mercredi, janvier 31, 2007
all that I need is a blunt excuse, all that I need is a ruse
Maybe my opinion will change after I read more, but in reading "Renegade in Power" by Peter C. Newman about Diefenbaker, I find myself resentful of Mr. Newman's presentation of history. You know by the mere fact that the book is titled "Renegade" that Newman is not a fan of the Dief, so I find myself suspicious of his storytelling. I'm only into the first year of Dief's "reign" (1957) and Newman is talking about how Liberal leader Pearson felt it would be "irresponsible" to force an election (it was the first minority government since 1925) and was cautious about the wording of a motion he wanted to bring forward.
I wonder why he's so sympathetic of Pearson's motives and so hard on Dief. One of the quotes I've already made note of is this one: "John Diefenbaker came to the toughest job in the country without having worked for anyone but himself, without ever having hired or fired anyone, and without ever having administered anything more complicated than a walk-up law office." Okay, so maybe that's not the best experience, but who is really ready to run a country? How does one prepare for that - is there a manual? I like to believe that anyone thrust into the role of Prime Minister is winging it and figuring it out as he goes, so it annoys me when people are very critical of them, as though they had some devious master plan from the very beginning. Look at Stevie - he's doing an okay job, even though the Conservatives are not meant to run this country for long.
To contrast Mr. Newman's views, I'm reading the book "Right Honourable Men" by Michael Bliss. He is a little less harsh toward the Dief so far, but I have a lot to read yet. One interesting aspect of studying Dief is that his situation is similar to where Stevie finds himself these days. The Conservatives find themselves somehow more attractive than the Liberals after the Liberals push their luck a little too far with arrogance and their seeming sense of entitlement to govern. So the citizens elect a minority Conservative government to send a message. And if Stevie can match the Dief in his accomplishments, maybe he can sweep to a majority like Dief did in 1958. (Maybe? Not that I'm voting for it.) | ¶ 8:53 a.m.
I wonder why he's so sympathetic of Pearson's motives and so hard on Dief. One of the quotes I've already made note of is this one: "John Diefenbaker came to the toughest job in the country without having worked for anyone but himself, without ever having hired or fired anyone, and without ever having administered anything more complicated than a walk-up law office." Okay, so maybe that's not the best experience, but who is really ready to run a country? How does one prepare for that - is there a manual? I like to believe that anyone thrust into the role of Prime Minister is winging it and figuring it out as he goes, so it annoys me when people are very critical of them, as though they had some devious master plan from the very beginning. Look at Stevie - he's doing an okay job, even though the Conservatives are not meant to run this country for long.
To contrast Mr. Newman's views, I'm reading the book "Right Honourable Men" by Michael Bliss. He is a little less harsh toward the Dief so far, but I have a lot to read yet. One interesting aspect of studying Dief is that his situation is similar to where Stevie finds himself these days. The Conservatives find themselves somehow more attractive than the Liberals after the Liberals push their luck a little too far with arrogance and their seeming sense of entitlement to govern. So the citizens elect a minority Conservative government to send a message. And if Stevie can match the Dief in his accomplishments, maybe he can sweep to a majority like Dief did in 1958. (Maybe? Not that I'm voting for it.) | ¶ 8:53 a.m.
