Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek
Take this in the spirit in which it is given Kobi, so do I.  I would really strongly prefer that my grandson and granddaughter *not* have to continue fighting this. I don't want to give the impression that I'm being a Pollyanna because I'm constitutionally very poor at being that optimistic. Your analysis is spot on. The wild card is whether the GOP wants to be a national party or a regional party. One or two more elections like this and they could be the latter. |
While Canadians and Americans differ on many things, you may want to look at a historical political events that lead up to the creation of a party known as the Reform Party. Canada, unlike the US, has very strong regional sentiment (I suspect that there are diversity ties with the regional piece as well). You could divide the country into BC (West Coast), "Western" (largely Alberta but often includes Saskatchewan and Manitoba), Ontario (Central with very diverse population located mostly in a large city, Toronto), Quebec (francophone with a unique culture) and the East (often viewed as a "poorer" part of the country due to its dependence on resource trade of fish and lumber). This is a very simplistic view.
For the longest time, two main parties -- the Progressive Conservatives* and Liberals -- and a third smaller party (the New Democratic Party or NDP -- very socialist; what some Americans might call Communist) primarily ruled the nation overall and treated everyone as if they were from Ontario. When the Constitution came about and special provisions were put in place for Quebec (the idea of a distinct society due to language, a huge Catholic base and a xenophobic attitude towards anglophones or the rest of the country), it created an avenue for the other parts to also stand up and say "Me too!"
When Brian Mulroney was in power, Reagan was President (for point of time reference). When Brian Mulroney won, he won votes across the country and from the differing regions. It was both based on seats and general populous attitude**. This meant balancing the needs and desires of all the regions, a challenging task for the boy from Baie-Comeau, Quebec. When he retired, a vacuum was left as to who would replace him. At the time of his retirement, a new party had been formed to represent Quebec interests in the form of the Bloc-Quebecois (sometimes affectionately referred to as the BlocHeads). They came about after the Meech Lake accords failed to add more to Quebec's idea of them being a distinct society. Most came from the Quebec MPs of the PC party and were lead/created by Mulroney's former cabinet minister and former friend, Lucien Bouchard.
At the same time, a new party was being formed in the West (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba -- Prairie Provinces) known as the Reform Party. They were founded by Preston Manning and he wanted less centrist policies that the PCs and/or Liberals offered. In fact, he wanted more right-wing, traditional family attitude (a light version of what here in America is seen in the Tea Party faction). This split of the PCs meant a fractured House in the PCs and it's ultimate demise. It also meant nearly a decade of Liberal control of Federal politics under Jean Chretien.
Now, why does this matter to the US? Well, this meant huge fracturing of the parties and no concessions in the House since it was all "me-me-me!". The Reform Party and what was left of the PCs have since merged but it remains rather more Reform towards the West than an overall national centrist-right. And I expect that we will see this happen with the GOP. I've heard from a lot of Republicans that say they do not agree with the current stance of the party (particularly the talking heads) and seem to be leaning more towards Libertarian or not voting at all (!!!).
I suspect that given the large Christian right-wing base that has been emerging and it's perceived attacks on itself that it probably feels the GOP isn't doing enough to stand up against, we will see a party like the Reform Party of Canada emerge here. There will be those that will try to stay with the GOP, attempting to revive what used to exist (more centrist-right). And then a variety of splinter groups (either regionally based or issue based) making up the remaining conservative types.
This won't necessarily bode well for the House and/or Senate. While these will be at odds with each other over a variety of things, if they form a block on various issues it will prevent any one President, party or Representative from passing bills forward, which means the continuation of lame-duck sessions. And having multiple "lame-duck" sessions won't help either. It means a stagnant nation with little to no growth on a variety of fronts.
The return of the word "compromise" needs to happen in this nation for it to be successful, regardless of who is President. I don't see this happening for a while since it's starting to sound almost like a chorus of "me-me-me" going on in the background (think of the seagulls from the movie
Finding Nemo and replace the "mine?" with "me!") The idea of sharing and that we're **ALL** in this together seems lost these days (not sure why).
Anyways, that's the way I see it happening. I don't think it'll take a few more federal elections (whether Presidential, House of Reps or Senate). I think it's already starting. I wonder how long before someone formally creates a national Tea Party to represent those issues. And then a Christian Coalition Party. And so on. And we see this nation turn worse before things getting better.
*
As a former Progressive Conservative member and former President of various regional youth parts of the Party, the experience and description above is from my POV and understanding growing up in Ottawa (which is all politics). Today, I'm a-political. While I do not regret, I know I'd never go back to the current day Conservatives or Liberals for that matter. I'd vote NDP or Green (depending on how that MP views their policies) since few parties are interested in representing *ALL* citizens, IMO.
**
Unlike the US, Canada doesn't elect our country's leader directly. The leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the leader of the nation (Parliamentary system). It is therefore possible to become a leader without winning your seat and without having the popular vote for your overall party.