I Hope This Isn't The Beginning Of A Closed Minded Liberal Party
One cannot help notice how the debate over the LPCQ Resolution of recognizing Quebec as a nation has dominated every forum in the Country. In the media, in the blogs, and in youtube (see previous post). The sentiment within Canada is mixed; outside of Quebec, no one is pretty much for it, and in Quebec, it's unclear.
Within the Liberal Party the spectrum is fuzzy. Which candidates are for recognizing Quebec as a nation and which aren't. They've all said yes to a degree but then the difference of degrees is what makes a mountain different from a hill.
But one thing to notice from all of this, is that everyone has made up their mind. I have came to a position, but I am open to change it. I don't want to change it, to have Quebec recognized as a nation, but if someone was to argue and win against me, for such a proposal, then alas, I would have no other choice. But others are not as open, actually, a lot of Liberals are closed minded.
Close minded because they fear Canada would break up, or that the provinces would have so much power their idea of Canada would no longer hold. Perhaps they want to keep the identity of a united Canada or perhaps they love Quebec. Or more simply they think Quebec is nothing special. Another possible option is, Liberals are so focused on this leadership they'll pick up on anything if it smells of blood; in particular, Michael Ignatieff's.
The latter option, I disagree. I think most Liberals are blinded with patriotism that they cannot conceive of even having a rational debate with other about such a Quebec notion.
In all the multitudes of blogs, newspapers, Television panels, and etc. I've seen or read, not one, not one, offered a chance of debate; not one talked as if it was a debate. Not one positing anything unique to the conversation other than their own opinion of yes or no. Well, I shouldn't say no one, Michael Ignatieff did.
I am not supporting Michael Ignatieff, I am supporting Gerard Kennedy; but I like ideas, whether they be positive or negative. Ideas inspire thoughts, thoughts inspire long trains of processes that arrive at conclusions I would have never conceived. For doing something that all the bloggers, all the pundits haven't, Michael Ignatieff stands out.
Gerard Kennedy has always shined and he continues to do so. In every speech of his he makes me feel more human, more in touch with Liberalism. I am honest and I think that Gerard has not brought a new idea to this debate; in his defense, he does so wishing not to bring Canada into Constitutional ruin, which brings in the component of theory versus practice. So Kennedy is still my favorite, but as Ignatieff has fallen in the eyes of those Liberals who never bothered to open them, he has risen in mine.
Within the Liberal Party the spectrum is fuzzy. Which candidates are for recognizing Quebec as a nation and which aren't. They've all said yes to a degree but then the difference of degrees is what makes a mountain different from a hill.
But one thing to notice from all of this, is that everyone has made up their mind. I have came to a position, but I am open to change it. I don't want to change it, to have Quebec recognized as a nation, but if someone was to argue and win against me, for such a proposal, then alas, I would have no other choice. But others are not as open, actually, a lot of Liberals are closed minded.
Close minded because they fear Canada would break up, or that the provinces would have so much power their idea of Canada would no longer hold. Perhaps they want to keep the identity of a united Canada or perhaps they love Quebec. Or more simply they think Quebec is nothing special. Another possible option is, Liberals are so focused on this leadership they'll pick up on anything if it smells of blood; in particular, Michael Ignatieff's.
The latter option, I disagree. I think most Liberals are blinded with patriotism that they cannot conceive of even having a rational debate with other about such a Quebec notion.
In all the multitudes of blogs, newspapers, Television panels, and etc. I've seen or read, not one, not one, offered a chance of debate; not one talked as if it was a debate. Not one positing anything unique to the conversation other than their own opinion of yes or no. Well, I shouldn't say no one, Michael Ignatieff did.
I am not supporting Michael Ignatieff, I am supporting Gerard Kennedy; but I like ideas, whether they be positive or negative. Ideas inspire thoughts, thoughts inspire long trains of processes that arrive at conclusions I would have never conceived. For doing something that all the bloggers, all the pundits haven't, Michael Ignatieff stands out.
Gerard Kennedy has always shined and he continues to do so. In every speech of his he makes me feel more human, more in touch with Liberalism. I am honest and I think that Gerard has not brought a new idea to this debate; in his defense, he does so wishing not to bring Canada into Constitutional ruin, which brings in the component of theory versus practice. So Kennedy is still my favorite, but as Ignatieff has fallen in the eyes of those Liberals who never bothered to open them, he has risen in mine.
posted by Daniel Mosely at 5:19 PM
8 Comments:
I agree with you in one respect. Yes, it is true that there has been very little debate on this vital question, with the media and blogs all filled with rather polarizing notions of "Nation" or "Not a Nation". And you are entirely correct, this kind of debate we are missing is very useful.
Ignatieff is the only candidate running a campaign of ideas. All of the other candidates do not seem to be saying anything new, which in all honesty is quite frightening. I've noticed that throughout this campaign, however long and winded it has been for us all, there is a common pattern. Ignatieff takes a position on an issue, and all of the others respond, and suddently its of vital importance. He seems to be at the front of the idea race, and to me the responses of the other candidates shows that he is also at the front of the leadership race.
Case in point: Quebec as a nation. Before Ignatieff made his comments on this issue, Quebec was vrtually off the ideological radar. It seemed to me that no candidate was saying anything particularly interesting or ground-breaking about this cleavage that has always been embedded in our political and social existance. Then, Michael Ignatieff states openly that he feels Quebec is a nation within Canada and should be recognized as such. Suddenly, all the other candidates have made Quebec a large platform pank. In a somewhat interesting twist, Bob Rae in particular has taken s strong position on Quebec. His "unique policy ideas" sound familiar, however. That could be because he is essentially taking the same position as Ignatieff, only using different rhetoric and cloaking himself as the protector of Canada. I say more power to Ignatieff and his idea-producing machine. Agree or disagree, it gives us something to debate, which we all know is what we as a party need to engage in.
Altavista: I have always published every comment. Consider your comment the first I haven't.
My reason: You contribute nothing to the discussion, you make everything on the brink of slander, but just not enough so you can muddle your way through the world by bleating, "free speech."
Well your intentions are evidently negative. It is only because they hide behind a sliver of human charity in which people give you, which they should never pressupose on you in the first place, is how you have grown in the world.
My blog will no longer play a role in the abomination known as Altavistagoogle.com.
Very well put. Trashing and bashing produce nothing that would help the Party. I commend you for having open eyes and ears.
At first, Kennedy wasn't even a consideration for me. I do support Ignatieff, but second now would be Kennedy (I still think he's not quite ready). Dion and Rae come off so weak.
Ignatieff is definately the ideas man in this race. His environmental proposals are far superior to Dion's (how can we have real change in our polluting consumption patterns without taxing carbon?).
Your comments are correct. Both Kennedy and Ignatieff bring a new freshness to this otherwise drab and uninspiring party that has seem to lost its way since Trudeau.
Ignatieff is NOT the only one bringing forth new ideas. Kennedy has some great ideas. Dion's environment ideas are not too shabby either.
The problem with Ignatieff's ideas is that they are tearing apart the Liberal Party instead of re-building it. We need a unifier, not a divider.
That is Kennedy by a country mile for me.
Let me be clear Chantel, I agree Kennedy is bringing forth new ideas, but him and Ignatieff are doing so while the others rest on name recognition.
Again let me be clear I support Gerard Kennedy because he brings new ideas that coincide with what Canada should be.
But let me be objective in praising ideas that would bring change rather then stagnation.
I disagree that Ignatieff's ideas on the issue are new. Seperatists have been arguing for them for a generation.
New is releative. New in the Liberal Party's debate. The leadership process is actually fostering the necessity for such an analysis on the issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home