Political Musings

I once worked at a market research company. It was, quite possibly, the worst job I ever had--and that includes the summer I spent shovelling shit. Aside from the fact that the person who interviewed and hired me eventually also married me, market research had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
One of the things I did was polling, some of it political in nature. And I learned something very quickly: if you're going to ask a total stranger about their voting preferences, you might as well go ahead and inquire about their dildo collection or their propensity for cross-dressing. You're likely to get the same sort of response.
I never understood this, and I still don't. Look. Suppose you're a big supporter of the Wacky Party. You like Wacky ideas; you're certain the country would be a better place if it were a bit more Wacky. Problem: you're just one person, with one vote. Unless you live in Florida, that's not good enough. It seems to me that you'd be eager to explain Wackdom to anybody who asks. Likewise, your friend Nutjob, who's been a Loony supporter all his life, should be trying to sway you from your Wacky vision, in the hopes that you'll vote Loony. Doesn't that make sense?
I think there are three things, all related, that are severely limiting reasoned political debate in this country:

1) Political parties are dogmatic. Almost as dogmatic as religions. If you announce to the world that you're voting Loony, instantly about seventy eight assumptions are made about you--and some of them, perhaps most of them, will be dead wrong. Dogma is simple; voters are complex.

Take me, for instance. As the son of a lifelong cop, I'm a big believer in law and order. An example: in my world, there'd be no such charge as "attempted murder". You intended to kill: we'll treat you as if you succeeded. (There'd still be a manslaughter charge for unintentional killings--but its consequent punishment wouldn't be much more lenient. A life, after all, was taken.) I also believe in capital punishment, for the Paul Bernardos of the world who are utterly beyond rehabilitation.
I'm a strong supporter of fiscal prudence. I feel that government could probably be cut by two thirds without anybody noticing. Another for-instance: I live in Waterloo, Ontario. If there weren't signs to tell you otherwise, you'd believe it was one city with a population of about 400,000. But no, there are signs. Lots of them. There are three cities here, Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge, each with their own complete governments, and then on top of that there's a regional government. The purpose of this latter has never been made clear to me, but I must assume it's to govern all the things the other three governments forgot to govern. It's farcical is what it is.
Got a good picture of me yet? Got any ideas as to what political party I endorse?
I believe very strongly that homosexuals should have every last right and freedom accorded the rest of us. George W. Bush by turns maddens and frightens me. I am firmly convinced that soft drugs should be legalized, not simply decriminalized...and while they're at it they should legalize and regulate prostitution. Big Brother doesn't scare me in the least: I have nothing to hide.
I believe the way our Armed Forces have been treated over the past thirty or so years is a national disgrace. Our dependance on fossil fuels is killing us, and unchecked development will kill us faster. Welfare cheats should be banned from accepting public money for life. Women should have the right to choose, and euthanasia must be made legal. All elementary--never mind secondary--school graduates should be literate. University tuitions are far too high. Oh, here's one: in vitro genetic manipulation is a boon to society and needs to be widely practised as technology permits.

Still certain how I'm going to vote?

Actually, I know I'm voting Conservative. I have many reasons for doing so, but one of them is NOT that I support everything in their platform. Far from it. The next time you bandy about political stereotypes, remember me...and think very hard about your own political views.

2) Political parties are exclusive--again, just like religions. Each one has the market cornered on THE WAY to govern, and regards the others as a bunch of heathens. Given that most voters are as complex as they are, you'd think that political parties would have evolved by now away from black and white, but any election campaign--or, for that matter, five minutes of any Question Period--will show you otherwise. Although I'm voting Conservative, I bet I can find at least one thing in every party's platform that makes a lot of sense to me. Even the fringe parties.

3) The political system needs a radical overhaul. Young people don't vote, by and large, because the system as they see it is too antagonistic, and too concerned with "power over" rather than "power to" or "power with". Again, I direct you to Question Period, any hour's viewing of which is apt to (a) remind you of a bunch of five year olds and (b) make you wonder how anything ever gets done. The Official Opposition's job is to oppose. Nothing more. So any idea is a bad idea if it comes from the party in power. That's patently ridiculous.
My democracy would be a little different.
First, not everyone would have the right to vote. I know that's anathema to current visions of democracy, but I don't care. "My Daddy always voted Tory" or "I like the name of my local candidate". Both of these rationalizations tell me the voter doesn't take his or her responsibility seriously. Why should his or her vote be taken seriously?
The voters would still decide the makeup of the House, but also which ministries each party would be charged with running. Perhaps the majority of voters like the NDP's ideas concerning health care. The NDP would be put in charge of health care. Perhaps it's found that the Liberals have the best education platform. The Liberals get the education ministry.
Now, I realize that there are bound to be budget wars in this system. That's why I would have a team of auditors and comptrollers in place whose sole responsibilty (under public scrutiny and review at all times) would be to allocate funds and ensure they're spent according to (a) the principles of fair and honest accounting and (b) the vision expressed by the party in question. If it is found that the taxation policies of the Ministry of Finance conflict with the social policies of some other Ministry, a solution must be found by the voting public. I visualize some highly educated people with integrity in an elected tribunal.
A further refinement: the actual Minister in each Ministry should be not just conversant with her file, but an expert on it--just as you would expect if the government was the private sector. The Minister of Agriculture should have grown up on a farm, and preferably have ran one for a number of years. There's value in outside perspective--a high school dropout can certainly have some valid opinions as to how education ought to be run--but the voice of experience is at least as important.

So ends Political Diatribe #1 in a series of seven thousand.