In Montreal, students demand an important (and noisy) conversation
Vimeo videos like this one have spread the conversation in Quebec beyond the student movement
People in Montreal are understandably weary of student protests that have gone on for more than 100 days.
But after walking and talking with marchers for more than two hours late last week, I came away with the sense that this is both a richer and more nuanced discussion than I had understood.
Yes, people are painting their faces and banging pots and pans. But they’re also asking big questions about their society. What values matter? Education? Health care? The right to gather in protest without government oversight?
And when people do see certain public services as essential, as an integral part of any moral community, who should pay for them?
I wonder sometimes at the lack of a similar “conversation” in New York, where we’re making decisions (selling off public nursing homes, raising student tuitions, laying off teachers, and so on) without a big-picture debate over where it’s all taking us, and what our society will look like when we’re done.
I’m not suggesting that New Yorkers need to take to the streets. I’m not even suggesting that the students in Montreal are “right” in their views. A lot of smart people in Quebec think their government is too big, too unaffordable.
But I do think it makes sense to have a fundamental debate over how our our communities should look five, ten, twenty years down the road.
As always, your comments welcome.
I think there are many of us who are engaging in that sort of debate. We have the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement. But at some point you have to stop the debate and engage in some sort of action and to call a spade a spade the Republican party wont engage the other side in any sort of compromise.
To quote long-time Republican stalwart Alan Simpson, “Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains.”
We can no longer have any sort of long term planning in this country because we have a presidential race every 4 years and 3 years and 9 months of that time is spent in the campaign for the next election. When one side gets in they spend their time trying to undo everything done by the other side.
Quebec has always had problems because like the Confederate States, it refuses to accept the fact it is part of a larger country.
Canada might be willing to kick Quebec out of the Union if it weren’t for the fact there are provinces to the east of Quebec that would be cut off from the larger Union.
In all probability, a stand on its own Quebec would fall on its face.
As to the students, I don’t see their problem if they are currently enjoying the lowest tuition rates in Canada and the USA.
Even the Founders engaged in long hours of debate (ie; slavery) and it took 70 years until it ended.
KHL, I agree except I think both parties are guilty of not compromising. It’s going to take a strong leader in all levels of our government to move the action needed forward.
Obama compromised on health care before the “debate” even began. He really wanted a single payer system. According to some polls at the time so did 70% of the country, but he judged it politically impossible in the face of Republican opposition so it was taken off the table. We ended up with a private insurance system that Republicans still insist is a “government takeover”. Obama also proposed bigger cuts (including cuts to Medicare and SS) in return for some increases in taxes. Boehner said “NO!” The Republican position was we won’t raise taxes for any reason. Anyone who thinks the Obama administration hasn’t been willing to compromise hasn’t been paying attention.
KHL,
It does seem that way to me also. There is no period of actual governance, it seems to be almost in continual election mode. But what does that say about us? Election mode would seem to say that I am trying my hardest right now to appeal directly to voters, so that means I should try to NOT compromise and NOT get anything done. Do we as voters just lack the sophistication and understanding of how government operates through compromise legislation? Compromise is a bad thing electorally. But as Simpson points out that means only stupid people will likely get elected.
Except the one thing these guys seem to agree on is that we have to go to war and occupy a bunch of countries and project our military force everywhere. I see no serious discussion from either side about substantially reducing our military and our empire.
You’re right Mervel, we have only ourselves to blame. Honestly, my generation disgusts me. There is a reason we’re called the Me Generation because all most of us really care about is our own pleasure. Sure lots of people give lip service to the idea that we help our friends and neighbors, but when it comes down to it most of us are too selfish. And the politicians have figured that out.
Kathy, I agree that both sides are responsible to some extent in all kinds of ways but seriously, the Republicans have brought disfunction to a new level. What is it McConnell said? “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Has there been a single elected Republican to say on record that a top elected official shouldn’t say things like that?
Knuck, Don’t take it too hard on yourself or your generation. The baby boomers of my generation had the numbers to do whatever we wanted to do, but lacked the will, or perhaps the attention span (was it pot??) to accomplish anything but continual bitching. We have come so close to actually moving forward in this country, only to be undermined by our own good manners in the face of a soulless enemy, or overridden by political correctness in the company of a guiltless industrial machine. A misguided sense of fairness has led us to believe that the other side was playing the same game, and we have been trampled miserably. Liberals and conservatives can’t work together, we don’t play by the same rules. Compromise is not possible except in the imagination of the liberal.
This is fascinating. Based upon conversations here, I’m supposed to believe this is the worst of times?
Not saying there are problems but there have always been problems. If you know anything about history, there have always been problems and there will always be problems.
What to do? Solve your own problems first and stop looking for someone to solve them for you.
I don’t like the price of gas but I dislike the price of heating oil even more. Because of the price of gas, I drive a car that gets 35 mpg. I don’t like the price of cigarettes so I roll my own. I economize wherever possible.
War? We haven’t had anything resembling a sensible war since WW II.
But if you want to protest a war, you have an easy option today. Don’t join the military. There isn’t a draft. No one is forcing you to fight. But if you don’t join the military, don’t be going around pretending you care about “our heroes, the troops.”
I never had any use for those who protested the Vietnam War. To me they were a bunch of sanctimonious do-gooders.
It is so easy to claim to be good at the expense of the “other,” whomever the other might be.
You can still vote if you want. Protest in that way and tell your elected officials what you think by phone, mail or email.
And yes, compromise is possible. Give up on compromise and you give up on democracy.
Is there something wrong with being a sanctimonious do-gooder? Especially when history has proven the sanctimonious do-gooders were right?
If you look at history, most of the evil has been caused by people who were convinced they were the good guys and that made it okay to kill those who they regarded as the bad guys.
All of the religious wars, including the current crop of terrorists, give proof of it.
Well, sure, Pete, but everyone always thinks they’re doing the right thing. Our powers of rationalization are immense.
KHL, of course McConnell would say that since there are Conservatives who believe that President Obama stands for some socialist views.
Pete, I agree. There have always been problems. There is one level of problems (economy, unemployment, etc) which have always been with us. But many Conservatives believe that the biggest problem today is our country is heading toward socialism and they are adamantly opposed.
Do any liberals on this thread think there are any socialist views with this president and/or his administration?
Hi all,
Why do Americans equate socialism with communism? It’s free-market socialism has been practised for years in Canada, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Australia, the UK (to a lesser extent), etc. It basically means that we put limits on Darwinistic Might Makes Right and accept that we need to look out for one another. In some cases, arguably Quebec and France, it might go a bit too far, but one just has to look at the overall healthcare cost savings and health outcomes associated with it to see the benefits. The students in Quebec may or may not be wrong in pushing for free higher education, but it is unfortunate the label of “socialism” is so maligned south of the border (I’m in Quebec).
Cheers, friends!
Kathy, yes. So what?
What is with the name calling? If I were to suggest that Republicans have Fascist ideas everyone would be all over me for being uncivil, but conservatives can use the words socialist and liberal with hate dripping from their lips but nobody seems to think anything of it.
Where is it written in any of our founding documents that we shouldn’t have any socialist ideas?
Tom, God bless you Canadians with your health care and $10/hr minimum wage. Just don’t make us spell practice with an s or favor with a u. Or make us speak French.
Tom has a good point. Even the classic definition of Socialism would still not mean having some large government programs that help people. My understanding is that socialism means some major government ownership of the larger industries in a country. Canada certainly does not have that going on, France has a little of that with some industries.
I would say that in the US the only socialism style moves that have been made by this administration was the direct ownership of GM by the government.
The health care industry is possibly closer as it is a major industry. However the government is already heavily involved in the US.
As far as free University, I would favor that as I have kids who are on their way now, so count me in on that part of socialism.