Suggestion for the Conservative Party of Canada
Another very well written piece with analysis and commentary from this election.
(www.smalldeadanimals.com)
---------------------------------
Morning In Canada
Kate McMillan
While I was out watching the election returns come in (and calming my jittery friends who thought all was lost when the Conservatives came out of Atlantic Canada trailing), the comments section at my blog was filling up with returns, results and reaction. To say feelings are mixed at the outcome is an understatement.
What short memories we have, due, in no small part to the amnesiac nature of the Canadian media. Only 8 weeks ago, the notion of a Conservative minority seemed unlikely, with many predicting that an outraged electorate would punish them for forcing a Christmas election that "Canadians" didn't want.
By the time the broadcast wrapped up (we were watching on Global), there were already efforts afoot in the punditry to turn the once unanticipated victory into a failure.
Some things never change.
When Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, the outpouring of emotion belied the fact that in his own day, he was as reviled and ridiculed by both the media and the left as George W. Bush is today.
Of his many and longlasting achievements, one in particular is largely overlooked - the profound effect he had on liberating the American democratic debate and opening the door to conservative thought and opinion in media. The explosion of talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh and the growing influence of the unapologetically pro-American Fox News were made possible by Reagan's determination to eliminate the FCC "fairness doctrine."
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. [...] The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
After the courts transformed the policy into law, Reagan-appointed FCC chairman Mark Fowler publicly vowed to kill it. When both houses voted to reinstate it, Reagan vetoed and the political debate in America was transformed.
Which takes me to my own suggestion for the Harper government.
As a conservative on the libertarian side of the ledger, the degree to which speech in Canada has been corralled and controlled by the courts, ever-invasive government institutions and unaccountable "human rights" tribunals is deeply disturbing. The trend has been reinforced for decades by a Liberal party reward system for pro-Liberal journalism, overtly (through diplomatic postings and Senate seat appointments) and financially. In America, the largest advertiser is Procter & Gamble. In Canada, it is the federal government.
As the most recent example of the pervasive liberal-left world view of the mainstream Canadian media, I need only point to the tenor of the final week of the campaign, in which abortion was raised as an issue by the Martin campaign.
Despite the fact that this most contentious of public policy issues offers legitimate arguments both for and against, with huge advocacy constituencies on both sides - no reporter, no pundit, no network head, thought it appropriate to make Mr. Martin defend the Liberal party position of preserving the status quo. That Canada has no abortion law at all, that for-profit clinics operate in many provinces, the costs to the Canada health system - none of these points were considered worthy of debate. No one asked Paul Martin if he thought there was a legitimate case to be made for a more balanced, centrist public policy on abortion.
Instead, the media took the Liberal postiion as the desired default, and demanded Harper explain himself. That's illuminating - for it allows only two possibile explanations: the first, that no one thought to do so. The second - the recognition of a potential - and "undesirable" - Conservative majority. Would that have happened if there were a true Canadian equivalent to Fox News? I suspect not - the questions about abortion might have gone both ways, with the public engaged in a legitimate public policy debate.
So in addition to the list of priorities that Harper will be taking on - the accountability act, opening the books to forensic audits, enacting planned tax cuts - the single most important change he can make to restore balance to Canadian democracy is to begin breaking down the stranglehold of government and the Liberal apparatchik on the communications industry by eliminating or radically restricting the authority of the CRTC, restoring political balance on the board of the CBC and moving the network to a model of market self-sufficiency, and closing the generous pasture land of government funded "think tanks" where deposed and unemployed Liberals retire to lobby the government at government expense - and inform Canadians of our "Canadian values."
For until and unless conservatives can look forward to hearing their voice, their issues, their world view expressed as part of - as opposed to subject matter for - mainstream Canadian media, the prospects for the election of Stephen Harper to bring "Morning to Canada" will be remembered only as a brief time out for Canada's unnaturally governing party.
Jan 24, 2006 | Permalink
Posted by Kate McMillan
January 24, 2006 10:27 AM
(www.smalldeadanimals.com)
---------------------------------
Morning In Canada
Kate McMillan
While I was out watching the election returns come in (and calming my jittery friends who thought all was lost when the Conservatives came out of Atlantic Canada trailing), the comments section at my blog was filling up with returns, results and reaction. To say feelings are mixed at the outcome is an understatement.
What short memories we have, due, in no small part to the amnesiac nature of the Canadian media. Only 8 weeks ago, the notion of a Conservative minority seemed unlikely, with many predicting that an outraged electorate would punish them for forcing a Christmas election that "Canadians" didn't want.
By the time the broadcast wrapped up (we were watching on Global), there were already efforts afoot in the punditry to turn the once unanticipated victory into a failure.
Some things never change.
When Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, the outpouring of emotion belied the fact that in his own day, he was as reviled and ridiculed by both the media and the left as George W. Bush is today.
Of his many and longlasting achievements, one in particular is largely overlooked - the profound effect he had on liberating the American democratic debate and opening the door to conservative thought and opinion in media. The explosion of talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh and the growing influence of the unapologetically pro-American Fox News were made possible by Reagan's determination to eliminate the FCC "fairness doctrine."
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. [...] The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
After the courts transformed the policy into law, Reagan-appointed FCC chairman Mark Fowler publicly vowed to kill it. When both houses voted to reinstate it, Reagan vetoed and the political debate in America was transformed.
Which takes me to my own suggestion for the Harper government.
As a conservative on the libertarian side of the ledger, the degree to which speech in Canada has been corralled and controlled by the courts, ever-invasive government institutions and unaccountable "human rights" tribunals is deeply disturbing. The trend has been reinforced for decades by a Liberal party reward system for pro-Liberal journalism, overtly (through diplomatic postings and Senate seat appointments) and financially. In America, the largest advertiser is Procter & Gamble. In Canada, it is the federal government.
As the most recent example of the pervasive liberal-left world view of the mainstream Canadian media, I need only point to the tenor of the final week of the campaign, in which abortion was raised as an issue by the Martin campaign.
Despite the fact that this most contentious of public policy issues offers legitimate arguments both for and against, with huge advocacy constituencies on both sides - no reporter, no pundit, no network head, thought it appropriate to make Mr. Martin defend the Liberal party position of preserving the status quo. That Canada has no abortion law at all, that for-profit clinics operate in many provinces, the costs to the Canada health system - none of these points were considered worthy of debate. No one asked Paul Martin if he thought there was a legitimate case to be made for a more balanced, centrist public policy on abortion.
Instead, the media took the Liberal postiion as the desired default, and demanded Harper explain himself. That's illuminating - for it allows only two possibile explanations: the first, that no one thought to do so. The second - the recognition of a potential - and "undesirable" - Conservative majority. Would that have happened if there were a true Canadian equivalent to Fox News? I suspect not - the questions about abortion might have gone both ways, with the public engaged in a legitimate public policy debate.
So in addition to the list of priorities that Harper will be taking on - the accountability act, opening the books to forensic audits, enacting planned tax cuts - the single most important change he can make to restore balance to Canadian democracy is to begin breaking down the stranglehold of government and the Liberal apparatchik on the communications industry by eliminating or radically restricting the authority of the CRTC, restoring political balance on the board of the CBC and moving the network to a model of market self-sufficiency, and closing the generous pasture land of government funded "think tanks" where deposed and unemployed Liberals retire to lobby the government at government expense - and inform Canadians of our "Canadian values."
For until and unless conservatives can look forward to hearing their voice, their issues, their world view expressed as part of - as opposed to subject matter for - mainstream Canadian media, the prospects for the election of Stephen Harper to bring "Morning to Canada" will be remembered only as a brief time out for Canada's unnaturally governing party.
Jan 24, 2006 | Permalink
Posted by Kate McMillan
January 24, 2006 10:27 AM
posted by Fighting for Democracy at 2:31 PM
4 Comments:
So we have Ronald Reagan to thank for the FOX network? The same FOX network who announced we have a new conservative president in Canada? Thank God for Ronald Reagan, cause where would the world be without well researched journalism like that?
Hi,
I would assume you're from Babble @ Rabble. Nice to see your trolling.
Amazingly, Conservatives seem most receptive to communication of both sides of the political spectrum. I tried to join the rabble and babble. I was honest and said where my political leanings are and have been refused. I guess they must hate having people with different opinions than theirs. I guess they love one-sided debates. It's no wonder they don't have any internet traffic because they exclude others with conservative opinions.
Liberal Babble
Not inclusive of everyone
In Canada
Is this like pablum
Baby Food for cry babies
Lost the last election
In Canada
I'm might be making this up.
Don't know what Rabble@babble is. I am not a liberal or Liberal, just someone who tries to think for himself using logic rather than ranting and name calling. I will admit that I lean somewhat toward social values over individual rights, but my sympathies do not fall with any particular organized group. To be honest, I'm not sure what trolling is either, but I can guess. I simply got to this page by following a link in a posting elsewhere which employed similar logic. I wanted to see what else this person (you, I guess) had to say. I see some real problems with your logic, as I know there are with mine, but I don't see a lot of openess to debate on your page. I lived in Alberta for some time, and frankly I didn't see a lot of openess in general there. Dissenting opinion tends to get shouted down fairly quickly. That is not to my mind democracy. Rather than inflame you or myself any further I respectfully withdraw from this debate. I simply encourage some respect on both sides. By the way, I viewed the Liberal adds as deplorable as well, but I honestly believe that Steven Harper has not been entirely open in sharing his philosophy. In this regard, I think Mr. Manning was twice the man, but regrettably I suppose not nearly as good a politician (I am not a Reformer either, by the way).
What kind of openness do you suggest we Albertans embrace? Making illegal drugs legal? Abortion is a very complex issue and needs alot of debate. Do you want Albertans to be easier on criminals and to embrace and give them a hug?
I live within a set of rules set out by a majority, yet everyday some tiny little minority seems to think that they should set everyone elses priorities. I'm not against gay civil unions sharing the same rights and privileges as any other union but I'm against changing the definition of words. We have already seen that the Liberals have looked in polygamy. What's next? We have seen someone like Svend Robinson try to promote that men should be allowed to have sex with 14yr old boys.
Do you call this openness?
From what I've seen of the Liberals, they lack morality. I'm not religious. I believe in religion as a philosophy. A philosophy that teaches people to be good to one another.
Steven Harper and Mr. Manning are both Catholics and ethical politicans. Logically, religious people should have alot higher standards of conduct since they have moral codes to live by.
This is why this new version of Conservatives have earned my trust and respect.
I have always voted Conservative, Reform or Alliance. But, I gave Mr. Martin a chance, thought he might be taking his party to the center.I was wrong. He made ridiculous deals in parliament on the fly, pushed through bills, limited debate or even eliminated debate. Liberals didn't practice democracy, they ran the equivalent of an oligarchy.
Excuse me for stating the obvious in my ranting blog. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home