Political Analogy

You are in a boat.

There is a hole in the boat.

Water is rushing in.

Your three boat mates each have a plan: one of them is wearing a lifejacket and pitches that we should do nothing about the hole.

One of them does not have a lifejacket and pitches that drastic action should be taken and the hole should be patched up.

The third one, also equipped with a lifejacket, intelligently suggests a compromise: we will fix some of the hole, but not all of it.

With the hole half fixed, water continues to pour into the boat, but more slowly.

The first boat-mate argues that the hole fixing plan has failed and pitches that the hole fixing plan be dismantled and abandoned.

He is overwhelmingly popular, for reasons that elude you.

The compromise candidate defends his half-hearted hole fix.

The boat mate who proposed fixing the hole is now being fully ignored.

Next to you, a much larger boat, one without a hole, has filled up with hole-worshippers, led by something of a hole, and they have decided to unnecessarily create a hole in their boat.

As you watch them sinking, you think “perhaps the compromise half-hole guy had a good point.”

Things are looking good: you might, if you’re lucky, maintain your half-hearted hole plugging efforts.

In order to appease the hole worshippers, the compromise candidate promises not to touch the existing hole at all.

His plan gains a lot of steam and honestly the pro-hole party is furious. They’re still very popular, though.

Unrelated, a vote is coming up in Canada