The Straight Goods: Part One
“You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go!.” - Oliver Cromwell, April 1653.
There’s nothing better than a good old fashioned dust up in the House of Commons. Tempers flare, fingers are pointed, rounds of applause drown out the beginning of rebuttals, and all of it in two languages.
While some might argue that the job of being the President of the United States is a difficult one, I would have to disagree. Perhaps, in the past, prior to the advent of television, it was. But these days I can’t honestly see what the big deal is. Let’s face it, the President only has to address Congress once a year, and even then, agree with him or not, they don’t have the opportunity to vocally call him out. They either stand and applaud every five minutes or simply sit there. The President’s speech is prepared well before hand, by others of course, and he reads it off of a teleprompter. The same is true of most of his appearances, actually. In fact, the only time you’ll find the President in trouble is when he has to think on his feet, and by ‘President’ I am, in this case, referring to George Bush.
I might not be a supporter of the Canadian Conservative Party, but I do take solace in the fact that The Prime Minister has to answer for himself in the House, and is intelligent enough to not only think on his feet, but do it in two different languages. In fact, he can switch between them at will while making a rebuttal or statement, as has been the case with most of our nation’s Prime Ministers.
Imagine that. A forum in which the head of the government can be directly challenged by others within government. And in two different languages not less!
It boggles the mind.
The truth is, were President Bush to have to participate in our system of government, he would never have been elected. I mean, can you imagine question period were George Bush the Prime Minister of Canada? He’d have his hat handed to him in the first five minutes and his coat would be waiting for him at the door an hour later. Hell, Parliament would probably table a no confidence motion in the first fifteen minutes of the House sitting.
Did I mention that they’d table that motion in two languages?
I’ll not deny that when the Prime Minister speaks at engagements or, for example, at a G8 summit, that he doesn’t use teleprompters, nor that his speeches aren’t prepared beforehand. But the truth is, the man still has to participate in the House, and as the head of the government is required to respond to questions directed at him by the opposition. And that, despite the political leanings of any Canadian, is a wonderful thing. Hell, even Jean Chrétien, to whom English is a second language, is more articulate than George Bush.
When one listens to Al Gore speak, for example, it’s not difficult to hear the voice of what many believe a President of the United States should sound like. And unlike George Bush, Al Gore would certainly fair more than well were he thrust into a Parliamentary environment. Given the candidates from both sides of the isle running for the nominations of their respective parties with regards to the 2008 Presidential election, one can only hope that Mr. Gore eventually throws his hat in the ring. After all, he’s already been elected President once, and that surely can’t hurt with regards to being elected a second time.
All of that said, I’ll take a bad Canadian government that has to defend itself on a regular basis to opposing members of Parliament any day to a system in which the head of state can last eight years in office based on staged speeches in government friendly environments, or those in which the audience is comprised of individuals who have no other choice but to applaud because they happen to be in uniform and were directed to do so.
Ironically, afterwards they get to participate in the thrilling adventure of becoming pawns in the enactment of the worst foreign policy doctrine in US history.
Oh, And…
As an aside, the US House of Representatives has today, for the third time, voted in favour of the removal of American troops from Iraq by April of 2008. And, as is to be expected, it will surely amount to nothing, as the President will simply veto it when, and if, it’s passed by the Senate.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Good points. I agree that our version of democracy that forces the executive branch to have to answer to the legislative branch, or Responsible Government, is more evolved than the separation used by our neighbours to the south, despite being an older system. I guess the US’s rush to totally distance itself from the English system had something to do with that. In hindsight though, they should have kept that.
Two things do bother me about our Constitutional Monarchy however. One is the fact that MP’s must tow the party line when casting their vote. The populus elects a man or woman to act as their representative for their specific geographical region, however that seems to get totally thrown out the window when the cabinet instructs the majority of the party how they will vote. We do not vote for a PM, we vote for an MP. This seems to dampen our democratic process I think. One good part about the US system is that Republicans and Democrats are free (technically, perhaps not always in practice) to vote however they choose. Now that’s not to say every US representative or senator polls his constituency every time there’s a vote. But on certain issues I may not agree with our government’s vote on a certain issue even though I voted for the MP of that party… but because of our system, that’s too damn bad.
The second thing about our system I think needs a change is our senate. The House of Sober Rubber Stamping. If we are to have a true bicameral parliament, don’t both houses need to think for themselves? Like our judiciary, they are not elected. But are the Canadian voters really that unintelligent that we need an appointed body to double-check everything? I wonder if there is a down-side to electing our Senators. I honestly don’t know if that is the answer, but there has to be something better than what we have. Some kind of hybrid perhaps???
At the end of the day, I think our system does work decently in practice but is terrible on paper. While the US system may be good in theory but is a car accident in practice.
……But I totally agree, who doesn’t love to watch a good ol’ fashion donnybrook between middle-aged men and women screaming at each other in different languages?!?!?
July 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
The “Most Powerful Person in the Western World” has now been reduced to that creepy Uncle that you can’t take out of the house exempt for family renunions and Christmases.
It is sadly true.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I saw a comedian on TV last night. He was talking about how he wasn’t a big Bush basher, but he had a friend that was. His friend was saying that Bush was like Hitler and had a lot in common with him, the comedian came back “no way, Hitler was a much better public speaker”…………… ba-dom dom …………….thank you, thank you very much. I’ll be here all week, try the veal, and don’t forget to tip your waitress.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
there are drawbacks and positives to both methods of government, but you seem to quick to only point out one side of the story. The fact is, all the debate in the house is meaningless as everybody’s mind is made up, and even if somebody managed to change another’s mind during question period, they would still be forced to vote with the party. Essentially, our legislative branch of government is ran by a dozen or so people, yet we pay in excess of 300 to get the same results. The only time individual mp’s actually hold any reasonable amount of power is in the event of a minority government like we have now. The problem is, no meaningful legislation gets passed and mp’s are frequently bribed. At least in the US system, the legislature is more than a mere extension of the executive.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I, probably like you, is someone who does not like Stephen Harper because of his ideology and policies. I have to agree with you about the parliamentary system though. At least we have an opportunity to call him to the carpet in Question Period. To often, QP is abused and becomes a forum for partisan shots. It’s basically a circus. It’s a good idea, though.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Apologies for the atrocious grammar in the above comment.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
He may not be quick on his feet, or with his wits. There is one thing that got Bush to be President(Other than fixing an election and being the idiot son of an arse), and that is his delivery. You could tell him that ice cream is ten cents off a cone and 35% of the US population would be lining up for seconds. Dont get me wrong Im not defending his actions in any way but if he can convince even ten people let alone almost 50 million(by a margin of error of course) that the war in Iraq is a good thing. That in itself is impressive enough for a senile retard who can barely eat a pretzel
July 12th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
[quote comment="19333"]I saw a comedian on TV last night. He was talking about how he wasn’t a big Bush basher, but he had a friend that was. His friend was saying that Bush was like Hitler and had a lot in common with him, the comedian came back “no way, Hitler was a much better public speaker”……………
ba-dom dom …………….thank you, thank you very much. I’ll be here all week, try the veal, and don’t forget to tip your waitress.[/quote]
Ahahahahah you were watching Last Comic Standing too? That was the first thing that came to mind when I read this entry myself.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
As difficult as it may be sometimes, the Prime Minister of Canada is thanking his lucky stars he only has to answer for himself within the friendly, fortified confines of the House of Commonwealth.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Bush is only in that chair because he can throw God in all his sentences, when in fact, we all know he very well might be the only possible anti-christ there ever has been or will be.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
At least the House makes for fantastic TV if you’re really bored…then again, Bush sometimes does too.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
For everyone who is reading too much into this, this is the Coles notes version:
A thousand monkeys with typewriters will write Shakespeare before Bush will answer a question harder than “would you like paper or plastic?”
July 12th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
[quote comment="19343"][quote comment="19336"]there are drawbacks and positives to both methods of government, but you seem to quick to only point out one side of the story. The fact is, all the debate in the house is meaningless as everybody’s mind is made up, and even if somebody managed to change another’s mind during question period, they would still be forced to vote with the party. Essentially, our legislative branch of government is ran by a dozen or so people, yet we pay in excess of 300 to get the same results. The only time individual mp’s actually hold any reasonable amount of power is in the event of a minority government like we have now. The problem is, no meaningful legislation gets passed and mp’s are frequently bribed. At least in the US system, the legislature is more than a mere extension of the executive.[/quote]
Again, not at all an entry about systems of government, just how Bush would probably be long gone if he were forced to actually endure question period on a daily basis. I don’t see how that’s so hard to comprehend.[/quote]
Not only that it’s not a statement on these two systems but there are free votes in Parliament, not often, but it occurs.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
[quote comment="19336"]The only time individual mp’s actually hold any reasonable amount of power is in the event of a minority government like we have now. The problem is, no meaningful legislation gets passed and mp’s are frequently bribed..[/quote]
MPs are frequently bribed? That’s a hell of a statement to just throw out there. i’m not a big fan of the effectiveness of those we elect, but I don’t think the majority are in the graft business. A few perhaps.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
lol, to the dust ups in the House … I happened to be in Ottawa years back during the CF18 / Quebec / Winnipeg service contract fiasco during the Mulroney years. The day I was there, question period was quite entertaining… two MPs got tossed out of the house for comments about other members, ( if memory serves someone was called an ignorant frog and another an asshole)…it was so out of control the Speaker adjourned the house with 15 mins. left in question period. I was waiting for an MP to take off a shoe and start pounding the desk or toss it across the floor…not exactly productive government but definitely spirited entertainment.
Your right about Bush, in that scenario he wouldn’t have lasted past the first Liberal question/accusation that day never mind the zoo that ensued after it. Like or hate Mulroney he could fire and bullshit on a dime with the best of them.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Im sorry Matt, did I read that right. You WANT Al Gore to run again? Are you insane? That man is nothing more than a hypocritical opertunistic alarmist. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
I get rather tired when I see him parading around telling us to consume less etc etc when he himself does nothing of the sort himself. I’m not against any of that, but when the man preaching is not practicing what he is preaching, then makes me wonder. Politician wise, I dont know too much myself. However, I dont think I would want him running the USA due to the fact that he is a flaming hypocrite, a serious problem of character.
One other thing Matt. You again, take another jab at George Bush. Did you ever get a chance to watch him in the Presidential debates? The townhouse meetings? He can hold is own if I remember correctly; he sure as hell did a better job that John Kerry did…
July 15th, 2007 at 12:17 am
[quote comment="19469"]Im sorry Matt, did I read that right. You WANT Al Gore to run again? Are you insane? That man is nothing more than a hypocritical opertunistic alarmist. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
I get rather tired when I see him parading around telling us to consume less etc etc when he himself does nothing of the sort himself. I’m not against any of that, but when the man preaching is not practicing what he is preaching, then makes me wonder. Politician wise, I dont know too much myself. However, I dont think I would want him running the USA due to the fact that he is a flaming hypocrite, a serious problem of character.
One other thing Matt. You again, take another jab at George Bush. Did you ever get a chance to watch him in the Presidential debates? The townhouse meetings? He can hold is own if I remember correctly; he sure as hell did a better job that John Kerry did…[/quote]
LOL
July 15th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
[quote comment="19343"][quote comment="19336"]there are drawbacks and positives to both methods of government, but you seem to quick to only point out one side of the story. The fact is, all the debate in the house is meaningless as everybody’s mind is made up, and even if somebody managed to change another’s mind during question period, they would still be forced to vote with the party. Essentially, our legislative branch of government is ran by a dozen or so people, yet we pay in excess of 300 to get the same results. The only time individual mp’s actually hold any reasonable amount of power is in the event of a minority government like we have now. The problem is, no meaningful legislation gets passed and mp’s are frequently bribed. At least in the US system, the legislature is more than a mere extension of the executive.[/quote]
Again, not at all an entry about systems of government, just how Bush would probably be long gone if he were forced to actually endure question period on a daily basis. I don’t see how that’s so hard to comprehend.[/quote]
this is true, I’m sorry to take it off topic. Bush isn’t the greatest public speaker, but I think he’d do better than you expect, but still, nowhere as good as many say he should (myself included) do.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
[quote comment="19356"][quote comment="19336"]The only time individual mp’s actually hold any reasonable amount of power is in the event of a minority government like we have now. The problem is, no meaningful legislation gets passed and mp’s are frequently bribed..[/quote]
MPs are frequently bribed? That’s a hell of a statement to just throw out there. i’m not a big fan of the effectiveness of those we elect, but I don’t think the majority are in the graft business. A few perhaps.[/quote]
I don’t neccessarily mean monetary bribes. You think Belinda Stronach crossed the floor over a change of heart? That cabinet position she was offered was effectively a bribe.