There are without those that vote in the Cnd. election 2008, which believe, as I most certainly do - in the promotion of both conservative and liberal ideologies. However, several issues within the power structure remain unclear amidst the chaos of voter apathy.
This is probably due in part, with the last election being unilaterally given based on the minority government of which Paul Martin (former pm), now Liberal leader Stephen Dion has more or less stopped the bleeding of a severed political party. The conservative leader Stephen Harper has requested that Cnd. voters subscribe to his party's platform of tax-cutting reform to help secure a majority gov. I suppose the question would be linked to what Cnd. apathy connects with such face-to-face intrusion of our present minority government. Is it worth the reward Harper is asking for?
Part of the movement within the political parties, have forced politics to be re-examined in the wake of America's economic crash which has caused a global effect on the markets. If this period in history serves as an indication, it is a vindictive manner of thinking why such economic policies are serving as the focal point of a public wherewithal that seem unaware of what true political leaders are mere diversions - which credibility of the democracy sits in the poor hands of its helpless voters. It just doesn't seem to wash, how "big ideas" purposely translate with most of the democracy, when in fact of the bigger picture, maybe we are not being given a future but instead we're mislead in a democracy of "what is best to do right now".
This is when a reality check I would presume, should make my vote count, simply based on a moral duty to the democratic change for the sake of being a part of it. It seems my moral obligation is on its course. The reason mainly being, due to my participation, 'satisfaction' is not the entity of reason. Quite simply, the purity of intellect is my only strategy, and as Aristotle would have equated with the power of observation does far more good than the lesser of an evil.
As I mentioned earlier, the politics of intervention have no place in today's world or next weeks election at the polls. What I'll be thinking is how my vote effects the change of course in my world view of it. Let the last two minority governments further another unilateral election, that is to say if we vote for a third minority government in succession, I will be quite happy with that result. If it is not a minority government, I am willing to face the consequences.
Here is an interpretation of Marco Almeida’s piece, contextualized within the lead-up to the October 14, 2008 Canadian Federal Election:
Historical & Political Context
The piece reflects the specific anxieties of autumn 2008:
- The Global Financial Crisis: Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, plunging global markets into turmoil just as Canadians were campaigning.
- Minority Governance: Canada had seen back-to-back minority governments—Paul Martin’s Liberals (2004) followed by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (2006). Harper called the 2008 election hoping to convert his minority into a stable majority.
- Liberal Turmoil: The Liberal Party under Stéphane Dion was struggling with internal division, weak polling, and communication issues following the sponsorship scandal era.
Key Themes & Paragraph-by-Paragraph Breakdown
1. Ideological Moderation vs. Voter Apathy
"There are without those that vote in the Cnd. election 2008, which believe, as I most certainly do - in the promotion of both conservative and liberal ideologies..."
- The Stance: Almeida identifies as a political moderate or centrist. He values a balance between conservative fiscal restraint and liberal social values rather than dogmatic partisanship.
- The Conflict: He worries that deep voter apathy obscures how power actually operates, leaving citizens disengaged right when nuanced thinking is needed most.
2. The Transactional Majority: Is Harper’s Ask Worth It?
"The conservative leader Stephen Harper has requested that Cnd. voters subscribe to his party's platform of tax-cutting reform to help secure a majority gov..."
- Harper's Offer: Harper framed tax cuts and fiscal discipline as the antidote to economic turbulence, asking voters for a majority mandate to execute his vision without parliamentary interference.
- The Suspicion: Almeida asks whether Harper’s promised reward (stability and tax relief) justifies granting unchecked power (a majority), especially when the public feels detached from the political process.
3. Short-Term Reactive Politics vs. Long-Term Vision
"Part of the movement within the political parties, have forced politics to be re-examined in the wake of America's economic crash... maybe we are not being given a future but instead we're mislead in a democracy of 'what is best to do right now'."
- The Illusion of "Big Ideas": Almeida argues that campaigns reduce complex crises into simplistic slogans and diversions.
- Presentism over Future Planning: Instead of presenting a coherent long-term future, politicians panic-pivot to short-term crisis management ("what is best to do right now"). Democracy becomes reactive and tactical rather than visionary.
4. The Philosophy of Voting: Observation over Partisan Satisfaction
"...'satisfaction' is not the entity of reason. Quite simply, the purity of intellect is my only strategy, and as Aristotle would have equated with the power of observation does far more good than the lesser of an evil."
- Duty Beyond Enthusiasm: Almeida rejects the common dilemma of voting for "the lesser of two evils" or expecting emotional satisfaction from a candidate.
- The Aristotelian Approach: He frames voting as a civic, intellectual duty grounded in rational observation and active participation rather than blind party loyalty. Participating thoughtfully matters more than being infatuated with any single leader.
5. Conclusion: The Case for a Third Minority Government
"Let the last two minority governments further another unilateral election, that is to say if we vote for a third minority government in succession, I will be quite happy with that result."
- The Preference for Restraint: Almeida’s ultimate preference is another minority government. For a voter who values both conservative and liberal ideas, a minority forces parliamentary compromise, keeps party hubris in check, and prevents any single party from imposing its will unchecked.
- Accepting Risk: He is comfortable if the outcome is a third straight minority; if voters choose a majority instead, he is prepared to accept the democratic outcome and deal with the consequences.
Core Takeaway
Almeida’s commentary is a defense of checks and balances through parliamentary minority. Distrustful of reactive crisis rhetoric and Harper’s push for total majority control, he advocates for an observant, intellectually honest vote that curbs party overreach by keeping Parliament divided and accountable.
