To Demand Better of Your Politicians, Demand Better of Yourself

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

What is tolerated today becomes accepted tomorrow. - Various Attribution

An interesting conversation this week on the Facebook page of a member of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta reminds me of why we have the politicians we have.

It’s because we accept anything they give / tell us.

And while we like to rant and rave about what politicians allegedly do to us as we claim victimhood at the hand of their alleged incompetence or corruption (as some people claim), the reason politicians do what they do boils down to one thing.

It’s because we accept anything they give / tell us.

On the previously mentioned Facebook page this week, there was a discussion around the right-leaning parties of the Alberta political sphere and the possibility (or impossibility) of the two primary parties, the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, reuniting against the left-leaning NDP Party currently in power.

While the conversation was interesting and mostly respectful, I asked a couple of questions, specifically around whether people can come to an agreement regarding the definition of the words “progressive”, “conservative” and “values”, since failure to come to an agreement on what these words mean would prevent any such alliance from happening.

This sparked a healthy exchange until a former member of the Alberta government proceeded to give their views.  The individually waxed poetically about such concepts as principles, values, forgiveness and acceptance and the need “to do better and be better for, and, to each other.”

I thought it was a pretty cool, unifying message although one thing remained stuck in my craw from the previous election loss, a rumor that had been attached to this MLA and which suggested or implied unethical or potentially illegal behaviour and so I asked if the rumor were true.  There was no issue with stating it publicly since it had been rolling around in the public space anyway.

[Background Note] In my world and in the public-facing role I have, questions come in my direction every day, some friendly and inquisitive and some accusatory / confrontational.  When one accepts a public-facing role, one does one’s best to answer every question respectfully and as fact / data-based as possible.

When I asked for clarity on the rumor that was already in the public space, the former MLA and others supporting this person immediately demanded that my question be removed and made the demands in such a way that the person who owned the Facebook wall felt threatened as exhibited in this text exchange between the Facebook wall owner and myself.

The reason he gave for deleting my request for clarity was also intriguing.

So the mere act of asking for clarification on something being discussed about a former politician (who has a desire to be re-elected) in the public space provides people with a reason to feel fearful of asking for clarity or for allowing the request to stand.  This is especially intriguing given that the person being questioned had just cited the need “to do better and be better for, and, to each other.”

Meanwhile an executive within the PC Party texted me this message as he observed the events that unfolded.

I wonder how a Party can expect to rebuild itself on values, transparency and the like when people who request clarity on same are threatened or an effort is made to intimidate them into silence.

The Bottom Line

While many tout our democracy as the greatest form of government on the planet, they forget that the key elements of it need to be constantly, consistently and vigorously earned, re-earned, defended and championed.

One of the tenets of our democracy is the right to request transparency in the actions of those who claim to represent our best interests in our legislatures.

However, a dual crime of democracy occurs when someone who claims to serve us dares to shout us down instead of providing a response to requests for clarity AND the person being shouted at acquiesces without resistance or reason.

When these things happen, our democracy is in danger of producing a result that is not as ideal as that which we desire or deserve.

In such situations, if our democracy or the results it produces is tarnished in any way, we can’t blame the people we put in office nor can we criticize their actions because the reality is that we put them in office and if we accept their actions and keep re-electing them anyway, we have only ourselves to blame.

After all, when we have high expectations of our government and its elected representatives and they appear to be disappoint us consistently, maybe we need to re-examine our expectations of ourselves before criticizing the people we elect.

Unfortunately, I think it is always easier to hold others to a higher standard rather than ourselves since dodging responsibility and accountability requires much less effort when we expect both to be exhibited by others and not ourselves.

What do you think?

Does it matter?

What are you doing about it?

Forget asking what a politician stands for – what do YOU stand for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum For the history buff who wondered if I chose the Alexander Hamilton quote deliberately on the 211th anniversary of his death in a duel, I can assure you that it was pure coincidence.

My friends at the Bank of New York used to joke that on the day he died, he told employees of the Bank that he founded not to do anything until he got back.  Hey .. it’s their joke … not mine!  Great people over there with a great sense of humor.

---

Addendum 2 – Things That Make You Go Hmmmm – July 12, 2015

I received a cease and desist letter from a legal firm representing an unrelated person who thought I was writing about them.  Oooops – guilty as charged for a crime as of yet unknown by anyone except the perpetrator.  I guess there are more skeletons present than people are aware of.

As a friend of mine pointed out today, Israeli police sometimes offer something of interest to see who takes the bait, referring to the process as the integrity test.  The party drawn out is clearly guilty – one just needs to figure out the crime.

In the spirit of offering to help people as much as I can, I offer politicians the quick reference guide to lying as shown below.  Click on the image for a larger version.

---

Addendum 3 – Closing Thoughts – July 18, 2015

What I find interesting about the party in question is that many people who blocked progress before and who fought openness in order to prevent embarrassing truths from coming out are now the same people writing blogs about the importance of truth and openness while simultaneously still blocking the truth.

They wanted to be the hero then by preventing the truth from coming out, they want to be the hero now by pretending to offer enlightenment that is allegedly unknown to everyone else and they are attempting to be the hero of the future by keeping skeletons buried in the closet.

You can’t have it all.

---

Addendum 4 – I Guess I’m Not Done – August 12, 2015

With a by-election being called in Calgary-Foothills, I dared to ask what the strategy was to win the hearts, minds and votes of the people after the devastating loss by the PC party in May.

Here is one person’s response (click on the images for larger versions):

I guess the PC party (or at least the loudest people within it) have some learning to complete.

The Poison Pill in the Wildrose Defection

I'm a traitor, but I don't consider myself a traitor. - Aldrich Ames

“You lose your voice for your constituents and you lose your voice to advocate,” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

“We’re here to just make sure that Albertans are taken care of and that when the government makes mistakes they’re called out on them.  They make an awful lot of mistakes so it keeps us pretty busy.” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

As news breaks of the potential defection of major players from the Wildrose Party to the PC Party, including Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson, Jeff Wilson, Gary Bikman, Jason Hale and Blake Pedersen (maybe more to be announced), I can’t help but think of the poison pill this represents to the PC Party.

The fact that leaders of a political party could abandon their party when “the times get tough” is a major reflection upon their character and their dedication to their former organization and the people within that organization.

The fact that one of the defectors, Rob Anderson, has done this more than once (having defected from the PC Party to the Wildrose and now is attempting to return to the PC Party) is a damning conviction in regards to his character and his opportunistic nature.  In doing so, he has slammed both parties and therefore is worthy of neither.

When one considers the venomous attacks against the PC Party by this merry band of roving politicians, one has to wonder what exorcism, voodoo or other transformational process was imparted upon them that converted their hate into love.

Do they suddenly believe (or want us to believe) that the party they hated is suddenly worth embracing in order to meet their constituent's needs or should we call it for what it probably is – a selfish or self-serving gesture that suggests that they believe that they cannot beat Jim Prentice in the next election and so it is better to join the winning side early rather than go down to defeat.

Why would the PC Party accept them?

It would make sense if the PC Party were desperate to increase its control of the Legislature but the Legislature is already well in-hand, so the extra votes aren’t needed.

Do the defectors bring any skills to the PC Party that the Party does not currently have?  If the defectors’ public actions are to be used as the litmus test, the answer would be no.

However, absorbing them into a Party that has its future well in-hand opens the door to internal rifts as Wildrose-leaning insiders and original PC Party members begin to clash on policy, platform, candidate nomination / selection, etc.

The rumor that the defectors will be provided with uncontested nominations for their ridings in the upcoming election will also alienate long-time PC supporters and deepen this rift.

To add insult to injury, what happens if some of the defectors are offered plum ministerial portfolios while long-time members of the PC Party who stood by the Party when times were difficult are passed over?

And let us not forget that the existence of a strong opposition (as far as it is) ensures transparency and accountability in government.  The Wildrose Party has created more insight into the workings of the Alberta PC Party than has been seen in the Province for many years.  The fact that receiving the defectors would even be considered by the PC Party is a warning that there would be no solid opposition remaining to question the action, something that should concern the citizens of Alberta.

The Wildrose Party has also contributed to the overthrowing of two Alberta Premiers so their track record is actually not too shabby.

The Bottom Line

Once someone demonstrates that they can’t be trusted with another party, why would you suddenly believe they are trustworthy in your own camp, unless you are so desperate for their support that you can look blindly past the obvious as politicians often do in order to accomplish their objectives.

And so with no obvious upside and plenty of opportunity for downside, the PC Party should reject the Wildrose defectors as being of insufficient character and values for the Party and being a potential poison pill in the future.

If they are rejected and return to take over the helm of the Wildrose Party, it would be justice for that Party to reject them also for once a self-serving traitor’s motives have been exposed, can you ever really trust them in the future?

After all, this is what this event is all about – an evaluation of character, values and trust of both the PC and Wildrose Parties and the question of whether these attributes can be found in the people who serve the Province.

Let us not forget that in the end, the constituents must come first.

Do the elected officials in question remember this?

If the Wildrose Party does take them back (should they be rejected by the PCs), maybe the Wildrose Party should be renamed something more appropriate … maybe something like the Benedict Arnold Party.

Because that name appears to be a more accurate reflection of the character and values of many (not all) of the players leading it.

I think that the people within the Wildrose and PC Parties and the people of Alberta deserve better.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS When I see actions such as those taken by the defectors, I think of posters like this:

or this:

Addendum – Maybe Not What It Seems - December 17, 2014

Watching some PC MLAs say that they can “look beyond the past” implies that said MLAs don’t care about the company that they keep as long as the company that they keep appears to serve their own needs.

I wonder if the backlash against the defectors would be so great that they would go down to defeat in the next election anyway (regardless of the party they serve) and if that were to happen, is acceptance of the defectors just a waste of time and energy or is it part of a masterful plan to skewer the Wildrose Party, using the self-serving nature of the defectors against themselves?

Or …. is this the greatest political takeover in Alberta history, with in fact the Wildrose policies becoming the PC Party policies, bringing true conservatism back to the PC Party and making the Wildrose experiment one of the more brilliant ones in Canadian political history.  This scenario would bode well for the defectors with potential plum ministerial positions being offered to them but would alienate the left-leaning members of the PC Party, thus encouraging them to move on if they don’t like what they see. 

Time will tell.

Final Addendum – The Deal is Done – December 18, 2014

As the dust settles at the time I write this, 9 members of the Wildrose Party have joined the PC Party, simultaneously gutting the Official Opposition, practically wiping out the Party that stood in opposition and providing guaranteed jobs to the 9 self-serving individuals who put themselves above their Party, their colleagues, their friends and the people they serve.  The backlash from both PC and Wildrose Party members has been strong.  However, to the many who donated significant time, energy and money to the Wildrose Party, the feeling of betrayal appears to be especially strong as Ms. Smith and company stabbed them in the back without remorse.

It doesn’t matter to the floor crossers.  They are, after all, politicians.  Should we have dared to expect anything better from the people who dared to insist they were different than the team they have just joined?

Shame on them or shame on us?

While the gushing, positive language in Ms. Smith’s press presentation was all around “like minds coming together”, the words sounded empty and hypocritical.  She carefully evaded providing specific answers to any questions posed by the press and successfully said a lot about nothing (or nothing about a lot, depending on your interpretation).  She is a politician first.

In business and in Life, I believe that a large part of how people perceive me is based on the company I keep.  I personally wouldn’t take anyone on any team of mine whose selfish needs destroy others in the process.  Not only would that person’s character reflect poorly on my own character, but the reality is that I would never know when the person would do the same to me.  Some of these floor crossers have demonstrated such repeat behavior already.

The world of politics is very different.  While people can campaign on things like character and values, such attributes take second place to accomplishing the needs of the politicians, needs that hopefully intersect somewhere with the needs of the people. The Premier didn’t need to accept the floor crossers, having the legislative weight to accomplish his intentions but he did so anyway, accepting people of lesser character into his team.

If it is a reflection on the Premier and the PC Party, at this point it doesn’t matter.  He has a legislative juggernaut that doesn’t need to pay attention to the people and is no longer faced with the challenge of answering to an opposition. 

These events also send a message to the members of the PC Party who stuck it out when times got difficult.  The message is two-fold:

1. Your ongoing support is appreciated but may not be rewarded as the floor crossers secure plum positions in lieu of those who worked hard for the Party.
2. Character and values are optional, except when being promoted to the electorate at election time as essential attributes that differentiate the Party from others.

While people insist that this is not a merger of two parties, I have read confidential documents from unhappy participants in this event that suggest that the PC Party is about to move much further to the right.

Where does that leave Red Tories, both candidates and the people who support them?

Time and the level of electorate amnesia that is common with such events will prove to be very revealing.

And finally, while I was never a fan of the Wildrose Party, I did admire their tenacity in being a strong opposition despite their small size.  Their ferocity and perseverance accomplished a lot within the Legislature that benefitted the people of Alberta.  Are the days of someone holding the Government accountable and responsible gone for the people?

Time will tell.

Greg Clark–A Refreshing Change Or Just Another Politician?

One of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician's objective. Election and power are. - Cal Thomas

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant. - Charles de Gaulle

On Wednesday night past, I took a moment to pop over to the candidates debate in the riding of Calgary Elbow for the upcoming Alberta by-election. Whether I am a sucker for punishment or I still seek hope that caring, competent, public-serving politicians can still be found remains to be determined but there was something that intrigued me in what I witnessed.

Susan Wright, representing the Liberal Party was well spoken and served her Party well at the event.  It wouldn’t surprise me if she does very well in the upcoming by-election.

Stephanie McLean, representing the NDP, trotted out the typical agenda-less bashing (some of it personal), referring to the government as “corrupt” and a “regime” (with clear use of the word in the derogatory sense) and even going as far as suggesting that her PC Party opponent had entered politics for personal gain.

Gordon Dirks of the PC Party left me shaking my head as to how he could claim that “yes, the PC Party has screwed up many times in the past but now that Jim Prentice and I are in town, we are going to fix everything pronto”.  Miracles happen but when one has much of the same team … well …. you know.

John Fletcher of the Wildrose Party left me wondering how one could stumble through a supposed strategy that suggested that he would slash budgets wildly while investing more than any other party.  Mr. Dirk’s description of this as a “fiscal fairyland” made me laugh.

Yup …. three of the four candidates offered much of the same old garbage that is always trotted out in debates.

And then there was Greg Clark of the Alberta Party.  He answered questions without political rhetoric, techno-jargon, clichés and the like.  When it came to answering the question about where the money would come from for future projects, he was the only one who actually stated where it would come from instead of using the typical voodoo, magic, mass hypnosis or rips in the space-time continuum that are often trotted out in such debates.

I gasped when he was so open and honest about what was needed (and he was right).  Could it be that there was actually someone in the political arena who was willing to say what might be unpopular but which was actually needed in the Province of Alberta and could do so intelligently, strategically, competently and eloquently?

Could this be the refreshing change that is needed in Alberta politics (and politics in general), presenting a strong blend of public focus and business acumen to lead the Province moving forward?

Just as I thought that Clark did not (refreshingly) represent politics as usual, I saw this on his Facebook feed.

In a single statement, he shifted from promoting a strong agenda to resorting to the land of personal bashing that is so typical of candidates who have nothing else to leverage, promote or fall back on.

Could it be that in the land of democracy, a political candidate was attempting to tell another what he should do and that that person should be considered less of a person just because he didn’t want to do that which was being demanded by another?

If this happened in a school yard, we would call this bullying.

So much for role models.

As someone who has many gay friends whom I love, support and respect, I also wouldn’t appreciate it if someone said “wear this in support of them otherwise you don’t like them”.  I have a right to choose who or what I publicly support when I wish to.  If I don’t wear such a pin or sticker, it does not mean I don’t support or like them. 

In fact, I’m not aware of a direct correlation between not wanting to wear something in support of a cause and proof that I do not support or I am actively against such a cause.  To suggest otherwise is a weak-minded supposition on someone’s part …. or is politically useful.

And besides, this is a democracy after all.

So on the one side, Clark seems to represent a refreshing change that is needed while on the other, he falls back to the same old divisive, negative politics that has been part of the US landscape for years and which is now becoming more and more common in the Canadian political arena.

Could it be that Clark is being strongly influenced by the juvenile, self-serving thoughts and musings of Stephen Carter, his campaign strategist?

I hope not.  When someone of immense potential taints their offering with the same old negative campaign stuff that others without hope fall back on, it reminds me of splitting an atom.

Do it well and one can produce positive energy forever.

Do it poorly and one produces this:

Unfortunately, explosions this large tend to take out the innocent as well as the guilty, the ignorant and the stupid.

Mr. Clark’s sharp, intelligent responses the other night offer hope that politicians can still be of the people and for the people and to be able to do so intelligently and strategically.

Meanwhile his Facebook post suggests that he has an alter-ego that does not serve all the people so eloquently or intelligently.

I wonder which side, the refreshing side or the same-old same-old side, will come to bear should he get elected.

The Bottom Line

It is not easy to offer one’s self for public service and I commend anyone who has the courage to step up and do so.

However, that being said, once one has stepped forward, the kudos and attaboys should quickly fall second to the important questions of “what needs to be done”, “why are we doing it”, “how are we going to get it done” and “how do we know”.

Because if we can’t do this proactively, strategically and intelligently, then we end up with more of the same old same old, with more valuable time passing by without solutions being offered, with potentially more problems being created and with the electorate becoming more disenfranchised with the political arena.

Many politicians throw many things at the side of the barn to see what will stick and to see if what sticks will resonate with the electorate.

Hopefully what Mr. Clark offers is a refreshing change in the political arena and he is not in fact throwing something else commonly found on the farm.

I think we need the type of refreshing change that Mr. Clark has the potential to represent.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

This musing continues here …. Greg Clark–Politicians and the Importance of Optics.

PS This blog is not an endorsement of any candidate present at the debate.  However, it is important that we apply an appropriate level of discernment to what political candidates offer otherwise we end up with a variant of this:

If we don’t apply an appropriate level of discernment in candidate selection, we can’t blame them for the results they produce because just as our finger of accusation points at them, our other three fingers are actually pointing back at ourselves.

Addendum – Stephen Carter responds – October 11, 2014

In fairness to people named in my blog, I always share responses that they make.

Stephen Carter shared this:

Personally, if I were responding to this blog post, I would have taken the moment to say something like “we believe that the attributes that you noted about Greg will propel him to victory in the upcoming by-election”.  Such a response would have been strategically and politically astute.

However, such a flippant response deserved a flippant reply and therefore I couldn’t resist this little note.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.  During a discussion on Twitter a couple of weeks ago regarding the number of student spaces available in Alberta, I asked a serious question regarding how the Alberta Party would pay for their promises regarding education.

My question produced this exchange with Stephen Carter:

Two points come to mind here:

1. We should always seize every opportunity to promote or advance our agendas when provided with said opportunity and not cripple our efforts or the efforts of others.
2. For Greg Clark – we are the company that we keep.  For a politician, making a poor choice can be very expensive, even if the resource detracting from his efforts is “free” as Mr. Carter claims to be.

Addendum – Alberta Party Comes Up Empty – October 29, 2014

The Alberta Party came up empty in all 4 by-elections in Alberta.  Oftentimes bravado is better directed towards more strategically positive thoughts, words and actions.

I wonder how honest the Alberta Party will be in its post mortems or if it will get distracted by the “second place is a win” mantra that many people embrace.

Unfortunately, in politics, there is only first place.  Discussion of trends, changing momentum and such is often irrational, unjustified, wishful thinking on the part of those who didn’t finish first.

Damaged Teams–A Product of Broken Leaders

Some years ago after a woman by the name of Heather joined our organization, I noticed that an air of disrespect started growing within her business unit.  Her team quickly went from a tight-knit, respectful one to one where the individuals members were practically killing each other.

While it’s not my business to tell others how to run theirs, when they adopted this approach in how they interacted with my business units, I took action and asked Heather why her team now worked completely differently than before.  They were much less respectful, much less collaborative and as a result they were much less productive and much less happy as individuals.

She informed me that she ruled by fear.  If she could instill enough fear and disrespect in her team, then the team would be perpetually off balance, would be easier to control and would serve her needs better.  She did this through a number of techniques including but not limited to showing disrespect to her peers, sowing seeds of discontent and distrust amongst her team members, allowing team members to fight over things that she could have resolved quickly, allowing team members to aggressively interact with people outside of her team and withholding information from others.

Encouraging respect and leading by example were not part of her repertoire.  In fact, she seemed happiest when everything around her was “up in flames” all the while remaining unaccountable to those whom she served. 

Well, she thought she was unaccountable to anyone.

We never did discover what “her needs” were as her office was blissfully silent before the end of the week and her team returned to its natural state of respect-based, trust-based collaboration.

Despite all the best practices we have in business and government, we haven’t stamped out obvious ignorance yet.

If we had, the world would be a better place, wouldn’t it? :-)

I am reminded of Heather when I make requests of the Wildrose Party for clarity, data, facts and the like.

Asking questions in private produces no response at all.

But asking questions in the public space is like chumming, the art of attracting sharks by pouring blood and animal carcases into the water and watching as the sharks arrive, blinded by their instinctive, insatiable hunger and desire to share in “the kill”.

As the sharks circle with their best but weak-minded efforts at taunts, insults, intimidation, crass language and the like, the leadership fades into the background, probably sighing with relief that they ducked another difficult question.

What the “sharks” don’t realize is that for their actions to be actively encouraged (or not strongly discouraged) by their “leaders” is very revealing about the leaders themselves.

Leaders who lead in this way, who hide behind bullies and intimidators, are not leaders.  They have forgotten that to be a leader is more than just holding a title or to be positioned at the top of an org chart.

To be a leader is to lead by example, demonstrating that high levels of ethics, morals, principles, character, respect, transparency, servanthood and authenticity are required of a true leader.

And such leaders hold anyone that serves with them or speaks / acts on their behalf to the same high standards.

True leaders build a legacy that enables the people they serve for many years - long after that leader has moved on.

The rest of the so-called leaders strive to serve their own purpose, often with mixed results, a lot of wreckage in their wake and a lot of people left to pay the price for their “leadership”.

The world needs more authentic leadership soon

We are heading towards interesting times that go far beyond what this year’s budget looks like, how the stock market is doing, who the next Pope will be and the like.

These interesting times will test our leaders in ways that they haven't been tested before.

And whether our leaders are successful or not (and whether we as a society will successfully overcome the challenges or not) will in large part be determined by the nature of the leaders we select to guide us through these difficulties.

What about the “sharks” that inauthentic leaders like to hide behind?

As someone who has sat in on a number of emergency preparedness meetings on a national and international scale, I can say that it doesn’t look for good for people who dedicate themselves to tearing others down instead of striving to lift themselves and others up to create a stronger society.

Mathematically, the odds are against them.  Strategically, they are considered a burden by many planners.  Tactically, emergency planners are focused more on how to minimize the impact of those people on those considered “worthy” of moving forward in society.

After all, you can’t save everyone, can you?

I’m not judging them. I’m merely sharing how they are perceived by others.

In the meantime, inauthentic leaders and sharks are a perfect match for each other.

The leaders give the sharks a sense of purpose, leveraging the shark’s self-perceived disempowerment, frustration, pent-up anger and lack of purpose.

And the sharks inflate the egos of the leaders and help them feel like what they are doing and how they are doing it serves everyone’s needs.

For both sides, ignorance is bliss.

For now.

As for the rest of us?

Are you an enabled leader, encouraging respect, transparency and collaboration amongst your teams?  Do you see your role as one of servant leader, serving your team, lifting them to their greatest potential and creating an even more enabled leadership in future generations of your organization or government?

Are you a team member or citizen striving for the same ideals while holding your leaders accountable to the principles that you hold to be important?

Perhaps you are both and don’t realize it.

Or do you?

A better future is waiting for each one of us but it requires that we step up and be the stronger leaders we are capable of being.

What are we waiting for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS For those readers who feel themselves growing angry after reading this post, I would recommend that they read this post (Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation) before responding. :-)

Addendum: In fairness, there are many Wildrose supporters who are good people.  However, the sharks remind me of the Quebec separatist movement in the 1970’s.  The loud, bullying, intimidating pro-separatist movement claimed to be representing everyone and from the volume of their rhetoric, always appeared to represent the majority until referendums and such proved otherwise. 

Weak leaders rely not only on sharks but also on good people remaining silent.  Unfortunately as Edmund Burke noted:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Addendum: April 12, 2013

You know you’ve hit a nerve when a political party leader and an Opposition House Leader block you on Twitter as Ms. Smith and Mr. Anderson respectively have blocked me (an example shown below).

They break four cardinal rules of politics.

1. Don’t shy away from requests for data / evidence to back up one’s assertions / statements (especially assertions that appear to be over the top or inaccurate).

2. Never let someone see you sweat (or cause you to appear to be hiding behind something).

3. Don’t intentionally provide fodder for more concerns about transparency, credibility and authenticity.

4. Don’t promote the importance of being able to critique others in a democracy while fearing the same process when directed back at one’s self.  We have a word for that in the English dictionary.  It is hypocrite.

All four become inconvenient when election time rolls around.  I understand blocking taunters and the ignorant.  But blocking someone who merely asks for data to support assertions is different altogether.  To block me suggests they are no different than the politicians they claim to be better than.

The other thing of interest to me is that such a defensive action causes people like me to take another look at a group that I had made an observation about and moved on.  When such an action is brought to my attention, the action cries “Don’t leave yet – take a closer look because you may be onto something”.

And that’s the last thing most politicians want.