Mood:
caffeinatedNow Playing: Liberal Leadership 2013
Topic: Politics
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2012/11/25/justin-trudeau-not-fit-to-be-liberal-party-leader
RE: Justin Trudeau not fit to be Liberal party leader by Kathryn Marshall, The Duel
It may be important to realize in politics, that context is everything. A brief snippet sound byte ; whether it be a single sentence or a paraphrased recap of events, is often times the only ammunition a person with a pre-affixed position needs to advance a personally held agenda.
There may be no better known present day example in the Canada we know today than in the embodiment of todays Prime Minister.
Take for example, Stephen Harper him self, vapidly and openly criticizing with shrill speech-,.. practically to the very marrow,
the very structural bones of every single political party that has ever served the people of Canada since its very inception.
People themselves who have had no better motivation or higher aspiration other than to serve the people which makes for the tapestry that runs through the entire breadth of this exceedingly large country we call our home. And yet in the context of their times also only to advance a singular agenda emboldened and charged with a single purpose: to advance democracy.
How would you feel knowing that a person charged with making executive positions on a day to day basis that affects the day to day livelihoods of your friends and nieghbors previously vehemently blasted in a single blustering sentence all three leaders of todays political parties i.e the NDP , the Liberal Party and the original Progressive Conservative Party?
Better? Comfortable? Satisfied?
But now a person could always argue and debate if they like, about how this may potentially bring out the best ideals and principles of all 3 parties in a single visionary pièce de résistance and a better country for us all: a veritable end to the bickering, hedging and backroom deals by a keeping integral and intact the very best of what each political party has to offer.
This is what is problematic of todays political atmosphere: backbiting, finger-pointing and buckpassing, while citizens gape on in jaw dropped amazement. Just drop mention; for instance, the portion of your wages or the amount that goes to the cashier when purchasing at any mall outlet in the same sentence as "citizen" to really put the spin on endlessly revolving arguments about what a democracy is. Or in todays cllimate: what it should be.
That is because there is more at stake than money. A democracy should not be the moral equivalent of a shareholders convention behind closed doors. But so far that is not even what seems to be topical for conversation nor the reason for todays column and invitation to debate. What is though, is what somebody said two years ago when the climate is far different from what it is today.
There is no doubt that what Mr.Trudeau had said was given in a certain context (and parallel opposite: 'taken' from it can take on a myriad of meanings thanks to any amount of spin), there is also no doubt that what he spoke was both raw and bold.
And yet todays Prime Minister from his earliest days of speech making did not neccessarily pull his punches in belittling and verbally disposing of the 3 main parties which are the lifeblood of our core identities and mantel placed democratic champions.
What deserves to be examined is that which what people in Parliament do with tax payer dollars: argue over the truth.
If there is any truth left to what he spoke 2 years ago, can that at least be addressed or spoken about without riling peoples carved out regionally earned niche identitties? What about the national identity?
Would I be accused of being petty? Well, in fairness; I am not the one who raised the debate and issue.
Have people who live in a province which contributes so much towards our GDP unfairly imbalanced debate to tilt towards their own favor?
Thank you for your engagement today.
Yours truly,
Max Stelmacker
