Welcome

Welcome to "of a political nature." This is a blog dedicated to discussion on local, national, and international poltical events. What is going on in the world? How are those events political? What is a government's role in these events? Is it creating the event or responding to it? How does politics play a role?

As you find newspaper articles, editorials, or blogs related to significant events, post their links here and reflect on how this event is political and whether or not you agree with what is being written. You will also be expected to be responding to posts made by others in the group as well (including my own).

You will find a few older posts that provide some idea of what is expected, both in terms of content and length. Responses to posts can be shorter - roughly a paragraph, unless you feel a need to be writing more.

a far cry from Aristotle's view of politicians

This is an aspect of politics that has less to do with affecting policy than using political power for personal gain.  Former MP Rahim Jeffer's actions since leaving Parliament have been relevant to the public largely because people are left questioning how much influence politicians from the governing party have in gaining access to public funds or providing their friends with lucrative contracts or posts.  On top of that, Jeffer's light sentence for a number of fairly serious offences left a bitter taste in the public's mouth, as he was seen as getting preferential treatment (and, on top of that, being from a political party that claims to be "tough on crime").  With his wife Helena Guergis, a member of the Cabinet, also getting into the newspapers for strange behaviour and some regrettable actions, the two have created a mess for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party.

In the world of politics, what is perceived can be as important as what is actually the truth.  Whether Jeffer really had access to the Prime Minister's Office or was given special treatment by the courts is less important than that the idea being out there.  In the case of Guergis, there are two issues:  the first is that she is a Cabinet member and the face of the government, and is currently bringing too much negative news to the government; the second is that she may be involved in something illegal, which has brought in the RCMP to investigate.  No governing party wants to be openly associated with people involved in criminal activity, much less have one in their cabinet.

Why would the government want to distance themselves from these two?  It has already been stated that perception means a great deal in the world of politics, but there is another side to it.  It means that the government becomes occupied with defending themselves rather than moving forward and on to issues that it wants to bring to the media.  The government loses control of the message.  It also gives ammunition to the opposition parties as they question the government's credibility in Question Period, news talk shows, and any other venue they can find.  In politics, the governing party is always targeted by the opposition for one of two things:  policy or credibility.

Aristotle and early political thinkers would probably not have considered the credibility attacks a part of "politics."  Today, they seem to be an integral part.  Should poltiical discussion be solely about policy, or is there a place for political debate over the credibility of the governing party and the honesty of its members?

Bombs away!

"U.S., Russia sign historic nuclear treaty"
It is the kind of headline that had a lot more significance in the tense days of the Cold War, but the dismantling of a few more nuclear missiles on both the Russian and American sides is still important and highly political.  The issues and opinions that leaders faced when disarming during the Cold War years have changed little.  One might think that saying so long to a few more weapons of mass destruction would be news that everyone sharing this globe would want to hear, but that is where politics comes in.

Nuclear weapons, while most governments and their leaders have no desire to really use them, are seen as a good tool for defence and a measure of military might.  After all, who would want to get into a fight with a country armed with such powerful weapons?  In other words, they are seen as a deterrent, a means of defence rather than offence, what some might call "a peacemaker."  For the United States, there has been a long history of the Republican Party framing the Democratic Party as being "soft" regarding the use of the military, the defence of the country, or standing up for the country in conflicts with other nations.  Any disarmament treaty signed by a Democratic president could be seen as being "soft" or weak, with those arguing against disarmament saying that such treaties weaken their defences, particularly since that means trusting the other parties signing the treaty will do what they have said they will do (American concerns about signing treaties deserves a separate post at another time).  Therefore, it comes as no surprise that one of the most prominent Republicans in the U.S. at the moment, Sarah Palin,  openly criticized President Obama and the signing of that treaty.  It is also not surprising that others, outside of American politics, support the move.

While the purpose of the attack on Obama might be seen as a purely political move to position herself as being "tough" and Obama being "soft",  are there good reasons for the United States not signing this agreement?  or should both parties be going even further?  After all, both parties still have enough weapon to destroy the globe many times over.  One might also consider whether nuclear missiles are the most appropriate or effective means of securing the United States in the post-9/11 world.