As a member of the Conservative party, RB Bennett was meant to embrace small government, support laissez faire capitalism, and take a general hands-off approach towards the economy. By 1935, however, deep into the Depression, Bennett stresses the need for a Canadian New Deal--calling for an end to laissez faire and the importance of government regulation of the economy. Bennett was defeated in the election later than year, and William Lyon Mackenzie King served as Canada's prime minister from 1935 to 1948.
Is there any way to see Bennett's speech as more than just a political Hail Mary? By 1935, Bennett's popularity was already declining, and Mackenzie King was looking increasingly likely to replace him as prime minister. Should we put much weight on the idea that Bennett's New Deal program contradicted his party's wishes, or should we just see this as a last-ditch effort by a politician who saw little recourse?
I do not think we can "blame" Bennett for contradicting his party's wishes because it seems as if he truly wanted to see progress in his country. He went over all of the aspects/problems of the depression in Canada and states that he wants what is best for the country and wants to reform. Wanting change for the better should not be something that is based on your party's viewpoints. If you really believe something (even if it goes against your party) you should believe it and act upon it. In a time of crisis he knew things would have to change (even if it does not please others or in this case, his party).
ReplyDeleteSometimes you just have to go with your guy instinct, and that is what Bennett did when he went against his party's views. This may not be protocol, but I believe it did it with the nation's best interest at heart. Like Nicki said, you have to be radical if you want to change something for the better, and sometimes it takes a few tries before you can accomplish something.
ReplyDeleteOverall, however, you cannot blame him for his decision making.
I believe that Hail Mary was the perfect explanation for his actions. His political likes were declining at a rapid pace. He had to think on his toes. And this is what came from it. This was his last strive for the touchdown and you cannot blame the guy for trying his best. It was a bold move going against the current but his intentions were only good.
ReplyDeleteI think his speech was a last ditch hail marry to try and rally as much support as he could. I can almost make the comparison between Bennet and Romney in the way that Romney changed his views and ideas a lot like Bennet had to when he was losing in the polls as well. I also think that as the polls were getting in and he realized that King was going to win, he had to do anything in order to sway voters to vote for him. I do not think that this was an honorable thing to do because it showed that Bennet would do anything to stay in office even if changing everything he believed in last minute. I think that a true politician stays with the ideals and plans he makes all the way through until it is decided fairly that the people dont want him in office.
ReplyDeleteI do not think we should put any effort into Bennett's contradictions within his New Deal Program; this was definitely just a last ditch effort to appeal to the people. However, people who weren't in favor of Bennett probably just became more resistent of his policies because of this. With good intentions, I think Bennett made the right decisions in contradicting the New Deal Program at a last minute attempt to gather the people together.
ReplyDeleteBennett's New Deal program shouldn't be tossed aside, hail mary or not. Bennett contradicted his party's views because he needed political support quickly, yet he was still suggesting economic changes on an enormous scale, for an entire country. While he needed the political support, he still believed that the people needed to be helped, and this is the plan that spawned from visiting the entire population of hurting Canadians. Although it is disorganized and designed to gain political attention, the New Deal is for the good of the Canadian people, at least through the point of view of Bennett.
ReplyDeleteBennet's speech was defininitly a Hail Mary, however I think he really did believe in those programs despite the fact that his party was very opposed to it. I think he genuinely wanted what was best for the Canadian people, but his popularity was too far down before the speech to have the Canadian people respond.
ReplyDeleteThe speach seems to oppose his party's view and it was written for the country's good and need for political attention. Since Bennet's polularity was decreasing and the King gets more popular,it was regarded as his final try to make a good impression of himself by controversing his party's idea and making bold progressive prepsoal. May be it is not justify enough to blame him as long as he was trying to do some good or he thought is goning to denifit the people for good or complex reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bennett became President, Canada was in the middle of the Great Depression. Although he and his party believed in the Individualism and didn't want to involve too much, they must have learned something from their neighbor America, when Hoover did exactly that. So Bennett knew he couldn't just do nothing, although this was the conventional way of the Conservatives. And when Roosevelt succeeded with his New Deal program, it would have been stupid of Bennett not to follow this example.
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt Bennett would experience such a massive ideological shift near the end of his term just because of what experienced during e New Deal. Being conservative is something that is ingrained with you and I truly believe deep down, Bennett felt lapses faire would work if given enough time. But there was no time, and with nothing to show for as he was about to be shown the door, Bennett needed to try anything to at least show some progress. It was definitely a Hail Mary.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that Bennett is deserving of the blame for the contradictions. Why? because he had pure intentions, and was only trying to do what he saw as the optimal path for his country to take in order for it to continue on the path of progress. Regardless of political party affiliation.
ReplyDelete