Ban Campaign Promises and other Electoral Rants

Campaign promises. What are they good for. Absolutely nothing.

I wish we could get rid of campaign promises. If you are in government then a campaign promise is just something you think you should have done that you did not do. Maybe it is best not to remind the voters of that, especially if you have made the same promise election after election without delivering. Governing parties should run on their records.

If you are in opposition then campaign promises are wishful thinking. Once elected into government you might discover just how difficult implementing them might be, or worse yet that they really are a bad idea. Nothing politically good can come from breaking promises even when it is the right thing to do.

But the main thing about campaign promises is that they have become part of what has become elections as marketing and voting as shopping where the best candidate doesn’t win but the best marketing campaign does.

Sometimes I think would be better of without election campaigns. Just have all the candidates write essays (no ghost writing allowed) about the type of Canada they want and what they believe to be the best way to achieve that.

After all is not the idea of representative government to elect representatives we trust to take the time to study the issues and develop the best solutions to make the country a better place.

How well are we served by a process where all Members of Parliament do is vote the party line and implement predetermined polices rather than working together to develop the best policies for the country.

I actually remember a time when local all candidates debates mattered. How well served are we by election campaigns where the only people that count are the party leaders, and constitutional niceties aside, voters act is if they are voting for a President, not Members of Parliament.

How Should We Judge Historical Figures

Should historical figures be judged by the best things they have done or the worst. Should they be judged by the standards of today or of their time. Should some things like slavery or genocide be considered evil no matter when they may have occurred. These are legitimate questions to to ask and the answers likely differ according to the circumstances.

Let’s take two examples. One of someone who a few years before the American civil war publicly stated that:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. Source

And what of someone who freed the slaves, even if it just was to “save the union”.

And what if that was the same person. Should he be vilified or celebrated. History has already made a judgment on that question.

The second example is someone whose main claim to fame was to be the first leader of a new country, coincidentally during the same decade as the previous example, but whose administration was plagued by scandals and was responsible for implementing policies of genocide aimed at that country’s indigenous peoples. Celebration or shame ? History is just making that judgment now.