Personality

Personality is important in politics; indeed, it seems to be what I keep hearing about. I can see this a bit in the States, where the people vote for a president to be their leader for the next four years. They want him to be a strong individual. But I still don't really understand it; we have seen repeated examples throughout modern history of a person being voted in based on having "personality" and "leadership", only to have them lead in a frighteningly wrong direction. George W. Bush is only the most recent example. He was elected... twice... not because of his record, but because he was seen as a strong person.

I cannot disagree with this more. Elections should not be popularity contests, yet they are. And it goes well beyond just the candidate. Every time someone comes out in favour of a particular candidate, that just adds to the confusion. Why else would you come out in favour of someone? You're hoping to affect others' votes: not by arguing with any kind of logic, but with the simple emotional connection: I'm voting for him, so I hope that will sway you. And apparently it works.

I just saw a commercial by Mr. Harper, the Conservative leader. He described his family and the support they've given him during his time of leading the country. It was nice; I'm glad he had that needed support. But it told me nothing about why he should lead the country.

I know I can be swayed by emotions: which is why I stick to issues. The economy, the environment, human rights, international relations, the military, national unity: these are all important. I want to hear politicians debate these things, I want to hear what their views are: directly. It's one thing to read a "synopsis" of someone's views, but that is also dangerous. It can be misleading. That's why I want to see the national debates. I'm not sure if it was personality or issues that were the reasons for the latest crisis in Canadian politics.

In Canada, we have debates that are supposed to include all of the major parties' leaders, major parties being defined as ones that have a seat in parliament: "The Greens have fielded as many candidates as the other parties in recent federal elections, but they have not been allowed in the party leaders' televised debates partly because they do not have a sitting member of Parliament" This year they have one. Yet it was announced this week that the Greens would not be included... because the other parties didn't want them there.

I want to see the Greens in the debate. It will give added perspective. Perhaps they have some crazy ideas: but we need crazy ideas. I have crazy ideas, too. I want to hear the others respond to those ideas. I'm upset that the leader of the NDP doesn't want them there. So much for being the party of the average people.

Apparently these debates are the purview of the television networks: not Election Canada. And this illustrates how much the networks are working for any kind of real democracy.