Ryan's Comments Part 2
Part 2 of Ryan's comments: when I said that the Canada the Liberals want is one that includes social justice, the Charter, peacekeeping not war making, etc..., Ryan said The previous Liberal government is the government that put us in Afghanistan. The current Liberal opposition does not want us leaving before 2009. Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley is the new chair of an Afghan Advisory Committee.The Liberals are, and were, no less 'war-making' than the Conservatives are.
I guess in all my posts I should say the Liberals under Chretien or before Martin. It was Martin that started me posting. I followed Inkless Wells, who had the same sense of disappointment when Martin took over and commented there that he would bring down the party. As Chretien has made clear in his latest book, he would not have sent Canadian troops to Kandahar because it was a war zone. As for Manley, I think he got lost and entered the wrong door, I have no idea why he thinks he's a Liberal - he's all for integrating us with the US!!
So the obvious response someone might make to what I am saying is that I think I can define who is a true Liberal and who isn't, but that isn't the point. Under Trudeau and Chretien we developed a country that put our country and our people first and resisted the trends to put money, power and war first. Then, after Chretien, the people who were set to take over the party were more the latter, Martin, Manley, McKenna. People said McKenna should have been the leader, that would not have been good either, he was on the board of the Carlyle Group, one of Cheney's arenas, and is very pro American style politics.
But this is not just what I think, it seems that this is what is going on in the Liberal party now. The elements that favour the go-with-the-US approach are on one side and the ones that want real renewal and a radical new approach to the economy are on the other. I really believe that Dion can take the old Liberal approach - putting country and citizens first - and remake it to give us a prosperous and sustainable future. Harper makes fun of him being a professor but it is smart people who think things through that can shape the new ideas and new ways we need in what is going to be a very different world.
I guess in all my posts I should say the Liberals under Chretien or before Martin. It was Martin that started me posting. I followed Inkless Wells, who had the same sense of disappointment when Martin took over and commented there that he would bring down the party. As Chretien has made clear in his latest book, he would not have sent Canadian troops to Kandahar because it was a war zone. As for Manley, I think he got lost and entered the wrong door, I have no idea why he thinks he's a Liberal - he's all for integrating us with the US!!
So the obvious response someone might make to what I am saying is that I think I can define who is a true Liberal and who isn't, but that isn't the point. Under Trudeau and Chretien we developed a country that put our country and our people first and resisted the trends to put money, power and war first. Then, after Chretien, the people who were set to take over the party were more the latter, Martin, Manley, McKenna. People said McKenna should have been the leader, that would not have been good either, he was on the board of the Carlyle Group, one of Cheney's arenas, and is very pro American style politics.
But this is not just what I think, it seems that this is what is going on in the Liberal party now. The elements that favour the go-with-the-US approach are on one side and the ones that want real renewal and a radical new approach to the economy are on the other. I really believe that Dion can take the old Liberal approach - putting country and citizens first - and remake it to give us a prosperous and sustainable future. Harper makes fun of him being a professor but it is smart people who think things through that can shape the new ideas and new ways we need in what is going to be a very different world.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home