I've been mocking the hell out of that bullshit so far as the NDP's economics have yet to prove themselves as completely disastrous as those of the mainstream Conservative and Liberal parties. The NDP's real problem is that they're attempting to swim against the current of the dominant ideology, which is, at present, a Frankenstein's monster of theories ("neo-liberalism," "free-markets," "monetarism") used to rationalize and entrench capitalist hegemony.
No matter how much damage people like Paul Martin or Jim Flaherty did, are doing, will do, they will always get a free ride from the corporate media because they are conforming to the dominant paradigm. Their ideas and policies, no matter how self-evidently failed, will always be the default position.
But, I thought that I'd add to that the reality that our hegemonic political culture is deeply deluded and deranged by pointing once again, to the atrocity that is our Afghanistan policy. Once again, we see the Conservatives and the Liberals acting in virtual lock-step to ensure that Canada play its role as a pee-wee league partner of US imperialism.
As we did in Haiti, in Afghanistan, we justify our presence with the bullshit "responsibility to protect" doctrine, which was apparently cooked-up by an Australian politician, Gareth Evans, who helped Indonesia's Suharto carve-up the oil resources of tiny East Timor which Indonesia had invaded. Seems that the former and current imperialist powers of Europe and North America, being "democracies" ("Cough! George W. Bush!" "Cough! 'Stephen "Prorogue' Harper!") are once again "the good guys" and various swarthy "Third-Worlders" are "the bad guys." (These "bad" Third-worlders tend to be leaders who don't assidously kiss the asses of the imperialists and who exhibit outbursts of independence. Corrupt, cruel dictators who toe the imperialists' line never seem to have to worry about our righteous fury. Funny that.) It's the job (once again) of the white knights of Europe and the USA to travel around the world, righting wrongs and defending the weak.
In Afghanistan, it went down like this: Neo-con US politicians, through Pakistan's ISI bankroll Islamic fundamentalists to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. US ally Saudi Arabia fundamentalist schools in Pakistan which train fundamentalist fighters (the Taliban) to serve both their goals and Pakistan's ISI. The US-financed warlords defeat the Soviet-backed Afghan government and tear the country apart in a crazed battle for supremacy. (The US walks away.) The Pashtun Taliban eventually pours in and pushes out the warlords to their own non-Pashtun enclave where they unite to form the "Northern Alliance."
One fundamentalist strongman in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, is allowed to settle in Afghanistan, on the run from the CIA. He is allowed to do so out of gratitude for his important contributions against the Soviets. While harbouring bin Laden, the Taliban is courted by US oil interests hoping to build a pipeline through their country and are also lauded for their assistance in clamping down on Afghanistan's heroin exports. On September 11th, 2001, the United States suffers a terrorist attack and Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for it. The bush II regime demands bin Laden be handed over. The Taliban offers to turn him over to a third country if the US can provide evidence of his guilt. The US refuses and attacks. Nobody has bothered to count how many people starved to death that first winter of war. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. Nobody has bothered to count.
Since then, the country has been torn by warfare, corruption, and hopelessness. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin had the first brain-fart to go along with this. It was under their watch that the prisoners taken by our soldiers were handed over to the US at Bagram, which fell under a cloud because the US was found to be torturing people to death there. So, the only sensible, serious thing to do was to have the sensible, serious, experienced Rick Hillier sign a shitty deal with the torturers of the Afghan government, to hand our prisoners over to them. stephen harper then came to power and wanted to show he was "tough" by presiding over a policy of obstruction and indifference about our prisoners.
Arggh! Look, I've said all this before. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is this: We've been there since late-2001. It is now 2011. Our soldiers have fought, killed, and died, to help prop-up a government of narco-traffickers, rapists, and thieves. We have, without a doubt, handed innocent farmers over to be tortured, which is a war crime. And BOTH the Liberals and the Conservatives have signed on for more of this:
These are the policies that the "serious" and "experienced" hacks of the Liberals and the harpercons have brought us. And they think their warnings about the NDP should be taken seriously?KABUL, Afghanistan - A veteran Afghan military pilot said to be distressed over his personal finances opened fire at Kabul airport after an argument Wednesday, killing eight U.S. troops and an American civilian contractor.
Those killed were trainers and advisers for the nascent Afghan air force. (Emphases are pogge's.)
12 comments:
Say what you will about NDP fiscal projections, the fact is they ruled in Ontario for 5 years and they sunk the province in a hole so bad the electorate went swinging to the other side -- the right wing.
There is a difference in spending wisely to prop up the middle class and spending stupidly to give more money to welfare recipients.
NDP have themselves to thank for their reputation. They could have paved the way for an Orange Crush had they not screwed up the most important province in the country.
Sorry!
Yeah, let's see . . . there have been how many NDP provincial governments? And out of all of those, *one* was conspicuously fiscally bad. The one led by the guy who's a prominent Liberal now.
The overall fiscal record of NDP provincial governments is better than either of the other two parties.
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/29/fiscal-record-of-canadian-political-parties/
anonymous,
I can't believe that you're still trying to sell that shit.
Why the fuck shouldn't you spend money on people on welfare during a recession?
Do you ever think about what you type?
"they sunk the province in a hole so bad the electorate went swinging to the other side -- the right wing."
You simply aren't paying attention. Fuck-head Flaherty's deficits were just as bad as Rae's and he didn't have to fight a recession. Rae didn't see poverty and homelessness explode, he didn't under-fund health care, he didn't cause wave after wave of teacher's strikes.
You don't have any credibility. You're indicative of the sickness that my whole post was about.
"the fact is they ruled in Ontario for 5 years and they sunk the province in a hole so bad the electorate went swinging to the other side -- the right wing."
Silly me! And here I thought it was because they basically _continued_ Liberal patterns of government ie demanding wage rollbacks, reopening collective bargaining, etc. during a bad recession.
Let's see this info about the hole.
Todd,
That's what kills me about Rae. He panicked, bought into all that neo-liberal bullshit and got a nice pat on the back from the morons on the Globe and Mail's editorial board, and set back the cause of social-democracy enormously.
I don't fear an NDP government. I do fear a CPC majority. NDP might spend more than they should if the stereotype holds, while Harper's CPC will destroy the country.
I have yet to see an explanation of what was wrong with Rae Days. He preserved all the public sector jobs, while Harris chopped them. Many people were riled that the public sector unions whined so much about Rae Days, while lots of other people were not contending with the problem of a few extra unpaid holidays, but with the problem of no jobs at all.
We seem to forget, Rae came to power in the second year of the Free Trade Agreement, as the avalanche of US branch plant closures was getting underway.
The fact that Canada still uses plurality voting is a major problem. As Robert mentions above, the Tories still have a chance because the progressive vote NDP, Liberals, can easily end up being split in specific ridings. Of course, if the momentum remains with the NDP the voters may decide to engage in a sort of preferential voting in their own right…
"I have yet to see an explanation of what was wrong with Rae Days."
It's not socialist to screw over the workers you supposedly represent and who helped put you into power.
Perfectly normal bourgeois procedure, though . . . .
Todd,
Apparently some of your efforts ended up in my spam folder. I hardly ever notice that thing. You might see them now. (Long after it does any good I'm afraid.)
What causes it?
Yeah! I remember the corporate shills post. You remember, the one where I said the provinces with NDP experience are not jumping on the bandwagon?
1 gain in the west, 5 in Ont. for the commies.
Told you. Na-Na-Na-Na
For some strange reason you keep pontificating on your blog about how corporate watch-ya-ma-call-it is ruining democracy. I guess using words that mean nothing to most people is your way of convincing Canadians that you aren't a flipping idiot.
Personally, I'd take that strategy and refine it somewhat.
lance,
I didn't see this post until today.
Apparently you see winning a bent popularity contest (FPTP) as a vindication of all that you hold dear and as an opportunity for moronic chest-beating.
You have already been exposed as an ignorant, flipping, hypocritical moron with your exaltation of incompetent, disastrous, "conservative" governments.
All the rest of your beliefs continue to be delusions and stupidity, regardless of your party having won 26% of the votes of the potential electorate.
Post a Comment