Canadian federal election 2006

[chrisfan]

rockkid said:

You know I was actually a little offended.
This is not a US election so they need to stay out of it (the states that is)

In the same way that Canadians and people of other nationalities stay out of elections in the US?

[phil]

When was the last time a canadian ambassador in Washington
meddled in a U.S. presidential election ... ??

[chrisfan]

Talking is meddling? I was under the impression that Canada recognized freedom of speech too.

[riley]

No we got rid of that when we legalized gay marriage. We're fine with gay people getting married, we just want people to stop talking about it.

Apparently the Conservatives have yet to hear about the abolishing of freedom of speech. Too bad really. Although Harper doesn't speak so much as his central robotic electrical system sends a signal to his audio output box to make noise.

[Dr. Drum]

This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. When the U.S. ambassador stands up before an audience of business and government movers and shakers such as the Canadian Club and delivers a prepared speech, he is rightly understood to be communicating US government policy. When that speech contains warnings such as "It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship", this is taken in many quarters as an implicit attempt to influence the vote. (Nevermind that if that is the case, it will probably have the opposite effect to the one intended.)

I actually thought that the comments of Paul Martin which originally precipitated this were ill-advised. However, if the US government wanted to express its displeasure, it has plenty of more private means of doing so – calling in the Canadian ambassador, for example, as was in fact done. A public statement like this during an election campaign is necessarily going to be understood as an attempt to influence the electorate.

Note also that there are historical precedents for this in Canadian politics - Kennedy's intervention against John Diefenbaker, for example.

[chrisfan]

The way I see it, US/Canadian relations ARE very good, but they are also at a fork in the road right now - caused by actions on both sides. On the one hand, I can see what you're saying about a foreign government taking a stand in an election. On the other hand, I think it is a very relevant thing for voters on BOTH sides to consider ... just where do we see our relationship going?

[Dr. Drum]

Hey, I don’t know how much a US election ever has or ever will turn on relations with Canada. On the other hand, I can think of at least two Canadian elections that were about almost nothing else – 1911 and 1988.

As for where the relationship is headed, I think that depends to a certain degree on whether Bush turns out to have been an aberration in US politics or whether his policies are indicative of deeper changes in US attitudes generally. If Bush is followed by a Democrat or a more centrist Republican, I think you’ll see a lot of this rhetorical skirmishing die down pretty fast.

On a deeper level, we’ve always had disputes and differences of opinion between us. We’ve generally reached a mutually beneficial compromise, where possible, or in some cases just agreed to disagree. The question now, not just for Canada but for the whole world, is whether Bush is in some sense symptomatic of an America which is just going to be more hardline and unilateralist in the future, regardless of who’s in the White House.

[chrisfan]

See Drum, that's where we differ. I put the repsonsiblitiy for the relationship on both countries equally.

[rockysigman]

Certainly both countries are responsible for their relations with one another, but I don't see anything wrong with the Canadian government finding out exactly what sort of policies they'll be dealing with before completely committing to anything. That just makes sense to tread water a bit and see if the Bush administration is an aberration or if they're the new face of American politics for years to come.

[chrisfan]

Absolutely. And it goes the other way as well. If both countries were to move in a more conservative way, relations are going to be better. If both countries move in a more liberal way, relations are going to be better. Ultimately, it's up to the voters of each to decide what direction will be taken, and I see nothing wrong with the voters and government of each taking what the other does into consideration in making such decisions.

[rockysigman]

chrisfan said:

Absolutely. And it goes the other way as well. If both countries were to move in a more conservative way, relations are going to be better. If both countries move in a more liberal way, relations are going to be better. Ultimately, it's up to the voters of each to decide what direction will be taken, and I see nothing wrong with the voters and government of each taking what the other does into consideration in making such decisions.

That's all fine, but I thought the issue wasn't so much the voters taking it into consideration, but the matter of the other government trying to pressure voters.

[chrisfan]

There is a big leap between a government commenting on an election and pressuring voters.

[rockysigman]

Whoops, didn't mean to say pressuring voters, meant to say pressuring candidates.

And what the U.S. did here (or at least what the Canadian perception of it is, and I think it's a reasonable one) is to attempt to pressure the government into what issues they can discuss in the campaign. And that's not right.

Commenting is one thing, but trying to dictate the debate is something different.

[chrisfan]

I disagree that it's an attempt to dictate debate. I see it as a reminder that there are ramifications for a campaign which reach beyond the election. I believe that it is irresponsible to put up an ally as a problematic enemy in order to get elected, and then turn around after and say "Hey man, we're cool!"

[rockysigman]

chrisfan said:

I disagree that it's an attempt to dictate debate. I see it as a reminder that there are ramifications for a campaign which reach beyond the election. I believe that it is irresponsible to put up an ally as a problematic enemy in order to get elected, and then turn around after and say "Hey man, we're cool!"

Are they putting up the U.S. as a problematic enemy in order to be elected? Or are they doing so because, in some ways, we're being problematic, and therefore it is a legitimate foreign policy issue for discussion?