The US system can make it difficult for outsiders to govern, because power is so dispersed, and party discipline is so minimal. Any major legislative action means seeking the support of large number of individuals with their own power bases. Someone from too far outside the system may be at a disadvantage in terms of understanding the idiosyncratic issues and concerns that may drive a particular Representative’s or Senator’s decision process.
As an example, Jimmy Carter’s administration was initially heavily staffed by Georgians with little federal experience, who quickly manage to alienate various powerful leaders in Congress. Despite the fact that both the Presidency and Congress were Democratic, Carter’s legislative agenda was frustrated in many ways.
In the Canadian system, where party discipline is presumably more reliable, perhaps this would be less of an issue? I don’t know.
I think the nature of our bureaucracy also tends to stabilize things. When a new government comes in, it replaces ministers and deputy ministers, and some assistant deputy ministers, but from there on down, the bureaucracy pretty much remains the same, and keeps on trundling along. That may be a good or a bad thing, depending on the magnitude and speed of the changes the new government wants to put in place, but it does provide a degree of stability while governments change hands.
Iggy returned just a couple of years ago with the express purpose of becoming Liberal leader. He lost the leadership which I described as a race between a carpetbagger from Harvard and a demonstrated incompetent (Bob Rae led a disastrous government in Ontario) and let a third person come in and steal all the candy. Well Rae and Iggy are still at it, only the party leaders convinced Rae to withdraw and since the Liberals needed a new leader fast, it ended up with Iggy. It is a very strange situation. Although many European countries always have coalition governments, I don’t think Canada ever has and so they have no tradition of how it might work.
When a leader is PM of a majority government, he (or she, there was a female PM for about a half year, after which her party was reduced from majority status to 2 seats and essentially disappeared until it merged with a Western Canada right wing party) is virtual dictator. The reason for this is that ultimately the party leader decides who runs in every riding (election district). The riding association and local party leaders may make a choice, but the leader can overrule that choice. A member of parliament who votes against the leader may not be allowed to run again (under the party’s label). In practice, one isolated vote will be forgiven, after many public apologies, but the iron fist remains and MPs do not oppose their leader very often.
There is no real analgoy with the congress passing and the president signing (or vetoing) legislation. While “private members bills” occasionally pass (because the PM decided to allow it), basically all legislation is proposed by the PM and signed by the Governor General (who is a figurehead). There is also a senate but it very rarely takes any active role in legislation. Its members are appointed by the PM and serve till age 75. It is usually a place to park superannuated former officials.
Eight years ago, a woman ran for the U.S. Senate from my state even though she’d never lived there - she bought a house here a few months before the election. I felt that was enough of a reason not to vote for her, so I didn’t. That’s about all I have to offer in terms of a comparable situation.
I think it would count as a negative in my book – unless the person were out of the country that long in the military or foreign service or something, though even then, that’s an awful long time to be out of touch with the country you want to run.
Foreign experience is fantastic for a leader, but to have lived outside the home country for almost your entire adult life is too much. He could have taken foreign citizenships many times over, having lived overseas that much. It would almost make more sense for Ignatieff to have run for some office in the US or UK.
This sounds kind of like if Arnold Schwarzenegger at this point wanted to go back and try getting involved in Austrian politics! It just wouldn’t really make sense, to me at least.
Canadian politicians running in ridings (districts) they don’t know much about is old news. Indeed, Michael Ignatieff was pretty much parachuted into his riding, against the wishes of many of the folks in the local Liberal organization.
Ignatieff is certainly a very smart man, which is my #1 priority for elected officials, but he’s never really won a tough political contest - his elections have been in guaranteed-Liberal riding - and, as pointed out, he seems to have returned to Canada solely to be Prime Minister. It’s really not clear to anyone why he should be a candidate except, as discussed in another thread, that he LOOKS the part - tall, white, male, good hair, upper class. He’s developed, in a very short time, a reputation for vacillating on issues or taking no identifiable stance at all.
I’m not sure he really has any point to him except “I want to be Prime Minister.” He looks good now, but then, tall white guys with good hair usually do look good when you first hire them to be CEO. Maybe he can be a leader, and not just a well-filled suit, but he’s shown no direction yet. You might disagree with, or dislike, Stephen Harper or Jack Layton, but you know they have ideas and want to implement them.
I’m concerned that Ignatieff might perpetuate the central problem the Liberals have right now, which is that the party doesn’t seem to have any point to its existence except to run in elections. Once, they were Canada’s party of intelligence and progressive thinking. In the 90s they were the party of effective, progressive government. Now they’re the party with red lawn signs. Ignatieff might, at the very least, establish them as a centrist party, which would be something in that they were prepared to even throw THAT away on this ungodly coalition idea, which Ignatieff seems lukewarm about. But I’ll need to see that the guy has something more than an upper class education and a lot of famous media friends - I want to see that he actually has a plan.
And yeah, it does bother me that he’s spent very little time living here, and came back only to rule us. Yes, it bothers me that he’s essentially bullied his way past weak men to get to where he is, and may well soon propose he be made Prime Minister for several years without ever winning a real political battle.
In its history, Canada has had one (federal) coalition government during World War I. It won the 1917 election on the issue of conscription. I think there has also been a few provincial coalition governments, but you’re right that it’s unusual in Canadian political practice.
Well, this depends on the party’s internal rules. Though I believe what you’re describing is true for the major federal political parties.
It’s still important enough that Stephen Harper has decided to fill the current vacancies, in case the Liberals/NDP gain power this winter and choose to fill these vacancies themselves. In fairness, some senators work hard at their legislative functions, and they are from varied backgrounds.
That’s pretty much how it went here, too. There were some potentially capable people in New York politics at the time, but they didn’t have her name recognition, so she decided/was convinced by others to jump in and cut to the front of the line ahead of those people.
That’s not the only time it’s ever happened in New York, since Robert Kennedy did the same thing, or the U.S. in general - I think ‘shopping around’ is somewhat common in people who want to run for Congress. The whole idea of politicians actually living in the regions they represent might be a little outdated as politics gets less local, but I think it’s important.
That’s about where I stand - I think his foreign experience could be a fantastic asset for Canada, but it needs to be paired with Canadian experience, too. Come back and be PM in, say, 10 years, Iggy, after you’ve lived in Canada that whole time.
If Obama were a U.S. citizen but had only been here for three years of his life, he would be ineligible to serve. A President must have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5. There is some question as to whether this means immediately preceding the election, or cumulatively in the candidate’s lifetime. Some questions were raised about Herbert Hoover when he ran in 1928, for instance, as he had spent quite a few years in Europe carrying out post-WWI humanitarian relief work, but in the end nothing came of it, and he was elected.
I know nothing about Ignatieff, but as a general rule I’d say, sure, it would be better if a national leader had spent most of his time in the country. Such a person would almost necessarily know the political lay of the land better and have a more intuitive appreciation of the views of the voters for having lived among them. Of greater importance to me, though, would be his knowledge of the issues, temperament, intelligence, etc. If a majority of voters want Ignatieff to serve, and there is no legal impediment to it, then good luck to him.
I’ll have to agree with this. While I think there’s nothing wrong, and certainly much that can be right, about having an intelligent, well-travelled person as Prime Minister; I also think that the Prime Minister has to be in tune with today’s Canadian people and with the issues currently affecting Canada. You’re not going to find that in someone who has spent the last number of years living abroad, no matter how much they read the Globe and Mail online, or listened to CBC over the Internet. I believe the person needs to have been here for a while to simply understand the place, much less govern it; so I’m another who would like to see Mr. Ignatieff put in at least ten years of residency (seems a good suggestion, featherlou) before making a run for the Prime Ministership.
This isn’t going to help much but I remember Igantieff when he had a brief media career in the UK about 15 years ago. He seemed to be a bit of a smartarse - I remember reading an article he wrote in a newspaper in which he described very sneeringly how much he enjoyed reading reader’s responses to his articles and picking fault with them.
Consider this another vote for at least 5 and preferably 10 years recent life experience in a country before you run for top dog. No matter how bright you are and how much thinking you may have done on the topic prior.
No idea why I should vote for Ignatieff, except that he’s not Harper, Duceppe, Dion, Rae, Layton or May. (Or is he … aside from the tall white guy with white hair external appearance feature?)
That correlates with the impression I got of him reading that very long article on him - he’s very convinced of his own superiority. Which is not a bad thing in a leader, but I think Duke has nailed his personality, too. It’s is probably incredibly naive to think anyone else in federal politics is different, but I think the last thing Iggy is looking to do is help Canada; this is all about helping Iggy.
My apologies to the Kiwis; they should be included.
I have a problem with Ireland since they refused to join us in WWII. What the heck, it’s only 68 years since that decision was made, so I figure I can still hold a grudge if I like. If they prefer Hitler, fuck 'em. Maybe I’ll lighten up in another 32 years or so.
South Africa is pretty cool but this is about more than native language. Too many other cultures at play there.
Andrew Roberts has written a pretty good book called: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900
Makes a good case for the unity of the Anglosphere.
BTW you got any cites for those Anglosphere members wanting to distance themselves from the US? Seems to me like it’s more the elites and the media who feel that way.
