I always get disappointed when I see democracy turned into a rhetoric or propaganda contest. Seems like many in the public fall for it. Appearances count more than accuracy. You hear that someone voted for candidate A because his chin was more honest looking than candidate B. For democracy to function properly, you need at the very minimum a population who has the time to think out the issues or can follow an argument made by candidates and condemn rhetoric for what it is and look behind the propaganda presented.
Unfortunately, when you see candidate A's suit is judged before the content of his ideas and that candidate B is judged along the same criteria.... well you end up with electoral debates that present nothing but the same old nonsense that was sputtered during the speeches. No one confronts intellectually the ideas that the other party has presented and everyone attacks the container of the other candidates instead of what is inside.
Lets look at each leader of the political parties that were at the nationally televised debates. Then lets look at what some people said about these same people.
Stephen (Harper) --> Receiving the brunt of the attacks from all the others, kept saying to look at the record, look at the history of how his party dealt with the issues. What was left unsaid was that this is the longest running minority government in the history of Canada (that in itself is quite the accomplishment).... I suspect that this is also one of the very few times where the minority power dictated the when of an election (also quite an accomplishment). What this means is that each of the other parties have at one time or another kept Stephen in power.... So why are they now attacking him or his integrity. The only one who could attack Stephen in such a way without being hypocritical would be Elizabeth (May). Elizabeth was never in power so she could not keep Stephen in office. Every other leader becomes hypocritical by the virulence of their attacks. Stephen keeps saying: "check the record of what actually happened" for every attack on the appearance of mismanagement. When you do check, you discover Stephen is correct. If you do not check, you may believe the rhetoric of the other leaders who sound so convincing.
Perceptions of some people on Stephen? One claimed Stephen was confused because he was not as agitated as the others and answered the questions in a calm voice without interrupting others and the other leaders were successfully interrupting Stephen. Is this how one makes a decision for a vote? Forget the content of what is said, listen to the presentation of a person's sincerity?
Stephane (Dion) --> Head of a party that has the recent history of corruption, yet never admitting their wrongdoing, it becomes difficult to fight the battle. Stephane decides to use direct eye contact with the television viewer. He does not debate directly with the other leaders often, he passes his message directly to the viewer. Ironically, the same Stephane who during the Sovereignty issue with Quebec was the one who proposed harsh interventions against those who would want a nation is the same one who is today saying that he is also a Quebec Nationalist.... Now that it is acceptable to use the word he does a 180 degree turn and acts as if he is a friend to Nationalists within Quebec. Stephane keeps to the issue that he intends to lower taxes for regular Canadians and that polluters are to be taxed extra, what is not really mentioned in the debate is that prices of whatever would increase all around for consumers and in the end would probably cost more for regular Canadians. Companies who are forced to pay more in expenses usually pass the cost increase to the consumer. But the debate does not focus on this possibility and time is not allowed to focus on any one issue.
Perceptions from some people? Many are convinced that Stephane was the winner in the debates. Well using rhetoric, he did speak it well. Does not change the fact that the content is inadequate, even if the container seems pretty. People do seem to forget their history about how the Liberals were proven to be corrupt by their own actions (while still denying with words), people seem to forget Stephane was very aggressive towards Quebec (tough love approach which backfired on him) and that now he acts as if he is a benevolent father because that approach was used by the Conservatives with success, and people seem to forget that Stephane supported Stephen on many occasions which should not be the case if Stephane really believes that Stephen is terrible in his management skills.
Jack (Layton) --> Jack presents himself as socially minded versus the conservative's business minded. It is hard to determine in life whether or not one should consider business issues as primary concern and that social benefits come from better economic trends or its contrast where social issues are primary concerns and that better morale will result in better business? Jack says that as a Socialist, he is better than the Liberals to run the country. Jack also says that Socialist thinking is better than the Economic Thinking of the Conservatives. This is a debate that even philosophers have trouble agreeing to. But unfortunately, Jack also uses the rhetoric and sophistry of the fears of regular Canadians who have not thought out issues and are just fearful of the future. Jack says he understands the fears and will solve the problems. Even if Stephen explains that the problems are not as disastrous as one may think, this does not matter because when one is irrationally afraid, logic and rationality can not be used to bring the person out of it. Jack uses his soothing voice to say that he will have things under control.
Perception on Jack? Not many express much except to say that perhaps he is better than Stephane.
Gilles (Duceppe) --> Gilles says from the beginning, if ANYONE in power does something good for Quebec, he will support that idea. If they do something bad for Quebec, he will reject that idea. Unfortunately, Gilles uses rhetoric against Stephen.... See the entire platform of the Bloc was based upon the unwillingness of Canada to accept Quebec differences in viewpoints in its culture and when Stephen made a law that accepted the uniqueness of Quebec culture and that it was recognized as a Nation, well this sabotaged the Bloc. They never seemed to have realized this until this election where more and more people were questioning if the Bloc was even relevant today.... So to catch up on the political chess, Gilles went the route of rhetoric and is trying to discredit the container more than its contents. Gilles was better in the past to attack the contents, but being disarmed, he has to recapture what he has lost. One statement that made me tickled pink with glee was when Gilles mentioned straight out that he knew he wasn't going to win the Prime Minister vote and that the other three parties also knew that but would never admit it publicly.
Perceptions from the people? Well integrity can be sensed from Gilles and some people may be hesitating to support the Conservatives because a perception seems to be growing that the Conservatives may be getting corrupt like the Liberals even though Stephen is still seen as reliable.... the party he is running seems to be making too many faux-pas. Gilles is using perception now more than ever.... Will people vote on issues or on perceptions?
Elizabeth (May) --> Elizabeth tried really hard to show that she could present other ideas outside the environmental issues, but she also succumbed to rhetoric and attacked Stephen on many issues. She gave me the impression that she was Stephane's Robin fighting more vigorously than Batman on certain issues. She really had nothing to lose with the exposure but the more perceptive would have noticed a sort of tag-teaming between the Batman (Stephane) and the Robin (Elizabeth).... In itself, this may prove to be interesting, but during one question where leaders were asked to say something nice about their opponents, Elizabeth was one of two leaders who failed that question (Gilles was a little critical with his assessment of Elizabeth). Elizabeth said Stephen was a nice dad, then she proceeded to attack Sephen on everything else.
Perception of Elizabeth? Many were wondering why she was even allowed there because she did not contribute any more than any other leader present there. Considering she tried to show she had other issues to present than the single issue party perception, she may have had that backfired because she did not seem to be any different than the Liberals.
One word assessments of the leaders based upon the above critique:
Stephen-->wise (his approach has worked as any verification will attest to)
Stephane-->knowledgeable (his reliance on rhetoric destroys his credibility)
Jack-->charismatic (how can you not like this guy? I just don't agree on some of his views in VERY crucial areas, but in most other areas, they're A1)
Gilles-->honest (he has a view of Quebec and wishes to see it through, he has a strong sense of integrity, moreso than his peers)
Elizabeth-->intelligent (she learns very quickly, perhaps she will see alternate means to get what she wants instead of using a one-issue party)
So we have a one-issue party(Green Party), a regional party(Bloc Quebecois), an ideological party(NDP) and 2 brokerage parties(Conservatives and Liberals).... interesting to see the votes come out on this one.... hopefully the citizenry will make their decisions upon issues, not the perception of issues.... decide on the essence of an idea, not an empty catch-phrase. Past votes tended to be more on the container's flash than on its boring contents.... Can this time be different?
No comments:
Post a Comment