Stephen Harper must be looking over his shoulder

I told myself I wasn't going to post on politics anymore. Yeah right.

It's Michael Ignatieff's fault. A speech he gave in Regina this week really underscored how dangerous he is to the Conservatives.

Michael Ignatieff says it was western Canadian rage which -- in part -- convinced him to back away from a proposed governing coalition with the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois.

...

"You are, after all, looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada, and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," said Mr. Ignatieff. "I want to be someone who unites the country, and that includes the West."

Westerners probably had trouble believing their ears. After Pierre Trudeau's open contempt for Westerners sunk the Liberal boat for decades anywhere west of Thunder Bay, the concept of a Liberal leader who actually cares what they think (or at least says he does) must be positively intoxicating.

Now, Ignatieff is probably making a virtue out of necessity, but having been raised in the West, I can imagine how delighted his listeners must have been. A Liberal Party that is intent on becoming a national party in fact and not just in name is a real threat to Harper's Conservatives, and I'm sure they know it. Western alienation is a force that they've tapped very effectively and if Iggy can compete in that arena, they risk seeing one of their strongholds crumble.


Technorati tags: Michael Ignatieff

Quote of the day

"Political partisanship is closely allied with absolute stupidity."

Sir Robert Borden (Eighth Prime Minister of Canada)

And this from a politician, no less. I guess he had to live with the reality daily.

Hat tip to The Lotusland Soapbox


Technorati tags: Sir Robert Borden, Political quotes

How did Harper miscalculate so badly?

Stephen Harper is known as an accomplished political strategist, his ability so great as to overcome an almost total lack of personal charisma and make of him the most formidable opponent on the Canadian political scene. I will confess to being highly amused at the way he ran circles around the opposition parties in his first mandate, taking maximum advantage of their aversion to a new election. The improbable knots they had to tie themselves into to avoid triggering election calls rivalled anything a Chinese circus can display. Petty of me, I know, but one has to admire talent when one sees it.

I had my thoughts on why his normal perspicacity had abandoned him, and then I stumbled across this article from the Globe and Mail which articulated very nicely what I had suspected.

It is one of the habits of truly great leaders to surround themselves with people who compensate for their own weaknesses. Harper might be forgiven for not recognizing his, because they have been very useful to him, particularly his ruthlessness and tendency to go for the jugular of his political foes. He over-reached a time or two in his first federal campaign, and learned to moderate the tendency a bit. But it remains a besetting sin for the Prime Minister, and one which he hasn't sufficiently guarded against.

What he desperately needs is a powerful advisor who lacks that trait, who is capable of respecting the opponent and who does not mistake political bluster and posturing for reality. And this, he does not have. Instead, he has Guy Giorno.

Caught in a political echo chamber, he made the very dangerous mistake of underestimating the opposition, calculating that they would run away from a game of chicken. Not. This is what Michael Valpy and Daniel Leblanc said in their analysis:

... Mr. Harper's determination to destroy the Liberals borders on the pathological.

It has become a blind spot in his judgment, with no one in his office to put the brakes on his impulses.

His chief of staff, Guy Giorno – once chief of staff to Ontario Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris and one of the icy architects of Mr. Harris's Common Sense Revolution – is not the ying to Mr. Harper's yang. Rather they are two yangs together.

Mr. Lyle recalled Friday the story told of Clifford Scotton, who was a key aide to Manitoba NDP premier Howard Pawley. Mr. Scotton's job was to say four words to Mr. Pawley whenever the need arose: “I think not, Howard.”

Mr. Giorno is not the Prime Minister's Clifford Scotton, said Mr. Lyle.

It sounds like Harper's advisors are politically inbred, with all the inherent weakness that implies. It's time for some fresh blood.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Guy Giorno

Michaëlle Jean proves her worth

I'm so glad there was an adult in the house who sent the kids to their rooms to cool off. I sincerely hope that Prime Minister Harper has learned a valuable lesson on playing nicely with others, and that the other parties have time to see that manufacturing a crisis out of what is merely an unpleasant situation, at least here in Canada, does not win them points for audacity, but rather disdain for their presumption. At least that's the way the early polls are tilting. It's certainly the way I feel.

I'm not sure that it was necessary to suspend Parliament all the way till January 26th, but at least we are guaranteed not to have election lawn signs competing with Christmas lights this year.

Will the Liberals be able to hold their own party together until then, let alone their coalition? Early signs there are not encouraging for them. It only took a couple of hours after Parliament was suspended before Liberal MPs began breaking ranks. Scott Simms and Keith Martin are two other MPs questioning the wisdom of pursuing the coalition's agenda.

May cooler heads prevail. While I think that Stéphane Dion gets some unfair press too, it should be painfully clear that his leadership abilities just aren't up to snuff. This is not the hand I would want to see on the tiller right now.

And, if anybody from the Conservative party is listening, please cut the hyper-partisan swagger. That plays well only to hard-core supporters. The rest of us are sick to death of chest-thumping and spin doctors and arrogance. You'd be much more attractive without it.


Technorati tags: Crisis in Canada

Surrealism in Ottawa

I haven't commented on the shenanigans in Ottawa yet, because they struck me as so surreal that I couldn't believe it was anything more than hot air. I did comment on the Conservatives' ill-advised and quickly withdrawn proposal to cut public funding of political parties, but the possibility of changing governments mere weeks after an election seemed too preposterous to be real. I had trouble processing it. Surely this was just political posturing.

Well, now I've processed it. Trying to explain it to American friends has been challenging. A legal coup, stable instability, what do you call it? I'm having trouble finding any good guys in this story. They're all nuts.

First of all, I think the Liberals and the NDP are just plain wrong. The cautious, stay-the-course economic strategy of the Conservatives may not have been sexy, but given our position of relative economic strength, a very wise one. It's like steering on ice, the last thing you do is jerk the steering wheel around. Bringing down the government over this issue is insane, and could cost Canada dearly. (In passing, why do parties criticize each other most loudly about the things they're doing right? It makes me despair of ever seeing rationality in politics.) (OK, so I'm not that naive. I gave up on that years ago. But I keep trying anyway.)

Of course, it will likely backfire on the coalition in the long term if they actually take power. They will get blamed for the mess, and they will probably deserve some of that blame, although by no means all. I doubt this has occurred to them.

And it is really not clear to me just who the prime minister will be. Stephane Dion is a lame duck. Is he still planning on stepping down as Liberal leader, or will they relent in their desire to have his head on a platter after he engineers a successful power grab despite their worst showing at the polls ever?

It is also rather dishonest, given the Liberals' repeated election promises not to form a coalition with the NDP. I suspect it might take me more elections than I had foreseen before I'll be able to stomach voting Liberal again.

On the other hand, the Conservatives' stance of offended virginity is a bit much. And trying to turn this into a Canadian unity issue is disingenuous. The Bloc Quebecois is very pragmatic about all this and much too comfortable in Ottawa to seriously want separation. They'll support the coalition the same way they often supported the Conservatives, with no more negative impact on national unity. Trying to demonize them to score political points is arguably much more damaging.

And Ed Schreyer is unfortunately right. What the coalition is proposing is entirely legal and within the rules. While Jean may grant the Conservatives a brief prorogation of Parliament, ultimately the other parties are fully within their rights to bring down the government and propose themselves as an alternative and she should give them the chance to try. They are playing by the rules, much as it galls me to admit it. I think it's political insanity, and rather reprehensible, but they have the right to do it.

You know, I'd been telling people that I couldn't vote Liberal for a while because they had dug themselves such a deep hole that it would take a term or two or three before the Conservatives had dug themselves deeper. Well, the Conservatives were digging, all right, but now the Liberals have pulled out a shovel of honking big proportions. The only thing that could possibly redeem them is if they shock me with astonishingly adept governance. I'm not holding my breath.

And when I'm finished being really, really mad at the Liberals and the NDP I'm going to be furious with the Conservatives for bringing this on themselves with their partisan arrogance.


Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion

Ah victory

There is the normal partisan bluster, but the Conservatives are backing down. Public funding of the parties will continue.

In passing, somebody should put a muzzle on Pierre Poilievre. Pugnacious spin doctors probably come out somewhere below used car salesmen in the level of public respect they inspire. He is reputed to be a hard-working representative for his riding, and is pleasant enough in real life, but seems to believe that public obnoxiousness is a positive political trait. It isn't.


Technorati tags: Party funding, Pierre Poilievre

Cynical political opportunism?

I'm not naive. I know that politicians can get petty. I know political parties can get petty. My persistent case of chronic idealism makes me keep thinking that every now and again politicians can surprise me and act for the common good, or in defense of principles, instead of merely jockeying for political advantage.

So I would really like it if the Conservatives backed away from their current fit of pettiness. The proposed cutting of public subsidies to political parties based on their share of the popular vote looks more like an attempt to kick the Liberal party while it's down than an attempt to save money.

Heaven knows I have been no fan of the Liberals in recent years, and I am still of the opinion that a few more years in the political wilderness would do them a world of good. They'd had a free ride into government for too many years and they stank to high heaven and it's going to take a while longer before the lingering stench has been washed away. But they did do a couple of really praiseworthy things while they were in government that strengthened popular democracy in this country. Drastically reducing the permissible size of political donations was one of them; its corollary of funding parties from the public purse was another. Both worked against their own partisan advantage, which is why it amazes me they ever did it at all, and I applaud them for it.

Now I would like to applaud the Conservatives for resisting the temptation to dismantle this excellent system. Why do I think it is excellent? Firstly, because it helps diminish the political power of deep pockets. Secondly, because it increases the financial viability of small parties. It might seem strange that I care about this, seeing as I almost never vote for them. But they have a very important contribution to make to political discourse, sometimes popularizing issues enough that the more powerful parties take notice. That alone would be sufficient cause. But they also help prevent a two-party system. The last few years of observing the American system have been enough to convince me that a two-party system breeds social polarization and blind partisanship. I don't want us to fall into the same cesspool.

Which is why I also fervently hope the Liberals will rise again, hopefully with a little less arrogance and a few more principles. A centrist party, flanked by viable opponents on each side seems to me to be a good recipe for moderation and stability. (OK, the NDP doesn't quite rank as viable, unfortunately, seeing as it tends to make the Liberals tilt more to the left to compensate for their weakness.) So please, let's not kick them too hard while they're down, however much they deserve to be down there.


Technorati tags: Canadian politics

Poor Barack

Seriously, congratulations and all, Mr. Obama, but what a position to be in.

The victory was so complete, hopes are so high, the expectations are positively staggering. There is nowhere to go but down.

A couple of quick samples:

From the Associated Press:

Naming the staggering list of problems he inherits — two wars and "the worst financial crisis in a century," among them — Obama sought to restrain the soaring expectations of his supporters.

"We may not get there in one year or even in one term," he said. "But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there."

A tide of international goodwill came Obama's way on Wednesday morning, even as developments made clear how heavy a weight will soon be on his shoulders.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a congratulatory telegram saying there is "solid positive potential" for the election to improve strained relations between Washington and Moscow, if Obama engages in constructive dialogue.

Yet he appeared to be deliberately provocative hours after the election with sharp criticism of the U.S. and his announcement that Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

Reaction in Africa:

Many Africans fervently hope his victory will mean more U.S. support for local development and an improvement in living conditions for the majority on the world's poorest continent.

"We trust that you will also make it the mission of your presidency to combat the scourge of poverty and disease everywhere," former South African President Nelson Mandela said.

South African Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu likened Obama's victory to his country's triumph over apartheid and Nigeria's President Umaru Yar'Adua said the result had "finally broken the greatest barrier of prejudice in human history."

Analysts have cautioned, however, that Obama may have little scope to bring tangible benefits to Africa, and that he does not have a strong track record of interest in the continent.

More international reaction:

Financial markets in Asia were higher Wednesday as traders were hopeful that Obama could successfully tackle the global economic crisis. But in Europe and later on Wall Street the main markets were down by at least 1 percent.

...

In an open letter to Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy offered "my warmest congratulations, and through me, those of the entire French people."

He said Obama's election raised in France, in Europe and around the world "an immense hope" and that the American people "had expressed with force their faith in progress and the future."

One CNN reader Toby Nevin wrote on a blog: "I stayed up through the night to watch from Paris. What a wonderful moment. It seems that the tide has turned from division and fear towards hope, responsibility and unity.

"Obama is a great leader for a United States of America that deserves him as a guide through these troubled times. Let us all remember our engagement to this spirit of positive change!"

There are, of course, many more moderate responses, noting the magnitude of the challenges Obama faces. And if he manages to rise to just some of the expectations, America will be well off.

And for the election-weary, the BBC offers this Not-the-election quiz. I managed not to be a total loser. Bet you can't do much better.


Technorati tags: Barack Obama

Quote of the day - cutting the national brain

Amba at AmbivaBlog has eloquently expressed the dangers of political polarization.

The Democrats are an American rival, not a stalking horse for a sinister foreign enemy. The tug-of-war and sometimes cooperation/compromise between liberalism and conservatism makes the country stronger; cutting the national brain down the middle and turning the two halves against each other is suicide. It really makes me angry that the people who claim to defend America most passionately are doing so much to rip it apart.

Technorati tags: Polarization

13 signs that you might be left wing

I stole this from the MySpace blog of a young man I know. It was meant as a joke, but it's almost too true to be funny. At least he is an equal-opportunity offender. Enjoy.

13 SIGNS THAT YOU MIGHT BE LEFT WING:

1. You believe that "having an open mind" means being pro-gay.
2. You believe the 9/11 attacks were entirely planned and staged by the Republican Party in order to justify an attack on Islam, and to get oil.
3. You think that eating meat is murder, but abortion is progress.
4. You think that 1 white person and 20 black people is diversity.
5. You think that all society's problems can be solved by throwing money at it, and at the same time, you believe that money is the cause of all society's problems.
6. You think that religion is the cause of all wars.
7. You believe that anyone who votes Republican (or Conservative) is a corrupt, close-minded, bigoted fascist.
8. You believe that the only real terrorists are American businessmen.
9. You believe that the official news story is bull crap, but the ramblings of a random anonymous blogger are absolute truth.
10. All your opinions come from Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Al Franken.
11. You think breaking windows and flipping cars is a form of peaceful protest.
12. You believe that the Bible is hate literature.
13. Your mind is made up before you've heard the issue.


13 SIGNS THAT YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT WING:

1. You believe that if you know one gay person, you have an open mind.
2. You believe that the 9/11 attacks were planned and supported by the entire Muslim world, because they all hate the freedom of sweet, innocent, flawless America.
3. You think that abortion is murder, but war is freedom.
4. You think that 20 white people, and 1 person who may have had a distant non-white ancestor is diversity.
5. You think that all society's problems can be solved as long as there is another country that can be blamed and invaded.
6. You think that all of society's problems are caused by immigrants.
7. You believe that anyone who votes Democrat is a tree-hugging, freedom-hating, terrorist-loving, communist that hates Jesus.
8. You believe that Jesus would vote Republican.
9. You believe that all terrorists are Muslim.
10. You think that universal health care is a form of communism.
11. All your opinions come from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter.
12. You think that the 9/11 attacks and Iraq are related.
13. Your mind is made up before you've heard the issue.

SIGNS THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT:
1. If anything on either one of these lists applies to you.


Technorati tags: Left wing, Right wing

The ultimate in political rants

Edward Willett, who is both an American and a Canadian, who moves in circles who insist on rotating in opposite directions, has penned a political rant for the current elections that is bound to please everybody, as well as tickling their funny bones. Click on over and take a look.

Election blahs

With elections coming up both north and south of the border, I am finding great difficulty drumming up enthusiasm for either contest. Amba is even worse off:

I'm so disgusted all around that I'm teetering on that "UNDECIDED: whether to vote or not" precipice these days. Each campaign keeps going to extremes that drive me toward the other. Right now I'm feeling that the Republicans don't deserve to be rewarded for this kind of anything-goes campaigning. Yesterday it was Obama supporters' clueless arrogance that was driving me towards McCain.

It is rather a sad thing when you have to vote for whomever disgusts you least. Do all the nasty, sneering partisans not realize that they are driving undecideds further away?

Granted, the Americans have the disease of nasty partisanship worse than we do. Perhaps that is one of the inherent failings of a two-party system: it is so much easier to become polarized.

Still, there are plenty of Canadians who are afflicted also. Some of them, unfortunately, work for political parties. I suspect the puffin incident will blow over rather quickly, seeing as it was so quickly disowned by the Conservatives. People who are too young to remember kitten-eating aliens and the Charest Conservatives' attack ads sneering at Chrétien's facial paralysis and how disastrously they back-fired should not be put in charge of websites unsupervised.

I personally am trying to ignore political advertising as much as humanly possible. No one party excites me. Unlike Amba, I am not going to fall off a cliff. As a moderate, the smaller parties are unlikely to get my vote. Of the two major parties, neither one excites my admiration. But one has dug a larger hole in my esteem over the years than the other, so for this election, I'm probably going to vote for the one with the shallower hole. Not very inspiring, but a girl has to decide somehow.

If anybody can cite me reasons why either the Liberals or Conservatives deserve some admiration, I am willing to listen. I can think of a couple of things myself, but they neither one has enough positives to turn those holes into hills.

And if anybody wants to put a good word in for one side or another in the American race, feel free too. The operative term is "good word". I am sick to death of sneers and mud-slinging.

(Yes, I know my recent post about Jack Layton had a bit of a sneer to it. But just a bit. That level of political cluelessness is hard to ignore.)

Technorati tags: Canadian election

Jack Layton and Obama

Jack Layton, the head of Canada's NDP (New Democratic Party, for you non-Canadians) says he is "picking up" some of the energy of Obama's campaign and may "borrow" from Barack's playbook.

Well, colour me gobsmacked.

What Mr. Layton does not seem to understand is that the Obama campaign and playbook are founded squarely on Barack himself: the man, his words, and most importantly, his charisma. Pointing out similarities in environmental policies and photocopying campaign slogans are not going to make any of that fairy dust rub off on Layton.

How can a man lead a political party for so many years and be so oblivious? This is just making him look pathetic, like the kid in the background waving at the cameras when someone else is being interviewed.

Set up all the jars you like, Jack. You can't bottle lightning.


Technorati tags: Jack Layton, Canadian politics, Barack Obama

Quote of the day - Hillarobamarama

But right now, as Hillarobamarama continues to throw fuel on the fires of rage and prejudice and division — all in the name of “hope” and “change” — I think neighborhoods need places where we can casually chat about stories, and pictures, and experiences, instead of react in shock at What Outrageous Thing Reverend Wright Said Today, or How Hillary’s Laughing Off the Fact That She Was Caught in Another Big Fat Lie.

Jeffrey Overstreet at Looking Closer

Technorati tags: Jeffrey Overstreet

"When you mix politics and religion, you get politics."

Republicans should read that and weep. I read it and rejoice.

It is Rev. Gene Carlson speaking, an aging conservative leader and pastor from Wichita, Kansas. According to a feature-length article in the New York Times Magazine by David D. Kirkpatrick, we are on the verge of a sea change in political thinking in evangelical circles.

"The religious right peaked a long time ago," [Carlson] added. "As a historical, sociological phenomenon, it has seen its heyday. Something new is coming."

I myself have been watching the very cozy relationship between the Republican Party and the so-called religious right with a great deal of squeamishness from my vantage point north of the 49th parallel. It was my opinion that when the church gets in bed with politics, she just gets screwed. Like in any bad relationship, there is a point where she has to realize that staying will only result in an ongoing erosion of independence and integrity. And it looks as if this realization is sinking in. Some of the old guard conservative religious leaders are being repudiated, others are changing their tune, and still others risk becoming irrelevant to their own constituency.


The new leaders are tired of being defined in terms of what they stand against instead of what they stand for, and while they have not dropped their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, they see a number of other issues that are just as important, while questioning whether the political road is the best one to follow to see the changes they desire.

"In the evangelical church in general there is kind of a push back against the Republican party and a feeling of being used by the Republican political machine," he continued. "There are going to be a lot of evangelicals willing to vote for a Democrat because there are 40 million people without health insurance and a Democrat is going to do something about that."

Democrats, on the other hand, should probably not read that and rejoice too loudly. While they are likely to benefit in the short term, it should be noted that millions of evangelical Americans are not turning in their Republican Party membership cards in exchange for Democratic Party ones. They are going independent.

High time, I say. No political party should ever believe they have any church in their pocket, and no church should ever allow itself to become the mouthpiece of a political organization. I do not mean for a minute that Christians should not speak out on political issues, but rather that they should maintain an independence of movement and thought. Christians who enter politics should remember where their highest loyalty lies (and I honestly salute those who have chosen to enter the fray) and not prostitute themselves for political gain.

This growing political sophistication of the American evangelical movement can only be a good thing, as I see it. And who knows, maybe it will help heal the destructive polarization that has characterized the American political discourse for too long now.

Read the whole article, it is fascinating.

Technorati tags: Evangelical Politics

Thumbs down on proportional representation

In the form that’s being proposed in the upcoming Ontario referendum, proportional representation is downright dangerous.

Please don't misunderstand me. I would really like to see a form of proportional representation in our legislatures. But not this one.

It is truly unfortunate that parties like the Green Party, with its support swinging between 7 and 12% of the popular vote are shut out of Queen's Park. That is too significant a proportion of the population to have its political views completely excluded from effective public discourse. And I do agree that remedying this situation would help reduce voter apathy. So it was with considerable interest and no little hope that I took a look at the system that is being proposed.

There are, in my view, two immense problems with proportional representation in its pure form.

First, it tends to create unstable governments, with constantly shifting coalitions and all-too-frequent elections. The virtual impossibility of a majority government also makes bold moves on the part of the government very difficult, for good or for ill. One word: Italy.

Second, and this is far more serious in my view, it tends to give disproportionate power to marginal parties. Ironic, that proportional representation should produce results as warped as the first-past-the-post system. Splinter groups holding one or two seats can effectively hold the balance of power and wield influence far beyond what their popular support would justify. One word: Israel.

A third, smaller problem, is the lack of accountability of members who are not directly answerable to a specific riding, but the proposal being made does address this issue to my (somewhat uneasy) satisfaction.

I personally prefer having a majority government, at least most of the time, although massive majorities are definitely not a good thing. A mixed system that would work to reduce massive majorities to something more humble would be a good thing.

But the proposed system would use the list members (the third of the House elected according to party affiliation rather than by riding) to top up each party's representation to make it approximately equal to its proportion of the popular vote.

That way be dragons. With only 3% needed to get a seat, all kinds of spliinter groups - some of them potentially very extreme - would spring up. I can only see this contributing to the radicalization of Canadian society. Stop and think about it for a moment. Political and religious extremists would suddenly find it worth their while to fom a party, making all kinds of incendiary statements and getting a dangerously powerful platform. It is not that hard to hijack the voice of a minority group and deliver it into the hands of its least responsible members. I am a Christian, an evangelical Christian, and I for one would not care to see the more extreme members of that community holding the balance of power. They would get the votes of more moderate evangelicals because they would be perceived as the only ones speaking in our name. The same could be said of any number of ethnic and/or religious groups, some of them rapidly increasing in number. I have no problem at all with any of them having a voice. I have a great deal of trouble with the most extreme elements having a disproportionate voice, to the point of being able to dictate policy. Think of the influence the Ultra-orthodox have had in Israel.

If they had proposed list members who would be chosen proportionately among themselves, moderating the first-past-the-post system without bringing it up to fully proportional representation, my conclusion would be different. As it stands, I find the MMP system being proposed to Ontario voters would change our diversity into Balkanization, and I just can't support that.

Technorati tags: MMP, Proportional representation, Ontario Referendum

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sept. 23

Weekend Fisher has a great post on the shortcomings of pop spirituality. It's so nice to hear someone saying out loud what I've been thinking for a long time.

David Akin, on his blog On the Hill, has been commenting quite a bit on Tom Flanagan's new book Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power. This, from Flanagan's "Ten Commandments of Conservative Campaigning" caught my eye:

4. Incrementalism: We have to be willing to make progress in small practical steps. Sweeping visions have a place in intellectual discussions, but they are toxic in practical politics.

I am so glad to see someone on the Canadian right finally articulating this. History teaches us that sweeping changes tend to get rapidly swept out the door. People resist large-scale change, viscerally and actively, unless their present reality is so dire they want out. Many good ideologies make no headway because their proponents perceive accepting incremental change as moral compromise. All or nothing usually leads to nothing.

Talk talk talk has on-the-fly notes about the Ontario political leaders' debate. Seeing as I missed it, this was helpful to me. A strong anti-McGuinty bias is quite obvious but I guess I can live with that. ;o)

Technorati tags: Tom Flanagan, Pop Spirituality, Ontario Election

Evaluating Harper: patient wait times

Part five in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number five: working with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee.

Hmm, this won't take too long to comment on. Even the Conservatives are not pretending they have accomplished this yet and wait times have actually lengthened ever so slightly since they have been in office.

Of course, it is always a very tricky thing for the federal government to wade into the whole health care issue, seeing as that is provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop voters from blaming the feds for whatever is happening in health care, so Ottawa is politically obliged to make appropriate noises. Seeing as they do actually contribute to provincial budgets, they have to try to leverage that influence in such a way as to impress voters without enraging provincial governments. It's not surprising that this was the last of their five priorities, as it will probably be the most difficult to implement. I don't know if they'll get a chance to try before the next election.

I'd be somewhat tempted to throw rocks at them for even making promises in this area, but really, this is a case of voters getting what they deserve. We shouldn't be holding the federal government accountable for something under provincial jurisdiction, but we do. This is pretty much a no-win situation for any party.

Havings said that, I would dearly love to see some new dialogue in the whole area of health care in Canada. It is time to start thinking outside the box and getting past old orthodoxies here. I am heartily sick of the "American system" red herring waved around with great mock indignation at every election. Every time a (Conservative) politician makes the obvious observation that we have problems with our health care system, the Liberals and NDP trot out the same hysteria. And it's a (I'm trying to think of a polite way to express this, as I am basically a polite person, but it is truly challenging...) um, logical fallacy. We are not restricted to two choices and two choices only. There are other things in the world besides the Canadian and American systems and even if there weren't, we could invent something new. It's time to get our heads out of the sand and start questioning the way we do things. This is going to be very difficult with so many different players, but somebody should start. This probably would fall to a province with some guts - probably Alberta - to just strike out and do something different and demonstrate that it can work. Alberta is the best candidate, first because they have never felt obliged to kowtow to Ottawa or the other provinces and second, because they have the budget to pull it off without help.

As far as Harper's government is concerned, I'll let them off with a neutral mark. Something to the effect of "not evaluated this term", like I have seen occasionally on my kids' report cards. There is only so much you can expect from a minority government in less than a year. In the somewhat unlikely event that we still have the same government a year from now, I will be less accomodating.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Health care

Evaluating Harper: child care

Part four in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number four: helping parents with the cost of raising their children.

This is another issue for which I am going to give the Conservatives some points. I really don't think they deserve the flack they've been getting on this one.

We are talking, of course, about the Universal Child Care Benefit, the $100 monthly given for each child under 6 to be spent on popcorn and beer - er, child care. Those who oppose the Conservatives say that first of all, $100 is nowhere near enough to pay for child care. Of course, it isn't. So? It will relieve the burden by $100, and that's not a bad thing. Why should the government fund daycare 100% anyway? Putting the same amount of money into subsidized day care spots would make a big difference for a very small number of people. For most people it would be no help at all. And the people doing the screaming never do address the issue that the $100 also goes to parents who take care of their own children, who really do appreciate getting a little positive recognition for a change.

The reason the opponents don't address this issue is because it would make them look really bad. They'd have to admit they don't care about those parents because they are - gasp! - taking their lives in their own hands instead of asking government to do it for them and that makes them highly suspect.

There is a fundamental difference of philosophy at play here. One mentality says it is the responsibility of government to solve all my problems and to make sure that I bear the weight of my own decisions as little as possible. The other mentality just asks for basic justice (read - protection from criminal abuse) and security from government and the freedom to make their own way in life. I come down pretty squarely on the second side. I dealt with some severely abused people some years ago and it became very clear to me that an attitude of victimhood effectively blocked any possibility of healing and moving on.

So I have completely lost patience with victimology. And screaming that the government isn't doing enough to make my life easier is just another form of it. Get over it. I raised five children without subsidized daycare. Yes, it meant I sacrificed a possible career or two, and yes, it meant that we lived at a much lower income than we would have with a smaller family. I didn't whine or complain about that. I figured the children were more important than a fancy house and a status symbol vehicle. And not one of those five kids believes that anybody owes them a handout. Of course, they'll take help if it's offered - I did too - but they won't complain if it isn't. They actually believe they should be prepared to make sacrifices to succeed. Somehow, I think that's a more meaningful contribution to society than most careers would have been.

You can see all this as a digression if you will, but I don't think it is. I'm not getting a cent out of the Conservatives' policies for helping families, and I agree that the help is more symbolic than substantial, but that's OK. I kind of appreciate the gesture anyway. It's refreshing to have the government help out more than one kind of family and give a little recognition to those families that have been overlooked in the past.

And I am one of those who think that popcorn and beer comment was very revealing, although it wasn't news. The message was loud and clear: We know how to run your life better than you do and we are going to make sure you do it our way.

If the Conservatives help start to turn that kind of mentality around, it may yet have been worth voting for them. I'll confess to being a little cynical about the possibility, but one can always hope. I can't see that anybody else is even going to try.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Child Care

Evaluating Harper: crime

Part three in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number three: making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

Well, I've got to start out with a horrific confession. This whole topic rather bores me. *Yawn* I don't see that crime has really got that much worse in recent years and the chances of any government doing anything truly effective to lower the levels we've got seem to be too small to matter. I don't even get excited about the gun registry, either keeping or scrapping it. Sorry. Although if they're going to keep it, they had better get costs under control. The cost/benefit analysis is practically enough to doom the programme all on its own.

But I can't avoid the topic altogether. Other than revulsion at Liberal corruption, the whole law and order question was probably the biggest trump card the Conservatives had in the last election. But as far as I'm concerned, the Liberals were not awful and the Conservatives are not wonderful in this portfolio. And vice versa.

Having said that, I rather like the recent "three strikes you're out" initiative. Under the proposed legislation,

a three-time repeat violent and sexual offender would have to convince a judge why he or she is not a dangerous offender -- a status that carries an indefinite prison sentence with no parole eligibility for seven years.

It's currently the Crown's task to prove repeat offenders are dangerous.

I just don't buy the slippery slope hysteria. I am personally a fierce defender of the "presumption of innocence", because it is at the base of an enlightened legal system. But the presumption of innocence is worn to tatters by the time someone has worked his way up to the third horrific offence, and I don't find it at unreasonable to say that at that point it is the offender who should bear the burden of proof. Protection of society should also be a major goal of the judicial system. I would like to hear opponents of this bill cite concrete cases of where the proposed bill would have brought about an abortion of justice.

Jason Gratl, of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, argued the justice system should be extremely cautious in how it asks for indeterminate sentences.

"We should bear in mind that an indefinite sentence is the nuclear bomb of the sentencing arsenal," he told CTV News last week.

"We don't have anything more harsh. We don't sentence people to death in this country, and we should be sparing in how we apply our most severe sentences."

Please, Mr. Gratl, get specific. I find it very hard to imagine how waiting until an offender has proven himself excessively nasty three times is not applying the most severe sentence sparingly. To get a real grasp of this issue we need two lists: first, a list of all the people who would have been prevented from committing further crimes if this provision had been in force, and the second, a list of all those who committed three horrific crimes, were convicted of them, and then turned into productive, law-abiding citizens without any further ado.

Please keep in mind, that three strikes you're out does not mean an inevitable designation as a dangerous offender. It just shifts the burden of proof, and in those conditions, I find it a very reasonable shifting. I would love to hear from anyone who can demonstrate (not argue) that I am wrong.

So even though this is not a portfolio that inflames me much one way or the other, I give the Conservatives a decent passing mark in this subject. Please feel free to enlighten my ignorance if you find that unreasonable.