Politics, principles and Fantino

I've been reading several blog entries regarding Fantino running in the Vaughan by-election on Blogging Tories, the most interesting one coming from Moose and Squirrel.  More specifically, it was a comment posted by someone named "inoc" in response to Natasha's decision to evict herself from the Blogging Tories website.  It represents the other side of the debate surrounding the Conservative Party's nomination of this highly visible candidate for the riding. 

The comment made by "inoc" was this:

inoc November 28, 2010 at 11:25 am

For someone who writes a “political” blog, you really don’t have much of a clue how “politics” work, do you? “The end justifies the means” is pretty much the mantra of any political movement. If you haven’t figured that part out yet….pulling in your shingle is probably a pretty good idea!!

Natasha wrote in her post:

But when they chose Fantino as a candidate for the riding of Vaughn, the reason was crystal clear: The Conservatives saw Fantino — a high-profile law-and-order (*snort*) candidate — as their best chance to unseat the long-time Libs in that riding. In other words: The end justified their means. Seems like a huge compromise to me, and I just can’t wrap my head around it.

On a blog entry the day before she also stated:

But, hey, I’m told conservatives should all support Fantino for the “good” of the party — for the “greater good” of grasping power by any means is what they’re really saying.

Politics, what many of us bloggers marinate ourselves in each day, understand that it's really more of an art than a science.  But what kind of art?  Well, simply put, it's the art of getting yourself elected, of persuading the masses, and changing the world, in a nutshell.  How one chooses to accomplish these things is a matter of choice, and usually it comes down to two choices: the high road and the highway.

The high road entails running a clean campaign; usually based on a great platform of policy ideas and refusing to resort to negative advertising and name calling.  The result: usually a loss.

The highway entails running negative campaign ads when necessary, attack ads early and keeping the message simple (so simple that many believe there is no real platform).  The result: usually a win.

Let's face it, we'd be liars if we said politics wasn't about popularity, or money (which party raised the most money?).  Many excellent candidates with solid ideas often end up as roadkill beneath the feet of their opponents; anyone remember Sarah Thompson?  It takes guts, it takes money, it takes tenacity.   So, can the two co-exist?  Do the ends really justify the means? 

In the case of Fantino, the Conservatives knew it was one of the Liberal strong-holds and while running a candidate with great principles and a clean history looks good on paper, reality is a bit different.  As Nik Nanos puts it, "The Conservatives know that if they want to get to a majority (government) they have to start nibbling into the 905 and suburban Ontario. Vaughan is a prime target for them," he said. 

I guess in the end, it depends on where you draw the line in the sand with regard to your principles.  For some, such as Natasha from the blog Moose and Squirrel, Fantino crossed her line, for others such as Michael Chong, it was declaring Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. 

I would just like to note that the day Blogging Tories becomes a mouth-piece for the Conservative Party would be a sad day indeed.  It is my understanding that the site is an outlet for conservative minded Canadians connected or not connected to the Conservative Party, who choose to express their views freely.  I do hope that Natasha reconsiders.

Equal Voice is not my voice for women in politics

Women make up 50% of our population and yet they do not make up 50% of the elected politicians in our cities, provinces and parliament, therefore Canada does not have the "flourishing and prosperous democracy" it could have if only more women were elected.  Such is the sentiment of Equal Voice here in Canada.

I recently took part in a discussion on the Globe and Mail's website titled: Women and Politics (click the link if you wish to read through the whole discussion) featuring Conservative Minister Lisa Raitt and Nancy Peckford, executive Director at Equal Voice.  While Equal Voice does not come out and state what methods of getting more women in politics they endorse, the comments made by Nancy in the discussion suggest a few things.  First that they have no problem with quotas;

Nancy Peckford: Some countries have adopted excellent quota measures where they mandate that at least 40% of a House must be represented by either/both gender(s). It's proven to be quite successful.

Nancy Peckford: You can see quotes is a controversial topic. The challenge is, it works! Is it right for Canada? That would be a conversation worth having. Incentives on the other hand...  

Lisa Raitt's response: Gloria - no to quotas. Yes to reducing the risk for women and yes to encouraging our daughters to taking more risk!

Second, that they have no problems giving money to parties who increase their female representation;

Nancy Peckford: Sheila Gervais of Queen's University has promoted the idea that we should reward parties financially through the Canada Elections Financing Act who nominate and elect minimum thresholds of women.

Or perhaps we should take advice from Belinda Stronach in Jane Taber's column, but if you want something more interesting to read, check out the comments...

I for one do not agree with quotas, or paying parties just to increase female representation.  I also find it rather ironic that Equal Voice has no problem with these methods, yet ultimately it seems that these methods do more harm than good for women in politics.  To be nominated based purely on your sex?  Good luck running for leadership... and your qualifications are??   This type of thinking also suggests that only a female politician can best represent me, not so.  These are also the same women who seem to think Belinda Stronach is a beacon of political success.  I have to side with the majority of the comments on Taber's column with a resounding, no.  I guess if you consider Belinda a political role model Equal Voice should not be surprised that women still don't want to go into politics.