Politics - the topic had to come up sooner or later

I don't plan on writing a lot about politics on this blog for a number of reasons:

• I'm not an expert on (nor even really understand) our political process or system
• Most of the time, it's boring - old blokes firing argumentative comments based on party lines
• Most of you probably think it's boring, and I think there are other topics that are much more entertaining for the blog
  
• It's depressing, having to accept the fact that you've got a bunch of untrustworthy, immoral men running your country

All that being said, you do find some good comic relief now and again, and often with politics other than your own. In my case - US politics - now that is entertaining ! Especially as reported by Jon Stewart (not sure if your saw the news, but Stewart will be hosting the Oscars this year - should be fun !).

However, it's election time here in Canada and it's hard to escape political news, so much so, that even my 9 year old son was watching an "informal" interview with Prime Minister Paul Martin this morning on Canada AM.

I was rather disappointed with the interview, for some reason I had thought that we may see a different side to the PM or perhaps more substance. But alas, no. Same old story. But one fundamental thing struck me this morning.

During the build up to a federal election, aren't the party leaders supposed to be in high gear "selling" themselves as the best choice for the new PM ? These guys are fighting for their lives. Well, although I'm not an expert on politics, I do know a thing or two about selling and one big rule is as follows:

Objection handling - when the person asks a question, treat it as an objection. Handle it precisely and quickly. Make sure that after your response, the person has understood you, perhaps by saying "did I answer your question?"

This is one of the things that is really getting to me, most of these candidates never answer the blessed question. It's pointless, you just hear the same ranting and raving every day, sticking to their agenda. I think these guys are quite intelligent, so I'm reasonably sure they hear the question, but in their heads, the question is basically a trigger to a pre-written diatribe . Perhaps it's too risky to actually answer the real question, or perhaps it's just how politics work. I'm pretty sure they know the answer, but are second guessing that the public won't like it. Don't they know that if they don't properly answer a question, it lingers in the minds of all watching - what is he hiding ? Doesn't he care ? Isn't he listening to my needs and concerns ? I don't like it and I think the public deserves better. Wouldn't some genuine sincerity be refreshing, but would the public notice it ? Sometimes, the politician is so left field, that they even forget what the question was. This almost happened this morning, when a lady who had sadly lost her son recently to a gun death was asking the PM about gun control etc...off he went on auto-pilot and then (luckily for him) at the very end..."um, ah, blah and blah, I am sorry for your loss".

What we have here in Canada is a common problem. Two parties that are fighting it out and a few other also-rans. In a few weeks time we are basically voting for the lesser of two evils. Back to this morning's interview, I thought to myself, I'm hearing all this bullsh, what does some other intelligent person think ? So I asked my 9 year old son "what do you think of PM Paul Martin". The first two, auto, non-thinking, replies didn't surprise me, "good" and "he makes good rules", but the third threw me a bit or a curve ball. My son actually said "safe". This was a very quick response after listening quite intently, so I take it as genuine. I think the topic at the time was something about western Canadian alienation, so my son's comment probably wasn't about the content, I can only imagine it came from a deeper, subconscious place. "Safe". I guess he does come across rather fatherly and in command. I don't think I can say that about Mr. Harper.

On US politics during their last election I read something that I found very interesting (unfortunately I can't find a reprint or web source, but it went something like this...).
If you take political parties out of the equation and put the high priority fundamental issues of the day (foreign affairs, social welfare, military spending, same sex marriages) on a voting form, the large majority of Americans would vote the same way. Meaning there perhaps isn't polar opposite opinions dividing the population. What I take away from this is that when it comes down to it, most people want similar things from their government, priorities may be a little different, but one leader isn't going to be that different to another on major topics during the same period of time (pretty bold statement eh?). Would Kerry have gotten the US into Iraq ? Were the majority of the population in favour of this war ?

So, wrapping up, do I simply put my faith in the local MP to represent my views in Ottawa ? After all, that would appear the most effective way for me to have my issues heard and perhaps properly represented. Do I shun the process altogether and blame everyone else on the result the next day ? Or do I try and alter the course of Canada's future be trying to read between the tight lines of the promises being made by the party leaders ?

Happy voting, and don't forget about poor Jack.