Rick Mercer does a number on the old political parties in Canada. He compares them to diarrhea-inducing menus, when all you really need is breakfast. Not surprisingly, he has positive things to say about Elizabeth May. Could it be a bit of a pro-Maritime bias showing through? Possibly, but I think it has more to do with the fact that she’s the only party leader with credibility. Why’s that? She’s the only one who hasn’t had a chance to prove the corrupting nature of politics yet, the cynic might reply.
I think her positive leadership has more to do with the fact that she has a life of work under her belt that backs up what she talks about in her party’s platform. She practices what she preaches. She doesn’t own a car or cell phone. Many Canadians would find that baffling (heck, many Africans would find it baffling to hear that a Canadian doesn’t own a cell phone). I don’t think it’s so strange, having just joined cell-users less than two years ago. I also haven’t owned a car more than 4 years of my adult life. Wouldn’t you want a politician who knows how to ride the subway, bus, or train like you do? Someone who isn’t afraid to walk (especially since she got a new hip ;-).
May may be seen as an outsider, or a “fringe party” leader by a lot of Canadians right now. Most Canadians probably don’t even know her name, and that worries me. Because, if the best person in Canadian politics from her generation is shunned into obscurity, this country will be much worse off because of that. If a principled, and caring star like her can’t be chosen by a majority of voters, for public representation, what chance do the rest of us nice guys have? Would you like something besides eggs?
Now personally, I don’t believe that there’s an excuse for not voting; but the numbers don’t lie, and a 72 percent no-show, that’s not just a case of voter apathy – that’s a full-on allergic reaction. Basically, the numbers are telling us the average Canadian voter feels like some guy who can’t eat eggs without being sick being told his choices are scrambled, fried or poached.
And so why aren’t any of the national leaders talking about this problem? Well because it’s their fault. They’re the ones in the kitchen and 72 percent of the electorate, they just don’t like what’s on the menu. In fact, the only party that has any bragging rights at all after these by-elections is Elizabeth May’s Green Party because they’re the only party whose numbers went up. And what’s more impressive is that people who actually voted for the Greens did so knowing full well that none of their candidates would actually win. But yet they still managed to get out of bed before five or six o’clock in the evening and vote - which for a lot of Green Party members, that’s quite the accomplishment.
Now I’m not saying they’re a full-on movement. But at least they’re moving, which is more than I can say for the rest of them. And as far as I can tell, it looks like they’re here to stay – which is a good thing because Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, and Jack Layton are looking pretty stale and Elizabeth May is a welcome addition. Because as any chef will tell you, a little bit of vinegar brightens up the vegetables.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
gfr | 08-Apr-08 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
Reading the quote, I think Mercer’s maybe not quite right. I think the general populace isn’t as motivated to vote because they figure things are as good as they’re going to get, and they’re not that bad. People who vote green are probably more likely to suspect that change is seriously needed, especially on the environment/energy front. They believe their vote actually matters, ironically. They may know their candidate might not win this particular election, but they think it’s important that green ideas and policies get more attention. This is just an off the cuff “theory.” Their numbers will probably keep going up, the more people realize what’s going on, and NDP too. It may be a full-scale swing to the less popular parties over time.
gfr | 08-Apr-08 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
P.S. The Unconscious Civilization might be a relevant book on the topic of voter apathy.
Emmosan | 08-Apr-08 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
Good post, but FYI Newfoundland & Labrador isn’t the Maritimes, so doubtful there is a kinship or “maritime bias” going on. Never tell a Newfoundlander they’re from the maritimes, you’ll be very quickly corrected and likely getting a lesson in geography.
Ross | 09-Apr-08 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
no i don’t particularly want a politician that knows what its like to ride the train, subway, or bus. how about a politician that knows what its like to operate the train, subway, or bus. or even better, a politician that knows what its like to operate a combine, tractor, truck, dozer, crane, or dragline.
i also didn’t own a cell phone for nearly two years until recently and while they are a burden, they are a necessity in this day and age at least for some of us. i wouldn’t be able to function at my job without a cell phone, and have in fact been suspended in the past for not answering my phone.
i applaude ms. may for not needing phones, or cars, but the simple fact is that convienient personal transportation and communications have been and always will be a necessity for a lot more people than those that don’t need them. That fact makes her a candidate that most canadians can’t relate to and therefore won’t vote for.
Saskboy | 09-Apr-08 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
Sorry Ross, but this isn’t true at all, at least not how you said it,
“the simple fact is that convienient personal transportation and communications have been and always will be a necessity for a lot more people than those that don’t need them”. For that to be a fact, it would always have to have been true, and thus certainly couldn’t mean that it’s a necessity to have a cell phone or car.
I know what you were trying to say, but my point is that what we’ve shaped our society into thinking of as convenient and normal, is part of what will ultimately destroy us and/or make us ill. When you take a specific circumstance a cell phone might look convenient. But if they didn’t exist, we’d have more pay phones which are also convenient, and/or we’d have taken the extra seconds to notice a problem that needed fixing before we set out on a journey that left us stranded with no one to check on us.
There’d be nothing wrong with a candidate who operates a bus or train, I’d be all for that. Even someone who operates a grader or a combine, are as good. But most Canadians would rather vote for a lawyer who knows rural life, and city commuting, than a lawyer who drives a BMW.
==
GFR, I think you’re more right than Mercer. It’s why democracy in Mexico brings out 200K people to a protest, and here it brings out 20. It’s also why I’m predicting a Green Party government by 2025
==
Emmosan, thanks for the tip. I meant of course that living near the Atlantic is the tie that binds the two ;-)
Ross | 09-Apr-08 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
i too would rather have an elected official that knows rural and urban life, unfortunately most of canada doesn’t agree simply because most canadians have lived their entire lives in large urban settings.
i also believe my other statement about needing personal convienient transporation and communication to be true, human beings have always used the quickest and most convienient means of travel available to them. in the past, more people rode horses than mules, because horses were more agreeable and faster than mules, after the phone was invented, less people probably used the telegraph. now in the current setting, my occupation sometimes has me on call, however i don’t know for certainty know when i will be on call. there are three times during the day when work assignments are made, if someone is first or second on call and they miss a call and don’t return it within 15 minutes they are suspended for 24 hours. in the past i have been 8th or 9th in line and not lining up to work for more than a week, but two hours later so much has changed that i end up having to go to work in calgary that very same night. i also work on my dads farm, for me to do that i have to sometimes be in a truck, or tractor in a field, and the last time i checked the closest pay phone to our farm is over a half hour away, even if there was one closer my work has to get a hold of me and not the other way around. besides all these FACTS, my employer REQUIRES i have a cell phone, no cell phone, no job, and my employer isn’t the only one.
If there was a vehicle that had as much room, and was as fast as a conventional car or truck but was solar powered or operated on some form of alternate energy, and was affordable to buy i would buy it, but as far as i know that hasn’t happened yet. i NEED a vehicle that can take not only me but my belongings, and/or other people, as well as four wheel or all wheel drive, and can stand up to saskatchewans degenerating highways. don’t think i’m driving some huge gas guzzling suv or truck, i drive a suzuki sx4 and that little car is still too small.
obviously your occupation and lifestyle doesn’t force these things on you and i envy you because of it. however mine requires, quick convienient spacious transportation, and instantaneous communication with others. yes things haven’t always worked this way, take away the cell phone and i would still be able to do my job, but i wouldn’t be able to have a second income and would be confined to my home most days waiting for phone calls from work.
Saskboy | 09-Apr-08 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
“besides all these FACTS, my employer REQUIRES i have a cell phone, no cell phone, no job, and my employer isn’t the only one.”
But those are only facts about your job, and our society, not LIFE. As you say, it’s possible to do those same things without one. I want a politician who understands that, and doesn’t encourage punishment for people who can’t afford cell phones, 4×4s, and modern conveniences. we’ve adapted most of our society to depend on these conveniences to the point where they are quasi-needs. That’s why change is frightening to a lot of people, and why we’re actually an instable country in a lot of ways, because we could be easily disrupted by even a week long shortage in electricity or fuel.
Ross | 09-Apr-08 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
i wasn’t implying they are a requirement for every job, my job is one and there are others. i agree with you that people shouldn’t be punished for not being able to afford these modern convieniences but instead of back pedaling we should be trying to make these things more affordable and more reliable so it is less likely it would be a major disruption if we did lose electricity or fuel.
on a slight tangent, not all cells and plans are expensive. for lack of a better word right now, the ‘poorest’ people i know still have cell phones, and these people for all intents and purposes are the epitome of poverty but somehow they still have phones.
Ross | 09-Apr-08 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
lets agree to disagree on this, neither of us is going to completely sway the other and i have to prepare for the hockey draft i’m hosting tonight.
Saskboy | 09-Apr-08 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
Fair enough. You’re certainly right that the poorest people end up with cell phone instead of land lines (although I won’t agree that it’s only due to them being affordable).
Mark Taylor | 09-Apr-08 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
To quote Ross:
“i applaude ms. may for not needing (cell) phones”
I wouldn’t applaude too loud. She has a blackberry. I’ve got the address.
Saskboy | 09-Apr-08 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
Ha, good tip Mark!
I guess that Ottawa does change people (unless she had it earlier too and reports I read were flawed :-S)