Political Twaddle

Were they always like this?

I remember past screaming matches, soi-disant "debates" in which it was nearly impossible to hear, let alone comprehend, what any one person was saying in the babble. That has (largely) been solved, but it's been replaced with something considerably more vexing. I had no trouble hearing people in that sideshow last night. I had a lot of trouble meandering through the thicket of conflicting truths. Everybody seemed to be existing in their own reality bubble. Corporate tax cuts: in past debates, the players would argue for or against. Last night, Harper repeatedly asserted there weren't any corporate tax cuts to debate; everyone else debated them nevertheless.

The number of times I heard "that's simply not correct", "that's a lie", "that's false"--damnit, by the end of the debate I was questioning things I KNEW TO BE TRUE.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I hate to say it, but I have to admire Harper's brass balls. They remind me of Chretien's. (A brass ball connoisseur, that's me.) To any attack, Harper's answer was basically "why are you attacking me? My actions speak for themselves." Very little substantive defence because none is required. Those of us who are not political junkies can be forgiven for wondering why we're even having an election. According to Harper, the historic contempt ruling was a trumped up charge having nothing to do with failure to disclose expenses and everything to do with an attempted power grab. Reading between Harper's lines, he genuinely believes that he is not beholden to Parliament: his only accountability, according to his way of thinking, is to the Canadian people in elections. "Of course parties will work together from time to time," he says, and you can actually hear the unspoken codicil as distasteful as that is. I agree with Layton: that's way Ottawa is broken. Parties are supposed to work together to govern, not just "from time to time", but every day.

I also agree with Layton on proportional representation, and I profoundly respect that he brought up the Green Party (missing from the debate, on account of they don't have a single MP at the moment). Under PR, the Greens would have slightly fewer seats than the Bloc Quebecois...and a significant number of seats that otherwise would have gone to Layton's NDP. To me, that suggests that Layton truly DOES respect other points of view.

I had hoped that somebody would stop Harper in his tracks after five questions. After all, he's had a standing policy this campaign of only accepting five questions a day. Duceppe alluded to this right out of the gate, but didn't push it. To me as a voter, it exhibits a pattern of contempt I can not accept in a leader. And I would say that no matter who that leader was, or how many of his or her policies I agree with.

In the end, as with past shenanigans of this type, I'm convinced these "debates" are pointless. If you go in agreeing with Leader X, you're likely to come out feeling the same way. If you are truly undecided, the web of lies and half-truths is unlikely to sway you. More likely, you'll be disgusted by the whole thing and you won't bother to vote.

I think it's high time we scrapped these things. Here's what we do instead. By all means, take questions from individual Canadians. Separate the leaders. Put them in separate rooms--hell, separate provinces. Have them answer each question. Have them detail their priorities and policies and plans. Don't allow them any contact with each other. It makes for boring television...so what? Important stuff doesn't have to be entertaining. I know that runs counter to everything we're expected to expect these days, but it's true. We need less drama, less bickering, less crap, not just in our campaigns, but in our government between elections.

And that's enough of that. Except for this: I am immensely glad I live here, in a country where election campaigns last a month instead of--do they ever really end in the U.S.?