Justin Trudeau

[warren]

The Republican Party was the leader in socialist ideas when T. Roosevelt led it. The Republican Party, nor the Democrat for that matter, has ever been stagnant. Republicans led the way in fighting segregation. The Republicans fought the Democrat party to reduce the power of conglomerates and take on certain trusts. He was one of the first to propose "on the job injury" protection. Fought for Native American health care. Kennedy was a "less tax more revenue Democrat." The parties morph continuously, positions change quickly so as to curry favor with the voters.
One just can't make a statement like: "One of the weakness of the republican or conservative party has always (italics mine) been that it fails to embrace the fact that there are people in the world who are always going to need help that is paid for by others through taxes." You cannot support the "always" and it just come across as so much hyperbole.
Republicans and Democrats have always stressed "safety nets" for those in true need. It's just that the definitions of "true need" is often elastic depending on where the votes can be found. Even the words liberal and conservative have changed considerably over the years. It was a Republican president who sent Federal troops to open schools to Blacks over the objections of elected Democrats. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to invite to the White House and then sit and break bread with him. That same black made a case for the president to moderate or slow his recognition of race problems in the south so as not to increase the lynchings.
In fact, a good case can be made for stating Republican TR was the first socialist leaning President. There's a reason he became the head of an off-shoot of the party for a couple of election cycles.
It's a real shame that history, as taught in schools these days, is not presented as objectively as possible. The same shame should be showered on those who do not take a position based on personal research as opposed to blandly accepting what is handed down by parents, teachers, newspapers, political hacks and the like. Rather than simply regurgitate what you have heard, research and form an opinion based on a wide range of reading and personal observation. It's soooo hard I know and requires directed effort. Most people can do it, few will. It is so much easier to hear it, accept it and then parrot the propaganda you agree with. Tough to question your own (actually the beliefs of others as passe to you) and develop your own positions.

 

[warren]

perdurabo: You insist on blaming politicians for doing what the majority of voters want them to do. You, I, your neighbors and the rest of the electorate created this mess and it's time we accept the responsibility. Was it Pogo who stated: "We have met the enemy and it is us." No truer words have been written.

 

[perdurabo]

I agree but a republic is a little different than "majority of voters", which is a misconception on how the US was set up to work. Before the War between the States, Citizens recognized Their States Citzenship first. Centralization was a progressive idea that Republicans cherished, and therefore created this mob rule mentality. You are very right about The Republicans and Democrats having progressive ideals throughout American history. So Im Also right to blame the power hungry politician, who puts his ideals above the constitution and its limits on government. This can go on and on and on, but is our repsponsibilty to stop politicians at the ballot box, and even then our reposnibility to use force, as direct to us by the Declaration of Independence.

 

[perdurabo]

And with that I'm out, sorry Canada for your loss.

 

[stickframer]

My final comment to this topic is whatever happened to common sense and moderation in politics? Why does there have to be an extreme to either side in politics. How has there not been a SUCCESSFUL political group to step up and fill that widening gap between the two extremes?

That's what I am wondering .

The middle of the road conservatives understand this but they are always shouted down by the right wingnuts...

True story.

 

[fordm60]

Warren, AJ squared away!

 

[drezz01]

My final comment to this topic is whatever happened to common sense and moderation in politics? Why does there have to be an extreme to either side in politics. How has there not been a SUCCESSFUL political group to step up and fill that widening gap between the two extremes?

I think this is caused by the need to generate support from a group of people who, for the large part, are not concerned with politics in their day-to-day life. It's hard to communicate your stance when it is nuanced, but it is relatively easy to treat every issue as a dichotomy. Set up enough of these dichotomies and people will find themselves sitting on one side or the other of most of them. Now that you have your camp it's time to pander to them, so you delve deeper and deeper towards the extremes of that camp.
As an outsider it's fairly apparent in the US elections. During the primaries, candidates are leaning as far as possible to one side - trying to prove they are more progressive or more conservative than the other candidates. After they succeed in becoming the presidential candidate they lean towards the middle fairly quickly though.
That's where I think it will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next year here in Canada. It was a highly reactionary election. Talk of strategic voting and anti-Harper rhetoric were the pervasive narrative. Now that the war drums haves ceased it will be interesting to see how the Liberal party actually acts.
I'm optimistic.
Trudeau seems much more amenable to listening to others and considering sage advise whereas Harper ran the conservatives like an autocracy. Harper's actions in the late campaign (islamophobe bating and trying to win over Etobicoke by providing photo ops with the infamous Ford brothers) were truly concerning. Even his concession speech was unnerving, focusing on state security and winding it all up with a 'God Bless'. That's not my Canada.
I like Trudeau's narrative of an undivided Canada and a pervasive optimism; it's a breathe of fresh air as the zeitgeist of our time seems to be focused on terror, insecurity and division - a zeitgeist that seems to be self-manifesting legitimate reasons to be concerned about terror, insecurity and division.

 

[jackswilling]

"Even his concession speech was unnerving, focusing on state security and winding it all up with a 'God Bless'. That's not my Canada."
"I like Trudeau's narrative of an undivided Canada and a pervasive optimism"
What a bad man. How dare he mention God. What is an undivided Canada? One that hates guns, tobacco, productive citizens, God? That is the agenda, right? A collective bunch of PC drones. Unicorn fairy land.

 

[drezz01]

What a bad man. How dare he mention God. What is an undivided Canada? One that hates guns, tobacco, productive citizens, God? That is the agenda, right? A collective bunch of PC drones. Unicorn fairy land.

I happen to believe in a separation of church and state and I think pulling capital G god in to politics (especially in light of Harper's stance against cultural expression) is a regression.
The undivided Canada narrative I was referring to was meant as a reference to Trudeau's acceptance speech in which he stated several times that people who voted conservative aren't our enemies but out neighbours, friends and family members and that he was going to take the time and respect to listen to all MP's elected and thanked them for dedicating their time and effort to supporting and serving their country.
Guns? Tobacco? Productive citizens? PC drones? Fairies? I think you're projecting man.
At any rate, I was attempting to (and possibly failing at)steering this thread back to a discussion about the Canadian Election, not about political frameworks and certainly not about the separation of church and state.

 

[jackswilling]

You all got the elected officials you wanted and deserve. Scoreboard. You won so enjoy what you get/deserve.

 

[drezz01]

You all got the elected officials you wanted and deserve. Scoreboard. You won so enjoy what you get/deserve.

Yeah it will be interesting to see how things shake out. It was certainly a reactionary election. Would have been interesting to see if the Conservatives had another candidate, other than Harper, if it would have went the same way. I don't see any irreparable damage happening in the next 4 years however - could certainly be wrong.

 

[newfie]

Justin might be a Trudeau; but he only has in common, with his Old Man, the patronym.

Guyrox, I agree with much of your post (and kudos for being obviously well written) but the above I don't agree with.
Check out the book Truth About Trudeau. The way Justin's life and career has mirrored the Old Man's so far is uncanny. Briefly touched on in the link to the blog I posted.
EDIT:
True that Pierre was bordering genius (if he actually wasn't) and that he did what he said he was going to do, but the damage he did to Canada is brutal.

 

[jkrug]

Apparently, Canadians wanted to get rid of Stephen Harper. As if he's the Devil himself. Seriously.

But Canadians have no idea what a mistake they did by electing Justin Trudeau.

Justin might be a Trudeau; but he only has in common, with his Old Man, the patronym.

We might say what we want about Pierre-Elliott; we might admire him, or not; we might agree with what he did, for the most part, or not. But he had an intellectual depth that was exceptional. He actually, also, led his government, often to the utmost frustration of his ministers and counselors that did not often bear any real influence on him. He almost did everything he said he would do. His mastery of both French and English was exceptional and he was a extremely articulated speaker.

Justin, on the other hand, is not 1/1,000,000th the man Pierre-Elliot was. He has no intellectual depth. He will not lead his government, his counsellors will. he will not do waht he says he will do because he will say and do what his counselors say. He cannot speak proper, structured and articulated English and his French, though having a vague "Parisien" accent (to try to imitate his da), is worse than his English as it's what we call, in Canada, "franglais" (a bastardized combination of French and English). He's an empty shell.

And, the first thing he did after being elected is pick up the phone and call your President to tell him "Yo, Barack! Whazzzzzzzzzzz up, Dawg? Oh, by the way, my counsellors told me; errrrr, I've decided we're pulling out of those air strikes against IS."

Nice. This does not bode well for the future.

Summed up quite nicely...thank you. I really dread what is in store for us in the near future.

 

[beerandbaccy]

Harper has been getting very unpopular and it's time for a change. How will Trudeau do? time will tell but his dynamism and appeal have certainly helped him to get elected - sort of like a Canadian Tony Blair of 20 years ago.
I always think it unhealthy for any democracy to have the same leader for more than 10 years and Harper and the Conservatives have had their turn and obviously the Canadian people in large numbers want a different PM and Party in government in a decisive way!
What you guys from south of the border might not appreciate is that strict gun legislation is actually generally well liked by many (although not all) in Canada. The freedom to bear arms is seen as less important than the freedom to live in as safe a society as humanly possible in many countries (definitely in my two homes over the years UK and Canada) we (as human beings) will never reach perfection in creating a safe society but we should always strive to.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

Harper has been getting very unpopular and it's time for a change. How will Trudeau do? time will tell but his dynamism and appeal have certainly helped him to get elected

We were voting for a leader not an American Idol winner. Harper was a victim of his own success. He governed too efficiently and effectively, albeit, I admit, in a manner too confrontational for many.
There is an old saying: It takes a famine.
What it means is that, when times are good, relatively speaking, people feel like they can roll the dice, and that's what they did in this election. When times are horrific, they look for safety.
While Harper was an economist and an admitted micromanager and has little in the way of star charisma, I still don't see how that is such a bad thing, and to be candid, I have yet to hear any articulate explanation of what was so offensive about the guy or the way he governed the country for the last ten years through the most calamitous global economic meltdown since the Great Depression. He is a fiscal conservative and asiduously avoided pushing any form of social conservative agenda. When the global economic meltdown occured in 2008, he told the Canadian people that we would not hit a surplus until 2015 while we climb our way out of the turmoil. He ran on that platform in 2011 and he in fact exceeded his platform timetable, all while holding the line and moderatey reducing taxes, and he returned us to a budget surplus one year ahead of what he promised. The other members of the G8 countries should be so lucky. And now we have a tax and spend leader who has promised to raise taxes AND run deficits. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Recall the enormous scandals that closed the last Liberal era, with untold amounts of public money spent on partisan liberal spending. In ten years the only scandal Harper has had is that a Conservative Senator submitted refund claims for $90,000 of dubious expenses, Harper told him to pay the money back, and when he didn't, a wealthy advisor to the PM paid the money back to the public coffers out of his own personal funds. Hardly a hanging scandal compared to the last Liberal fiasco.
My two cents. The people have spoken and I hope I am wrong, but every fibre in my being tells me I am not.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

Food for thought, my friends:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040615/what-country-has-richest-middle-class.asp

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

My greatest comfort in this is that Canadians honestly elected this man. Last time around that party got nothing, and we currently have four parties with ten seats or more. If nothing else this is a healthy democracy, for better or for worse.

 

[drezz01]

That was very well written and insightful Peck, thank you for the insight! I think you're right that Harper's economic planning got Canada through a rough decade and that the austerity and autocratic methods to achieve those ends were probably a tough pill to swallow for many (myself included) even if it was the right medicine.
With, ostensibly, a two party system it's hard to carry over scandals from past iterations to the current incarnation of each party. Frankly neither have a clean bill of health in that regard.
Some of his cuts, specifically to the federal science budget and to arts and culture, were hard to swallow as well. Though with what you have said it may have been required -- admittedly I'm not a numbers guy and am a bit of a filthy socialist.
I liked Trudeaus commitment to cities and communities. Many small communities here in Saskatchewan rely on matching contributions from both levels of government for things like recreational centres, arenas, libraries and other social infrastructure. He also pledged to double spending on infrastructure. Traditionally, my understanding is, in times of economic downturn, gov'ts have turned to make-work infrastructure projects to provide jobs and stimulate the economy.
I do agree with your earlier post, however, that there has been a bit too much class-warfare seeping in to the Liberal campaign. I think that it's an easy platform to stand on, higher taxes for the filthy rich, but what that actually entails is lesser understood. It's a bit of a straw soldier.
I also don't think there's anything terribly wrong with letting your vote be swayed, not wholly but partially, by a leader with charisma. Most of the best leaders have it. From an outsiders view, much of the post bush optimism I saw in the US emanated from Obama's charisma. (Correct me if I'm wrong friends to the south - as I'm sure you will). I would also venture to say the Trudeau was not hired because of his boy-band appeal, but in spite of it. Early polls for the liberals looked quite poor, largely because of Trudeau's untested nature I would think. As he campaigned more people bought in. Something to be said for that, I think.
Lots to disagree with here I'm sure! Just providing a different lens to view the state of things through.

 

[drezz01]

My greatest comfort in this is that Canadians honestly elected this man. Last time around that party got nothing, and we currently have four parties with ten seats or more. If nothing else this is a healthy democracy, for better or for worse.

I think it's also a good check-and-balance that the Conservatives are the official opposition. If it was the NDP, well, that might be a bit too socialist for even my liking.

 

[elbert]

Finally, the U.S. government takes more of a laissez-faire approach toward promoting income equality than the Canadian and European governments, which redistribute wealth much more proactively. The result is a much smaller gap between rich and poor in countries such as Canada, which translates to a more robust and prosperous middle class.

From the article Peck linked--which I don't think was the point he intended! They cited a number of other factors as well, however.
As for what FC said, 4 parties with ten seats or more sounds like a damned pipe dream to me. I'd really like to see ranked-choice voting here in America--and an end to gerrymandering--to break the stranglehold of the two-party system.