What about Canada?

Canada is such an interesting case because it lies in North America but has so many characteristics that we think of as European: committed to the welfare state and social security, pacific, multilateralist, respectful of international law. Could Canada, like Britain, aspire to a bridging role between Europe and the US?

Debate - Page 4/5

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

"John" in "USA/Canada" wrote: "Canada maintains a welfare state becuase there is greater recognition in Canada that those who are born into wealth BARE advantages over those who did not."
|
Umm, John, I think the word you mean to use is "bear", not "bare".
|
"John" also wrote: "AMERICA IS A CLASSIST SOCIETY WHERE THE RICH GUYS WIN BECAUSE THERE PARENTS ARE RICH."
|
John, I think you meant to say that "rich guys win because THEIR parents are rich". I think the word you mean to use is "their", not "there".
|
"John" also wrote: "(ACCEPT FOR SOME IMMIGRANTS....".
|
John, I think the word you mean to use is "EXCEPT"... not "ACCEPT".
|
"John" also wrote: "BECUASE I was born into wealth, not necessarily BECUASE I worked harder than my poorer counterpart....".
|
John, "because" is spelled "B-E-C-A-U-S-E".
|
And John wrote: "How did I afford 3 Ivy League degrees (which are about as likely to get me into a top business as any form of nepotism)?"
|
John, you say you somehow managed to acquire 3 Ivy League degrees for yourself. Yet you repeatedly misspell the word "because", and you don't seem to know the difference between "their" and "there" or between "accept" and "except".
|
If I were you, John, I'd get myself an attorney and look into suing those Ivy League schools for their having defrauded you. It's pretty obvious to me that whatever they charged you (or Mummy and Daddy) was worth a lot more than what they delivered in return.
|
And ummm, John... *ahem*... if I were you, I wouldn't worry about your having any "huge advantages" over people who came from less-moneyed backgrounds.

taylor, north carolina

canada rox

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

F.langelier, EnGelLand: Those must be some really, Really, REALLY good & powerful psychodelic drugs that you have over there in England. Whatever you're taking, I suggest that you go see the Dr. and ask him to change the medication and/or the dosage. It's making you delusional.
|
Anyone who would actually, seriously claim that "Bin Lala and his brothers all sat down with the Bushes around the same table debating market tactics and crude oil for breakfast and when they got pissed off pissing each other off they decided to start this abominable conflict", is in need of some serious mental help, in my opinion.
|
Firstly, the Bin-Laden clan has no financial interest or stake in crude oil; they made their money in the construction business in Saudi Arabia.
|
Secondly, the Bin-Laden family explicitly disowned Osama bin-Laden years ago, long before 9/11, after he was charged with attempting to overthrow the Saudi government and he fled the country.
|
Thirdly, the Saudi government has been wanting and trying to extradite Bin-Laden back to Saudi Arabia and impose a death sentence on him for years. The idea that members of the Bush Administration or Bush family would actually "sit down at the same table" with an insane homicidal terrorist who was already under a death sentence in his home country is so preposterous, it can only have been conceived of by a certifiable Looney-Toon.
|
And forthly, I did not notice any "evidence" of your breathtakingly weird assertion.
|
F. Lengelier, England wrote: "I cant really be more constructive at 4.16 am i hope this isnt too slanderous cos it clearly isnt in regards to the daily rubbish that erupts from me head since 9/11."
|
Yes, it is slanderous. And false. As for the rubbish erupting from you, however, on that we actually agree.

Michel Bastian, France

as much as I´d like too, I´m not going to go into your four posts in detail because unfortunately I haven´t got all day. Just some general remarks: a. we´re digressing again, methinks. b. However, the question raised by the Enron affair and Kerry´s campaign finances is an interesting one: do the so-called "special interests" have too much influence over the executive in the US? Quite rightly, you stated that the executive in any country should at least know the main big industrial players. However, that´s not to say they should be buddies or cater to their interests. Comparing Europe and the US in that respect turns up a few interesting results: in some european countries, the ties of the executive to industry are much less pronounced than in the US. The reason for that is that there still are powerful "left wing" political parties which, because of their basic political program, are much less prone to be influenced by industry or big business interests. There are exceptions, of course, the main one being Italy, where big business media interests in the person of Mr. Berlusconi have been running the state for the last decade or so. The second big exception is France, where Mr. Chirac, due to his personal history, shows quite some involvment with big business interests. Also, neither Mr. Berlusconi nor Mr. Chirac are socialists, so there is no "political inhibitor" keeping them from becoming too friendly with business. In countries with socialist or labour governments,like Spain, Germany or the UK, there is significantly less involvment of top government officials with industry, because that would affect their voter base . One of the (minor) reasons why Schröder has a political problem at the moment is the fact that he is seen as catering to big business too much by the public.
The situation is very different in the US since there is no real "left" there. That´s part of the problem of the Democrats: lack of profile. They don´t present a real political alternative to the Republicans, and they can´t be seen as moving to the left too much because they already have an image problem with being too "liberal". So for elections they have to look for support elsewhere. Where can they get support (especially financial support)? Big business again. So in any case business interests tend to win out in the US. Is this good? I´d say no because it erodes the checks-and-balances system and makes the executive dependent on interest groups where it should be impartial. Case in point: the Enron scandal or Kerry´s election finances.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

The question which you raise ("do the so-called "special interests" have too much influence over the executive in the US?") is one that has been hotly debated in the U.S.for many, many years (decades, even). It's a constant subject of debate.
|
As usual, where one stands on this issue depends a great deal on where one "sits". Those people who belong to or otherwise support Left-Wing or even somewhat right-leaning populist groups and political parties, naturally tend to think or imagine that the entire U.S. government has been neutered, rendered helpless and powerless, bought and paid for, sold to the highest bidder, handed over to 'special interests", held captive by "rapacious greedy multinational corporations" and is being "pillaged in the name of Profit", etc. etc. yada yada yada. Ralph Nader built an entire political campaign around that premise.
|
Of course, just exactly who one considers to be a "special interest" depends greatly on whose ox or sacred cow is being gored. The members of the public-sector employees' union, for example (the one demanding that taxes be jacked up in order to pay for pay raises for union members), never consider themselves to be "special interests", merely "people working to look out for their own interests by participating in the political process". Clearly, a "special interest" is defined as anyone participating in the political process whose views you disagree with.
|
You agreed that the executive in any country should at least know the main big industrial players. However, while the chief executive might not be golfing buddies with the go-to guys in industry, that´s not to say they should automatically be sworn class enemies, or that the interests of the business community (either large or small business) should automatically be ignored because they're supposedly "the enemy". The difference in America between small businesses and Big Business, between small companies (sole proprietorships, family-run businesses) and major corporations is, multinational corporations are the dream that many small businesses aspire to grow to become. There is nothing whatsoever inherently "virtuous" or "saintly" about small businesses, and there is also nothing whatsoever inherently "evil" about multinational corporations. The business community pays billions of dollars in taxes and creates millions of jobs. The benefits provided to Americans by the business community -- through direct employment, through wages and benefits, through monies invested in the communities, through taxes paidand redistributed, through job training and skill-upgrading -- are literally in the multi-billions of dollars.
|
After owning ones' own home, the classic American Dream is to own and run ones' own small business. That's the American Dream -- being self-sufficient and successful, being in control of your own destiny, setting your own course and path. The American Dream does not flow from the Government, from the State, from the Group, from the Kollective. It flows from the Individual. In America, the business community is not "the Enemy". The business community is Us. We ARE the business community. Business is US.
|
In countries, both in Europe and other places, which have powerful "left wing" political parties and socialistic governments, there appears to me to be a shortage of successful private-sector businesses. There also appears to me to be trends in these countries of prolonged and sustained high unemployment. Throughout much of Europe, unemployment rates still seem to be stuck at double-digit levels. This seems particularly true in the countries of Germany and France. Meanwhile in business-friendly "rapacious Kapitalist Amerika" the unemployment rate is less than half that. The lesson that Americans see in this reality is one which I think Europeans have spent 20+ years stubbornly refusing to heed. Namely, if you make the business environment sufficiently socialistic and business-hostile; if you make it sufficiently frustrating expensive and time-consuming for businesses to earn profits and create jobs; then they will quit doing so, and will take their money and the jobs they create, and move to somewhere else where their numerous contributions to the economy will be recognized and appreciated. The man who builds a Business, builds a Temple, and the person who works at that business Worships there. Businesspeople who create jobs are not "the Enemy". They are Heroes.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Phil wrote: The question which you raise ("do the so-called "special interests" have too much influence over the executive in the US?") is one that has been hotly debated in the U.S.for many, many years (decades, even). It's a constant subject of debate.
>> My response: True enough. Last time I heard about this was during the California election. Considering the number of times he used the words "special interests", Schwarzenegger seemed to have specifically rehearsed the pronounciation of the words ;-).
> Phil wrote: As usual, where one stands on this issue depends a great deal on where one "sits". Those people who belong to or otherwise support Left-Wing or even somewhat right-leaning populist groups and political parties, naturally tend to think or imagine that the entire U.S. government has been neutered, rendered helpless and powerless, bought and paid for, sold to the highest bidder, handed over to 'special interests", held captive by "rapacious greedy multinational corporations" and is being "pillaged in the name of Profit", etc. etc. yada yada yada. Ralph Nader built an entire political campaign around that premise.
|
> Of course, just exactly who one considers to be a "special interest" depends greatly on whose ox or sacred cow is being gored. The members of the public-sector employees' union, for example (the one demanding that taxes be jacked up in order to pay for pay raises for union members), never consider themselves to be "special interests", merely "people working to look out for their own interests by participating in the political process". Clearly, a "special interest" is defined as anyone participating in the political process whose views you disagree with.
>> My response: Yes and no. No, I wouldn´t define "special interests" as anyone who disagrees with you politically. I´d define it as private entities (notably business enterprises or business lobby groups) who try to influence the administration so it furthers their own business or political goals. You´re right about unions though: I guess you could call them "special interests" too. However, I haven´t heard of an american federal administration being elected on a union platform in recent years. I have heard of several administrations being elected with a campaign financed in large parts by big business. That is not to say that these administrations will be at the beck and call of those business magnates. However, they will tend to favour their campaign contributors if it´s not illegal or blatantly unpopular, especially if they want to get reelected. In Bush´s case, I do think that he is influenced in large parts by the american oil and energy industry, not necessarily because he was "bought" by them through contributions to his campaign, but because he and his family were part of that establishment for a long, long time. Therefore, he tends to think more like a big business CEO than a trade union leader or a green politician. Cases in point: Kyoto, the alaskan oil fields and his environmental policies. I don´t think his decisions in that respect are hypocritical (i.e. he just decided that way because he was bought to do it, not because he´s convinced that his policies are right), I think that due to his personal background and convictions, he really believes that he´s doing the right thing. That´s why he got campaign financing from these interests in the first place.
Kerry on the other hand I suspect got his campaign fincancing from another kind of big business interests (namely George Soros et alt.), otherwise he wouldn´t have been able to mount any kind of a serious campaign. He was pretty hard-put to match the republican campaign efforts as it was.
The underlying problem of course is the american campaign system. In an american campaign, you need much more than just a popular political program, you need the money, and lots of it, to get your political ideas through to the electorate. And when you need money, power automatically shifts towards the people that give you money. Those people invariably tend to be more on the conservative side. This system favours conservatism much more than it does genuine liberalism or even socialism or environmentalism. Anyone who preaches any kind of "liberal" ideas that displease the "money establishment" will not stand a chance to get elected simply because he won´t be able to finance his campaign. Also, you only have two political parties in the US. Any other party won´t even get a look-in. These two parties have to be quite similar to each other in their basic policies due to their dependance on campaign financing. So the options people have at the ballot box are pretty much limited. That´s why, as much as I like the american political system in other respects, I think that in that respect, the american bipartisan system has a marked democratic deficit.
> Phil wrote: You agreed that the executive in any country should at least know the main big industrial players. However, while the chief executive might not be golfing buddies with the go-to guys in industry, that´s not to say they should automatically be sworn class enemies, or that the interests of the business community (either large or small business) should automatically be ignored because they're supposedly "the enemy".
>> My response: True enough again. That´s why in Europe no law gets made without at least consulting with business representatives. However, no law gets made without consulting with labour representatives either, so things are a bit more even there. Even Chirac and his government (who are staunch conservatives) have to consult with the unions on touchy laws, otherwise they´ll be risking strikes on a grand scale with substantial political fallout. Not something any american politician has to be afraid of.
> Phil wrote: The difference in America between small businesses and Big Business, between small companies (sole proprietorships, family-run businesses) and major corporations is, multinational corporations are the dream that many small businesses aspire to grow to become. There is nothing whatsoever inherently "virtuous" or "saintly" about small businesses, and there is also nothing whatsoever inherently "evil" about multinational corporations.
>> My response: True, but the terms "virtuous" or "evil" are misplaced in this context. No european party with any political clout (not even communists) would qualify big business as outright "evil" or small business as inherently "virtuous".
> Phil wrote: The business community pays billions of dollars in taxes and creates millions of jobs. The benefits provided to Americans by the business community -- through direct employment, through wages and benefits, through monies invested in the communities, through taxes paidand redistributed, through job training and skill-upgrading -- are literally in the multi-billions of dollars.
>> My response: Yes, and with that comes a large amount of political power. If a big multinational company decides to close down a plant, that will have a huge impact on whole regions, as opposed to when a small business closes down. General Motors closing down the Buick plants in Flint (yes, Michael Moore country) led to the degradation of a whole city because thousands of people were suddenly without jobs.
This kind of power should at least be checked politically, which isn´t the case in the US at the moment. It doesn´t mean that business is "the enemy", but business is power, and power has to be checked in a democratic society. BTW, that goes for any economical power, not just business. French trade unions for example are much too powerful for my taste. You need a kind of balance between the two. The german or british model is a bit better IMO.
> Phil wrote: After owning ones' own home, the classic American Dream is to own and run ones' own small business. That's the American Dream -- being self-sufficient and successful, being in control of your own destiny, setting your own course and path. The American Dream does not flow from the Government, from the State, from the Group, from the Kollective. It flows from the Individual. In America, the business community is not "the Enemy". The business community is Us. We ARE the business community. Business is US.
>> My response: Ok, shifting subjects now: social models in Europe and the US. You have a point, there is a difference between the two social models, though it´s not quite what you make it out to be and it has no bearing on current economic problems in the EU and the US. Yes, the american dream is one where the state only acts as a "facilitator" of individual dreams. The american reality does not always live up to this ideal, though. In contrast, the european dream (that thing the germans call "social market economy") is one where the state does two things: it facilitates individual enterprise AND it gives a minimum standard as a safeguard for those that physically cannot fulfill their dreams. That model doesn´t work everywhere and all the time either.
> Phil wrote: In countries, both in Europe and other places, which have powerful "left wing" political parties and socialistic governments, there appears to me to be a shortage of successful private-sector businesses.
>> My response: Well, yes, sort of, but it´s got nothing to do with the governments being left or right. Most of the european economies function only because of these private sector business, though it´s not the kind of business an american would think of. European economies rest on small to medium businesses (what they call "Mittelstand" in Germany or "PME, petites et moyennes entreprises" in France; you´d probably call them small businesses, i.e. firms with up to roughly 500 employees and a turnover of up to 50 million Euros). Nobody in Europe disputes that those are the motors of the economy. And the problem is not that there´s a shortage of those, but that they´re finding it increasingly difficult to function because of a lot of factors, not many of them inherent to the social model.
> Phil wrote: There also appears to me to be trends in these countries of prolonged and sustained high unemployment.
Throughout much of Europe, unemployment rates still seem to be stuck at double-digit levels. This seems particularly true in the countries of Germany and France.
> Phil wrote: Meanwhile in business-friendly "rapacious Kapitalist Amerika" the unemployment rate is less than half that.
>> My response: Yes, that´s the current media hype. The reason for the perceived lower unemployment rate in the US is the fact that the official method of counting leaves out about 4% of unemployeds. That´s because only those unemployeds getting benefits from the state are counted. In actuality, the US unemployment figures are right up there with those of France and Germany:
2003 figures:
# United States: official: 5.2%; actual (counting unemployeds that are off benefits) 9.7 percent
# France 9.6 percent
# Germany 9.3 percent
# European Union 8.8 percent
# Italy 8.5 percent
# Canada 7.6 percent
# Japan 5.2 percent
# United Kingdom 4.9 percent
This is according to the following site: http://www.thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html
Similar figures are given by the US department of Labor
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
> Phil wrote: The lesson that Americans see in this reality is one which I think Europeans have spent 20+ years stubbornly refusing to heed. Namely, if you make the business environment sufficiently socialistic and business-hostile; if you make it sufficiently frustrating expensive and time-consuming for businesses to earn profits and create jobs; then they will quit doing so, and will take their money and the jobs they create, and move to somewhere else where their numerous contributions to the economy will be recognized and appreciated.
>> My response: Well, no, Phil. The whole thing has nothing to do with being "socialist" or "capitalist". It has to do with a number of factors (deflation, over-taxation, overregulation, globalisation, national debt etc.), but not the basic social model. And no, Phil, the US aren´t faring any better than the european states in that respect, though they think they are. In fact, they have much the same problems as the EU.
> Phil wrote: The man who builds a Business, builds a Temple, and the person who works at that business Worships there. Businesspeople who create jobs are not "the Enemy". They are Heroes.
>> My response: Oh, stop the dramatics, will you. No, people who create jobs are not "the enemy". Neither are they "heroes". They´re mostly decent people, nothing more, nothing less, and their employees are as well.
In short: the "american dream" won´t keep you from going bust. Neither will the "european dream" keep us from going bust. It´s not the issue, Phil. The US, Germany and France should wisen up, stop blaming their respective social models and learn from Britain and Ireland.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Last time I heard about this was during the California election. Considering the number of times he used the words "special interests", Schwarzenegger seemed to have specifically rehearsed the pronounciation of the words ;-)."
|
I wonder how long it took AH-nald to learn to say "Kall-E-FORN-ya"? ;-)
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "No, I wouldn´t define "special interests" as anyone who disagrees with you politically. I´d define it as private entities (notably business enterprises or business lobby groups) who try to influence the administration so it furthers their own business or political goals."
|
Yes, I'd consider public-sector unions to be special interests. To my view they're even more an example of special interests than business groups. Business groups of course lobby for their interests, however their interests generally don't affect or impact me in any way. The public-sector unions' use of strike threats to extort more money from the public purse, on the other hand, directly impact me since the money for their pay raises essentially comes directly (and unwillinglyon my part) out of my pocket.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "I have heard of several administrations being elected with a campaign financed in large parts by big business. That is not to say that these administrations will be at the beck and call of those business magnates. However, they will tend to favour their campaign contributors if it´s not illegal or blatantly unpopular, especially if they want to get reelected."
|
I find the continual use of the term "Big Business" to be somewhat myopic and biased. Just who exactly defines who is a "Big Business"? The stated beliefs of Republican administrations -- lower taxes, increased government efficiency, less Government bureaucracy, less Government meddling in the economy, a reduction in the role of Government in the lives of ordinary Americans -- are supported by millions of Americans; not merely by some fictional grouping labeled "Big Business". Small business supports Republican administrations, too.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "The underlying problem of course is the american campaign system. In an american campaign, you need much more than just a popular political program, you need the money, and lots of it, to get your political ideas through to the electorate. And when you need money, power automatically shifts towards the people that give you money. Those people invariably tend to be more on the conservative side. This system favours conservatism much more than it does genuine liberalism or even socialism or environmentalism. Anyone who preaches any kind of "liberal" ideas that displease the "money establishment" will not stand a chance to get elected simply because he won´t be able to finance his campaign."
|
The flaw in this line of reasoning is that it's a huge generalization. It is also contradicted by numerous examples of political candidates who directly contradicted the views of the (again unidentified boogeyman)"money establishment" and yet still ran successful campaigns. Ralph Nader, for example, refused to accept campaign contributions from corporations. Yet he received millions of votes in 2000, all without ever taking a penny from Big Business or ever running a television ad. And he managed to single-handedly alter the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election and hand the Presidency to George W. Bush. The people who dispense money to political candidates also are not a monolithic bloc. In Hollywood, California and New York City, the so-called "moneyed establishment" is often made up of extremely wealthy uber-liberals like George Soros, Barbara Streisand, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Also, you only have two political parties in the US. Any other party won´t even get a look-in." Really? How do you explain the millions of votes that went to the Green Party and its candidate Ralph Nader in 2000? How about the millions of votes that went to the Reform Party and its candidate, Ross Perot, in 1992 and again in 1996? Those millions of votes for Perot were votes that were likely siphoned off from the Republican Party and its candidate, Bob Dole.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Even Chirac and his government (who are staunch conservatives) have to consult with the unions on touchy laws, otherwise they´ll be risking strikes on a grand scale with substantial political fallout." In my view, that's exactly the reason why France is still experiencing economic sluggishness, high unemployment and some political upheaval. The measures that are necessary to revive France's economy -- cuts in social programmes and benefits, lower taxes on businesses, abolishment of burdensome rules and restrictions that cost businesses billions of dollars a year -- are antithetical to France's unions. That's why these necessary changes won't happen, regardless of how necessary they are to reform and resuscitate France's economy.

Michel Bastian, France

I wrote: > Therefore, he tends to think more like a big business CEO than a trade union leader or a green politician. Cases in point: Kyoto, the alaskan oil fields and his environmental policies. I don´t think his decisions in that respect are hypocritical (i.e. he just decided that way because he was bought to do it, not because he´s convinced that his policies are right), I think that due to his personal background and convictions, he really believes that he´s doing the right thing. That´s why he got campaign financing from these interests in the first place.
Speaking of which: have a look at the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html

Bob Powlsen, A Canadian in Korea

Canada is in the throes of a political crisis resulting from an ill advised and ill controlled attempt by the Liberal federal government to influence a 1995 Separtist referendum in Quebec. The federal side won by less than 1/2%.
In the meantime a few million dollars went astray, mostly to friends, relatives and various crooks connected to the Liberal party. A couple of weeks ago the Liberals won a confidence motion only by the vote of the speaker - the first time in Canadian history the speaker voted.
In the meantime the province of Quebec feels insulted and demeaned by the scandal and Separatist sentiment is at an all time high.
It may well be that Canada will disintegrate in the next while. The Americans had nothing to do with it. We managed it on our own by trying to make a federal country too centralized.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Yes, I'd consider public-sector unions to be special interests. To my view they're even more an example of special interests than business groups. Business groups of course lobby for their interests, however their interests generally don't affect or impact me in any way.
>> My Response: I agree with you there, except when you say business lobbying doesn´t affect you in any way. That´s just naive. It affects you greatly, all the time, and in many ways. You may not notice it, but it does.
> The flaw in this line of reasoning is that it's a huge generalization. It is also contradicted by numerous examples of political candidates who directly contradicted the views of the (again unidentified boogeyman)"money establishment" and yet still ran successful campaigns. Ralph Nader, for example, refused to accept campaign contributions from corporations. Yet he received millions of votes in 2000, all without ever taking a penny from Big Business or ever running a television ad. And he managed to single-handedly alter the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election and hand the Presidency to George W. Bush.
>> My response: Yeah, by alienating a comparatively small number of votes from the democrats in a very tight presidential race. What a feat. And how many of his political ideas did he get implemented again? Not a lot I should think. Proves my point.
> The people who dispense money to political candidates also are not a monolithic bloc. In Hollywood, California and New York City, the so-called "moneyed establishment" is often made up of extremely wealthy uber-liberals like George Soros, Barbara Streisand, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.
>> My response: That´s correct. And they´re still people with money who use that money to further their political goals. QED.
>Really? How do you explain the millions of votes that went to the Green Party and its candidate Ralph Nader in 2000?
>> My response: A million votes are a drop in the sea in an american presidential race, Phil. Nader never had a real chance at the presidency.
> How about the millions of votes that went to the Reform Party and its candidate, Ross Perot, in 1992 and again in 1996? Those millions of votes for Perot were votes that were likely siphoned off from the Republican Party and its candidate, Bob Dole.
>> My response: Curious you should mention Perot. He´s the perfect example: a guy with a huge amount of money, incredible business connections and a political agenda. Don´t tell me he didn´t have business connections. And he still didn´t make president against the overpowering republicans and democrats.
> In my view, that's exactly the reason why France is still experiencing economic sluggishness, high unemployment and some political upheaval. The measures that are necessary to revive France's economy -- cuts in social programmes and benefits, lower taxes on businesses, abolishment of burdensome rules and restrictions that cost businesses billions of dollars a year -- are antithetical to France's unions. That's why these necessary changes won't happen, regardless of how necessary they are to reform and resuscitate France's economy.
>> My response: well, your view is a bit simplistic, but you have a point: french unions are way too powerful. Will they change? Yes, they will, and soon. The reason? New french polititians in the wake of Sarkozy. Seeing the reforms he pushed through against the unions when he was finance minister, I bet things will change pretty soon on that front.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I previously wrote: The business community pays billions of dollars in taxes and creates millions of jobs. The benefits provided to Americans by the business community -- through direct employment, through wages and benefits, through monies invested in the communities, through taxes paidand redistributed, through job training and skill-upgrading -- are literally in the multi-billions of dollars.
|
Michel Bastian responded: "Yes, and with that comes a large amount of political power. If a big multinational company decides to close down a plant, that will have a huge impact on whole regions, as opposed to when a small business closes down. General Motors closing down the Buick plants in Flint (yes, Michael Moore country) led to the degradation of a whole city because thousands of people were suddenly without jobs."
|
So what? Let the marketplace work its magic. If that means that it leads to "the degradation of a whole city because thousands of people were suddenly without jobs", then that's just too darn bad for the thousands of people who were suddenly without jobs. Stuff happens, but we shouldn't interfere. We shouldn't do anything at all to prevent the marketplace from rendering its judgement. And if that means that people at GM lose their jobs, then that's just tough luck for them. They deserved to lose their jobs. They made crappy cars. The whole country knows they made crappy cars. The whole world knows they made crappy cars. And by and large, the American people are not particularly interested in buying overpriced junk in order to employ thousands of people who made crappy cars. So, now those people who once made crappy cars can now learn how to do something else for a living besides make crappy cars. And that's acceptable. It's acceptable to allow thousands of people to lose their jobs. Jobs are always being created and destroyed, old-line companies going out of business and new businesses overthrowing the established order. And that's acceptable. It's a sign of a healthy and competitive environment.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "This kind of power should at least be checked politically, which isn´t the case in the US at the moment. It doesn´t mean that business is "the enemy", but business is power, and power has to be checked in a democratic society".
|
That's where I disagree. The fact that thousands of people lost their jobs at GM was and is unfortunate. But in my view, it's not so "unfortunate" that we should actually "do" anything at all about it. We should just let it happen. If a business needs to lay people off in order for the business to survive, then that's what it needs to do - Period. And GM needs to lay off many, many more people if it's going to survive. Those people need to lose their jobs. They're overpaid, over-benefitted, inflexible and resistant to change. They need to go away. What happened to them was unfortunate, but unfortunately for them, nobody ever "guaranteed" them a job, or lifetime employment, or a 'guaranteed' annual income, or free medical coverage. No one ever "guaranteed" them immunity from the effects of a competitive market in which there are Losers as well as Winners. They have no right whatsoever to expect that. And I believe that we shouldn't "do" anything at all about it, other than perhaps providing funds for retraining displaced workers to do something else. Anything else would be interference in GM's absolute right to run their business as they see fit. The fact that GM is a large business, as opposed to a small business, does not mean in my opinion that someone not even remotely connected to GM somehow magically acquired some "right" to interfere with GM's business decisions, on the grounds that the proportionately larger impact of GM's business decisions somehow needs to be "mitigated" or "reversed". GM's Individual Right to run their business as they see fit, trumps and outweighs Flint's supposed "Greater Good".
that goes for any economical power, not just business. French trade unions for example are much too powerful for my taste. You need a kind of balance between the two. The german or british model is a bit better IMO.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Yes, that´s the current media hype. The reason for the perceived lower unemployment rate in the US is the fact that the official method of counting leaves out about 4% of unemployeds. That´s because only those unemployeds getting benefits from the state are counted. In actuality, the US unemployment figures are right up there with those of France and Germany."
|
Ahh, yes, that's the usual European hype. When you can't stand the results, attack the figures and claim that the USA's economic situation is "just as bad". If you don't like the Reality, claim it's Unreal. What was the humorous old saying -- "There are three kinds of Lies -- Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" ??

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> I wonder how long it took AH-nald to learn to say "Kall-E-FORN-ya"? ;-)
And you haven´t even heard him speak german yet. Talk about an austrian accent ;-).

Tito Edwards, USA

Forgive me, but Canada plays little if any role at all on the world stage. Why are we bothering even discussing this? It's not being mean with the mentioned comments, it's just a matter of fact.

miebaka ogan, Toronto, Canada

My Canadian brethren. I love my country dearly and would die for it, but I must speak frankly. It is time for canada to focus. Time to stop whining and spend time meditating seriously on its own development/culture/destiny. The insults flying back and forth in this debate have only highlighted for me how much our current codependant connection to the US is harming us. Most(not all) of the American responses in this debate have shown such little respect for Canada and the Canadians have seemed so preoccupied with proving our worth as "compared to america" that its obvious Canada needs to step back for a time and figure out what the hell it is. Before I contiinue let me just say that I believe a close Canadian/ American connection is not a bad thing. A relationship between two bordering nations MUST exist and in this case could be beneficial to Canada. but not when it is as contrary to Canadas development as the current situation is. Now when I say development I dont necessarily mean economically (although when one country(canada) is so reliant on another(US) for trade-canada does about 90% of its business with the US-you have to wonder how healthy that is). No when I speak of our lack of development, I mean our national Identity. That is, our total lack of an ability to see ourselves without first contrasting that image against America. "We're this while America is that". And on and on. It would be a most refreshing change to hear a canadian proclaim "we are this". Period. And then go about their business. The problem is, I dont think we can do that because as a nation I dont think we know who we are. How can we? Weve allowed our selves to be bombarded for decades by every thing American. All our pop culture references are American. A huge proportion of our news comes from America. Hell, Half the corporations in this country are American. And if we as canadians would ever pause for thought wed realize thats bad bad thing. Dont misunderstand me, there is nothing inherently wrong, inferior or corupt about things American(as some would contend) but our almost total dependence on another country for what amounts to culture, has left us unable to see ourselves. We sit and expect Americans and the rest of the world to know Canada but WE dont know canada. There is so much more to our history and everyday lives then tim hortons and hockey and we get insulted when others use such vapid generalizations to describe us but we never do anything to seriously challenge them. We could innovate(build our own entertainment system for example) to insure that Canada was for canadians and had a unwavering voice in the world. But No instead we continue to watch hours and hours of american television and wring our hands while aspiring to be the bridge between the united states and europe. GAG. Basically what Im saying is the only way that we will ever solve our percieved unity problems and no longer have to defend our "quasi communist system" to republican wackos is if we start to depend soley on ourselves for cultural reflection. Want to know what you want and what it means to be canadian? Stop asking America, Start asking yourself.

Ray Vickery, Canada

For a discussion group entitled "what about Canada", there has been very little comment on Canada and an enormous amount about the United States. So....could we try to get on the topic?
Canada is a parliamentary democracy, and we should think through its relationship to the parliamentary democracies of Europe on its own merits, not in relationship to any Presidential republics, which are quite different.
I feel that the Europeans failed greatly, a decade or so ago, to persuade the newly-independent countries of eastern Europe of the virtues of Parliamentary democracies. Europe also failed to persuade them of the virtues of social democracy.
Canada, of course, is a social democracy. This week, our health-care system is under attack by the justice system as unreconcilable with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all hope that the Quebec government will envoke the not-withstanding clause (which permits them to over-ride the charter) and protect our health care system.
I know that Americans, by and large, do not like this system, preferring their own. So be it. I have no urge to inflict our system on them. But I believe in this system and want to protect it.
By the way, I am fully aware of the weaknesses of our system˜I had an operation cancelled last week as there were no beds in the hospital, and haven't even got a new date yet. Life is never perfect. But I am convinced that the virtues of the system outweigh the disadvantages.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I previously wrote: Ralph Nader, for example, refused to accept campaign contributions from corporations. Yet he received millions of votes in 2000, all without ever taking a penny from Big Business or ever running a television ad. And he managed to single-handedly alter the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election and hand the Presidency to George W. Bush.
|
Michel Bastian responded: "Yeah, by alienating a comparatively small number of votes from the democrats in a very tight presidential race. What a feat. And how many of his political ideas did he get implemented again? Not a lot I should think. Proves my point."
|
Michel, I think you have just illustrated that you have a lot to learn about American politics.
In 2000, Ralph Nader received 2,882,955 votes, or 2.74% of the popular vote. Almost three million votes is not a "small" number of voters, in my opinion, although this in no way compares to the percentages of votes that George W. Bush and Al Gore each received. However, for an independent candidate with virtually no political warchest other than the money and in-kind contributions of volunteers, it's pretty darn impressive.
|
I am frankly astounded at your comment that allegedly "not a lot" of Ralph Nader's political ideas have been implemented. I think you need to do additional research about Ralph Nader, else you would not be claiming that few of his political ideas have been implemented.
|
Virtually all of Ralph Nader's ideas have had a political belief and a political agenda. He is single-handedly responsible for the creation of one of the great citizen movements of the late 20th century. When Ralph Nader began drawing attention to the idea of auto safety, W.R. Murphy, President of Campbell Soup Co. and member of the Business Council, dismissing Ralph Nader's campaign for auto safety, made the following comment in 1966: "It's of the same order of the hula hoop -- a fad. Six months from now, we'll probably be on another kick." Thirty-nine years later, Ralph Nader has been responsible for one of the biggest citizen-led revolutions ever. He virtually created the issue of auto safety. His work led to such inventions and requirements as seat belts, shatter-resistant safety glass, padded dashboards, air bags, antilock brakes, collapsible steering columns, "crumple zones" designed to protect the occupants of the vehicle from injury, and a myriad of other safety improvements. His book, "Unsafe At Any Speed", astonished Detroit and drove the Chevrolet Corvair off the roads. Because of Nader, a new federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (so named in 1970), instituted a series of reforms that Americans now accept as commonplace: federal safety performance standards for all motor vehicles; federal authority to conduct investigations into safety defects and order to recalls; federal research and development of new safety technologies; a highway safety program; and many other safety programs.
Between 1966 and 1969, his findings helped spur passage of new laws dealing with the unsanitary conditions of meatpacking and poultry production, the first significant reform of those industries since 1907; the dangers of natural gas pipelines; radiation emissions from television sets and X-rays; and hazardous working conditions in coal mines. All of these are "political ideas", and all were adopted. And all of them germinated from a polticial movement created by a man who never accepted money from corporations. Proves MY point, I think.
|
With regard to your comment ("Nader never had a real chance at the presidency"), my response is: He had as much of a chance to receive a vote from the people who stepped into the voting booth, as anyone else. There have been numerous elections in which less well-financed candidates won their election races despite being outspent. Nader's lack of a "real chance" at the Presidency was not due to any huge, glaring discrepancy in election funding for his campaign in comparison to the campaigns of the other, major candidates. Rather, his lack of a "real chance" stemmed from his inexperience in government, his single-issue obsessiveness, his huge and glaring lack of any foreign policy experience, and the fact that he seemed to have no clue how he would govern if elected. That, and the fact that millions of Americans simply and profoundly disagreed with his view of the purpose and scope of government, is what kept him out of the White House.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Ahh, yes, that's the usual European hype. When you can't stand the results, attack the figures and claim that the USA's economic situation is "just as bad". If you don't like the Reality, claim it's Unreal. What was the humorous old saying -- "There are three kinds of Lies -- Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" ??
Well, Phil, I don´t know, if even your own government says it, I´m inclined to believe the statistics. And remember you started on the unemployment figures, I didn´t. As for me not being able to "stand" the results: hey, it´s your economy, not mine, so if you still want to delude yourself, be my guest.

Michel Bastian, France

to Phil Karasick:
> Michel, I think you have just illustrated that you have a lot to learn about American politics.
Heh, not as much as you think, Phil.

> In 2000, Ralph Nader received 2,882,955 votes, or 2.74% of the popular vote. Almost three million votes is not a "small" number of voters, in my opinion, although this in no way compares to the percentages of votes that George W. Bush and Al Gore each received. However, for an independent candidate with virtually no political warchest other than the money and in-kind contributions of volunteers, it's pretty darn impressive.
And it still didn´t give him anywhere near a chance to become president.> I am frankly astounded at your comment that allegedly "not a lot" of Ralph Nader's political ideas have been implemented. I think you need to do additional research about Ralph Nader, else you would not be claiming that few of his political ideas have been implemented.
|
Virtually all of Ralph Nader's ideas have had a political belief and a political agenda. He is single-handedly responsible for the creation of one of the great citizen movements of the late 20th century. When Ralph Nader began drawing attention to the idea of auto safety, W.R. Murphy, President of Campbell Soup Co. and member of the Business Council, dismissing Ralph Nader's campaign for auto safety, made the following comment in 1966: "It's of the same order of the hula hoop -- a fad. Six months from now, we'll probably be on another kick." Thirty-nine years later, Ralph Nader has been responsible for one of the biggest citizen-led revolutions ever. He virtually created the issue of auto safety. His work led to such inventions and requirements as seat belts, shatter-resistant safety glass, padded dashboards, air bags, antilock brakes, collapsible steering columns, "crumple zones" designed to protect the occupants of the vehicle from injury, and a myriad of other safety improvements. His book, "Unsafe At Any Speed", astonished Detroit and drove the Chevrolet Corvair off the roads. Because of Nader, a new federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (so named in 1970), instituted a series of reforms that Americans now accept as commonplace: federal safety performance standards for all motor vehicles; federal authority to conduct investigations into safety defects and order to recalls; federal research and development of new safety technologies; a highway safety program; and many other safety programs.
Between 1966 and 1969, his findings helped spur passage of new laws dealing with the unsanitary conditions of meatpacking and poultry production, the first significant reform of those industries since 1907; the dangers of natural gas pipelines; radiation emissions from television sets and X-rays; and hazardous working conditions in coal mines. All of these are "political ideas", and all were adopted. And all of them germinated from a polticial movement created by a man who never accepted money from corporations. Proves MY point, I think.
No, not really. What it proves is that Mr. Nader was a pretty active man in his life, but he had no chance at all to become president without money (from corporations or other sources).
> With regard to your comment ("Nader never had a real chance at the presidency"), my response is: He had as much of a chance to receive a vote from the people who stepped into the voting booth, as anyone else. There have been numerous elections in which less well-financed candidates won their election races despite being outspent. Nader's lack of a "real chance" at the Presidency was not due to any huge, glaring discrepancy in election funding for his campaign in comparison to the campaigns of the other, major candidates. Rather, his lack of a "real chance" stemmed from his inexperience in government, his single-issue obsessiveness, his huge and glaring lack of any foreign policy experience, and the fact that he seemed to have no clue how he would govern if elected. That, and the fact that millions of Americans simply and profoundly disagreed with his view of the purpose and scope of government, is what kept him out of the White House.
What kept him out of the White House were his political opinions allright. He couldn´t have won a presidential election even if he had joined the republicans. His ideas were too "anti business". Go to the following page: http://www.nader.org/opeds.html and have a look at his op-eds. You´ll be hard-put to find a single article not referring to some big-business/oligarchy issue. That´s why he didn´t have a chance at the presidency.
Compare to that the rise of the green party in Germany and you´ll see what I mean. In the eighties, the german greens, much as Ralph Nader, were seen as left wing, tree-hugging lunatics (ok, Ralph Nader isn´t necessarily a tree-hugger, I´ll give you that ;-)). Now they´re in parliament and their boss is foreign minister. This kind of development wouldn´t have been possible in the US.
But perhaps we should move this discussion elsewhere. Eventhough there are lots of trees in Canada, we seem to be a little off-topic here ;-).

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Curious you should mention Perot. He´s the perfect example: a guy with a huge amount of money, incredible business connections and a political agenda. Don´t tell me he didn´t have business connections. And he still didn´t make president against the overpowering republicans and democrats."
|
I don't think it's all that 'curious' that I would cite Perot as an example of a successful third-party candidate. He paid for his own campaign with his own money. He ran a simple but inspired campaign and did well in Presidential debates with his folksy, plain-spoken style. And he received millions of votes in 1992 and again in 1996. In both elections, the votes he received were votes that likely would have gone instead to the Republican candidate, had Perot not been in the running. Perot played the 'spoiler' role to the hilt, and his candidacy twice helped elect Bill Clinton.
|
Perot did indeed have great business connections. However, those business connections ultimately didn't help him succeed in his quest for a political career. And that's not surprising at all, since "incredible business connections" really don't help politicians get elected. Perot's erstwhile political career didn't sputter and fizzle out because of any "overpowering Republicans and Democrats". Perot's candidacy flamed out because millions of Americans eventually realized that, to a degree that had been previously unknown, Perot was a Looney-Toon.
|
Perot had initially seemed to be an effective candidate, with his ability to connect with ordinary Americans and his common-sense ideas. Unfortunately (for Perot), he proved a splendid example of why having excellent business connections and a billion dollars in the bank do not "guaranty" success in a political career.
|
Like Ralph Nader, Perot was a political outsider running as an independent third-party candidate. Unlike Ralph Nader, Perot had great relationships within the business community and a billion dollars in the bank to fund his campaign. But again like Ralph Nader, Perot had utterly no experience whatsoever in serving in government. And it showed. It quickly became pretty apparent that Perot had no clue even how government operated, much less how to run a government. And when Perot started making bizarre charges against George H.W. Bush (he accused the Bush campaign of plotting to kidnap his daughter), the American people quickly wrote him off. All of his business acumen, all of his money couldn't buy him political success. So much for "wealth and business connections being de rigeur requirements and/or guarantors for political success".

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "I feel that the Europeans failed greatly, a decade or so ago, to persuade the newly-independent countries of eastern Europe of the virtues of Parliamentary democracies."
|
I find Mr. Vickery's statement to be confusing. It seems to me that virtually all of the newly-independent countries of Eastern Europe are indeed parliamentary democracies.
|
Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "Europe also failed to persuade them of the virtues of social democracy."
|
The newly-independent nations of Eastern Europe were imprisoned for 40+ years under the yoke of Communist regimes that claimed to be "building socialism". Under the circumstances, it is not surprising to me that these nations might feel instinctive distrust of a political/economic philosophy whose name begins with "social" and whose central tenets appear to be hostility and distrust toward capitalism, and enthusiastic support for a supposedly "Wise And Loving" Big Mommy Government.
|
Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "This week, our health-care system is under attack by the justice system as unreconcilable with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
|
I think it is more correct to say that Canada's health-care system is facing understandable questioning. That questioning comes from from individual Canadian citizens whose individual rights and personal physical health were infringed upon by a Big Government bureaucracy that holds ideology, hostility to the free market, and perpetuation of its own continued existence in higher regard than the rights and health interests of its citizenry.
|
Ray Vickery wrote: "We all hope that the Quebec government will envoke the not-withstanding clause (which permits them to over-ride the charter) and protect our health care system."
|
Really? Who is "we"? I think it is somewhat presumptuous of you to presume to speak for the greater "we all..". I thought the health-care system was supposed to protect the lives and health of Canadian citizens. Is it your contention that the health and/or lives of an uncounted and unnamed "few" Canadians should be willingly sacrificed in order to benefit the so-called "greater good"?
|
Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "By the way, I am fully aware of the weaknesses of our system. I had an operation cancelled last week as there were no beds in the hospital, and haven't even got a new date yet. Life is never perfect. But I am convinced that the virtues of the system outweigh the disadvantages."
|
I am curious, is the medical condition which required you to have an operation one which is life-threatening?Is it necessary for you to have the operation in order to remain alive longer? To preserve your quality of life from a debilitating illness? If so, then perhaps it is entirely fitting that you are "convinced that the virtues of the system outweigh the disadvantages", since you may ultimately and willingly sacrifice your life on the altar of that system which cannot provide you with an operation or a hospital bed owhen you need them, or even any estimate of when these things may become available.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Compare to that the rise of the Green Party in Germany and you´ll see what I mean."
|
That's exactly why I don't want to live in Germany. I don't like the Green party. I wouldn't vote for them if they were the last political party on Earth. I don't agree with their views and beliefs, not at all. I support the business community.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "In the eighties, the German Greens, much as Ralph Nader, were seen as left wing, tree-hugging lunatics".
|
They WERE left-wing lunatics. And they were dangerous. They were the Communist-leaning "fellow travelers" who remained conveniently silent about the Soviet deployment of SS-20 intermediate-range missiles aimed straight at the West, but who tried (sometimes violently) to prevent the NATO counter-deployment of Cruise and Pershing-II missiles. The Greens also inflicted their misguided and extreme policies on Germany through their alliance with the Communists/Social Democrats (the "Red-Green alliance").
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Now they´re in Parliament and their boss is foreign minister. This kind of development wouldn´t have been possible in the US."
|
On the contrary, that kind of development is perfectly possible in the U.S. It's just not very likely. There is a Green Party in the U.S. with chapters in numerous cities. And the Green Party fielded numerous candidates, some of whom won their local and municipal election races in 2004. Nothing prevents the Green Party in the US, under whose banner Ralph Nader ran in 2000, from achieving even greater success in future elections. Nothing, of course, except for the fact that outside of some fervent supporters in ultra-liberal metropolitan US cities, most Americans don't agree with the Green Party's views or support its agenda. And many, many Americans vehemently oppose the Green Party's policies. That's why they don't vote for Green Party candidates.

Michel Bastian, France

Michel Bastian wrote: "And 'it' (receiving millions of votes, without ever accepting contributions from businesses or corporations) still didn´t give him (Ralph Nader) anywhere near a chance to become president".
|
Well, Michel, you may have visited the USA, but you've more than likely never voted in a U.S. election.
Well, could be my french nationality preventing me there.
>Had you done so, you would have known that there were about 7 candidates for President on the ballot, not merely two. And Mr. Nader was one of those candidates. Elections in the U.S. are carried out with the use of secret ballots.
Heh, that one´s debatable, too, with all the stories on electronic voting machines....
> Therefore, any voter in America, out of the 110 million or so eligible voters who went to the polls, could have cast a vote for Ralph Nader if they had chosen to do so. And about 3 million Americans did so. Nobody tried to physically 'stop' them. Unfortunately for Mr. Nader, about 100 million Americans chose to cast their ballots for some other candidates. Nobody 'paid' anyone to vote for the other candidates. Nobody's vote was "bought".
That´s not what I was saying, Phil. I said Nader was too "anti-establishment" and didn´t get near the media coverage the two big candidates got due to their superior campaign funding.
> Now, of course, you can choose to "spin" the results any way you want to.
Who´s "spinning", Phil? I´m not the one trying to justify the american campaign system, you are.
> You can take a page from the Michael Moore School of 'Crock'-u-mentary Journalism, and claim that all 100 million or so of us non-Nader voters are "ignorant brainwashed sheeple" who were "helpless before the Force of the Corporate Mega-Monoliths", or some other such claptrap. You can claim whatever fictitious "reasons" supposedly "prevented" Nader from "having a chance at winning". And you can continue to stonewall and refuse to accept the simple fact that Nader lost because the vast majority of Americans didn't agree with him, and don't agree with him. But it won't change the fact that only 3 million or so Americans voted for him.
I don´t need to "stonewall" or refuse to "accept facts". That´s your department. Sure Nader lost. He lost because the vast majority of americans didn´t know much about him or believed what his opponents told them in their campaigns, not because they necessarily disagreed with him. For many of them you wouldn´t know whether they disagreed, because they just didn´t know his program. Had he had more campaign funds he still could have lost (see Russ Perrot), but he´d have had a much better chance (see Russ Perrot again).
> Nice to see that you are finally admitting that it was Nader's political opinions, and the fact that millions of Americans obviously disagreed with those political opinions, that kept Nader out of the White House. It wasn't some "vast gigantic Business Conspiracy to Prevent the Masses from Achieving Power".
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Been watching X-files again, huh, Phil?
> It was the fact that millions of Americans collectively realized that Nader, a guy who has an ego the size of Colorado but who has never even held any elected political office (not even "mayor" or "Public Schools Superintendent"), was not qualified to occupy the U.S.'s highest elected office.
Or perhaps because they didn´t think he had a chance anyway? Or perhaps because they just plain didn´t know about him or his program because his ads got swamped in the media? I rather doubt it.
Well, to cut a long story short, since we´re gradually fading into off-topic land here, I suggest we take this discussion elsewhere. Into the values thread, perhaps? That´s off topic, too, but not by as much :-).

Joe Red, Toronto, Canda

You want to know about the real Canada go to :
www.canadaimmigrants.com/forum.asp

Joe Red, Toronto, Canada

Americans , you dont have to defend yourselves from these lying , hypocrite canadians.
Who else can prove that there are two Canadas.......
First , the canada on paper and then the canada in reality ......who else can prove it but us immigrants who see reality here day to day .
Check www.canadaimmigrants.com/forum.asp

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "That´s not what I was saying, Phil. I said Nader was too 'anti-establishment' and didn´t get near the media coverage the two big candidates got due to their superior campaign funding."
|
And what I am saying is that 'superior campaign funding' has nothing whatsoever to do with media coverage. No political campaigh "pays" the media to cover their events. The media covers what it instinctively believes to be newsworthy.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Sure Nader lost. He lost because the vast majority of americans didn´t know much about him or believed what his opponents told them in their campaigns, not because they necessarily disagreed with him. For many of them you wouldn´t know whether they disagreed, because they just didn´t know his program."
|
Again, Michel, you seem to be making unprovable "assumptions" rather than stating verifiable or provable facts.
|
For example, just how would you "know" what the "vast majority of Americans" knew, didn't know, believed or didn't believe about Nader? You don't. You didn't interview them individually or ask them. Nor did you cite any sources. Therefore, it logically follows that you don't actually "know" what Americans knew or thought about Nader prior to the 2004 elections. It's just an "assumption" on your part.
|
Since I am an American citizen and a registered U.S. voter, while you are neither, I will provide some additional information to you, information that most Europeans are not aware of and which tends to make Europeans react with astonishment (because it contradicts certain of their assumptions).
|
To begin with, a sample ballot is sent out to all registered voters about a month before the date of the actual election. That sample ballot lists all of the candidates who will be running for all of the various elected positions that are being contested.
|
That sample ballot also lists the candidate's and party's platform and views on various issues - everything from military spending, to health care, environmental regulation, education, abortion, etc. It basically illustrates in detail, in the candidates' own words, what they stand for. It also provides the name and contact-information of the local organization represented by the candidate. And it provides the candidate's and/or party's website, in case the reader wants to delve deeper into the candidates' and parties' views, beliefs, policies and how they would govern if elected.
|
Ralph Nader's website was one of these pieces of contact-information provided. Even if it was not provided, though, anyone with a computer could easily find it. It took me about 2 seconds on Google to find it. Nader's website is still active, by the way. Here it is:
|
http://www.votenader.org/
|
So, you see, Michel, there is a lot of useful information provided to voters just in their voters' pamphlet alone. And, of course, any voter can delve more deeply into the different candidates' and parties' views, positions, qualifications, etc. if they so choose. They can visit the candidates' and parties' websites. They can read the newspaper; all of the candidates' party platforms are published, including Nader's. They can attend a local debate featuring local candidates representing the respective political parties. All they have to do is take some initiative and make some effort to become informed.
|
And so, you see, Michel, we're really not all "ignorant sheep-le" over here. We're quite capable of finding out all about the different candidates and their views, if we choose to. All the information needed by a voter to make an informed choice is readily available at peoples' fingertips. All they have to do is make the effort to obtain it. We just don't all believe that it's somehow the "responsibility" of the government or the media to spoon-feed people just so that you could grudgingly acknowledge that people are making a reasonably informed choice. We believe in something called Personal Responsibility over here.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
I took the liberty to answer your last post on the values thread so as to not bore our canadian friends with off-topic stuff. So have a look there.

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5

Debate - Page 4/5