Is Neutrality Necessarily Good?
Condoleezza Rice has earned my respect with her recent negotiations in the Middle East. Not that I haven't thought her a smart woman and a shrewd political actor in the past, but now I have finally been convinced that she is highly competent and that she has the ability to do what she thinks should be done, with the convictions to back it up.That's not to say I always agree with her convictions, though.
I used to pride myself on a kind of political neutrality. I wanted to look at candidates individually, on their merits, and not simply as a product of their party platforms. I'm still registered with no party affiliation, but I wonder: did Bush sour me on that neutrality? I now tend to view members of his party--nationally prominent ones, at least--with a strong skepticism at the start, and they have to prove their abilities for me to grant them real respect. I'd rather give everybody the benefit of the doubt, though, presuming at first that they deserve the respect due their office--and only revoking it once I've seen them do something stupid, immoral, or incompetently. I think that's still how I view and judge individual Dems. It doesn't seem quite right, though. Partisan bickering, without thought and a willingness to grant the good arguments and abilities of the other side, is no great boon to this (or any) country.
posted by Skay @ 6:31 PM
2 Comments:
I know what you mean. Currently we are running a minority government, and besides the Adscam scandal (which the Opposition gets so righteous over, conveniently forgetting their party suffered a scandal not too long ago), the political manoeuvrings are particularly blatant and transparent. They love to talk about what Canadians do or do not want, and what is good for Canadians (by which they mean, it would be good to put their party in power), but they are so busy jockeying for position they are blind to all else. Every press statement is geared to making them look good, and pushing blame for something on someone not of their party.
The result is leadership and debate has long gone by the wayside. My rule of thumb: if a politician says a Bill doesn’t go far enough, he actually agrees with the bill but has to find something wrong with it because it doesn’t come from his party. If he calls a Bill into question, calling it ineffectual or ‘not in Canadian’s interests’ there probably isn’t anything wrong with it but it goes against his party’s stance on the issue.
In short, and this goes on long before the current minority government came to power, the political parties have staked out their ground and merely bickering pettily about the issues of the day, and do not engage in gainful debate. This sounds very cynical, but unfortunately I feel it is accurate.
I really don't understand neutrality on the national level: the Dems don't have any monopoly on wisdom or ehtics yet I cannot imagine one major area of federal endeavor which would not be better today if even every good Republican had been defeated by a Dem of lesser gifts and character.
Post a Comment
<< Home