I really don't get this logic

The Young Liberal president in Yukon has written of his embarrassment in being a Liberal, citing the party's latest failure, that of allowing the omnibus budget to pass in the Senate, and stating that "it's getting really hard to support the party as a whole."

Yet Conal Slobodin also writes:

The Liberal Party will always be my party, we have amazing MPs, hardworking volunteers, and a great legacy. I have always felt it to be a strong and loyal family representative of its members, but perhaps that is the problem. We need to start representing Canadians instead.

Note the tension in that one paragraph. Will Slobodin always be faithful to the party no matter what, despite his misgivings, embarrassment and thoughts about what should be, but isn't getting done?

This attitude reminds me of voters who say their family has always voted Conservative or Liberal; and that, therefore, regardless of how much they disapprove of that party's policies or actions, they'll remain loyal to it. Aren't these party loyalists, both partisans and voters, as bad as those who bow down to the opinions of certain authority figures, rather than doing their own thinking?

Shouldn't partisans and voters owe their loyalty first to CANADA and how it serves Canadians?

Recommend this post