I'll make one basic assumption, the Liberals DON'T really support this measure. In fact, if left to our own devices, Liberals wouldn't even entertain the concept as a credible option to deal with drug crime. It's pretty obvious, the impetus to support is a pure political calculation, based on the misguided notion that we must neutralize the crime issue.
I'm disappointed in Ignatieff, but if one is being honest here, this "approach" has been present for a few years now, as Liberals continually bend and contort reacting to Conservative wedge politics. The government has never had the facts on their side, with almost all the crime legislation they've introduced since they took office. It's not different in this instance, little empirical support for C-15. It's actually embarrassing how little real justification the government can muster.
The entire premise of the Conservative agenda, exploit unsubstantiated fear within the public, use the disconnect between perception and reality to appear tough on crime, and in so doing paint your opponent as weak. Whenever the government gets in any sort of trouble, they beat the crime drum, whether it be for fundraising, shoring up their base, or trying to score points against the Liberals. The Liberals have always had the benefits of statistics, facts on the ground, concrete international examples, but in one sense it's a losing argument because on this issue perception IS reality. Don't tell me crime is diminishing, don't tell me that this initiative or that will be ineffective, don't tell me the Conservative agenda won't work, with the public your almost screwed as soon as you show dissent. I'm sure the Conservatives honestly believe much of what they propose, their ideological bent blindly guiding the agenda. However, the issues around crime take such prominence because tactically it's a wedge issue that they can exploit.
The Liberals are trying to nullify, trying to keep up their "creds" on crime, sound policy an afterthought. That's the bottom line, this latest example so transparent, I don't think I could stand to listen to any rationalization. I'm not necessarily outraged, because really it's all just another chapter in a reaccuring theme- the Conservatives have us SPOOKED on crime and we're always on the defensive, trying to improve the optics. People have made the conclusion, a mentality that has permeated Liberal ranks WELL before Ignatieff took the helm, that we have to counter the Conservative frame, because it's a winner for them with the public. Principle is sacrificed for a naked political calculus. Shocking I know...
15 comments:
I think we're in new territory here. Yes there have been objectionable, and unscientific provisions in past crime bills but this latest one is particularly reprehensible give. Of all the crime "initiatives" the Conservatives have brough forward over the years this one will have the most reprecussions, and consequently is the one on which the "Liberals" should take a stand.
So I reject your suggestion that this is just a reoccurence of something we've seen before.
"So I reject your suggestion that this is just a reoccurence of something we've seen before."
If you want to argue degree, I agree completely. My point, I wasn't particularly taken aback by our stance here, given our past behavior. It's a pretty clear pattern, and it's no coincidence why the Cons love to push on this file.
If that;s the case then Steve I still see no reason to support this bill. What about the lives of all the people who will end up going to prison? And not just them but spouses & children? Have you thought about that? It's a huge mistake to support this bill & allow it to pass.
I suspect (hope) that the LPC are hoping for an election and a change in government before this thing becomes law - either that or they will not stand in the way of a constitutional challenge if it does become law.
Though I must say it is times like these that I really wish that coalition had happened.
penlan
It is a huge mistake, no question. I'm not sanctioning what we're doing, just some thoughts on why we've allowed ourselves to be complicit. I agree with everything others have argued, completely.
Liberal support of C-15 certainly does nothing to help woo soft NDP voters who Ignatieff may or may not need in any upcoming election.
The problem with appeasement is that we have to draw a line. The Conservatives can go so far down the deep side on crime legislation that they can rip our party unity apart if we stick to appeasement.
Seriously, do you honestly think they are just going to stop on the crime policies? We keep appeasing and they keep taking.
"Seriously, do you honestly think they are just going to stop on the crime policies? We keep appeasing and they keep taking."
No. We can't win here, which is why I called it "misguided". This is a loser every way you look at, and because of that, it makes the principled evaporation all the harder to take. People have convinced themselves that we have to make people in the burbs think the Libs care about grow ops, etc, but it's really selling our soul in the process.
This is a huge vote loser in Quebec (I seem to remember an issue in the recent elecction) and BC. They ought think this one out a little more on the Hill.
The last 5 polls that I have seen on the subject show that a majority of Canada’s support marijuana legalization and by a fairly large margin. More to the point it is something that is particularly popular with the Liberal base. According a 2007 poll, for which the complete breakdown is available, support is 55-41 nationally and is favoured by Liberal supporters 68-29 and by NDP supporters 71 -27.
http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2007.06.27%20Drugs%20Press%20Release.pdf
The way to drum up grassroots support is not pass policies that they are firmly against and then ask them to donate money.
As to the political calcuation involved here, it is not one that is going to work for the Liberals. The political advantage the Conservatives get from this is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from the tone of debate generally. So long as the only option is get tough on crime or stay the course, the Conservatives are going to win the issue. They are the ones that started the discussion and they are always going to be the ones deemed toughest on crime. The only way the crime issue turns around for the Liberals is if they offer an alternative vision. Now I now that I have beaten this issue to death, but if the Liberals were to propose to legalize marijuana, they would catch the Conservatives flat footed.
"So long as the only option is get tough on crime or stay the course, the Conservatives are going to win the issue. They are the ones that started the discussion and they are always going to be the ones deemed toughest on crime."
I guess the question then becomes, if everyone knows this, why do we let regressive crap like C 15 pass?
The Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been that has been pretty lax since
Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail.
Early this week John Reynolds came out in support heroin maintance. On Sunday Ignatieff gives a talk in West Vancouver, Reynolds old riding. That in nut shell goes to show how out of touch Liberal position is with movers and shakers in Vancouver.
Steve:
I see Mr. Janke has gotten on Susan's blogpost and manages to denigrate both the Liberal bloggers who are dissenting against this stance, as well as take cheapshots at Iggy's supposed coup takeover of the LPC, all in the same post.
At least he admits he doesnt think his blogpost have any influence on the CPC, which isn't surprising considering he parrots the CPC party line down to the comma.
why do we let regressive crap like C 15 pass?
You know the answer to that question. They don't wish to appear to be soft on crime. Exactly why the "war on drugs" continues, and fails, over and over again, at huge monetary and social expense to all.
It's the same reason why we can't discuss changes in the health care system in this country. No-one wants to be accused of promoting US-style health care.
What's striking is this:
I'm disappointed in Ignatieff, but if one is being honest here, this "approach" has been present for a few years now, as Liberals continually bend and contort reacting to Conservative wedge politics.
This sort of thing was routinely blamed on Dion and his "weak leadership", along with his desire to avoid an election.
Yet the Liberals are up in the polls now, are jockeying for a fight, and have a leader whose grip on the party is unparalleled since the beginning of the millennium...and still see the same behavior!
So what's going on?
Post a Comment