didn't thumb you down…

I should have used the passive voice: my point was made because someone thumbed me down while refusing to engage. In any case, why would that happen in this "leftist echo chamber", Gaunilon?
http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

I think you mean "hermetically"…

No. I meant "hermeneutically", which refers to the act of interpretation, and not just of Scripture. Hermeneutics is a branch of the philosophy of language, essentially a modern descendant of philology.

I didn't thumb you down…

I should have used the passive voice: my point was made because someone thumbed me down while refusing to engage. In any case, why would that happen in this "leftist echo chamber", Gaunilon?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"In any case, why would that happen in this "leftist echo chamber", Gaunilon? "

Probably because it was rude.

"For instance, you clearly took this particular pro-life Catholic, fiscal conservative commenter as "left-wing", which would come as a huge surprise to all of the liberal acquaintances of mine who think I belong in the 19th century."

Now that really is depressing. I hate it when someone is behaving rudely and then turns out to be on my side rather than the other.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

because it was rude…

Are you sure your standard of rudeness is not a tad self-serving? If you are, I’m happy for you. Really.

gord83

Instead of a retirement present from the ruling party, all senators should be elected and for a specific term.

Emily

The last thing this country needs is an elected senate.

For a party that wanted a 'small govt', having 2 HOCs doesn't make any sense.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Hang on a second. Am I understanding everyone correctly? We don't like the politicians we elect to the Commons because they're too often partisan and toeing the party line, but now we want to elect MORE people whose judgement will be affected by partisan considerations? That just doesn't make sense!

I should note also that often the best people capable of weilding authority and bearing responsibility just can't be bothered with the electoral system. It's one way that the US system of appointing their Cabinet has an advantage over Canada's system of having to pick from elected representatives. They get WAY more expertise and competence around the Cabinet table!

Emily

It never did make any sense.

Either they should abolish the Senate, or leave it alone. Tinkering with it just screws everything up.

And I'll agree that the president appointing his own cabinet allows him to pick from a much larger talent pool, and gets him better people. It's the one thing the US does that I like.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Yeah, Dubya's team did just a smashing job.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

as is Obama's.
Emily

Bush picked them, and he picked like-minded people.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I should note also that often the best people capable of weilding authority and bearing responsibility just can't be bothered with the electoral system.

Then they should have no business enacting public policy in a democracy.

It should also be noted that US cabinet secretaries go through a very thorough vetting process that also includes public confirmation hearings run by, you guessed it, public officials.

As is, the Canadian Senate is nothing more than a house of party patronage. How that's supposed to serve the public good I don't know.

And if we're looking towards the States, they have two elected chambers in the legislature. In fact, most modern democracies do. We're one of the last that don't.

If you want more independence and "sober thought" in the Senate, make the terms longer than they are in the House, which has already been proposed. AND, make them elected. Or just get rid of it. But Canadians don't want what we have now.

Who do these people think they are trying to impose policy on us without having to gain voter consent?

Joffré

I'm pretty fine with being "one of the last ones" not electing our upper chambers, with company like the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, and the Netherlands. Those are modern democracies, and their lack of an elected upper house in no way leads to disfunctionality. You're going to need a better talking point.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I didn't say it was dysfunctional, I said it was an undemocratic patronage house that most Canadians consider a huge waste of money and effort, and which you're "pretty fine with."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Maybe "most" Canadians that you know; is that a truly representative sample?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Or just about any poll on the topic. Who likes paying unelected patronage hacks to do useless work on their behalf?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

I wouldn't say they're all "patronage hacks"; some are people that have made valuable contributions to society in other areas. Tommy Banks comes to mind, just off the top of my head. And again, I wouldn't say that all the work they do is "useless", either. It was a senator that initiated and promoted the Katimavik program, after all.

The advantage that the unelected senators have is freedom from the partisan political cycle, and TIME to properly see things through. Oh, and to provide sober second thought to HoC legislation that may be flawed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time, didn't he.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

errrrr….if it's an "undemocratic patronage house", and you get rid of it…you're reducing much of the power of the PMO to make appontments to it. I wouldn't mind that…but how will you keep the trained seals barking if you don't have any fish to feed them?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Say what?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

The power of the PMO rests in it's abilty to make appointments, to Crown corps and Senate and other commissions. If you take that power away (which I'm in favour of, btw, even if it necessitates confirmation hearings!), then there's less carrot for the party whip to ensure everyone stays "on-side" and toeing the party line.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So, one of your justifications for appointing unelected hacks to the Senate is that it upholds the very dysfunction and partisanship that you say you abhor. Fascinating.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

I view the Senate as less damaging to democracy than the extreme powers of the PMO. Party politics as it's practiced in Canada is a bad joke. Hence my moniker.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

With all due respect, I personally think you have a strange view of democracy. Yes, it can be messy, but it's a heck of a lot better than anything else out there, and thank God!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Dennis, we could probably go 'round and 'round on this 'til the cows come home. I would rather do it over a beer or three. We can just agree to disagree; I don't think I'm going to convince you, nor you me.

My primary concern is making democracy more effective by reducing the role of the PMO in enforcing party discipline, which I see, in Canada's practice anyway, as injurious to the effectiveness of our elected representation.

You seem to be more concerned about the Senate because it's unelected. Personally, and with all due respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Dennis, I think you missed my point. It's the electoral system in Canada that's dysfunctional, not necessarily the politicians involved. We "enjoy" the greatest degree of "party discipline", with far too much power invested in the PMO. England, Australia, India…none of these have such rigourous party discipline, with the consequence that backbenchers are a lot freer to dissent.

Don't you WANT the best and brightest formulating public policy? But why should someone with those sorts of credentials subject themselves, their families, their collegues to the pathetic joke that is party politics in Canada?

I have no problem at all with public confirmation hearings.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

No, I didn't miss your point. Anyone who wants to act on behalf of the people should get their permission to do so. Their consent. Anything else is a form of tyranny; all examples of which are premised on the idea that one form of "expertise" is desirable to all others.

I'm actually still quite surprised at how some are so vocal in supporting a fundamentally undemocratic institution like the Senate, which, among other things, does not have any oversight by an elected body. Once a senator is appointed, they can pretty much do as they like, can't they? At least with US cabinet secretaries, whose job it is to carry out policies established by an elected president, can be fired by that very same president. Same can't be said of our loathed Senate.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

"…one form of "expertise" is desirable to all others"…Whereas presently, the only "expertise" needed is that of getting elected in a dysfunctional party system, with all that entails! Are you conceding that the power of the PMO is unjurious to electing the best representatives of the people?

As to the Senate being "loathed", I suspect that you may be overstating the case. There are many apocryphal stories about the shortcomings of our Senate, and many proposed "solutions" to remedy them. However, I think that many Senators do, and have done, pretty good work without getting elected, and I suspect that if they were subject to the electoral process (including "approval" by the PMO), that work wouldn't get done. I appreciate that some see "sober second thought" as obstructing the will of the PMO, but I really don't mind that particular check on the PMO's power.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Hobbes and Locke both had interesting things to say about "consent", amongst which is that consent need not be explicit to be granted. In short, consent can be assumed…right up to the point of revolution. I don't think we're that close to manning the barricades over the Senate…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I'm sure many dictators have used that justification, too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So, appointing patronage hacks to an unaccountable chamber is somehow more desirable to you than elected representatives. That's interesting.

Yes, the PMO has a lot of power in our system. In my view, the answer isn't the Senate. Not by a longshot.

Indeed, you'd think that one solution would be minority governance, but our opposition has been so bad that the PMO is stronger than ever. Who's fault is that?

Besides, I don't think our democracy is as dysfunctional as you say. But one of its more dysfunctional aspects is having patronage hacks accountable to no one having any say in governing us.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

So cops, judges, ambulance drivers, charity workers, social services workers.. we need to elect all of them now?

Good heavens.. vote early, vote often, I guess.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Who the heck said that, genius? My God, where do some people learn how to read or think?

Is it because you like the idea of unelected leftists ruling over other people that you resort to this nonsense? Wow.

Jan

You might want to re-read what you wrote.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

You might want to start posting as though you have some sort of education and decency.
Jan

Just to refresh your memory – here's what you wrote -

"Anyone who wants to act on behalf of the people should get their permission to do so…anything else is a form of tyranny".
You seem to be advocating some sort of exteme direct democracy which would have to go well beyond electing Senators. Take note of Thwim's post for some examples. You may want to re-think this.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Yes, bc, I know what I wrote. Where in the world did I state that ambulance drivers should be elected? This is where some of you want to take the debate, is it? This is how you want to justify an unelected patronage house, yes? Next.
Jan

Let's take judges. They're unelected and certainly have an influence on our lives – especially those nasty leftie activist ones, your side despises. Is that tyranny to you? Or can we trust the people we elect to appoint them?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

You can talk about anything you want, bc. The rest of us are trying to talk about legislators in the Senate, right? Next.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Are you suggesting that only unelected "leftists" are capable of sober second thought? Are you saying that PMSH shouldn't appoint people of the "right"?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

No, it's been my experience that, generally speaking, it's today's left that seems OK with sidestepping the electorate when it can. They favour unelected coalitions and lawmaking through the courts, while rejecting things like referendums and recalls. Oh, and as this thread suggests, they also prefer a Senate full of patronage hacks accountable to no one.

They have an attitude much like yours, which is that certain people are better than others – the same others they're to rule over.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

One of my biggest bugbears is how the word "elitist" has become distorted in social and political discussion. I think we can agree that "elites" exist in all areas of life; academics, business, sports, and yes, politics. There ARE people that are better suited, or better practiced at various endeavours in life. That doesn't make them generally "better" than other people…except in their particular and specific field of expertise!

Now, the problem arises when those who are respected in their particular chosen occupation or area of expertise start to believe(or are led to believe by their colleagues and supporters) that this same respect should be accorded them in OTHER areas of activity. THAT'S an elitist, and I don't buy it. Just because someone's a good hockey player doesn't make them a good politician…or doctor, or ambulance driver, etc., etc. And the same goes for successful business men, or musicians, etc.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Let me point to a very timely analysis of this same phenomenon provided by Jonah Goldberg. He discusses the New York Times' Thomas Friedman's fetish with China the dictatorship.

I'm not sure what it is about the modern left's obsession with undemocratic wielding of power, but it seems to become more pervasive as time goes by.

I can only rack it up to the idea that the left doesn't feel it can compete in the arena of ideas. Instead, its adherents have to anoint themselves better than others, and end the argument there.

No debate, no competition, no having to earn one's way to achievement. Just appoint one another to important positions and declare themselves smarter than everyone else.

Not sure why some people are so afraid of freedom, competition, and earned achievement — especially in the 21st century.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

"Not sure why some people are so afraid of freedom, competition, and earned achievement — especially in the 21st century."

I don't think that many people ARE afraid of those things, in principle. But many have the perception (justified or not) that the scales are tipped against them, that the "playing field" isn't level.

For example, it's pretty clear that business interests have a huge advantage over individuals when it comes to influencing public policy. It's not just the money that they can donate (restrictions on which was one of the best things that Chretien did, IMO), but the fact that they can better afford the time and money necessary to attend committee meetings, lobby politicians, etc. They have a much better and direct connection to the political process. And yet, businesses are NOT themselves run democratically, are they?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

We can also discuss the role of the media. For all that the "right" (loosely defined) go on and on about the "leftist" agenda of the media, that's quite simply a canard! Media is a business, not (as some seem to think) some sort of public service. They make money from advertising, not sales of their product. Controversy sells papers and broadcasts, providing "eyes" and "ears" for the accomanying advertising. When a "leftist" government is in power, they question it, when a "rightist" government is in power, they question that as well…all in the name of exposing as many people as possible to their advertising

And I have NEVER seen a mainstream media outlet actually question the underlying assumptions (e.g. on going "consumption" as a value, or the notion that "wealth" defines the value of the individual) of the status quo; to do so would be inimicable to their business interests.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

It seems to me that if one is committed to democratic principles at a fundamental level, one would oppose systems, structures, and institutions that provide clear advantages to one group of individuals (those with money) over another group (those with less, or at least not enough to influence policy development). It SHOULD be "one person, one vote'…and in THEORY, it is. But the "practice" of democracy in Canada, and many other liberal democracies, is, in my view, as far from the underlying theory as was the "practice" of communism in the old Soviet Union was from Marx' s original theorhetical presentation of it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

So, with respect to "…modern left's obsession with undemocratic wielding of power…" (which analysis I don't necessarily agree with, btw), it can be argued that it is merely following the model provided by the "right", and "playing the game" as it actually IS, rather than how it "SHOULD" be. That DOESN'T, in my opinion, actually "justify" some of the less-than-ideal actions of those on the left, but it does help explain them.

I think we should be careful about viewing "democracy" through rose-coloured glasses, and see it for what it actually is. I agree with those that state "It's the worst of all possible systems…except for all the others!", and I would love it if it actually acheived it's theoretical potential…but I'm skeptical that those with power and influence will actually want it to do so!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I think we should be careful about viewing "democracy" through rose-coloured glasses

Wow, you're jumping through a lot of hoops in telling us how awful democracy is, aren't you?

Me? I like democracy. You? You want unelected "experts" to run things. Terrific.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

What "hoops", Dennis? Please explain how you dispute my analysis as presented.

I'm willing, (obviously!) to take a fair bit of time and trouble to explain my perspectives to you, even though I've already conceded that you and I are not going to convince each other of anything. I've done so politely, without ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or deliberate misinterpretations of what you've said. Is there any point to expecting the same from you? If not, tell me, and I won't bother responding any more.

I've STATED that the Senate is far from ideal. I've also stated that making Senators elected is less preferable to abolishing the Senate outright. I still think you're barking up the wrong tree; electoral reform is necessary, but I think it's more important to focus on the dysfunctional aspects of those we already elect (party politics as it's practiced in Canada, perhaps Proportional Representation of some form) than a body that, as you've conceded elsewhere, actually "runs" nothing!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

So, to bring it all back to your concerns about the unelected Senate, I would agree that it's not an "ideal" situation by a long shot, but I would rather it be abolished entirely rather than modified to become part of what I consider to be a flawed party system that perpetuates the status quo, limits "debate" over the underlying principles of a supposedly "free and open" society, and unjustly elevates the importance of those individuals that have money over those that don't.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

In other words, you want an undemocratic society run by socialists.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Hmmm…where did you get that interpretation from? Do you mean to say that wanting all votes to bear equal weight, and all individuals to be equally effective in their roles in policy development is "socialist"? That seems inconsistant with some of what you've stated previously.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Oh, and the Senate doesn't "impose" policy on us, in any case. They can amend policy, but generally, policy is developed by the HoC. I don't recall any major legislation that originated in the Senate…do you?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I'm sorry. What I should have wrote is: "impose their will." Thank you for the opportunity to clarify myself on that point.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I still don't understand how in the world an unelected Senate somehow constitutes a check on the power of the PMO. Indeed, there are more checks on the latter than there are on the former: the Senate. Voters can remove parties from power, and thus people from the PMO. They have no such power over the Senate.

Furthermore, I don't understand how you've come to believe that our current Senate is filled with experts who are better than the rest of us. For the most part, they are party hacks who do little more than to amend legislation from time to time — that's if they're not vacationing in Jamaica, or taking the bus from one building on Parliament Hill to the next one.

Again, the idea that the Senate as presently constituted is a saviour of Canadian democracy I find a rather bizarre proposition, to say the least — with all due respect.