Apparently the ethics commissioner said today that he found nothing unethical in the actions of Emerson and Harper, in regards to Emerson’s party switching. And just yesterday I was speaking with a friend, lamenting that Emerson was definitely unethical. Jeez, that sort of makes me look stupid. Fortunately I make myself look stupid on a regular basis so I can take the hit. I feel bad for the voters from Kingsway/Vancouver though, because I’m sure at least some of them don’t do stupid things on a regular basis. But I digress… Having reconsidered Emerson’s flight, I suppose he wasn’t that unethical afterall. By all accounts:
he isn’t that much of a politician (is that a good thing or a bad thing?)
he isn’t that much concerned with social value issues
he is focused on economic type issues
Emerson’s main line of self-defense boils down to the fact that he thinks that by switching parties he is better serving his constituents, the people of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia.
If you add all of this up, you could say that the voters actually got exactly what they asked for. My understanding is that Emerson has primarily represented himself as described above, so the fact that he is acting on this should surprise no-one.
That’s not to say that Emerson was right to do what he did. I would argue that he isn’t better serving Vancouverites, British Columbians and his constituents, in which case he is actually acting like a jack-ass. But don’t forget: I’ve been wrong before.
Tweet This