Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Mark's Mailbox': Not in Front of the Children
SteynOnline ^ | June 22, 2004 | 'Mark's Mailbox'

Posted on 06/22/2004 6:43:46 PM PDT by quidnunc

Insightful and entertaining column, as usual, on the Canadian debates. The most depressing conclusion to be drawn from the debates, and this federal election in general, is that most conservative or libertarian values are now considered by politicians to be so unpalatable to the Canadian public that they can't even be discussed. The widely held perception is apparently that it's impossible to be elected if you argue, or even state, any of the following:

• that the health care system should be reformed to allow substantial involvement by private companies, where they can provide services more efficiently and cost-effectively (even though payment for those services would remain on the public dime).

• that maybe it doesn't make sense to have a government broadcaster, and we don't need a government regulator "protecting" us from the A&E History Channel, or the political views expressed by Fox News.

• that it doesn't make sense to politicize the judiciary, and have all contentious issues decided by a handful of judges who are appointed by the Prime Minister in his or her absolute discretion, without any review, and generally with the prerequisite that appointees favour the views of the political party of the Prime Minister.

• that it makes sense to actually cut Government spending (rather than increase it as all parties have indicated they would do) in order to pay down our debt more rapidly and secure the economic future for our children.

• that the war in Iraq might not have been wrong.

• that global warming might not be man-made.

• that we should not invest heavily in windmills (because of their lack of efficiency, the expansive amount of key landscape they need, their physical effects on wildlife, and the fact that perhaps we should instead focus on more efficiently harvesting some of the world's largest stockpiles of natural resources that we already possess).

• that the demonization associated with the "weaponization of space" might be arbitrary and unjustified, and that it may be sensible to consider whether such weapons are the best way of protecting the Canadian populace.

• that it might not be "just" to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from Ontario and Alberta in the form of "equalization payments", primarily to Quebec and, to a lesser extent, the maritime provinces — and that perhaps it makes more sense to help people to relocate rather than indefinitely subsidizing them to remain where their services will always have to be heavily funded by taxpayers in other locations.

• that the government should act to ensure that fundamental freedoms of  individuals, such as freedom of expression, are protected to the same degree that they are in the United States.

• that military spending should immediately be increased to a percentage of our GDP consistent with our NATO and EU allies, and that such expenditures are not "war-mongering", or "Cold War thinking", but rather represent the ethical desires to pay a fair share of the costs of our defence and strengthen our sovereignty and influence in the world, and allow us to morally assist allies who share substantially similar common values in confrontations with whatever horror crops up in the world, in places such as Rwanda, Congo, Afghanistan, etc.

• that saying something is "American-style" should not automatically be considered an insult.

• that we don't need a Governor General and the associated expenses of the position.

• that something is fundamentally wrong with our health care system that perhaps additional money will not solve, when it already costs more to maintain than the health care systems of all other countries with universal access, and yet our services (and the wait lists for them) generally compare unfavourably to those offered by such other countries.

• I'm not even stating that all, or any, of the directions set out above represents the best course of action — but they shouldn't be verboten to discuss. Something is fundamentally wrong when no party in Canada even believes it can reasonably debate any of the foregoing positions without risking being marginalized.

Where is my Canada — a Canada with an accountable, ethical and morally responsible government? Where is a Canadian government that is willing to help its allies and not participate in demagoguery, and protect the rights of individuals without paternally coddling the populace, and which is willing to make informed leadership decisions instead of engaging in populism and deferring fundamental decisions to the results of opinion polls?

P Stefan Janicki Toronto

MARK REPLIES: I’m with you on most of those, except the Governor-General. This particular GG doesn’t come cheap and her husband is the most expensive viceregal consort in the Commonwealth. As David Frum put it a while back, you work hard all year to pay your taxes and J Ralston Saul blows your entire tax bill because he has a yen to commune with nature on some isolated lake up north. But that’s a problem with these two office-holders. As a general rule, the Governor-Generalship is cheaper than most of the alternatives.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: analretentiveeqcerpt; anotherstupideqcerpt; marksteyn

1 posted on 06/22/2004 6:43:48 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

BTTT


2 posted on 06/22/2004 7:23:12 PM PDT by StriperSniper ("Ronald Reagan, the Founding Father of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." - Mark Levin 6/8/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Where is my Canada — a Canada with an accountable, ethical and morally responsible government?

Karl Marx ate it, and he's doing a bang up job devouring your neighbors south of the border, too.

I'm sorry, it's not news any rational human being wants to hear.

3 posted on 06/22/2004 8:17:22 PM PDT by Imal (To be "neutral" in the War on Terrorism is to side with terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal

It's not hopeless yet. Maybe, somewhere in Canada, there is a retired actor who's articulate, likeable, well-informed, devout, disillusioned with liberalism, and has a well-planned, well-difined agenda to bring conservative ideas to the people and put them into practice. And maybe that retired actor will run for Prime Minister and capture the voters imagination, and change the course of the nation for the betterment of everyone.

It's happened before elsewhere! ; )


4 posted on 06/22/2004 10:05:34 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

People would never vote for a retired actor! :o)


5 posted on 06/22/2004 10:15:46 PM PDT by Imal (To be "neutral" in the War on Terrorism is to side with terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson