gutter_trash
Banned
I like my TSFA but I wouldn't consider that life changing LOL
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
matthewwhatever
Member
Pretty much all of those are either bad or nonsense.
- the GST cut blew a hole in the country's finances, and they implemented that despite knowing it would be the end result beforehand
- the EU FTA never got passed, and is on life support at this point
- FIPAs helped lead to the tax evasion scandal that was uncovered earlier this year
- his transformation of the NRC into a commercial-focused entity was widely panned, and harmed its ability to attract people doing innovative work
- whatever money he put into the Automotive Innovation Fund was negated by the fact he sold Canada's shares in those auto companies, meaning we have no say when it comes to how those companies are run -- which is kind of a big deal, now that the Canadian auto industry may not even exist in a few years
- however much he may have increased funding for the Armed Forces, it wasn't accompanied by any action -- i.e. he closed several key Coast Guard bases, he let the navy fall into such disrepair that we can barely do Arctic search & rescue, and our last destroyer is slated to be decommissioned in a few months
I know you don't agree with that linked list, but it boggles my mind that anyone could tout Harper's accomplishments when he was a complete and utter failure of a PM.
Nickleback
gutter_trash
Banned
I take everything back.. Harper did do ONE good thing:
He phased out the Penny
He phased out the Penny
As much as the TFSA is an investment vehicle, it's terrible in the same way that RRSPs are terrible: they disproportionately benefit Canadians who have excess income to invest in the first place. Not only that, but the amount of tax sheltered either of these accounts is so minimal.
So yeah, TFSAs aren't life changing or beneficial in the way most people make them out to be.
edit: Oh, and the government loses an obscene amount of capital gains taxes because of TFSAs too.
The point of the TFSA is to increase the incentive for people to invest. You definitely can't just assume that any capital gains sheltered in a TFSA are capital gains that the government would have been able to tax otherwise, as there would have been less invested if the TFSA weren't a thing.
There's also a huge benefit of the TFSA that no one really talks about, in that it makes investing really easy, removing much of non-financial barriers to investing (having to keep track of adjusted-cost basis and fill out tax forms and such).
There's also a huge benefit of the TFSA that no one really talks about, in that it makes investing really easy, removing much of non-financial barriers to investing (having to keep track of adjusted-cost basis and fill out tax forms and such).
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Not sure if this is old, but Patrick "don't take the Progressive part seriously" Brown of the Ontario PC party plans to continue making kids completely ignorant of anything related to sex education.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-curriculum/article31583258/?campaign_id=A100
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-curriculum/article31583258/?campaign_id=A100
Right, but there's a lot of room in "bad" for "someone else thinks it's good". My point is more that if you predicate political transformations on a value judgement you're working from a definition that excludes a lot of kinds of political transformations.
To take it ad absurdum, and invoke Godwin's law, I think it's fair to call Hitler transformative, and that's independent of whether you're a looking at it from any perspective all the way from Marxist to neo-Nazi.
Harper's legacy is that he brought social conservativism and hard line austerity into the Canadian political discourse in ways they hadn't really existed before. As someone way on the other end of the political spectrum in nearly every way from both of those ideals I will never forget his part in that (or Chretien and Martin's roles in austerity either, for that matter).
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Goodbye to a small, regressive brick of a politician. You will be missed by someone. Somewhere.
I love this op-ed on iPolitics: http://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/26/goodbye-harper-good-riddance/
It's really quite scathing and really shows how unprincipled he was as a politician.
It's really quite scathing and really shows how unprincipled he was as a politician.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Some Albertans and crazy right wing Americans who want to nose themselves in our business all the time but get mad when we discuss about their politics and issues, in particularly Trump.
oh and the Sun and the Sun rejects at REBEL.
Some memories...
gutter_trash
Banned
the project of creating our Fox News North died with pull of the plug of Sun News TV ... thank God
Harper slowly was trying to redefine what is "Canadian"... glad that ended
Aside from uniting the splintered rightwing parties this is absolutely his biggest accomplishment. At this point neo-liberal fiscal policies are the mainstream economic politics in this country. That's a huge accomplishment for the right and for Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.
Look at this last election. Every party, including the NDP, was advocating tax cuts for small businesses. No one was advancing increasing the GST. Everyone shying away from significant tax increases on corporations. The Liberals, which apparently had the most Progressive Platform Ever made their symbolic first bill a tax cut that most benefited those earning 90k-200k. The Liberals, like the Conservatives, are supportive of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Every party's economic platform was a minor variation of the Conservative party's framework, differing mostly about how much they were willing to spend on infrastructure.
I'm not saying every party was promising the same thing, there were differences, but their promises were tightly anchored around what the Conservatives had done for the last 10 years.
On your last point looking at provincial politics you recently have the Liberals in Ontario privatizing Hydro One, the Manitoba PCs privatizing MTS and now Brad Wall's Sask Party musing about selling SaskTel. The fact that Canadians are rolling over and accepting this is part of Harper's legacy.
I set out to see if I could find a single other positive besides this one. The results? Negative unless one counts uniting the right as a positive.
Oh how he will not be missed, that loathsome toad of whom the damages during their time as Prime Minister will take decades for the country to recover from.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
some of the arctic sovereignty stuff was probably a good investment for a future where russia is belligerent and the northwest passage warms enough to make shipping economically viable, tbqh
I'm trying to rack my brain for stuff he did that I liked and this came up, but I mean did he actually follow through? I feel like he promised all sorts of things, like a deep water port in the North and more ships but none of it happened.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/abondoned-churchill/
At this point Canada doesn't have a blue water navy.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/
gutter_trash
Banned
I set out to see if I could find a single other positive besides this one. The results? Negative unless one counts uniting the right as a positive.
Oh how he will not be missed, that loathsome toad of whom the damages during their time as Prime Minister will take decades for the country to recover from.
he loves cats!!!
Silent Chief
Member
His hair.
Silent Chief
Member
Massive spending, totally over budget and I haven't heard of one ship being completed.
What he actually delivered on is putting Royal back in the Royal Canadian Navy and locating a shipwreck in the Arctic.
killer rin
Member
Look carefully my friends, this is the OPC getting ready to throw another election
:/. Are the proponents of dismantling sex ed a big enough voting block that it's worth pandering to them, or is Brown just that regressive?
Lmfao.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
That's....surprising. I know he got elected leader largely on this issue, but he had backtracked on the issue. It seems like he's just pandering to whatever electorate he's campaigning to.
killer rin
Member
Well, he is against abortion.
I don't think this is following Harper's legacy, but rather a) moving forward with the neo-liberal policies during the Mulroney and Chretien years and b) aligning with US political and economic interests. The Liberal movement towards more progressive values, during Martin's tenure and Dion/Ignatieff's platforms, was actually a movement away from the centrist/globalization policies established previously.
As far as privatization and deregulation goes, that's not exactly a right or left issue but rather a significant economic question of how ever-burgeoning crown corporations can be maintained, whether the dollars can be better used for something else, and to allow investment to flow into these companies. Telus, Petro-Canada, and Air Canada are some famous examples.
The Arctic file, along with other military-related initiatives, barely got any movement. It's only now that we're seeing the ship-building in NS (or NB?) and parts of NFLD... and that's many years overdue.
Yeah I'm researching him now (I don't follow Provincial elections as closely as I should.) Guy's politics don't make any sense to me. Apparently he marched at Pride, but in 2013 he voted against bills regarding expression of gender identity, and of course he wants to ban the sex ed curriculum that teaches acceptance of same sex couples - maybe not for that reason, but still. Seems like a totally transparent attempt to make himself look progressive.
It seems a the main reason that Naval procurement has been going so poorly is the insistence that the ships be built in Canada by a non-existent ship-building industry. So we'll spend all this money building up an industry just so that it can fail shortly after the government contract is done. We could and should have just ordered them from an Allied country. We would miss out on the job creation at home, but we could have used the money saved in some other, probably more effective way to help the Atlantic economy. Also actually having the ships is really important to being able to enforce our sovereignty over the Arctic, and not doing so might in the long run cost us far more than a missed opportunity at a bit of job creation.
That said, making the claims over the Arctic in the first place was critical, and not a step to be discounted. The TFSA is under appreciated I think. The pursuit of free trade is a strong positive in my eyes, although at the end there Harper seemed to be going in a nativist direction I'm very much not a fan of. The deficit was in response to the 2008 crisis, and is something that the opposition also wanted at the time. Sales taxes are pretty regressive, so I would list cutting the GST as a positive move (it could have been balanced out by raising some other tax, but this is the Conservative party).
That said, making the claims over the Arctic in the first place was critical, and not a step to be discounted. The TFSA is under appreciated I think. The pursuit of free trade is a strong positive in my eyes, although at the end there Harper seemed to be going in a nativist direction I'm very much not a fan of. The deficit was in response to the 2008 crisis, and is something that the opposition also wanted at the time. Sales taxes are pretty regressive, so I would list cutting the GST as a positive move (it could have been balanced out by raising some other tax, but this is the Conservative party).
Toronto Pride? They also let these guys march, with their incredibly problematic appropriation of the T in LGBT: https://href.li/?http://www.lgbtory.ca/
Who can/should march in pride parades is a big area of contention these days as they grow and become more mainstream.
I recall at the time the Conservative argument in favour of the tax cut was that instead of the Federal government transferring money to the provinces, they were cutting the tax and giving the provinces room to potentially increase theirs if they needed more money for healthcare and education (the fastest growing expenses). As it turned out some provinces did raise their taxes, while others never did.
For the Conservatives they probably saw this policy as a winner in multiple ways. 1. It shrunk the size of the federal government, and 2. assisted in the autonomy of the provinces.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Honest answer? This is a paraphrased quote from the blurb of a biography I picked up at chapters once, "reshaping Canada into a more conservative country, a change that will take a long time to reverse."
And indeed, that is what has happened, In this past 8 years, Canada as a whole experienced a long-term setback from joining our enlightened European brothers.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
I will gladly take our sweater-vest wearing do-nothing conservatives over their neo nazis.
Don't get cocky. There's an undercurrent to the Canadian far right that's going to resent 8+ years of another Trudeau like you won't believe.
Brown is flip-floppingly regressive if it'll get him votes. I mean he is a social con, but he had said he wasnt going to change the sex ed curriculum at one point.
matthewwhatever
Member
I completely disagree with this. The shift rightward was started in the '80s elsewhere (Reagan, Thatcher), and came to Canada in the '90s with Harris, Klein, and Chretien/Martin. Some of that was necessary, but I think they laid the groundwork for Canadians accepting privatization, lower taxes at the expense of services, etc., more than Harper ever did. The fact the Liberals experienced zero blowback for loudly campaigning in favour of deficits -- which would've been unthinkable a decade ago -- suggests to me that Harper was about as successful at shifting the discourse right as he was at everything else he did.
The Conservatives cut the GST because it
won them votes. Ascribing policy motivations like smaller government is giving them far more credit than they deserve.
It's a lot more overt than a mere undercurrent. In that respect, I guess, I'll agree that Harper did move one thing in a more conservative direction: he introduced an element of personalized nastiness to our politics that wasn't present -- or, at least, wasn't as obvious -- before.
Actually, thinking about it further, Harper's legacy, miserable though it may be now, could turn into something like "Father of Modern Canadian Conservatism", depending on how the next few years go. One former member of his caucus is a premier now. By 2019, that could easily be at least 3 premiers, depending on how things go for Brown and Kenney. I don't think he was particularly close to any of them, apart from possibly Kenney, but if that happens, I predict some will try to make that connection.
Silent Chief
Member
I'd like to know what proportion of TFSA are simple bank saving accounts.
The biggest flaw of TFSA is that you don't need to have an income to have one. Lots of TSFAs are open against children and wifes instead of just putting the money in offshore accounts.
Yeah, it's pretty shocking what people say behind closed doors. And this started waaaay before Harper showed up in federal politics too.
The big problem with far right movements is that people categorize them as alt-right or fringe elements, when in fact they are more mainstream than most realize. We didn't see their prevalence because they tended to be politically disenfranchised or inactive populations... until now, especially when the internet and social media are the biggest soapboxes on the planet.
The incentive is only effective for income brackets that do have the extra income to invest -- or the financial literacy required -- in the first place, who would be inclined to invest already, thus capital gains for the government.
Wyndstryker
Member
I have a friend in the army who said that the commanders pretty much call the navy a floating joke.
In terms of armed forces when it comes to equipment and capability it's like this.
army>>>>>>air force>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ x insert number here/>>>>>>>>navy
Easily the army has got new toys to play with, the air force is looking for new toys to play with. The navy....do they even know there are new toys out there?
I agree with you. Reagan and Thatcher killed, or at least severely limited socialism in The UK, America (and by extension, Canada) for at least 50 years, and the damage will be hard to reverse. Bernie Sanders' loss I think was the nail in the coffin. Still waiting on Corbyn, but the neo-liberals form the majority of the labor party so that aint happening anytime. Our own supposedly "socialist" party has divulged into nonsense after the death of their charismatic leader, while the Liberals are rolling back on the Conservative nightmare, they are not going as far as I would like them to.
So where would you put Mulroney's PCs on this scale of laying the groundwork for neo-liberalism in Canada? They may be downright centrist by todays standards, even Liberals, but I don't think Martin and Chretien deserve all the credit for this one.
NAFTA and FTA were under Mulroney...
matthewwhatever
Member
Mulroney had a pretty progressive government, though. He passed the strongest environmental legislation this country has ever had. He brought in the GST. He ran huge deficits in part because he wasn't willing to cut the Canada Health and Social Transfers to the provinces. Internationally, his government was pretty vocal about human rights, and they maintained Canada's position as the top contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. He was, unfortunately, good friends with Reagan, but I don't think he was prone to the same harsh, right-wing rhetoric. You could argue that the devolution of powers to the provinces that were proposed in Meech and Charlottetown were kind of analogous to the states' rights movement in the US, but I think that'd be a pretty big stretch -- when anyone brings up states' rights in the US, it's usually a signal that they're spewing racist nonsense, whereas outside of maybe hardcore pure laine Quebec separatists, I don't think "provincial powers" have quite the same overtones.
And as for the FTA and NAFTA...I mean, I'm in favour of free trade, so I don't see that as an inherently right-wing thing. Even if it was, though, I have a hard time seeing how it was Mulroney who shifted public opinion or policy that far to the right. The FTA was signed and implemented within 4 years of him getting the largest majority ever. Saying that Mulroney shifted the window that much in such a short time seems like you're giving way more credit (or blame, depending on where you stand) than he deserves.
Besides that, free trade was tied to the Liberals for decades before the FTA actually passed. It's what killed Laurier's re-election chances back in 1911, and the Liberals had slowly been implementing sector-based free trade deals for decades before the FTA was signed. (Case in point: the 1965 Auto Pact.) The report that basically gave the intellectual justification for the FTA was written by a royal commission that had been appointed by Pierre Trudeau before the PCs even came to power in Mulroney's landslide. If anything, on trade Mulroney was taking over from where generations of Liberals had left off.
Realistically, our rightward shift came after the US had been experiencing the same thing for decades beforehand. I distinctly remember, after Harris being elected, that newspapers and media were all full of commentators saying it was the "Revenge of the Angry White Man", and that were were seeing Canada (or, at least, Ontario and Alberta) experience the same thing that had propelled Reagan to the presidency more than a decade earlier, and that had fueled the Gingrich wave in 1994. Like Maharg has said in this thread and previous Canadian PoliGAF threads numerous times, we tend to follow US trends with a bit of a delay, and I think any shift rightward we've experienced is an example of that -- not of Harper's small-bore conservatism.
And as for the FTA and NAFTA...I mean, I'm in favour of free trade, so I don't see that as an inherently right-wing thing. Even if it was, though, I have a hard time seeing how it was Mulroney who shifted public opinion or policy that far to the right. The FTA was signed and implemented within 4 years of him getting the largest majority ever. Saying that Mulroney shifted the window that much in such a short time seems like you're giving way more credit (or blame, depending on where you stand) than he deserves.
Besides that, free trade was tied to the Liberals for decades before the FTA actually passed. It's what killed Laurier's re-election chances back in 1911, and the Liberals had slowly been implementing sector-based free trade deals for decades before the FTA was signed. (Case in point: the 1965 Auto Pact.) The report that basically gave the intellectual justification for the FTA was written by a royal commission that had been appointed by Pierre Trudeau before the PCs even came to power in Mulroney's landslide. If anything, on trade Mulroney was taking over from where generations of Liberals had left off.
Realistically, our rightward shift came after the US had been experiencing the same thing for decades beforehand. I distinctly remember, after Harris being elected, that newspapers and media were all full of commentators saying it was the "Revenge of the Angry White Man", and that were were seeing Canada (or, at least, Ontario and Alberta) experience the same thing that had propelled Reagan to the presidency more than a decade earlier, and that had fueled the Gingrich wave in 1994. Like Maharg has said in this thread and previous Canadian PoliGAF threads numerous times, we tend to follow US trends with a bit of a delay, and I think any shift rightward we've experienced is an example of that -- not of Harper's small-bore conservatism.
This is an interesting statement maybe worthy of a bit of a tangent... I think I disagree that "province's rights" aren't rooted directly in racist idea(l)s in Canada. It just might look like that because we are *so very bad at examining our racism in Canada*.
In Alberta it's largely driven by a white capitalist ideal (bootstraps! Small government!), and a disregard for minority rights of all stripes, but particularly ignorant of the impact of Alberta's two traditional businesses -- farming and oil -- on our indigenous populations.
In Quebec it has definite racial purity overtones, with lots of rhetoric about keeping outsiders out. That their ire is also directed at white anglos doesn't really erase the damage it does to non-white immigrants.
In some ways I actually admire that the US has managed to at least attempt to confront their racism. I think we're way way behind them on that, in spite of our crimes being of a somewhat different nature.
If those are the two most right-wing accomplishments of his government, I'd say my opinion of him needs to soften.
I disagree there. The association of "states' rights" with the protection of racism, etc. has a very specific root in American history: the fear of the South that a strong federal government would interfere with slavery and Jim Crow (as it ultimately did). There's no equivalent to that in Canadian history. The federal government has never had any jurisdiction over civil rights (explicitly assigned to the provincial governments), nor has it had a habit of enforcing the rights of minority groups against any particular provincial government (in most instances, e.g., anti-Asian sentiments in the early 20th century, the two were hand-in-hand).
The debate over provincial powers versus the federal government really originated with Sir Oliver Mowat's Ontario premiership in the 1870s and 1880s, and hadn't anything to do with racial questions.
As well, in the case of the most disadvantaged minority group both today and in the past, indigenous peoples, the federal government is assigned sole jurisdiction (and actually, this is an area where the trend has been in the opposite direction in recent decades, as the judiciary has moved away from the notion of Indian lands as pure oases of federal jurisdiction, trying to get the provinces more involved to try to improve conditions).
Now, obviously, whenever you have a debate that pits a large governing unit against a smaller governing unit, you'll have cases where the smaller unit may be less well-inclined toward some minority group within its boundaries. But that doesn't mean they're intrinsically linked (you also have instances where the reverse is true, and a larger unit takes a less liberal stance than a smaller unit within it might otherwise be inclined to).
If you mean that the NDP became less left-wing after Layton died, that's really not true. Mulcair's centrist bent was the same as Layton's; it was just that Layton's charisma and obvious passion for the job obscured that for a lot of people. Layton's time as NDP leader was most definitely about remaking the party as a centre-left replacement for the Liberals.
IIRC the reasoning behind this may have been the downloading of expenditures and costs to the provincial level to offset it from the federal.
edit: Didn't Layton's budget advocate for federal controls of... credit card interest rates?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I would characterize the neoliberal right as having the following tenants:
- New public management in government -- this is not something that's super public but it has a huge part to play behind the scenes
- Downsize public service
- Privatize services
- Curb public sector unions
- Devolve power to more local levels of authority
- Free trade abroad
- Austerity
- Explicit supply-side economists and focus on business as job creation engine for economy.
The other stuff associated with the culture wars of the right in the UK and US during the 80s seems to me to be separate from neoliberalism and ephemeral to those countries.
It would be accurate to say most of these things were present in the Mulroney government, but that continued through to the Chretien-Martin years. But I see that as a similar trajectory as the US and the UK; Reagan whooped progressive democrats, Bush takes over for Reagan, Clinton comes in with third way neoliberalism. Thatcher whooped progressive Labour, Major takes over the Conservative Party, Blair comes in with New Labour. Mulroney whooped Turner, Campbell takes over the Conservative Party, Chretien comes in with the balanced budget right-of-centre Liberal years. The timeline is slightly longer in some cases, slightly shorter in others, but in all cases you see the similar progression.
In Australia it was slightly different, the neoliberal reforms came in around the same time as Reagan and Thatcher, but under Bob Hawke, who was the leader of their Labour party. His finance minister, Paul Keating, took over after him and continued the neoliberal reforms. So Australia had more like the timeline of the US but the changes parallel Canada's in terms of the partisan layout a little better. Now, it also continued when the Liberal party took over (Australian liberals are right-liberals, so this is more like our Conservatives) so it's not unique to their left party, but still a little contrast. New Zealand typically follows Australia, and so also enacted their neoliberal reforms under their Labour party rather than their National party (their Conservative equivalent) in roughly the same timeframe--mid-80s to early-90s, with further incremental reforms coming throughout the 90s.
I agree with matthewwhatever that in Canada many of the most public-visible neoliberal reforms were either at the provincial level (especially the Harris government) or in the Chretien-Martin era, but I do think Mulroney was absolutely an adherent to Austrian economics more broadly and he set the stage for a lot of the reforms that Chretien and Martin eventually enacted. I would tell the story as being Mulroney->Campbell->Chretien/Martin rather than just starting with Chretien/Martin.
But I also would definitely separate some of the culture war baggage in the US and the UK from the broader neoliberal revolution. Speaks to the fact that even in closely related comparative politics cases there are still structural and cultural differences between countries and how they react to things.
- New public management in government -- this is not something that's super public but it has a huge part to play behind the scenes
- Downsize public service
- Privatize services
- Curb public sector unions
- Devolve power to more local levels of authority
- Free trade abroad
- Austerity
- Explicit supply-side economists and focus on business as job creation engine for economy.
The other stuff associated with the culture wars of the right in the UK and US during the 80s seems to me to be separate from neoliberalism and ephemeral to those countries.
It would be accurate to say most of these things were present in the Mulroney government, but that continued through to the Chretien-Martin years. But I see that as a similar trajectory as the US and the UK; Reagan whooped progressive democrats, Bush takes over for Reagan, Clinton comes in with third way neoliberalism. Thatcher whooped progressive Labour, Major takes over the Conservative Party, Blair comes in with New Labour. Mulroney whooped Turner, Campbell takes over the Conservative Party, Chretien comes in with the balanced budget right-of-centre Liberal years. The timeline is slightly longer in some cases, slightly shorter in others, but in all cases you see the similar progression.
In Australia it was slightly different, the neoliberal reforms came in around the same time as Reagan and Thatcher, but under Bob Hawke, who was the leader of their Labour party. His finance minister, Paul Keating, took over after him and continued the neoliberal reforms. So Australia had more like the timeline of the US but the changes parallel Canada's in terms of the partisan layout a little better. Now, it also continued when the Liberal party took over (Australian liberals are right-liberals, so this is more like our Conservatives) so it's not unique to their left party, but still a little contrast. New Zealand typically follows Australia, and so also enacted their neoliberal reforms under their Labour party rather than their National party (their Conservative equivalent) in roughly the same timeframe--mid-80s to early-90s, with further incremental reforms coming throughout the 90s.
I agree with matthewwhatever that in Canada many of the most public-visible neoliberal reforms were either at the provincial level (especially the Harris government) or in the Chretien-Martin era, but I do think Mulroney was absolutely an adherent to Austrian economics more broadly and he set the stage for a lot of the reforms that Chretien and Martin eventually enacted. I would tell the story as being Mulroney->Campbell->Chretien/Martin rather than just starting with Chretien/Martin.
But I also would definitely separate some of the culture war baggage in the US and the UK from the broader neoliberal revolution. Speaks to the fact that even in closely related comparative politics cases there are still structural and cultural differences between countries and how they react to things.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked