Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Would Paul Martin do the right thing?
If I read the news correctly these days, it's not that the Canadian electorate thinks the Liberals in general are corrupt. Rather, they think Paul Martin and his cronies are corrupt. And, truth be told, Martin isn't giving them any reason to change their minds, is he?
When facing the press, he stammers, he stutters, he's evasive, he can't make eye contact and so on. And the electorate seems to be surprisingly sophisticated in distinguishing between Martin and his boys, and the rest of the party, which inspires a kind of offbeat question: How could Martin best assure Canada that the Liberals are the party of integrity and accountability? And the answer is surprisingly simple: he and his entire good old boy network should resign.
Quite simply, Martin should suck it up, face the cameras and say something like, "We've tried to govern in a way that would make Canadians proud, and that would make them feel that we had their best interests at heart. It's obvious that we haven't lived up to those expectations so, for the good of the Liberal party and the country, we're going to step down."
I may be wrong, but I'm betting that kind of gesture would suddenly be the deal-breaker for a lot of people who were agonizing over who they were going to vote for. But that's not actually what this post is about.
Rather, having set the stage with that delightful little fantasy, I'm curious about one thing. If, based on numerous reliable polls, Martin was convinced that, if he stepped down as the leader of the Liberal Party, the Libs would win a majority in the next election, do you think he'd do it? Would Martin actually put the interests of his party above his own interests?
I don't think so, and that's what I dislike most about Martin -- that everything seems to be about him. I sincerely believe that, if he was offered that choice, he wouldn't take it. His overwhelming ego just wouldn't allow it.
One could probably say the same thing about Stephen Harper, who seems to be single-handedly responsible for making the CPC unpopular. I mean, Jesus, can you imagine how well the CPC would be doing in the polls if anyone but Harper was in charge? And yet, I'm sure Harper also would never consider the welfare of his party ahead of his own.
Thoughts? I'm just free associating here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Would Martin actually put the interests of his party above his own interests? I don't think so, and that's what I dislike most about Martin -- that everything seems to be about him."
As opposed to Jean Chretien who sat on the AG report on Adscam until he left office, leaving it to be the first thing Martin had to deal with, knowing that it would seriously impair his and the Liberal party in winning government in the next election, let alone another majority? Like how Chretien felt he had to make such an issue over his golf balls at the Gomery inquiry instead of actually accepting any of the responsibility he had for the program including how it was set up outside the normal procedures which made it easier to pervert? How he felt that since it was to "save Canada" that any problems and abuses were no big deal?
Martin has his faults, but he has been kneecapped since the moment he took office as PM by his predecessor. He while knowing about the Sponsorship program generally was clearly not a part of the abuses, and while he was a senior Quebec Minister he was also kept out of the loop by the Chretienites precisely because he was such a rival of Chretien. I thought Martin did the right thing with the Gomery inquiry, which while certainly harmful in the short term for the Liberals, also demonstrated a willingness to be publicly accountable for this scandal, instead of burying it like the Chretienite wing thinks he should have. I find it ironic that so many Chretien haters are doing the desires of Chretien with this scandal by linking Martin to it despite the clear lack of evidence to support such and then the exoneration by Gomery.
I think you have been overly harsh with Martin. While yes he is more of a blue Liberal, he is responsible for an amazing economic turnabout in a dozen years. When people point out all the cuts he made in the 90s, I would remind them that if he hadn't the IMF would have. If that had occurred, instead of our social programs suffering significant funding cuts yet still existing somewhat, these social safety net programs would have been axed completely. This is how they have operated in all the other economies they have restructured from serious fiscal problems. One of those programs they would have eliminated would have been our Medicare, so I'll take the Martin approach over that any day.
Now that the economy is strong, the fundamentals are good, and the fiscal framework will allow for long term significant reinvesting Martin has started to do so, and for his troubles is called a liar because of the cuts in the 90s. While I agree he isn't the most assertive/confident/arrogant leader, he does tend to look at things from all angles and try to find the best solution. While slower and less glamorous than swift decisiveness, it is not an unreasonable style of governance.
Like the more assertive style some prefer it has it's drawbacks, but overall I simply do not think that Martin is quite the bad apple so many appear do. I certainly find him preferable to the alternatives. Harper is a liar and has previously shown clearly his willingness to say one thing and do another, and his current campaign of being Liberal lite/PCPC policies runs counter to his entire political history. Layton for all his actual willingness to try and make the minority Parliament work will not be a PM, at best he will be the balance of power but only in the event of a Liberal minority is that probable, as the BQ and the CPC have areas they share common beliefs, as in devolution of federal powers to Provinces aka fiscal deficit. So in the end we know it will either be the Liberal leader or the CPC leader, and that choice to me at least is no choice at all.
I do not mind people critiquing Martin for his failings, that is fair enough. What does bother me though is the willingness of so many to take what his enemies say about him as truthful and any defence of Martin as spin/propaganda. This is not something I am leveling at you CC, incidentally, more like those that take anything say Warren Kinsella has to say about Martin as gospel/revealed truth and anyone that challenges him is a Martin lackey. Personally, I see Martin as the best choice currently, which is a commentary on both his good aspects and just how poorly I see his competition combined.
I also want a Liberal win this time for another reason, it will likely dethrone Harper and the Reform/CA wing of the CPC from the lockdown they have on the leadership of the CPC. I would be willing to support the CPC if I saw that the PCPC wing had significant input/influence in it, but I have seen the opposite. Indeed, it is because of that I find the current Liberal lite CPC/Harper that has emerged in this election so suspicious. It is entirely inconsistent with what he and his allies have said for years to decades now, and these are beliefs that forced them to form Reform because the PCPC was too close to the Liberals in policies. Now, suddenly, in this election they all had a conversion like on the road to Damascus, yet never explain how they came to their new positions and what was wrong about their previously firmly held convictions. That to me beats out Martin's dithering tendencies as a problem, and I find it far more dangerous as well.
Some excellent points; perhaps I have been too hard on Martin. But notice the way I phrased the question: Would Martin step down if it meant a Liberal majority?
Notice that nothing actually has to be his fault; it would be enough if the electorate perceived it to be his fault.
So Martin could, in effect, be quite correct in arguing his case for innocence or blamelessness but, even if he knew he was in the right, would he still take the bullet for the party?
Sometimes, it doesn't really matter if you're right. It matters if you do the right thing.
Regarding that question, I honestly do not know. However, I do believe it more of him than his predecessor. What matters most to me is that thanks to Martin's economic actions over the last decade the long term health and survival of many of our most important social programs is there, whereas a decade ago we were about to have the IMF restructure our economy because our deficit and debt at the national level had run so wild. I depend on the Medicare system, I have a genetic blood disorder that can kill me, and I know that if I had been born American and had this happened to me down there it is very likely I would already be dead. So I have a strong interest in these issues, and as much as the Medicare system has been stretched this past decade it still keeps me alive, and I look to be able to rely on it. Well, unless we get a government that privatizes it, which is one of my concerns with Harper's CPC.
I am also not sure how fair the question you have posed is. Do you know of any party leader, let alone a sitting PM that has ever resigned because it would aid the success of his party? None comes to mind at the moment, and it seems a bit of an unrealistic test to apply because of that. Like I said before, Martin has his flaws, but overall I do see him as the best choice for this country. I remember the economic grief Canada suffered from the mid 70s into the mid nineties, and the economy we have today is well positioned on the fundamentals to do well for many years to come, so long as we keep paying down debt while reinvesting in the programs we need most. I do not trust either the CPC (tax cuts appear to be the only thing they believe in, and I fear they would do what GWB did to the American surpluses) and the NDP I fear would over spend on the social programs while not working on rebuilding our military which has suffered strongly under the cuts regime, as well as a potential economic distrust within the economic generators of this country for the NDP federally which has existed for decades now.
While I see Martin as the best of a bad set of choices, at least in his case there is the economic record to take as a positive. I would prefer it if he were a little less in the center right, but he is not so far over that he worries me excessively.
Hope this helps answer your question as well as fleshing out some of my thoughts on this matter.
Getting back to the question of Harper possibly getting the boot from his party, I don't see him as being their only problem. Would you prefer Monte Solberg, for example?
I think there was a time when no-one would have questioned that Harper would step down if he felt it would lead his party to power. He used to be a true neo-con believer.
Now, he's changed his spots so many times, it's easy to believe that he's only interested in power, so I can understand your sentiment.
Nevertheless, I still think his various meanderings have all been designed to bring that underlying (hidden?) neo-con agenda into power. If he could step down AND be assured that his successor would be another true believer, then I think he would.
hey scotian, whether i agree or not (i do), it's well reasoned commentary such as yours that make this medium so powerfully effective.
cheers
scotian,
dont think this site has seen such reasoned, thoughtful writing in a very long time. bravo.
Post a Comment