Primary election leadership process a welcome prospect in Canada
As the Liberal Party looks to try to rebuild its shattered psyche and equally-shattered electoral prospects, embattled party President Alfred Apps has some bold ideas for the party.
He's clearly been reading John Ibbitson's Open & Shut. He's recommending that the Liberal Party start electing their leaders through a primary process.
More specifically, he wants to emulate the closed-primary process in the United States, in which voters who register as supporters of a particular political party are allowed to vote on who that party's Presidential nominee should be.
(Contrast this with open primaries, in which any registered voter may vote on the nominee of either party.)
“I believe that as a party we should commit, whenever we form government next – and God knows when it will be – that we want to introduce the concept of a registered voters list in Canada,” Apps declared.
The Liberal Party itself has inched closer to electing its leaders in this manner, when it voted to replace its the delegate-based leadership election process with its current one member/one vote system.
Apps insists that a primary election leadership process would go a long way toward revitalizing the party. Right now, the Liberal Party needs nothing as much as it needs to be revitalized. It would do much more than this.
As these primary elections would be conducted on a province-by-province basis, it would force liberal Leadership candidates to engage with the grassroots of the party. Rather than having the option of waiting for a leadership convention and impress a limited number of delegates.
“Liberalism is always in danger of running out of gas or becoming a victim of its own success,” he declared. “There’s always got to be a new frontier of reform.”
Whether or not Alfred Apps should still be the President of the Liberal Party is debatable. But Liberals would do well to listen to his ideas -- particularly this one -- very carefully.
Showing posts with label John Ibbitson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Ibbitson. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
It's 2011, and the Liberals Still Won't Accept The Blame
Liberal Party peddling "voter suppression" myths
More than five years ago, the unthinkable happened: the Liberal Party was defeated in an election, and replaced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
At least it was unthinkable for the Liberal Party. Even after the Sponsorship Scandal, in which the Liberal Party was caught red-handed blatantly stealing from Canadian taxpayers, the Liberal Party -- who had begun to believe their own "natural governing party" hype -- was confused, and that confusion has never cleared.
A Globe and Mail by John Ibbitson article notes that the Liberals have pointed the finger for their losses squarely at the Conservatives, repeating claims, increasingly popular among the far-left, that the Tories are attemptign to dissuade Canadians from voting.
"The Liberals believe that one reason they lost so badly in 2008 was that about 800,000 people who normally vote for them didn’t vote at all, contributing to the record low turnout in the last election," Ibbitson writes. "They blame the relentlessly negative tone of the Conservative campaign, though they forget that the performance of then-leader Stephane Dion and his highly unpopular Green Shift carbon tax proposal surely had more to do with it."
Ibbitson is almost exceedingly polite in neglecting to mention that it's the Liberal Party that has always, always, set the bar in terms of nasty campaigning. (After all, when you release an ad implying that your competitors may try to transform Canada into some kind of a military police state, you've clearly dedicated yourself to campaign dirt.)
This is before one even considers the impact of gratuitous Liberal accusations of racism against any candidate who seems even remotely conservative, trying to discourage their voters from turning up hoping they would feel too guilt-ridden to cast their vote.
While noting that Conservative warnings about a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition could be designed to simultaneously boost Tory voting numbers while discouraging Liberal voters, Ibbitson -- like most rational people -- doesn't seem to consider "voter suppression" arguments very convincing.
"In all likelihood, no party is engaged in an overt campaign to depress voter turnout," Ibbitson concludes. "But both the Liberals and the Conservatives may be hoping that, if they can mobilize their vote while discouraging voters who incline to their opponent, that’s not the worst thing in the world."
In other words, the Liberals are just as guilty of "voter suppression" as anyone else would be.
And just like after their 2006 defeat at the polls, they still won't own up to it. No one should be surprised. It's just their way.
More than five years ago, the unthinkable happened: the Liberal Party was defeated in an election, and replaced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
At least it was unthinkable for the Liberal Party. Even after the Sponsorship Scandal, in which the Liberal Party was caught red-handed blatantly stealing from Canadian taxpayers, the Liberal Party -- who had begun to believe their own "natural governing party" hype -- was confused, and that confusion has never cleared.
A Globe and Mail by John Ibbitson article notes that the Liberals have pointed the finger for their losses squarely at the Conservatives, repeating claims, increasingly popular among the far-left, that the Tories are attemptign to dissuade Canadians from voting.
"The Liberals believe that one reason they lost so badly in 2008 was that about 800,000 people who normally vote for them didn’t vote at all, contributing to the record low turnout in the last election," Ibbitson writes. "They blame the relentlessly negative tone of the Conservative campaign, though they forget that the performance of then-leader Stephane Dion and his highly unpopular Green Shift carbon tax proposal surely had more to do with it."
Ibbitson is almost exceedingly polite in neglecting to mention that it's the Liberal Party that has always, always, set the bar in terms of nasty campaigning. (After all, when you release an ad implying that your competitors may try to transform Canada into some kind of a military police state, you've clearly dedicated yourself to campaign dirt.)
This is before one even considers the impact of gratuitous Liberal accusations of racism against any candidate who seems even remotely conservative, trying to discourage their voters from turning up hoping they would feel too guilt-ridden to cast their vote.
While noting that Conservative warnings about a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition could be designed to simultaneously boost Tory voting numbers while discouraging Liberal voters, Ibbitson -- like most rational people -- doesn't seem to consider "voter suppression" arguments very convincing.
"In all likelihood, no party is engaged in an overt campaign to depress voter turnout," Ibbitson concludes. "But both the Liberals and the Conservatives may be hoping that, if they can mobilize their vote while discouraging voters who incline to their opponent, that’s not the worst thing in the world."
In other words, the Liberals are just as guilty of "voter suppression" as anyone else would be.
And just like after their 2006 defeat at the polls, they still won't own up to it. No one should be surprised. It's just their way.
Friday, April 01, 2011
An Alternative Reform of Campaign Finance
Harper plans to cut per-vote subsidies
With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.
But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."
Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.
"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."
"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."
If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.
If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.
He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.
Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.
Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.
As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.
As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)
It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.
But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.
So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.
With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.
But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."
Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.
"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."
"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."
If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.
If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.
He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.
Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.
Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.
As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.
As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)
It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.
But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.
So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Transcend This, Frances
Frances Russell transcends reality
In a recent column in the Winnipeg Free Press, Frances Russell has found a unique partner for her periodic spleen-venting at Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Frank Graves.
That's Frank Graves of EKOS and "envoke a culture war" fame.
Russell seems rather puzzled that what she seems to believe is a progressive majority can't overcome Harper and his Conservative government.
The amusing thing is that she's tantalizingly close to the answers, even if she can't quite get over herself long enough to get there.
At one point, Russell seems to admit -- if one should indeed take this as a matter for admission -- that "Canada's progressive majority has fragmented". She cites a four-way split between the Liberal Party, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois.
In other words: Russell seems to confuse the Liberals and Bloc for progressive political parties.
For the particularly intellectually-lazy denizens of the far left, it's an easy mistake for them to make. The laziness helps.
Certainly, there's a large progressive wing of the Liberal Party. But there's also a strong conservative wing of the party as well; one powerful enough to keep the party stable everytime it's pulled back to the right (more on this briefly).
The suggestion that the Bloc Quebecois is a progressive party at all is actually rather laughable. Although they frequently drape themselves in the trappings of left-wing politics, it's important to remember that the BQ is founded on racial politics, not welfare politics. If they believed that Quebec could be won accordingly, they could just as easily be the Quebecois equivalent of the British National Party.
People like Russell don't like to acknowledge this: the idea that the votes cast for the Bloc are cast in favour of a progressive ideology as opposed to one form or another of Quebecois parochialism is ideologically soothing to them, regardless of how ficticious it is.
But as John Ibbitson points out in The Polite Revolution, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are built out of two factions.
For the Conservative Party, it's a western wing built as the Reform Party and founded on the values of libertarianism and social conservatism, and an eastern wing built as the Progressive Conservative Party and founded on fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
For the Liberal Party, it's a Mitchell Sharp/John Turner/Paul Martin wing of the party, founded on fiscal conservatism and decentralism, and a Walter Gordon/Pierre Trudeau/Jean Chretien wing of the party founded on social liberalism and centralism.
The Liberal Party is the party of Paul Szabo every bit as much as it's the party of Bob Rae.
If the Liberal Party were to fragment -- as Ibbitson suggests that both the Grits and Tories would under proportional representation -- the emerging coalition would clearly slide toward conservatism, provided that they could reach a detente over social issues. Perhaps the kind of detente that's been reached within the modern Conservative Party.
For Frances Russell, it should be an alarming prospect. But she seems to think she's found an answer: Frank Graves and cultural warfare. His weapons of choice seem to be the long-form census and the long-gun registry.
Of course, he doesn't want to seem like he's promoting cultural warfare, like he did to the Liberal Party. Instead, he wants it to seem like he's just trying to help Stephen Harper find the extra 1% or so of public support that he needs to win a majority government.
"I can't for the life of me figure out why a guy who needs two points, or one point, would start shoring up an already tenacious base with this red meat," Graves explains. "that doesn't appeal even to the six or seven per cent of new voters he captured in 2008."
"When he gets into a comfortable position and even when he's not, he and some of his closest advisers can't seem to transcend their core values," Graves continues. "How could anyone in his camp explain to him how doing the various things from prorogation to eliminating the long-form census, to launching a huge war to get rid of the long-gun registry to removing abortion from maternal and child health (would work). It doesn't make any sense."
Apparently, it doesn't occur to Graves that there are entire ridings -- such as NDP MP Peter Stoffer's -- that could quite easily swing over the long-gun registry. While the Liberal Party almost certainly plans to campaign on that topic in a future election -- using sophistry, fear mongering and emotional blackmail -- the ridings they will win on this issue are the ridings they already have. Canadiands could expect to see several Liberal rural ridings swing to the Tories.
The long-form census issue is a much more debatable topic. Unless the opposition finds the wherewithall to bring down the government before the next census is conducted, Canadians may well find the voluntary long-form to be far less painful than the so-called experts insist it will.
And it will certainly remind Canada's far left precisely how far Canadians really support their agenda. If they can't be convinced to provide their data voluntarily on the basis of their need for that information to justify vast portions of government programming, it will be hard to the statements Canadians will be making on the size and role of Canadian government.
For her own part, Russell seems to be acting on an impetus to help Graves turn the "culture war" narrative that he himself brought up on the conservatives by suggesting that it's Harper and the Tories who are waging a culture war.
It's laughable. The far left has literally begun to think of their ideology as definitive of Canadian culture. It's a shameful and selfish notion, but not one that Canada's far left has proven particularly resistant to.
Russell also wishes to pass Graves' advice to the Liberals along: he suggests that the Liberals, if in government, should cancel the construction of new prison space and the purchase of new fighter jets. He suggests that the Conservatives should produce environmental policy amicable to the left.
It's typical of a Liberal Party strategist: suggest that the Tories should acquiesce to their agenda, and advise the Liberal Party to govern irresponsibly.
Never mind that policies like the disgraceful 2-for-1 credit were deemed necessary due to poor conditions and over-crowding in Canadian prisons. Never mind that Canada's fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is currently reaching the end of their operating lifetime and need to be replaced.
One thing Canadians should remember is that the last time the Liberal Party came to government, oen of their first act was an irresponsible cancellation of a contract for new military helicopters -- and should remember that the lives of Canadian pilots were lost because of it.
Another thing Canadians should remember is that any proper statiscal analysis of reductions in Canada's crime rate is nearly erased in its entirety by decreases in the reporting of crime.
What Frank Graves recommends to the Liberal Party is political irresponsibility for partisan gain. Apparently, to Graves, this kind of irresponsibility isn't something that needs to be transcended, but conservative values are.
In a recent column in the Winnipeg Free Press, Frances Russell has found a unique partner for her periodic spleen-venting at Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Frank Graves.
That's Frank Graves of EKOS and "envoke a culture war" fame.
Russell seems rather puzzled that what she seems to believe is a progressive majority can't overcome Harper and his Conservative government.
The amusing thing is that she's tantalizingly close to the answers, even if she can't quite get over herself long enough to get there.
At one point, Russell seems to admit -- if one should indeed take this as a matter for admission -- that "Canada's progressive majority has fragmented". She cites a four-way split between the Liberal Party, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois.
In other words: Russell seems to confuse the Liberals and Bloc for progressive political parties.
For the particularly intellectually-lazy denizens of the far left, it's an easy mistake for them to make. The laziness helps.
Certainly, there's a large progressive wing of the Liberal Party. But there's also a strong conservative wing of the party as well; one powerful enough to keep the party stable everytime it's pulled back to the right (more on this briefly).
The suggestion that the Bloc Quebecois is a progressive party at all is actually rather laughable. Although they frequently drape themselves in the trappings of left-wing politics, it's important to remember that the BQ is founded on racial politics, not welfare politics. If they believed that Quebec could be won accordingly, they could just as easily be the Quebecois equivalent of the British National Party.
People like Russell don't like to acknowledge this: the idea that the votes cast for the Bloc are cast in favour of a progressive ideology as opposed to one form or another of Quebecois parochialism is ideologically soothing to them, regardless of how ficticious it is.
But as John Ibbitson points out in The Polite Revolution, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are built out of two factions.
For the Conservative Party, it's a western wing built as the Reform Party and founded on the values of libertarianism and social conservatism, and an eastern wing built as the Progressive Conservative Party and founded on fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
For the Liberal Party, it's a Mitchell Sharp/John Turner/Paul Martin wing of the party, founded on fiscal conservatism and decentralism, and a Walter Gordon/Pierre Trudeau/Jean Chretien wing of the party founded on social liberalism and centralism.
The Liberal Party is the party of Paul Szabo every bit as much as it's the party of Bob Rae.
If the Liberal Party were to fragment -- as Ibbitson suggests that both the Grits and Tories would under proportional representation -- the emerging coalition would clearly slide toward conservatism, provided that they could reach a detente over social issues. Perhaps the kind of detente that's been reached within the modern Conservative Party.
For Frances Russell, it should be an alarming prospect. But she seems to think she's found an answer: Frank Graves and cultural warfare. His weapons of choice seem to be the long-form census and the long-gun registry.
Of course, he doesn't want to seem like he's promoting cultural warfare, like he did to the Liberal Party. Instead, he wants it to seem like he's just trying to help Stephen Harper find the extra 1% or so of public support that he needs to win a majority government.
"I can't for the life of me figure out why a guy who needs two points, or one point, would start shoring up an already tenacious base with this red meat," Graves explains. "that doesn't appeal even to the six or seven per cent of new voters he captured in 2008."
"When he gets into a comfortable position and even when he's not, he and some of his closest advisers can't seem to transcend their core values," Graves continues. "How could anyone in his camp explain to him how doing the various things from prorogation to eliminating the long-form census, to launching a huge war to get rid of the long-gun registry to removing abortion from maternal and child health (would work). It doesn't make any sense."
Apparently, it doesn't occur to Graves that there are entire ridings -- such as NDP MP Peter Stoffer's -- that could quite easily swing over the long-gun registry. While the Liberal Party almost certainly plans to campaign on that topic in a future election -- using sophistry, fear mongering and emotional blackmail -- the ridings they will win on this issue are the ridings they already have. Canadiands could expect to see several Liberal rural ridings swing to the Tories.
The long-form census issue is a much more debatable topic. Unless the opposition finds the wherewithall to bring down the government before the next census is conducted, Canadians may well find the voluntary long-form to be far less painful than the so-called experts insist it will.
And it will certainly remind Canada's far left precisely how far Canadians really support their agenda. If they can't be convinced to provide their data voluntarily on the basis of their need for that information to justify vast portions of government programming, it will be hard to the statements Canadians will be making on the size and role of Canadian government.
For her own part, Russell seems to be acting on an impetus to help Graves turn the "culture war" narrative that he himself brought up on the conservatives by suggesting that it's Harper and the Tories who are waging a culture war.
It's laughable. The far left has literally begun to think of their ideology as definitive of Canadian culture. It's a shameful and selfish notion, but not one that Canada's far left has proven particularly resistant to.
Russell also wishes to pass Graves' advice to the Liberals along: he suggests that the Liberals, if in government, should cancel the construction of new prison space and the purchase of new fighter jets. He suggests that the Conservatives should produce environmental policy amicable to the left.
It's typical of a Liberal Party strategist: suggest that the Tories should acquiesce to their agenda, and advise the Liberal Party to govern irresponsibly.
Never mind that policies like the disgraceful 2-for-1 credit were deemed necessary due to poor conditions and over-crowding in Canadian prisons. Never mind that Canada's fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is currently reaching the end of their operating lifetime and need to be replaced.
One thing Canadians should remember is that the last time the Liberal Party came to government, oen of their first act was an irresponsible cancellation of a contract for new military helicopters -- and should remember that the lives of Canadian pilots were lost because of it.
Another thing Canadians should remember is that any proper statiscal analysis of reductions in Canada's crime rate is nearly erased in its entirety by decreases in the reporting of crime.
What Frank Graves recommends to the Liberal Party is political irresponsibility for partisan gain. Apparently, to Graves, this kind of irresponsibility isn't something that needs to be transcended, but conservative values are.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Coming Soon to the Nexus of Assholery...
Within the next few weeks, a bold new initiative is coming to the Nexus of Assholery.
Over the past several months, your not-so-humble scribe has been working on a super-secret pet project.
In 2009, Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson published a book entitled Open and Shut: Why America Has Barack Obama and Canada Has Stephen Harper. The book is a comparison of the political trends that brought each Harper and Obama to power, and an exploration of how American political innovations could benefit Canada.
In October, your not-so-humble scribe will offer a response to Ibbitson's book.
Entitled Open or Shut? Why Canada is Better Off With Stephen Harper, and How We Can Do Even Better, the book will offer a comparative critique of the Harper government and the Obama administration, as well as a further exploration of how Canadians can better open their political system.
The book will seek to address several questions, including:
-How did Barack Obama manage to shit the bed so badly?
-What do the founderings of Obama and Harper have in common?
-How does Canadian tax policy smother the marketplace of ideas?
-Do Canadian campaign finance laws invite foreign interference in Canadian elections?
-What are the stakes for aboriginal governance?
This, among other topics. It will be a very short -- but very important -- read for Canadians concerned with the direction of their country.
So how much will this book cost? It's a good thing you asked.
How about... $0? Nothing? Nada?
That's right -- this book will be offered for free in e-book format. But there's a catch.
Open it Up is meant to spur the kind of debate that Open and Shut deserved, but never really received. So it won't be enough that merely you download this book. Not nearly.
Instead, every reader will be encouraged to copy this book to their heart's content and pass it along to anyone and everyone whom they think might benefit from it.
It's time to liven up the debate on political reform in Canada -- Open or Shut is just the book to do it, and you can be part of that debate.
Over the past several months, your not-so-humble scribe has been working on a super-secret pet project.
In 2009, Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson published a book entitled Open and Shut: Why America Has Barack Obama and Canada Has Stephen Harper. The book is a comparison of the political trends that brought each Harper and Obama to power, and an exploration of how American political innovations could benefit Canada.
In October, your not-so-humble scribe will offer a response to Ibbitson's book.
Entitled Open or Shut? Why Canada is Better Off With Stephen Harper, and How We Can Do Even Better, the book will offer a comparative critique of the Harper government and the Obama administration, as well as a further exploration of how Canadians can better open their political system.
The book will seek to address several questions, including:
-How did Barack Obama manage to shit the bed so badly?
-What do the founderings of Obama and Harper have in common?
-How does Canadian tax policy smother the marketplace of ideas?
-Do Canadian campaign finance laws invite foreign interference in Canadian elections?
-What are the stakes for aboriginal governance?
This, among other topics. It will be a very short -- but very important -- read for Canadians concerned with the direction of their country.
So how much will this book cost? It's a good thing you asked.
How about... $0? Nothing? Nada?
That's right -- this book will be offered for free in e-book format. But there's a catch.
Open it Up is meant to spur the kind of debate that Open and Shut deserved, but never really received. So it won't be enough that merely you download this book. Not nearly.
Instead, every reader will be encouraged to copy this book to their heart's content and pass it along to anyone and everyone whom they think might benefit from it.
It's time to liven up the debate on political reform in Canada -- Open or Shut is just the book to do it, and you can be part of that debate.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Alas, The Arrogance of Fools
"Progressive" pushes outdated concept of Canadian politics
In yet another ill-conceived jab at anyone who dares disagree with her, Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II evidently wishes to take issue with the ideas expressed in a not-so-recent video published here at the Nexus.
(Ironically, her true quarrel is with John Ibbitson, but we'll overlook that for the moment.)
Audrey apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, despite the fact that the realities of Canadian politics -- even if not the theory -- demonstrate it to be the case.
Audrey has a tendency to appeal to the theory of Responsible Government -- the notion that, in Canada, the Governor General, and not the people, decides who the government shall be. After an election, the Governor General invites a Member of Parliament to become Prime Minister, and form a government that can hold Parliament's confidence.
As it appears on paper, this is precisely how Canadian politics is said to function. But unfortunately for Audrey, it isn't the way Canadian politics has functioned in real life.
It's amazing that Audrey would evidently appeal to Canadian political theory as it appears on paper, and so blatantly ignore how it has actually worked in real life. In order to reveal how this is the case, one only requires a perfunctory examination of Canadian history. Moreover, one simply needs to ask themselves this question:
Of all the people who have served as Canadian Prime Minister, how many of them were not the leader of a political party?
The answer, as it turns out, is zero.
Certainly, Audrey could argue that, under the concept of responsible government, as it appears on paper, the Governor General could invite anyone he or she wished to become Prime Minister and lead the government of Canada -- even an Independent MP. Under the theoretical concept of responsible government, as it appears on paper, all that would be necessary is that this individual and their cabinet be able to maintain the confidence of Parliament.
Unfortunately for Audrey, the Parliament of Canada doesn't merely exist on paper. It has to exist and function in a place the rest of us like to call "the real world", and as it turns out, this is a place that Audrey is fundamentally unfamiliar with.
It's the functioning of Parliament and government within "the real world" that separates the realities of Canadian politics from its theoretical foundation, and Audrey's fantasies from that reality.
Seeing as how the long-standing tradition of Canadian politics has been for the Governor General to invite the party that wins a plurality of seats to form the government -- a tradition violated only once, and only briefly, in 1925, after then-Liberal leader William Lyon Mackenzie King and Progressive Party leader Robert Forke formed a coalition government immediately after the general election, and thus before then-Governor General Lord Bing had chosen Canada's Prime Minister -- Audrey has willfully overlooked a basic functional truth of Canada's political system.
Canadians vote for their Prime Minister through the parties they vote for. The marketplace-styled mode of Canadian politics -- especially in the modern era, in which the news media tends to direct voters' attention toward party leaders and a small band of elite personalities within each party -- drives Canadian voters toward choosing parties over local candidates.
In most cases, it requires a major misstep or political scandal for a local candidate to attract any significant national media attention. Except to the politically engaged, local candidates tend to toil in anonymity.
In many cases in Canada, most Canadians could not name any of their local candidates on the day before an election day, although they would be able to identify the party -- and party leader -- they intended to vote in favour of. This shouldn't be mistaken for an affirmative comment on the virtue of this state of affairs -- just a statement of reality.
In other words, most Canadians do not vote with their local candidates in mind. They vote with party brand identity and leadership in mind.
Canadians very much do vote for Prime Minister -- they merely do so indirectly.
Audrey appeals to long-outdated notions of Canadian politics in order to avoid admitting that:
1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and
2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and
3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:
Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be.
It's a simple three-step self-indulgent failure in pragmatic political cognition that has led Audrey into a land of folly into which virtually any anti-democratic attitude can be justified -- including Stephane Dion's ill-fated Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition.
It's rather amusing that a so-called "progressive" wants to push a self-serving conceptualization of "responsible government" that not only appeals to long-outdated elements of the Canadian system, but also appeals to a manner in which the Canadian political system has not functioned, and likely never could function.
In being a "progressive", Audrey has evidently forgotten about the key functional word of that concept: notably, "progress".
Moreover, it's actually extremely amusing that Audrey would dare bandy about the very notion of "responsible government", considering what her idea of responsible is:
In Audrey's fantasy world, the Governor General could appoint anyone they personally wished as Prime Minister, regardless of how Canadians voted, or the expectations of Canadian citizens. There is nothing responsible about this, just like there is nothing responsible about mortgaging the Canadian government to a separatist party -- all while concealing the terms of the deal in question from the Canadian public.
In the real world, we have things we call "elections", and Canadians expect Canada's political parties -- not to mention the Governor General -- to respect them. If one needs proof of this, one needs look no further than the public response to Dion's coalition proposal.
A poll taken after Dion's proposal indicated that only 37% of Canadians favoured allowing that coalition to take power immediately. 32% of Canadians preferred holding a federal election, while 24% of Canadians were uncertain.
In other words, whatever Canadians wanted moving forward from the then-potential defeat of the Conservative government, the majority of Canadians did not want the coalition.
When one considers the argument that 63% of Canadians had voted for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party combined, it points to what should amount, for Audrey, to be a very startling reality: just short of half of the Canadians who voted for those three parties wouldn't support a coalition hastily implemented after a defeat of the sitting government.
In other words, Canadians recognized that the election had been contested, that the Conservative Party had won, that the Conservative Party formed the government of Canada, and expected that if that government were defeated, they would have the opportunity to vote on who will form the government -- again, even if indirectly -- in a new election.
Naturally, this notion offends Audrey's nostalgia for the pure concept of a political system formulated in the 19th century -- when women and non-property owning men couldn't vote, and Canada was still a Dominion of the British Empire. Britain is now a foreign country, and Canada is a sovereign state.
In the end, it's all terribly conservative of Audrey. Conservative in the most extreme. Conservative in the sense that it is less progressive, and more regressive.
Which is actually ironic from someone who so obviously hates conservatives, hates conservatism, and hates each to the extent that she's willing to ignore the realities of Canadian politics so that she may attack it.
But little details like this, amusingly enough, are lost on people who are so arrogant that they believe their willful ignorance of these realities is actually a virtue.
In yet another ill-conceived jab at anyone who dares disagree with her, Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II evidently wishes to take issue with the ideas expressed in a not-so-recent video published here at the Nexus.
(Ironically, her true quarrel is with John Ibbitson, but we'll overlook that for the moment.)
Audrey apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, despite the fact that the realities of Canadian politics -- even if not the theory -- demonstrate it to be the case.
Audrey has a tendency to appeal to the theory of Responsible Government -- the notion that, in Canada, the Governor General, and not the people, decides who the government shall be. After an election, the Governor General invites a Member of Parliament to become Prime Minister, and form a government that can hold Parliament's confidence.
As it appears on paper, this is precisely how Canadian politics is said to function. But unfortunately for Audrey, it isn't the way Canadian politics has functioned in real life.
It's amazing that Audrey would evidently appeal to Canadian political theory as it appears on paper, and so blatantly ignore how it has actually worked in real life. In order to reveal how this is the case, one only requires a perfunctory examination of Canadian history. Moreover, one simply needs to ask themselves this question:
Of all the people who have served as Canadian Prime Minister, how many of them were not the leader of a political party?
The answer, as it turns out, is zero.
Certainly, Audrey could argue that, under the concept of responsible government, as it appears on paper, the Governor General could invite anyone he or she wished to become Prime Minister and lead the government of Canada -- even an Independent MP. Under the theoretical concept of responsible government, as it appears on paper, all that would be necessary is that this individual and their cabinet be able to maintain the confidence of Parliament.
Unfortunately for Audrey, the Parliament of Canada doesn't merely exist on paper. It has to exist and function in a place the rest of us like to call "the real world", and as it turns out, this is a place that Audrey is fundamentally unfamiliar with.
It's the functioning of Parliament and government within "the real world" that separates the realities of Canadian politics from its theoretical foundation, and Audrey's fantasies from that reality.
Seeing as how the long-standing tradition of Canadian politics has been for the Governor General to invite the party that wins a plurality of seats to form the government -- a tradition violated only once, and only briefly, in 1925, after then-Liberal leader William Lyon Mackenzie King and Progressive Party leader Robert Forke formed a coalition government immediately after the general election, and thus before then-Governor General Lord Bing had chosen Canada's Prime Minister -- Audrey has willfully overlooked a basic functional truth of Canada's political system.
Canadians vote for their Prime Minister through the parties they vote for. The marketplace-styled mode of Canadian politics -- especially in the modern era, in which the news media tends to direct voters' attention toward party leaders and a small band of elite personalities within each party -- drives Canadian voters toward choosing parties over local candidates.
In most cases, it requires a major misstep or political scandal for a local candidate to attract any significant national media attention. Except to the politically engaged, local candidates tend to toil in anonymity.
In many cases in Canada, most Canadians could not name any of their local candidates on the day before an election day, although they would be able to identify the party -- and party leader -- they intended to vote in favour of. This shouldn't be mistaken for an affirmative comment on the virtue of this state of affairs -- just a statement of reality.
In other words, most Canadians do not vote with their local candidates in mind. They vote with party brand identity and leadership in mind.
Canadians very much do vote for Prime Minister -- they merely do so indirectly.
Audrey appeals to long-outdated notions of Canadian politics in order to avoid admitting that:
1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and
2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and
3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:
Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be.
It's a simple three-step self-indulgent failure in pragmatic political cognition that has led Audrey into a land of folly into which virtually any anti-democratic attitude can be justified -- including Stephane Dion's ill-fated Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition.
It's rather amusing that a so-called "progressive" wants to push a self-serving conceptualization of "responsible government" that not only appeals to long-outdated elements of the Canadian system, but also appeals to a manner in which the Canadian political system has not functioned, and likely never could function.
In being a "progressive", Audrey has evidently forgotten about the key functional word of that concept: notably, "progress".
Moreover, it's actually extremely amusing that Audrey would dare bandy about the very notion of "responsible government", considering what her idea of responsible is:
In Audrey's fantasy world, the Governor General could appoint anyone they personally wished as Prime Minister, regardless of how Canadians voted, or the expectations of Canadian citizens. There is nothing responsible about this, just like there is nothing responsible about mortgaging the Canadian government to a separatist party -- all while concealing the terms of the deal in question from the Canadian public.
In the real world, we have things we call "elections", and Canadians expect Canada's political parties -- not to mention the Governor General -- to respect them. If one needs proof of this, one needs look no further than the public response to Dion's coalition proposal.
A poll taken after Dion's proposal indicated that only 37% of Canadians favoured allowing that coalition to take power immediately. 32% of Canadians preferred holding a federal election, while 24% of Canadians were uncertain.
In other words, whatever Canadians wanted moving forward from the then-potential defeat of the Conservative government, the majority of Canadians did not want the coalition.
When one considers the argument that 63% of Canadians had voted for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party combined, it points to what should amount, for Audrey, to be a very startling reality: just short of half of the Canadians who voted for those three parties wouldn't support a coalition hastily implemented after a defeat of the sitting government.
In other words, Canadians recognized that the election had been contested, that the Conservative Party had won, that the Conservative Party formed the government of Canada, and expected that if that government were defeated, they would have the opportunity to vote on who will form the government -- again, even if indirectly -- in a new election.
Naturally, this notion offends Audrey's nostalgia for the pure concept of a political system formulated in the 19th century -- when women and non-property owning men couldn't vote, and Canada was still a Dominion of the British Empire. Britain is now a foreign country, and Canada is a sovereign state.
In the end, it's all terribly conservative of Audrey. Conservative in the most extreme. Conservative in the sense that it is less progressive, and more regressive.
Which is actually ironic from someone who so obviously hates conservatives, hates conservatism, and hates each to the extent that she's willing to ignore the realities of Canadian politics so that she may attack it.
But little details like this, amusingly enough, are lost on people who are so arrogant that they believe their willful ignorance of these realities is actually a virtue.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Time to Open Canadian Politics
Preston Manning: If Britain can experiment, why can't we?
Throughout history, Canada has shared many things in common with Britain.
Our Parliamentary system is one of them.
In Open and Shut, John Ibbitson compares the 2008 elections in Canada and the United States and draws a disappointing conclusion: in Canada, there could never be a Prime Minister Barack Obama. There could never be a Prime Minister John McCain.
The reason for this has nothing to do with the virtues of either man -- although, speaking outside of hypotheticals, citizenship certainly must. Instead, Ibbitson concludes this because the Canadian political system is too closed, as opposed to the American system, which is comparatively open.
Ibbitson muses that an open primary system could not only improve participation in Canadian politics, but improve Canadian politics itself. While individuals like Frances Russell go into conniptions any time anyone suggests that Canadians "pollute" our Parliamentary system with American innovations, it seems that an innovation such as a primary system may not be as antithetical to our Parliamentary system as some may think.
Preston Manning seems to echo Ibbitson's sentiments in a column recently published in the Globe and Mail, and provides a surprising example to support his arguments:
If Canadians who support -- but haven't made the commitment of joining -- a political party were given the opportunity to vote on the leaders of each party one as to wonder who may be leading each of these parties.
Conservative leader Peter MacKay?
NDP leader Lorne Nystrom?
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau?
One would certainly at least have to wonder about the odds of individuals like Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion or Jack Layton to lead their respective parties.
Whereas, in the United States, the primary system has often foiled the ascent of allegedly "inevitable" Presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.
In Ibbitson's mind, the affect of this influence has been overwhelmngly positive. Manning seems to agree:
Don Mazankowski's long-forgotten proposal that the province of Alberta establish its own elected Senate within its provincial government seems to be a good example. if Albertans so badly want an elected Senate federally, showing that one could work at the provincial level is certainly a productive step. It's one that was never taken, and a proposal that was quickly forgotten.
Sadly, the Conservative party of Canada hasn't always been true to the populist principles that were supposed to be integral to its reformation:
But Ibbitson and Manning are both right: it's time for Canadians to find new ways to open our politics. While the idea of a primary election system is promising, it's far from guaranteed to be the panacea that will solve some of the problems confronting Canadian politics.
But something almost certainly needs to be done. The time is as right now as it ever has been.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
The View From Seven - "Preston Manning: Building Democracy or Just Activist Influence?"
Throughout history, Canada has shared many things in common with Britain.
Our Parliamentary system is one of them.
In Open and Shut, John Ibbitson compares the 2008 elections in Canada and the United States and draws a disappointing conclusion: in Canada, there could never be a Prime Minister Barack Obama. There could never be a Prime Minister John McCain.
The reason for this has nothing to do with the virtues of either man -- although, speaking outside of hypotheticals, citizenship certainly must. Instead, Ibbitson concludes this because the Canadian political system is too closed, as opposed to the American system, which is comparatively open.
Ibbitson muses that an open primary system could not only improve participation in Canadian politics, but improve Canadian politics itself. While individuals like Frances Russell go into conniptions any time anyone suggests that Canadians "pollute" our Parliamentary system with American innovations, it seems that an innovation such as a primary system may not be as antithetical to our Parliamentary system as some may think.
Preston Manning seems to echo Ibbitson's sentiments in a column recently published in the Globe and Mail, and provides a surprising example to support his arguments:
"Earlier this month, Canada's electoral officers - officials of Elections Canada and their provincial and territorial counterparts - held their annual conference.To support his argument, Manning offers the example of the British Conservative party. In the riding of Totnes, they're replacing a discraced MP with a candidate who will be nominated through an open primary election:
The main subject of discussion was what to do about declining participation in Canadian elections -- for example, the turnout of 59 per cent in the last federal election, the 51 per cent in the recent BC provincial election, and the abysmal 41 per cent last time out in Alberta.
It is good to know that our elections officials are concerned about this problem. They play an important role in informing and educating voters on election procedures and rules. But surely the primary responsibility for remedying Canada's democracy deficit rests with others -- with parents, educators, the media and particularly our political parties, politicians and leaders.
Often it takes a crisis of some sort to create opportunities for reform. In Britain, the recent scandalous abuse of expense accounts by members of the House of Commons from all major parties has created precisely such a crisis and opportunity."
"In order to bolster public confidence in its candidates for the soon-to-be-held general election, the British Conservative Party has become willing to experiment with democratic innovations.While David Cameron has provided a glimmering example in regards to how to rebuild and rebrand conservative political parties, his party's efforts in Totnes may revolutionize the classic British Parliamentary system:
One in particular is being introduced in the constituency of Totnes. It should be watched closely by Canadian politicians and parties.
The Conservative MP for Totnes, Anthony Steen, was recently forced to 'stand down' when it was revealed that he had claimed more than £87,000 over four years in parliamentary expenses on his country home.
Rather than choosing a candidate to succeed him by the conventional method of a constituency nominating meeting in which only card-carrying Conservative Party members can vote, the party has decided to experiment with an 'open primary' in which every voter in Totnes will be invited to help choose its candidate for the next general election.
The Totnes Conservative Association drew up a short list of 11 potential candidates which was then reduced to three on July 15. Starting last Monday, ballot papers were mailed out to the 69,000 eligible voters in the constituency. There was an all-candidate event Saturday where the three candidates were to receive and answer questions from voters. Thursday, the results of the Totnes 'open primary' are to be announced.
'This is the first time any political party in Britain has sought the views of the voters [on who should be the party's candidate] in such a direct way,' said Conservative Party Leader David Cameron."
"Observers will be watching closely and seeking answers to several key questions:Perhaps an even better question is whether or not any of Canada's political parties would be willing to experiment with a primary election system -- perhaps not necessarily an open primary -- in order to elect their leaders.
To what extent will the voters of Totnes actually participate? Will that participation give that candidate any advantage in terms of public confidence and support over candidates of other parties nominated in the more traditional way? And, will the primary stimulate greater interest and participation in the general election itself?
And here in Canada, will any political party be willing to experiment with the 'open primary' to attract more Canadians into the process of putting candidates' names on the ballot and thereby, one hopes, increasing public interest in the campaign and election to follow?"
If Canadians who support -- but haven't made the commitment of joining -- a political party were given the opportunity to vote on the leaders of each party one as to wonder who may be leading each of these parties.
Conservative leader Peter MacKay?
NDP leader Lorne Nystrom?
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau?
One would certainly at least have to wonder about the odds of individuals like Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion or Jack Layton to lead their respective parties.
Whereas, in the United States, the primary system has often foiled the ascent of allegedly "inevitable" Presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.
In Ibbitson's mind, the affect of this influence has been overwhelmngly positive. Manning seems to agree:
"In North America, it is the United States that has made greatest use of the primary system, which is why Canadian liberals and social democrats -- pathologically averse to adopting U. political practices -- are unlikely to embrace it.Sadly, Canadian Conservatives don't always prove themselves to be the experimental innovators they purport themselves to be.
But what about Canadian conservatives? If the British Conservative Party -- far older and tradition-bound than any Canadian counterpart -- can experiment with such democratic innovations, why can't Canadian conservatives?"
Don Mazankowski's long-forgotten proposal that the province of Alberta establish its own elected Senate within its provincial government seems to be a good example. if Albertans so badly want an elected Senate federally, showing that one could work at the provincial level is certainly a productive step. It's one that was never taken, and a proposal that was quickly forgotten.
Sadly, the Conservative party of Canada hasn't always been true to the populist principles that were supposed to be integral to its reformation:
"The federal Conservative Party has recently tightened rather than opened its nomination process by permitting incumbents to avoid a nomination contest unless more than two-thirds of local party members vote for one. But if this should prove to be counterproductive, in terms of rallying party member support for the next election campaign or public support for candidates who are past their 'best before' date, perhaps the British experiment with open primaries will find favour here.John Ibbitson may be surprised to find Preston Manning to be such a willing ally in helping institute such innovations in Canada: he shouldn't be, but he may be.
And what about provincial conservative parties? Let's take the aging, long-in-office, Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
Forty years ago, I tried to persuade another aging, long-in-power provincial political party in Alberta to embrace a variation of the primary system as a means of injecting new blood into the party and new energy into the electoral process. The concept was rejected, especially by incumbent MLAs who saw it as a threat to their renomination and by 'gatekeepers' at the constituency level who feared it would reduce their influence.
Two years later, the party was out of office, never to return -- the opportunity to re-energize itself through democratic reform lost forever. Let us, therefore, watch the British experiment with interest, and not wait for a crisis before conducting similar experiments in Canada."
But Ibbitson and Manning are both right: it's time for Canadians to find new ways to open our politics. While the idea of a primary election system is promising, it's far from guaranteed to be the panacea that will solve some of the problems confronting Canadian politics.
But something almost certainly needs to be done. The time is as right now as it ever has been.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
The View From Seven - "Preston Manning: Building Democracy or Just Activist Influence?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)