The reader may recall that before the municipal campaign started, I had a falling-out with my Conservative "friends" over their discourteous and mindless handling of political discourse. I had been working on a response, but then the campaign happened and I didn't have time for it anymore. So before my duty phone rings again, I figured I would put that post together at last.
The issue being "debated", or not, is one Conservative's claim that Stephen Harper is "the best Prime Minister in the last 25 years." Completely unsupported by fact, of course, but chanted loudly and often so as to prove one's point by... pure empty-headedness? Who knows.
Now one might first ask the question: what metrics can we use to evaluate a Prime Minister's performance? Number of protesters jailed? Popularity? Balance of payments? All these are hard to track down and unreliable, and I didn't have much time to spend on it, so I picked a few easy ones for a start, and then never went any further. So my measures of a Prime Minister's worth ended up as follows:
- cost of top boondoggle
- number of times Parliament prorogued
- number of times held in contempt of Parliament
- name of Government of Canada (ok, so that's not actually a "metric")
- change in net financial position over the entire term
The contenders are: Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Martin and Harper. And the results are:
(Click on it for a larger version.) So. Harper.
- most expensive boondoggle, by a factor of 1000
- most times proroging Parliament, by a factor of 3.7
- only Prime Minister ever found in contempt of Parliament
- only Prime Minister to rename the government after himself
- only Prime Minister in 25 years to have worsened instead of improved Canada's net financial position
A diagram from the federal Financial Statements, with the PMs labelled by me:
Now you might try to argue that it's because of The Recession, but it's not. Yes, tax receipts fell some, and EI costs rose some. But if you go through the federal Financial Statements looking for the lost money, it's actually under "other". So we, the taxpayers, have no idea where it went, but we do know one thing: it wasn't for social programs.
So, this is why I don't talk to my Conservative "friends" anymore. Because they're either deliberately misinformed or grossly irresponsible, yes. Because they mindlessly repeat an untenable position instead of having a civilized discussion, of course. Also, like I said, because of their political apathy and reflexive deprecation of the outgroup. But mostly, because the guy who maintained this position (with no supporting argument whatsoever, remember) is either a complete bonehead or doing it to aggravate me. Because guys are dumb enough to think that aggravating me is a good way to hit on me, or that being disrespectful and ignorant is a sign of friendship, or whatever. In any case, if my Conservative "friends" won't show me the courtesy of having a real conversation, then I don't have to have any conversation with them at all.
In theory I can respect a difference of opinion, but in reality, some people have pretty stupid opinions.
The issue being "debated", or not, is one Conservative's claim that Stephen Harper is "the best Prime Minister in the last 25 years." Completely unsupported by fact, of course, but chanted loudly and often so as to prove one's point by... pure empty-headedness? Who knows.
Now one might first ask the question: what metrics can we use to evaluate a Prime Minister's performance? Number of protesters jailed? Popularity? Balance of payments? All these are hard to track down and unreliable, and I didn't have much time to spend on it, so I picked a few easy ones for a start, and then never went any further. So my measures of a Prime Minister's worth ended up as follows:
- cost of top boondoggle
- number of times Parliament prorogued
- number of times held in contempt of Parliament
- name of Government of Canada (ok, so that's not actually a "metric")
- change in net financial position over the entire term
The contenders are: Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Martin and Harper. And the results are:
(Click on it for a larger version.) So. Harper.
- most expensive boondoggle, by a factor of 1000
- most times proroging Parliament, by a factor of 3.7
- only Prime Minister ever found in contempt of Parliament
- only Prime Minister to rename the government after himself
- only Prime Minister in 25 years to have worsened instead of improved Canada's net financial position
A diagram from the federal Financial Statements, with the PMs labelled by me:
Now you might try to argue that it's because of The Recession, but it's not. Yes, tax receipts fell some, and EI costs rose some. But if you go through the federal Financial Statements looking for the lost money, it's actually under "other". So we, the taxpayers, have no idea where it went, but we do know one thing: it wasn't for social programs.
So, this is why I don't talk to my Conservative "friends" anymore. Because they're either deliberately misinformed or grossly irresponsible, yes. Because they mindlessly repeat an untenable position instead of having a civilized discussion, of course. Also, like I said, because of their political apathy and reflexive deprecation of the outgroup. But mostly, because the guy who maintained this position (with no supporting argument whatsoever, remember) is either a complete bonehead or doing it to aggravate me. Because guys are dumb enough to think that aggravating me is a good way to hit on me, or that being disrespectful and ignorant is a sign of friendship, or whatever. In any case, if my Conservative "friends" won't show me the courtesy of having a real conversation, then I don't have to have any conversation with them at all.
In theory I can respect a difference of opinion, but in reality, some people have pretty stupid opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment