Thursday, October 15, 2009

On Patronage

Seems there's a lot of Liberal (hypocrisy) whining, plus Big Old Media big-deal-making over patronage appointment-making by the Conservative government.

Well, you know what?

So what?

Of course there's patronage. There has to be, whoever's in government, as long as patronage isn't illegal, which it shouldn't be, for the simple reason that making patronage illegal is impractical and would tend to discriminate against folks who hold membership in the party presently in government, and would potentially intimidate the government from appointing a lot of excellent, albeit affiliated-with-the-party, folks to public-service positions just for the optics of looking "fair and balanced" in such appointment-making.

When the Liberals were in power for so long (the majority of the time in Canada's history, actually), they made patronage appointments all the time. So there's lots of Liberals and other Liberal-friendly folks in the public service already. Sure, Mulroney made patronage appointments, too, but it was fair to do so, because to let only Liberals dominate the public service isn't wise, for obvious reasons. And lately we've seen public servants militating against and refusing to follow directives from the current Conservative government, whereas under the Liberals, well, can we recall any public-service refusenik behavior being reported in the media? I don't have any such recollection.

Patronage helps to even the mix of partisans and ideologues in the public service, and helps to prevent dominance by any one partisan/ideological group therein.

I'd also ask the Liberals to complain about Obama's own appointments of partisans and ideologues to government positions, particularly the "czars", who are amongst the most extremely ideological revolutionaries in America, without a doubt. Yes, Liberals, if you're going to wax hypocritical and condemn the Tories for doing what you guys always did, then I'd suggest you stop worshipping Obama, as he's doing far, far worse than are the Tories on the patronage issue (I dare you guys to expose ONE appointee of the Tories who can hold a candle, in terms of scary-extremist-revolutionary-ness, to the Obama czars, such as Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren and the rest of the three-dozen-odd rogues gallery of dangerous neo-commie extremist ideologues apparently hellbent on "change", which I suggest is a euphemism for "revolution").

Canadians don't want just Liberals and neo-commies to dominate the public service. Therefore they should be ok with having counterbalancing big- and small-c conservative folks entering it. It's healthier for our country and democracy this way.

So all the bellyaching and whining about Tory patronage is silly and should really make way for discussion of more important stuff, like Senate reform (the Liberal-dominated Senate is always militating against the Tories, preventing passage of legislation, whereas they always immediately rubber-stamped all Liberal legislation, no matter how radical, revolutionary, extreme, bizarre, dangerous, controversial, discriminatory, etc.!) and the problem of Section Thirteen of the "Human Rights Act" and the dangerous, Charter-violating fascism of the "Human Rights" Commission, most of whose employees I betcha are Liberal-left ideologues, appointed by the Liberals.