A Response to Pillon

I thought this deserved its own post rather than a small comment. I thought Pillon's account of the coalition crisis was very good. his argument surrounds the fact that the coalition is not doing anything unconstitutional. it is probably the most intellectual argument that i have heard from the left yet. he takes a very ironical approach to the scare tactics employed by Harper. Harper's scare tactics stem from making the coaliton seem "separatist", "marxist", "undemocratic". It gets the right scared of the left.

By suggesting democratic values are at stake, Harper is using the oldest liberal trick in the book. trying to cling onto power by telling canadians the fundamentals of democracy will be ruined if he does not hang onto power. this is the same tactic used by American Liberals when they suggested that we shoul have invaded Iraq because the freedom and equality of Iraqi citizens are at stake.

Harpers fear tactics are a response to the Liberals trying to take away his power. But Pillon's argument is very dangerous because it falls into even more horrific scare tactics then those invoked by harper. Heres Pilon's ultimate irony:

"I do not mean to be alarmist in suggesting we may be heading for violence. But the actions of this Prime Minster are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule. Harper is ramping up the heat of his rhetoric by invoking democracy and patriotism and insinuating that his opponents are attacking our democracy and that they are risking the unity of the country for their own gain."

Pillon sees harpers desperate attempt to cling onto power as a potential cause of mob rule. Thus upping the scariness of "the other" by another notch. I don't think Pillon escaped the rehtoric that he criticizes harper for using. Rather he is bringing the rhetoric to a new level that will be very advantageous for the support of the coalition.

However, now that Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberals i think the coalition is over. Ignatieff will likely wait until another election in a couple years, and compromise with harper in janauary making him look like a cooperative politician. canadians are unfamiliar with iggy and he needs some face time as an opposition leader before winning an election. afterall, the guy has lived in america for the past 20 years of his life. he was even one of those liberals that supported iraq that i mentioned earlier, and criticized chretien big time for not invading (now im caught up in right wing rhetoric). the coalition crisis will go down in the history book as a small win for the liberal party that made the conservatives look very desparate. Dion was the ultimate pawn for the liberal party after he lost the election for the liberals. so he does something very controversial that ends up being a win-win situation for the libs! If it backfires and canadians didn't support the coalition then dion could take the fall. and if it works and you get power, then liberals have the PM. Harper played the only card he could play to hold onto power: prorogue. its a win win for the liberal party and this could be the start of a trend to revitalize the liberal party. if anyone can do it it will be ignatieff... hes a trudeau type.

The Coalition Crisis

I will try my hardest not to mention anything concrete about political news in Canada on this blog, so don't be scared of the title. The media went crazy over the coalition and there was a big back and forth of support for the Coalition and the Conservatives in the media. I found CBC started out very much in favour of the conservative position, but then loosened its grip as the days past. The ultimate question to be asked from this crisis, is "what is responsible government?"

(im making these quote up myself, but they are very accurate...no doubt

Harper: "responsible government is getting the most votes in the election... its a parliamentary convention."

Dion: "Responsible governmet is having the support of the house of commons... its actually in the constitution...or maybe its not i forget.

The next big debate will surround responsible government. why on earth is 'responsibility' the word we use? Resp gov has been the most important value of the Canadian parliament since 1867. But what does responsibility mean? The Canadian government thinks responsibility means having the support of other people. From the eyes of the Canadian parliament, responsibility stems from ones ability to hang onto power (or grasp power) with the support of others. Other people need to have confidence in you (thats why they call it a confidence motion). But why does responsibility necessarilly mean that other people believe you? In order to be a responsible parent, must i force my children to believe that i am responsible, that i can be a good parent throughout their childhood. If other people believe that i am an unresponsible parent, they can rat me out to Child services and take my kid away. Does responsibility have to stem from 'the other' having confidence in you. or could responsibility stem from having confidence in yourself. Was Brian Mulroney being irresonsible when he introduced the GST even though all of Canadians hate it. Or were CAnadians being irresponsible for not wanting to help the economy by being taxed more?

If the Canadian government and the institutions of Canada are framed in a way that teaches Canadians values, then i think they are misteaching us the value of responsibility. The current capabilities that the Canadian media has at their disposal, does not allow the news to capture a valuable understanding of 'responsibility'. I think now is the perfect time to rethink what responsibility is, and how our government can offer it to us.