So, I've decided to start an Op-Ed series here in the EBC. What I think about things, here in Europeia, and the broader NS world. I'm calling them “Special Comments” after the Kieth Olbermann's special comments – Olbermann being my favorite news commentator, because I expect they'll end up much the same, though perhaps with a tiny bit – emphasis on the tiny – less vitriolic than Olbermann's. But it won't be a reporting of the news. It will be, simply, my opinions. My views.
My views, like anyone else's are informed by my ideology, my worldview. My ideology, essentially, doesn't conform to any of the pre-existing NationStates political ideologies, per se. I call it, for lack of a better term, 'Quilorism' or 'The Quilor Perspective'. Fairly uncreative, I know.
So What is the Quilor Perspective?
First and foremost, I believe in contention. I believe in disagreement. I believe in argument. Every region needs contention, needs dispute, needs debate, needs argument. Yes, it can cause problems. Yes, it can drive people away. But it is also essential to keeping things interesting, keeping the politics from stagnating into a bunch of people who just agree on every little thing, and thus becoming boring. The last Senate elections were filled with people who said they would 'continue the law reforms and the discussion on Con V.' Everyone said that. Because they all believed it. And I agree, that was a good thing to believe, but I felt the Senate Elections themselves, then, were boring. I remarked that I wanted someone, anyone, to say they opposed discussion Con V, or wanted to stop the Law Reforms, just for some difference.
Does contention need to be carefully managed? Do we need to stop it from spilling over, from becoming too much? Yes. Does that mean that we should choke contention off? No.
I believe that there is a potential to have too much civility, too much politeness, too much tact. I know that I'm not in danger of having those things, but I also believe that it is eminently possible for Europeia too, and I think it may well, to a degree, have them.
The trend of the senate conceding to the Executive, overall, in recent times, bothers me. The trend of just approving the vast majority of cabinet appointments without any comment, and then people getting annoyed when someone does take the time to ask questions and deliberate is dangerous. There are times when the Senate can and should concede to the executive, and its not as if all cabinet appointments need to be contended or questioned, but a Senator should feel free to question – aggressively, if they wish – a cabinet nominee. And vote nay.
I'll construct a purely theoretical example. Pretend we still have a region economy for a second, and that it works. (We don't and we shouldn't, but that isn't the point). I'm in the Senate, and the President Nominates Bob to be the Finance Minister. There is no question that Bob has the dedication and activity to do the job, or that he doesn't know what goes into being a finance minister, but I, a Senator, fundamentally disagree with what his policies in the Finance realm are. I should have every right to grill him, and vote nay. Or if I think his association with certain people, regions, organizations, etc, are a problem, then I should be allowed to vote on that.
The Senate can and should be able to aggressively question the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet – everyone. The Senate should not just roll over, and should always be willing to legislate.
And on that front, is another thing: A reconsideration of Consensus. The region should always be willing to discuss old consensus. The old consensus may not need to be changed. Probably won't, in most cases, but it should always be open to discussion. We shouldn't necessarily discuss every old consensus now, or even on a regular basis, but if someone does want to discuss it, does want to bring up the idea of changing an old consensus, they should always be allowed to – no, they should be encouraged to. Europeia needs to keep looking forward, using the past as a base, a foundation, rather than a road map or a fence.
I believe that Europeia needs to continue an assertive foreign policy, and needs to be more willing to be attacked by some people, some regions. We can't please anyone – ever – and we definitely shouldn't try. The decision abstain on the liberation of Catholic, then to vote for the repeal that liberation were in part because of the perception of the Catholic raid. Both candidates now have fundamental issues with the Catholic Raid, the way it was handled, and the way it was perceived. Well, I think Europeia should be willing to not care. We shouldn't go out of our way to piss people off, but its not as if the FRA, TITO and the UDL liked us any more. It didn't make the neutrals change their minds towards us, because they're neutral. Europeia should be more willing to stand with its allies and friends on issues like that, like Soviet Union.
And that, in a slightly incoherent nutshell, is the Quilor Perspective.
My views, like anyone else's are informed by my ideology, my worldview. My ideology, essentially, doesn't conform to any of the pre-existing NationStates political ideologies, per se. I call it, for lack of a better term, 'Quilorism' or 'The Quilor Perspective'. Fairly uncreative, I know.
So What is the Quilor Perspective?
First and foremost, I believe in contention. I believe in disagreement. I believe in argument. Every region needs contention, needs dispute, needs debate, needs argument. Yes, it can cause problems. Yes, it can drive people away. But it is also essential to keeping things interesting, keeping the politics from stagnating into a bunch of people who just agree on every little thing, and thus becoming boring. The last Senate elections were filled with people who said they would 'continue the law reforms and the discussion on Con V.' Everyone said that. Because they all believed it. And I agree, that was a good thing to believe, but I felt the Senate Elections themselves, then, were boring. I remarked that I wanted someone, anyone, to say they opposed discussion Con V, or wanted to stop the Law Reforms, just for some difference.
Does contention need to be carefully managed? Do we need to stop it from spilling over, from becoming too much? Yes. Does that mean that we should choke contention off? No.
I believe that there is a potential to have too much civility, too much politeness, too much tact. I know that I'm not in danger of having those things, but I also believe that it is eminently possible for Europeia too, and I think it may well, to a degree, have them.
The trend of the senate conceding to the Executive, overall, in recent times, bothers me. The trend of just approving the vast majority of cabinet appointments without any comment, and then people getting annoyed when someone does take the time to ask questions and deliberate is dangerous. There are times when the Senate can and should concede to the executive, and its not as if all cabinet appointments need to be contended or questioned, but a Senator should feel free to question – aggressively, if they wish – a cabinet nominee. And vote nay.
I'll construct a purely theoretical example. Pretend we still have a region economy for a second, and that it works. (We don't and we shouldn't, but that isn't the point). I'm in the Senate, and the President Nominates Bob to be the Finance Minister. There is no question that Bob has the dedication and activity to do the job, or that he doesn't know what goes into being a finance minister, but I, a Senator, fundamentally disagree with what his policies in the Finance realm are. I should have every right to grill him, and vote nay. Or if I think his association with certain people, regions, organizations, etc, are a problem, then I should be allowed to vote on that.
The Senate can and should be able to aggressively question the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet – everyone. The Senate should not just roll over, and should always be willing to legislate.
And on that front, is another thing: A reconsideration of Consensus. The region should always be willing to discuss old consensus. The old consensus may not need to be changed. Probably won't, in most cases, but it should always be open to discussion. We shouldn't necessarily discuss every old consensus now, or even on a regular basis, but if someone does want to discuss it, does want to bring up the idea of changing an old consensus, they should always be allowed to – no, they should be encouraged to. Europeia needs to keep looking forward, using the past as a base, a foundation, rather than a road map or a fence.
I believe that Europeia needs to continue an assertive foreign policy, and needs to be more willing to be attacked by some people, some regions. We can't please anyone – ever – and we definitely shouldn't try. The decision abstain on the liberation of Catholic, then to vote for the repeal that liberation were in part because of the perception of the Catholic raid. Both candidates now have fundamental issues with the Catholic Raid, the way it was handled, and the way it was perceived. Well, I think Europeia should be willing to not care. We shouldn't go out of our way to piss people off, but its not as if the FRA, TITO and the UDL liked us any more. It didn't make the neutrals change their minds towards us, because they're neutral. Europeia should be more willing to stand with its allies and friends on issues like that, like Soviet Union.
And that, in a slightly incoherent nutshell, is the Quilor Perspective.