We have a new prime minister who made his cabinet
decisions based upon his belief in merit. I could
complain that ‘ole loyal Alberta’ should have received more,
but that is not my duty, but rather instead to welcome the
rest of Canada on a needed movement towards redressing
the sheer Tammany Hall corruption that put our society
on a dangerous footing. When things get that corrupt, and
contempt towards the people’s power of the purse so
widespread, is there any alternative except to take Mr
Harper at his word when he admires these two businessmen
as capable of making important contributions to our public
polity? Are we so averse to having a truly multiparty system
that our media and opinion makers cannot allow a new government
to prove itself? Perhaps it was a quick and hastily shared
moment, sending the jitters into a quarter of the electorate.
But who can deny that such a reaction was fed by professional
opinion makers who are bent upon the very destruction of the
new government?

I am amazed, as a history teacher, at the lack of historical
perspective, in misunderstanding of the British
parliamentary system, which we were fortunate to inherit. Even
in American constitutional thinking, parties are not the ‘be-all
end-all’ of responsible representation, but channels against the
dangers of polarized factualism. Studying Edmond Burke, in our own system,
we are confronted with the reality that we elect a Member of
Parliament not to be a mere ‘party robot’, but to exercise wisdom
when the country is in emergency.

And make no mistake, Canada is swiftly coming to emergency,
both abroad and at home. Winston Churchill was always sensible to
this larger picture. He also knew that often what the country needs
and is deprived of is an ‘enlightened centrism’, which is what he
embodied his whole career. So did FDR in America. We should applaud
Stephen Harper in getting it right. Mr Emerson legitimately has had
a liberal heart and a conservative head. Is that a crime? Again,
Churchill crossed the floor twice. What if we find ourselves in the
midst of a world war and we’ve passed some mistaken law that our
members of parliament can never switch parties? They were elected to
use their minds and their wisdom on behalf of the country. Since
when is my vote for one particular party ‘God?’ If one votes
only for party, then you are prepared to vote for McCarthy types,
solely on the basis that he or she represents ‘the Party.’ And
that is a fundamental misunderstanding of Parliament! So, dear Canadians,
forgive them and forget about it. Drop the righteousness – its unbecoming.
This tar and feathering of a highly, highly accomplished man has got to
quit if we are to retain self respect as a nation. I ask the too often
Liberal-devout and Eastern-favored media imams to cool their fatwas.
Prime Minister Harper should be allowed to grow with his job.
And Canadians everywhere better start asking “not what their
country can do for them, but what they can do for their country!”

shania
(stanford ’81)

All I can say is: kick them again, Steve! Hard! Soon! Often!

Do you mean “Ambassador of Conservative Maturity”?

Who are you referring to, me?

Andrew hasn’t been posting here, and I have simply been arguing that these critics of Harper’s cabinet should hedge their criticisms within the context of how democratic accountability works in Canada—hmmm, responsible government. So far, their criticisms of Harper have been rather trite. And as Rempel aptly spells how above, critics from other parties seem solely to be sounding out their feelings, begging for more justification than their loser-handicapped faculty of reason and weak political acumen can deliver.

MPs who “rat” on their party and join another have a long, colourful legacy in the history of Westminster parliamentary democracies; a practice that isn’t particularly anti-democratic, though it entails cutting one’s partisan loyalties for new ones. Winston Churchill did it twice, being first a Conservative, then a Liberal for nearly twenty years, and then back Conservative. Commenting on his second crossing of the floor, he said “Anyone can rat [change parties], but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.” He could certainly appreciate that it was more a matter of good stratagem than one of serious ethical consequence, the sole act of ratting on one’s party that is. As far as Emerson’s constituents go, he will no doubt be better able to represent their interests to the federal government by actually being in cabinet, so he was looking out for them—just not the Liberal Party in his riding.

Harper never promised to end floor-crossing, and if he did, I would hope it would be a promise broken. Floor-crossing without fear of immediate re-election is quite fundamental to notions of responsible government in a parliamentary democracy; individual members of the H of C are elected to act in the best interests of their constituents, irrespective of party, while governments are appointed and require the confidence of the H of C.

You realize, of course, that you’re talking to the self proclaimed “Voice Of Principled Conservatism”, Pete?

(Sorry to be flogging this one to death, Peter, but come ON, guy….)

God, you guys and the self-righteous indignation over nothing, it’s really pathetic.

I, for one, had hoped that Stronach would lose her seat in the election. Sadly she held on to it.

However, are we wrong to be upset that our friends and family, that Stephen Harper and his electoral machinery all told us that things would be done differently only to be slapped in the face by these three (Fortier, Emerson, O’Connor) appointments?

Come on now.