Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Simplicity, Thy Name is Roman's View of the World
Roman once again demonstrates his staggering lack of regard for nuance by comparing Pat O'Brien's defection to Belinda Stronach's. In so doing, he ignores a multitude of distinctions between the two:
1. Stronach left her party to take a cabinet seat, thereby acquiring more salary, prestige, perqs, and electibility than she had before. O'Brien left his caucus to become an independent, thereby giving up perqs, giving up the possibility of future increased salary and prestige, and, at best, retaining his old electability.
2. Stronach performed a huge about-face in going, over the space of a week, from saying that the Liberal government did not deserve the confidence of the Commons to actually joining that government. O'Brien has never wavered in his opposition to gay marriage, and has left the Liberal caucus with his principles - warped though they are - intact.
3. Roman also suggests that O'Brien is "now in a position of greater power than he was previously". I admit, I'm confused. He still has control over precisely one vote in the House, just as he did before. As an independent, however, it is generally accepted that his capacity to influence other votes has actually been *diminished* from what it was back when he was in a caucus (my own view, of course, is that this is generally bunk, but since Roman himself has defended this perspective before it need not be up for debate in this post).
4. Roman postulates that an independent's "vote matters more than a cabinet minister's these days". I am very curious as to when the House of Commons instituted this new system of weighted votes.
5. Finally, Roman trots out that tired old line about how the voters in O'Brien's constituency "wanted a Liberal". Given that his riding has been won by Conservatives more than once when O'Brien wasn't running, and given that O'Brien has periodically been vocal in his opposition to government policy, doesn't it make sense to believe that in the last few elections his huge margins of victory have been attributable more to his personal popularity than to his partisan affiliation? Of course, we don't know for sure, which is exactly my point. All we do know is that the voters of the riding in question elected Pat O'Brien, not the Liberal Party of Canada.
I don't like Pat O'Brien, but to equate his defection with Belinda Stronach's makes sense only if you, like Roman, insist on adhering to a generality akin to "partisan defections good" or "partisan defections bad".
Shades of gray, Bogg.
|
Roman once again demonstrates his staggering lack of regard for nuance by comparing Pat O'Brien's defection to Belinda Stronach's. In so doing, he ignores a multitude of distinctions between the two:
1. Stronach left her party to take a cabinet seat, thereby acquiring more salary, prestige, perqs, and electibility than she had before. O'Brien left his caucus to become an independent, thereby giving up perqs, giving up the possibility of future increased salary and prestige, and, at best, retaining his old electability.
2. Stronach performed a huge about-face in going, over the space of a week, from saying that the Liberal government did not deserve the confidence of the Commons to actually joining that government. O'Brien has never wavered in his opposition to gay marriage, and has left the Liberal caucus with his principles - warped though they are - intact.
3. Roman also suggests that O'Brien is "now in a position of greater power than he was previously". I admit, I'm confused. He still has control over precisely one vote in the House, just as he did before. As an independent, however, it is generally accepted that his capacity to influence other votes has actually been *diminished* from what it was back when he was in a caucus (my own view, of course, is that this is generally bunk, but since Roman himself has defended this perspective before it need not be up for debate in this post).
4. Roman postulates that an independent's "vote matters more than a cabinet minister's these days". I am very curious as to when the House of Commons instituted this new system of weighted votes.
5. Finally, Roman trots out that tired old line about how the voters in O'Brien's constituency "wanted a Liberal". Given that his riding has been won by Conservatives more than once when O'Brien wasn't running, and given that O'Brien has periodically been vocal in his opposition to government policy, doesn't it make sense to believe that in the last few elections his huge margins of victory have been attributable more to his personal popularity than to his partisan affiliation? Of course, we don't know for sure, which is exactly my point. All we do know is that the voters of the riding in question elected Pat O'Brien, not the Liberal Party of Canada.
I don't like Pat O'Brien, but to equate his defection with Belinda Stronach's makes sense only if you, like Roman, insist on adhering to a generality akin to "partisan defections good" or "partisan defections bad".
Shades of gray, Bogg.
