So I've started volunteering with TV Cogeco in my explorations of the journalism field, and last night I helped cover the Muskoka-Parry Sound candidate debate. It was a lot more interesting than the Huntsville town council meeting I'd helped with in the past to say the least...
All six candidates were present, including a Marxist-Leninist candidate. (Yeah, I had no idea we had a local Marxist-Leninist represenetative here either), and an independent whose main focus is on health care issues. Personally I appreciate the need for discussions, and alternative view points when it comes to politics, so I was happy to see these candidates running and presenting their cases to the general public. But I did hear people questioning why anyone would waste their time and money running, without a hope of winning. Are these people actually crazy enough to believe that they have a chance of winning a seat? Probably not. In fact they're not as crazy as you might think. The sad part, however, is that these people who "have no chance of winning" could arguably make some of the best representatives.
It might sound crazy, when you think about what that person would be able to accomplish as one stand alone voice in the house of commons. But don't you think someone who is so passionate about the state of this country that they would invest their time and money into something they know they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, would be a passionate representative of the people they are supposed to represent? We're talking about someone who cares so deeply about politics, that they will put their "hard-earned money" where their mouths are, knowing full well that that money is leading only to public discourse. But they realize that discussion is needed, and so they make it their responsibility to bring that discussion to the fore. Now that, to me, shows that they truly care. Unfortunately, the specific issues they are channeling that passion into are perhaps not the types of things most people can get behind.
The Marxist-Leninists chose specifically to run a candidate in this area because of the high profile of our current representative. Check out this article to get a better understanding of their position, and why they're running in Parry Sound-Muskoka. Say what you will about Marxism, but as an ideology I've always found it to be attractive and sensible. Who wouldn't want to live in a state of equality, where all of our needs are met, instead of some people having gold letters on their private jets, while others are starving? Unfortunately, it (like all other ideologies) has never actually been achieved in practice. And the examples of Marxism gone wrong are all too rampant to be ignored. It seems the people of this world are not ready to handle the responsibilities associated with the Marxist ideology, and realistically the people of this country would not adjust well to such a dramatic switch at this point in time. But I do respect and appreciate the fact that they are there to challenge the current state of affairs, and remind people that things have not always been, and will not always be, the way they are now.
The truly independent candidate is a little more difficult to figure out. His issue is so specific, that it is downright confusing. His focus is on health care, but more distinctly, the toxic side effects of prescription drugs. In fact, if you check out his website here you will discover that he actually killed his own son, and it was determined to be a result of severe mental health problems, which were exacerbated by his prescription medication. (I'm pretty sure he failed to mention this at the debate however... unless I was in the washroom at the time). He is probably the most passionate candidate up there, but his case is so specific to his own life struggles that it is somewhat difficult to see why he is running in this position. Again, he knows, I'm sure, that he will not win this election. But he obviously feels so strongly about this one issue - likely as a result of his unimaginable guilt - that he has dedicated himself to bringing attention to it in the best way he could come up with. It's a difficult situation to wrap your head around in some ways. The pharmaceutical industry has such a stranglehold in this country, and most doctors don't care enough to even attempt to avoid doling out prescription drugs (in my experience - though luckily my own doctor is an exception to this). But to attempt to make an election about such a specific cause is perhaps not the best way to achieve change. Then again, it could be effective at getting people talking about the issue in greater detail... but not if the candidate himself avoids bringing it up at public forums like last night's debate! (I hope he didn't mention it while I was in the bathroom or I will be making myself look really stupid right now, but I really don't think he did). Plus, I think he would find the Green Party to be in line with the issue he is championing here, but perhaps he didn't feel that was good enough, or that it was getting the attention it needed. I do think the side effects of prescription drugs should be a serious concern in this country, and the world today. Whether or not he is going about his fight in the right way is a matter of opinion, but at least he is doing something. And that is what this country needs more of.
Too many people are content to just complain about life, accept it, and move on. We need the passionate, independent people to continue stepping up so that we don't become so complacent with the state of things that laws being broken by government in parliament that "the Canadian people don't care about" don't become laws being broken in the rest of the country, or world, that the Canadian people don't care about. Seriously, the apathy and acceptance in this country (which I blame partially on everyone having Seasonal Affective Disorder) can be downright scary, and consuming all at the same time. But that's another topic in itself.
Addendum: I left out the obvious point that perhaps electing someone who murdered someone else - whether he was acquitted or not - might not be a wise thing to do. I mean, what's to say he's completely stable now, or forever will be? But, I figured the argument for not electing a murderer was obvious enough on its own that it need not be mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment