Is democracy in trouble, or is this just a 'drive by' smear?

[Edward Campbell]

And in its story the CBC didn't even mention that this little mutual masturbatory circle couldn't even draw an audience of 25 people.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This Ottawa Citizen story about Conservative MP Paul Calanra's ten year old internal family dispute, a nasty one, to be sure, hangs, as news, by one tenuous thread: "Calandra, the government’s point man on the Senate expense scandal, has become notorious for responding to opposition questions in the House of Commons with heartwarming stories about his parents and children, but the acrimonious 2005 legal dispute suggests a far less convivial family dynamic." But that's enough for a full, 30+ paragraph "news" story ~ a story about something that happened before Mr Calandra stood for elected office but which, I suppose, exposes his character.

It caused Prof Emmett Macfarlane, Waterloo University, to wonder aloud (on Twitter) about why Mr Calandra's domestic feuds are news but Jack Layton's 1996 visit to a Toronto "rub and tug" massage parlour (brothel) was not.

Now, the Globe and Mail's Christie Blatchford, suggested, back in 2011 that a) Canadians, broadly and generally, didn't care about Mr Layton's foibles (nor about his living in a government subsidized, rent controlled co-op despite having, way back then, a $120,000 family income), but b) that, perhaps, they should have.

Now, on a personal level I don't think Mr. Layton's visit to a (apparently pretty clearly marked) brothel was "news," not even "news" about his character. I though his living arrangements were "news," minor league news, because public money was involved. I do think voters have every right to consider Mr Calandra's character and, indeed, what his decade old family feud might say about his character, but I cannot find a similar "in depth" analysis of, say, Justin Trudeau's illegal drug us while in office and some thoughts about what that may say about his character and fitness for office.

Another "drive by smear," in my view ... muck raking and yellow journalism from the Ottawa Citizen.

 

[George Wallace]

I have given up pretty much on the Ottawa Citizen as being any real means of journalistic publication.  I have found more relevance in news reported in the Sun.  The Citizen is existing well past its prime on its name.

 

[pbi]

Lawrence Martin is probably not the most authoritative source one might care to find on anything.

IMHO the most important function that faith serves, perhaps arguably its only valid function, is to inform the way a faithful person lives their life. If it doesn't do that, I'm not quite clear what it's for.

If that is true, then it's only reasonable to expect that a person's faith will, at a minimum, be a part of their judgement and decision making processes. Perhaps not the sole decisive part, but up there somewhere. If it isn't, then what's the point of having it?

So, it wouldn't be odd or unusual, or even necessarily wrong, that the PM (or any other public figure) might reflect on his faith as he considers what must be done. Trudeau, for an example, was a Catholic trained by Jesuits: difficult to imagine that he just dumped all of that when he got elected.

Where the problem arises (I think) is if a politician forgets that he has a responsibility to many other people, lots of whom (especially in Canada...) may not share or even recognize his particular tenets of faith. At that point he has to engage in a tempering process to decide what is best for the public good he was elected to serve, vice his own beliefs. Ideally they are fairly compatible. In a bad case, the leader has a crisis of conscience and resigns (not very common...)

The very worst case, and what those of us who harbour some suspicion of the extreme evangelical/political right as we see it manifested in the US, is that the leader decides to impose and inflict his beliefs on the rest of us. Personally, I don't think the PM really means to do that, although there may have been (and might still be...) people in the CPC tent who would love nothing better.

The separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, in the long run.

 

[Journeyman]

The separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, in the long run.

I think such a separation is not merely good, but in a multicultural society, absolutely necessary.


And yet, while I'm not remotely a "Christmas-y" person, I'm more than happy to take the time off that the State gave me, ostensibly in the name of that Church event.    :dunno:

 

[vonGarvin]

So, it wouldn't be odd or unusual, or even necessarily wrong, that the PM (or any other public figure) might reflect on his faith as he considers what must be done. Trudeau, for an example, was a Catholic trained by Jesuits: difficult to imagine that he just dumped all of that when he got elected.

And it's evident that he didn't dump it.  He decriminalized homosexuality (he saw it as sinful, but certainly not criminal behaviour) and of course, lost the death penalty.  His social programs could be argued to be in line with Catholic social justice theory. 

The separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, in the long run.

Indeed.  Keep the state out of the church (which is how it's supposed to be)

 

[pbi]

I think such a separation is not merely good, but in a multicultural society, absolutely necessary.


And yet, while I'm not remotely a "Christmas-y" person, I'm more than happy to take the time off that the State gave me, ostensibly in the name of that Church event.    :dunno:

On second thought, we might not actually enjoy a full separation of the Church and State. The Queen, being our Head of State, is also the Protector of the Faith as Head of the Church of England. One could argue that the Anglican Church of Canada is not technically the Church of England (and really not a very "extreme" Church, unless you consider silly ladies' hats and strawberry teas...) but the connection is there.

 

[Journeyman]

Keep the state out of the church (which is how it's supposed to be)

And the church our of the state, ie - religious leaders demanding legislation to suit their religious beliefs?   

.... the Church of England (and really not a very "extreme" Church, unless you consider silly ladies' hats and strawberry teas...)

Oohhh...them's fighting words to my Scottish Presbyterian grandmother; she despised those "Papist Church of England bastards and their heresy"  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

On second thought, we might not actually enjoy a full separation of the Church and State. The Queen, being our Head of State, is also the Protector of the Faith as Head of the Church of England. One could argue that the Anglican Church of Canada is not technically the Church of England (and really not a very "extreme" Church, unless you consider silly ladies' hats and strawberry teas...) but the connection is there.

But "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei defensor in Latin)  an papal honour that Pope Leo X gave to Henry VIII in 1521 in recognition of Henry's book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments) (otherwise the "Henrician Affirmation") which was a spirited and scholarly attack on Martin Luther and what, eventually, become the central doctrines of the Church of England.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And yet, while I'm not remotely a "Christmas-y" person, I'm more than happy to take the time off that the State gave me, ostensibly in the name of that Church event.[/size]    :dunno:

Don't worry about it: Start calling it "Nowell" (Noel) instead - no reference to Christ and, more appropriate, it was the height of pagan celebrations in continental europe and a joyous occasion to celebrate the days getting longer until it was hijacked by the Papacy so as to remove any reason to celebrate for the poor followers of the Faith.

 

[pbi]

But "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei defensor in Latin)  an papal honour that Pope Leo X gave to Henry VIII in 1521 in recognition of Henry's book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments) (otherwise the "Henrician Affirmation") which was a spirited and scholarly attack on Martin Luther and what, eventually, become the central doctrines of the Church of England.

Yes, quite. And it's probably worth recalling that as Anglicans, we are really only loosely and incorrectly called "Protestants". The Church of England (and its descendants the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopalian Church in the US, etc) are really just "Catholic Lite" (OK-that's an exaggeration, but I'm going somewhere with this..). We like saints, big clerical hats, bells and smells. (at least in High Church we do...)

Churches that are more commonly called "Protestant" today generally came into being quite some time after Henry pulled the plug on Rome (but kept a Church that looked, smelled, felt and acted pretty much like it did before). In fact, the Church of England frequently engaged itself in the persecution of  these  protesting "Dissenters" or "Nonconformists", which probably contributed to the perception by many of these groups (ie: the Puritans and Journeymans' Grandma's Presbyterians...) that they had merely exchanged the persecution of Rome for the persecution of Canterbury.

As an Anglican, I attend Mass with my Catholic wife and generally feel at home. There are some issues on which our Churches differ, but we are still much closer on the denominational spectrum than we would be to, say, the United Church, Methodist, Knox Presbyterians, etc.

 

[vonGarvin]

We like saints, big clerical hats, bells and smells. (at least in High Church we do...)

:rofl:

"Bells and smells" Love it
And you're right, there are of courses differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (and its offshoots around the world), but in the end, they aren't that much.

In my diocese, recently, an Anglican Priest (and his family) formally converted to Roman Catholicism.  Of course, no baptism was required, only the sacrament of confirmation.  And the priest is doing training to retain his priesthood.  Married and all. 

Anyway, I'm just waiting for Groundhog day... 

Cheers

 

[Edward Campbell]

Churches that are more commonly called "Protestant" today generally came into being quite some time after Henry pulled the plug on Rome (but kept a Church that looked, smelled, felt and acted pretty much like it did before). In fact, the Church of England frequently engaged itself in the persecution of  these  protesting "Dissenters" or "Nonconformists", which probably contributed to the perception by many of these groups (ie: the Puritans and Journeymans' Grandma's Presbyterians...) that they had merely exchanged the persecution of Rome for the persecution of Canterbury.

Oh, you know I love this ...  :nod:

Actually there were pretty committed protestants, many of a very strict variety, long before Henry VIII broke with Rome. In fact his Queen, Anne Boleyn, seems to have been one of them. William Tyndale, the real author of much of the King James version was a committed protestant when Henry VIII was on the throne, and well before he broke with Rome.

The 1530s and '40s were a time of hot religious debate in Britain - in both England and Scotland. Henry VIII's church, your "High Church," was just one of many sects contesting for public (and royal) favour. Some of Elizabeth I's courtiers, including Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of her Council, were even Puritans.

John Knox came back from the continent in 1544 to begin the Protestant Reformation in Scotland (JM's Presbyterians, and all that) and eventually authored the wonderfully titled misogynistic diatribe, "The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women."

I was a tumultuous time ... not at all dull and boring. 

 

[a_majoor]

As we move farther from the Reformation (and the various pre reformation movements that laid the groundwork), we see more and more divergence from the Catholic Church. Of course, the Orthodox church, the Cathars, Nestorians and Mandaeans might also beg to differ as well...

Key point (as the kerfuffle at York U should highlight) is that your religious beliefs are private, you can share your opinions and even ask if I'd like to join, but I have the rights to do the same, and everyone has the right to politely refuse. NO ONE has the right to use force (real or implied) to push their views on other people and make them conform.

 

[pbi]

Key point (as the kerfuffle at York U should highlight) is that your religious beliefs are private, you can share your opinions and even ask if I'd like to join, but I have the rights to do the same, and everyone has the right to politely refuse. NO ONE has the right to use force (real or implied) to push their views on other people and make them conform.

Agreed. How exactly this gets put into practice may pose problems, but it should be the guiding principle in a liberal democracy.

However you want to interpret "liberal".

 

[a_majoor]

I'm going to change the focus of the topic a bit. Stupid comments by uneducated or uninformed people are not the real threat to Liberal democracy (in fact one of the exercises that makes Liberal democracy strong is more and better speech), but rather unelected and unaccountable agencies. This is a well developed theme in Canada (Ontario apparently has more named provincial "agencies" and departments than the State of California, which is esimated to have over 500), so even though the article is American and uses American examples, the problem is the same:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/crisis-of-the-administrative-state.php

CRISIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Studying administrative law in law school, I don’t think we read anything that raised questions about the legitimacy of the agencies giving rise to to it. We took it as a given and picked up the story with the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. We should have taken a look at the question of legitimacy in constitutional law, and probably did, though the standard New Deal account I would have received is extremely misleading.

Exercising executive, legislative and judicial powers, the agencies are a constitutional anomaly. When it comes to a government of limited powers based on the powers allocated and divided among the three branches, the administrative agencies don’t really fit. I am honor bound to add that the Supreme Court doesn’t quite see things my way, although Douglas Ginsburg lucidly spells out elementary principles (and cites some relevant case law) in “Legislative powers: Not yours to give away.”

Judge Ginsburg quotes James Madison in Federalist No. 47 for the proposition that the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Having Madison as your authority on the Constitution is not too shabby unless you think that history has rendered his teaching and his handiwork moot.

In The Constitution and the New Deal (reviewed here by Richard Morgan), Professor G. Edward White quotes William Howard Taft eulogizing Chief Justice Edward White for his contributions to the “new field of administrative law.” Taft singled out cases reviewing actions of the Interstate Commerce Commission (RIP), the granddaddy of the supposedly independent regulatory agencies. Taft said that:

[t]he Interstate Commerce Commission was authorized to exercise powers the conferring of which by Congress would have been, perhaps, thought in the earlier years of the Republic to violate the rule that no legislative powers can be delegated. But the inevitable progress in exigencies of government and the utter inability of Congress to give the time and attention indispensable to the exercise of powers in detail forced the modification of the rule. Similar necessity caused Congress to create other bodies with analogous relations to the existing legislative, executive, and judicial machinery of the Federal Government, and these in due course came under the examination of this court. Here was a new field of administrative law which needed a knowledge of government and an experienced understanding of our institutions safely to define and declare.

In the beginning, the Supreme Court distinguished between the administration of a law clearly written by Congress and the wholesale delegation of lawmaking powers to these agencies under the rubric of rule making. But funny thing, Congress has been more than happy to cede its powers and its legislative responsibilities in exchange for political cover. Now it can’t be blamed for unpopular policies. The agencies, unaccountable or removable, are to blame. Hadley Arkes observes in The Return of George Sutherland: “The political branches…collaborated in creating these odd offices that did not fit the logic of the separation of powers.”

Over time, the scope of agency rule making has become ever broader and less confined. The federal administrative agencies have grown like Topsy, wielding authority over every corner of our lives. Insofar as our rights and liberties are concerned, the administrative state in the Age of Obama has achieved proportions reflecting a crisis. Something, more than something, many things have gone haywire since the Progressive era and the New Deal.

Every year the agencies expand their reach and become less accountable. A Democratic Congress joined with Obama to open up whole new frontiers in administrative governance, starting with Obamacare, but Obamacare is only the beginning. Consider, for example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its administrative structure, as described by Todd Zywicki (more here):

A centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation was the creation of a new Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) within the Federal Reserve. Few bureaucratic agencies in American history, if any, have combined the vast power and lack of public accountability of the CFPB. It is an independent agency inside another independent agency, presided over by a single director who is insulated from presidential removal. Additionally, the Board is outside of the congressional appropriations process. Finally, its actions are unreviewable by the Federal Reserve—they can be checked bureaucratically only by a supermajority vote of the Financial Stability Oversight Council finding that the Board’s actions imperil the safety and soundness of the American financial services industry.

The CFPB brings us the reductio ad absurdum of the administrative state. The legal structure around the CFPP is designed precisely to insulate it from political accountability. It is a design better suited for a government of unlimited powers and conducive to tyranny rather than to a government of limited powers conducive to freedom. One wonders if the Supreme Court will ever return to first principles or set some limits on how far removed the agencies can be from political accountability. That would be a beginning.

As Professor Arkes suggests, we also need to restore an understanding of limited government to the political branches. The REINS Act introduced in the House last year reflects some creative thinking on the subject. It is at least a start.

The Environmental Protection Agency now purports to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. That’s a rather wide ambit of authority, extending even to human exhalation. As for breathing in, I guess we’re on our own, at least as of today.

What will the Supreme Court say about the EPA’s assertion of authority? We should know by the end of June.

At PJ Media, Bill Straub reviewed 2013 and its “tsunami of regulatory actions” on the environment. It’s hard to keep up. And as for keeping up, we haven’t even reckoned with the unfolding regime of Obamacare, with its thousands of pages of regulations to date and many more to come.

The theory of the administrative state, as one can deduce from Taft’s eulogy, is that the complexity of modern life called for (and legitimated) governance by experts. We are not fit to rule ourselves. It is a theory fundamentally inconsistent with the theory of the Constitution. See, for example, columns by Professor Edward Erler here and here.

Professor Yarbrough has made the basic point in a message to us that cannot be repeated too often:

We need an updated online primer in American government and political thought. We all learn about the separation of powers and federalism, but don’t understand that these restraints do not operate in the administrative universe. Indeed, the administrative state was designed to overcome these obstacles. Our mission should be to educate Americans on the real effects of this turn toward administrative regulations and rules.

Who will answer the call?

 

[pbi]

Any organization that is not held strictly publicly accountable is going to go bad. The Church, the Army, educational institutions, business, political parties, intelligence and security services, or the civil service: it doesn't really matter.

While I believe very strongly in the vital importance of a broadly-based and independent media, and in autonomous watchdogs like Ombudsmen, Auditors General, the Parliamentary Budget Office, etc. none of these can be a substitute for an informed and engaged electorate, (as opposed to narrowly based but vocal and industrious special interests factions)

And we don't have that.

 

[Edward Campbell]

OK, back on topic ... this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is, intentionally, a "drive by smear," but, after you get past the "motley crew" (the Wall Street Journal's editorial staff) and giving Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin credit for the recovery from the Great Recession, there is also some substance. Stephen Harper has, indeed, bailed our fat-cat corporations, cut defence spending to and past the point of ridiculousness, and he is, indeed, a "pragmatic meddler" in the best traditions of e.g. Louis St Laurent. He is not, except in his dislike of defence spending, a Margaret Thatcher, but he is a much better national manager than are the clowns in Washington:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/look-closely-us-conservatives-harpers-not-a-new-thatcher/article20806046/#dashboard/follows/

Look closely, U.S. conservatives: Harper’s not a new Thatcher

KONRAD YAKABUSKI
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Sep. 29 2014

Canada used to be the poster country for The New York Times. The urban American liberals who wrote for and read The Times envied our progressive social values, our public health-care system, our racial harmony and our decision to stay out of George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

Their infatuation with Canada began to wane, however, some time after Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and the oil sands started making nasty international headlines. They felt so betrayed. That island of progressivism to the north was melting faster than the Arctic sea ice.

That’s when The Wall Street Journal decided us worthy enough to become its BFF. The bible of American business loved the way we flaunted our fossil fuels. The motley crew of economic libertarians and military interventionists who compose The Journal’s editorials decided the world needed more Canada – as long as it was run by Mr. Harper.

Compared to Barack Obama’s fixation on providing health insurance for the poor, stemming climate change, wooing Iran, soaking the rich and pursuing multilateralism over unilateralism, Mr. Harper looked to Journal types like the real deal – a Thatcherite in Canada Goose clothing.

Mr. Harper has been basking in the flattery. A Prime Minister barely on speaking terms with this country’s media lets his helmet hair down when he’s in the company of his foreign groupies.

So it was last week when Mr. Harper sat down in New York for an hour-long Q & A session with Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, a Brit hand-picked by Rupert Murdoch who was once described by The Times’ David Carr as a “neo-conservative columnist of acute political views.”

“Have you changed Canada?” Mr. Baker indulgently asked. “Is it a more conservative country? Is it a country that values, more now than it did before you came in, the private sector? Business that is more conservative in outlook, and in sensibility, and in character?”

“Well, you know, I like to think so,” Mr. Harper replied. He described his incremental approach to reducing taxes and stiffening penalties for criminals. He played up the appeal of these policies to new Canadians. “So, look, I think we’ve moved and the country has moved with us.”

Really? If American conservatives looked closely, they’d discover that the Prime Minister is not such a conservative after all, at least not in The Wall Street Journal meaning of the word. He talks a good game and his personal convictions undoubtedly skew right. But he governs in that great Canadian tradition of pragmatic meddling. The state is no less involved in our lives. In some ways, it’s become more interventionist.

Would a true conservative have riddled the Income Tax Act with a bevy of small-ball tax credits, pandering to selected voters, distorting markets and engaging in social engineering?

Would a true conservative spend vast sums of taxpayers’ money to build and fill new prisons when crime rates are falling, yet let defence spending shrivel to barely 1 per cent of GDP?

Would a true conservative have bailed out GM and Chrysler? At least Mr. Obama earned a nice return on his investment as the U.S. auto sector booms. Canada’s continues to shrink.

Yes, Mr. Harper’s budget deficits have been relatively smaller than Mr. Obama’s. But that’s because Canada was not hit as hard by the recession – for reasons that had little to do with Mr. Harper’s economic policies. The return to a balanced budget has been driven by strong revenue growth, not European-style austerity.

True, Mr. Harper has not raised taxes. He hasn’t had to. The heavy lifting, when it comes to shrinking federal expenditures as a share of the Canadian economy, was set in motion under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. All Mr. Harper has done is push the cruise control button.

Mr. Harper has played the same subsidy game, too. He has maintained a slew of Liberal regional and industrial development slush funds – and created new ones of his own, including the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. That’s on top of his Automotive Innovation Fund and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

And remember, this Prime Minister blocked the purchase of Potash Corp. by a capitalism-practising Australian company but embraced the purchase of Nexen Inc. by a Chinese state-owned corporation.

Conservative, Mr. Harper? Mrs. Thatcher might even call him a “wet.”

Now, I could begin by suggesting that Mr Yakabuski couldn't be hired by the Wall Street Journal due to his lack of business/economic background, but that would be a cheap shot so I'll let it pass ... 

A note about conservatives and military spending. Real conservatives, like Mrs Thatcher and, yes, like  Mr Harper, too, do not like defence spending. They believe, based on the writings of some pretty good economists and the musing of none other then Dwight D Eisenhower, that some, indeed much of the money spent on the national defence is wasted, and some is not just unproductive, it is downright counter-productive. It's not that they are anti-military, nor do they hesitate to use their militaries to foster their political/national ends, it's just that they believe that there is a "military-industrial complex" and they believe that it sucks up too much of the national treasury for suspect ends.

I, personally, think that Mrs Thatcher was about to cut too far (until Argentina intervened) in the 1980s, and that Mr Harper has cut too far, today. I believe that Canada can and should productively spend 2% of GDP, for decades to come, on its national defence if, and it's a Big IF the defence procurement system regime is radically reformed to take away the "jobs, Jobs JOBS!!!" slush fund aspect that infects every nook and cranny today.