Having grown up in Canada (eh?) and being an IR geek, I don't have much experience watching coalition governments, especially during campaigns. Elections are something we often like to assume away in IR, and Canada hasn't had to many coalition governments in my time, especially not in Alberta. It's been really interesting watching the (seemingly endless) American campaigns and the German super election year.
One very stark contrast is the brevity of German campaigns. Canadian elections are often called at relatively unexpected times, but the Germans follow a pretty regular schedule, as do the Americans. Still, the Germans manage to keep campaigns pretty short - a few months at most.
Another contrast is the difficulty of running as the minority party in a grand coalition, as the German SPD (social democrat party) is trying to do now. It seems that incumbent parties basically use the canned story about their record and their plans for a glorious future, and opposition parties have theirs about the governing party's mistakes and disrepute. The junior grand coalition party is stuck, though: they can't criticize the incumbents because they are incumbents, and they can't easily rest on their record because credit mostly goes to the larger partner.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the SPD candidate for Chancellor and German Foreign Minister, recently promised to create 4 million jobs in the green energy and health sectors. The other parties and many observers promptly laughed him out of town. Obama has made a very similar claim generally gets praised for it. I'm wondering what the smart move for the SPD would be. What's the winning narrative? (not that I'm pulling for the SPD, just out of curiosity). It's funny how heavily campaigns seem to depend on being able to tell a good story rather than any more sensible, consequential criteria.
Speaking of large minorities, there's a controversy bubbling in Gelsenkirchen about the local Bundesliga team, FC Schalke 04 (soccer season is starting, so expect more soccer posts). Schalke is to the Bundesliga what the Boston Bruins are to the NHL: rarely on top but been around long enough to be a pillar of tradition in the league. Their fans have a stadium chant that includes the lines:
I suppose that one should be used to this sort of nonsense after the Danish cartoon outcry of a few years back, but it's nothing I care to get used to. There's a tendency to wall religion off as a Realm of Infinite Tolerance (i.e. everyone must tolerate it), but incidents like the one in Gelsenkirchen might lend some credence to Sam Harris' argument that liberal tolerance of religions provides cover for extremists less worthy of that tolerance.
It also raises questions about what one can legitimately say about religion with the expectation of peaceful (if not polite) discourse. Although Muslims seem to be especially touchy, but Hindus and Christians also have their angry mob moments, and the religious seem less able to sort out arguments (in many cases probably a precondition of faith). For example, if I were to say that Jesus existed as a person but was devoid of any kind of divinity, this is not a criticism of Jesus. If he were a divine figure, I'd agree that he's a relatively friendly and benign one - I don't criticize him, I just don't believe he's all he's cracked up to be. Try explaining that difference to these folks or these.
And even if I were criticizing somebody's holy cow (so to speak), so what? A divine being can surely take it. I think Canada is just peachy, but I laughed heartily when I heard "Blame Canada" and when it was nominated for the Best Song Oscar in 1999. Grow up and have some faith in your, erm, faith.
One very stark contrast is the brevity of German campaigns. Canadian elections are often called at relatively unexpected times, but the Germans follow a pretty regular schedule, as do the Americans. Still, the Germans manage to keep campaigns pretty short - a few months at most.
Another contrast is the difficulty of running as the minority party in a grand coalition, as the German SPD (social democrat party) is trying to do now. It seems that incumbent parties basically use the canned story about their record and their plans for a glorious future, and opposition parties have theirs about the governing party's mistakes and disrepute. The junior grand coalition party is stuck, though: they can't criticize the incumbents because they are incumbents, and they can't easily rest on their record because credit mostly goes to the larger partner.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the SPD candidate for Chancellor and German Foreign Minister, recently promised to create 4 million jobs in the green energy and health sectors. The other parties and many observers promptly laughed him out of town. Obama has made a very similar claim generally gets praised for it. I'm wondering what the smart move for the SPD would be. What's the winning narrative? (not that I'm pulling for the SPD, just out of curiosity). It's funny how heavily campaigns seem to depend on being able to tell a good story rather than any more sensible, consequential criteria.
Speaking of large minorities, there's a controversy bubbling in Gelsenkirchen about the local Bundesliga team, FC Schalke 04 (soccer season is starting, so expect more soccer posts). Schalke is to the Bundesliga what the Boston Bruins are to the NHL: rarely on top but been around long enough to be a pillar of tradition in the league. Their fans have a stadium chant that includes the lines:
Mohammed was a prophet who didn't know about soccer, but from all the beautiful colours, he figured out the blue-white [Schalke's colours] - my translation.Now domestic Muslim fanatics are threatening Schalke's fans. I have to ask, why the insecurity? Considering that soccer as we know it today didn't exist until 1863, Mohammed died 1231 years too early to have known about it. He couldn't have known any more about soccer than he could have known about Teflon or Baywatch. I wouldn't even call this criticizing Mohammed; it's just a stupid fact in a stupid fan song. His name could just as easily be replaced by Abraham or Gautama.
I suppose that one should be used to this sort of nonsense after the Danish cartoon outcry of a few years back, but it's nothing I care to get used to. There's a tendency to wall religion off as a Realm of Infinite Tolerance (i.e. everyone must tolerate it), but incidents like the one in Gelsenkirchen might lend some credence to Sam Harris' argument that liberal tolerance of religions provides cover for extremists less worthy of that tolerance.
It also raises questions about what one can legitimately say about religion with the expectation of peaceful (if not polite) discourse. Although Muslims seem to be especially touchy, but Hindus and Christians also have their angry mob moments, and the religious seem less able to sort out arguments (in many cases probably a precondition of faith). For example, if I were to say that Jesus existed as a person but was devoid of any kind of divinity, this is not a criticism of Jesus. If he were a divine figure, I'd agree that he's a relatively friendly and benign one - I don't criticize him, I just don't believe he's all he's cracked up to be. Try explaining that difference to these folks or these.
And even if I were criticizing somebody's holy cow (so to speak), so what? A divine being can surely take it. I think Canada is just peachy, but I laughed heartily when I heard "Blame Canada" and when it was nominated for the Best Song Oscar in 1999. Grow up and have some faith in your, erm, faith.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7575ea30-cdab-8bab-b75e-312509ba65fb)
