RIP - The Meaningfulness of Racism as an Issue

Vapid accusations of racism do the issue a severe disservice

As Michael Coren notes in his SUN media op/ed column, racism used to mean something.

"A racist was someone who judged another person not on their ability, character or achievements but purely and exclusively on the colour of their skin or ethnic background," Coren writes. "Members of racial minorities such as blacks, Jews or Asians lost jobs, were denied basic human rights, enslaved and even murdered. Racism, as I say, used to mean something."

"Not now," Coren continues. "Racism still exists of course, but being called a racist often means you are winning an argument against a liberal or merely stating a conservative or orthodox opinion."

Former US President Jimmy Carter and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd took turns accusing Obama's political opponents of being racists.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," said Carter. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

How is it that people like Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd know that Barack Obama's opponents are racist? Why, because they say so.

"[Joe Wilson's] outburst was certainly rude but there surely was no racist aspect to it. Not so explains Dowd. She heard the unspoken, 'You lie, boy!'" Coren writes. "Ah, now I see. Even though the word 'boy' was never uttered it must have been meant because Obama is of mixed race and Wilson is a white man who opposes him."

Carter's and Dowd's arguments don't hold water in a rational mind. Then again, they were never meant to.

Rather, they're meant to obscure the issues being debated in the United States right now and shame and intimidate Obama's opponents into silence.

"It is unfair and itself divisive to impute racial motives to Mr Obama's opponents without evidence," writes McGill political scientist Gil Troy. "The shrill opposition reflects the high stakes surrounding the current debate, Americans' enduring ambivalence about big government and the ugly way modern politics plays out in the media, within the blogosphere and on the streets."

"Mr Obama is controversial because he is seeking big changes," Troy continues. "Mr Obama wants to be a transformational president. ...Spending nearly a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, taking over the U.S. auto industry, and now trying to solve the perennial health-care riddle – while protecting America and seeking world peace – are sweeping goals. No wonder there's pushback."

"The conservative counterattack is particularly intense because Mr Obama seems to forget that Americans have mixed feelings about big government," Troy explains. "There's a strong individualistic streak in American thought. Every major jump in the government's mandate has encountered fierce resistance."

Yet because Carter and Dowd have found such an immediately receptive audience amongst the political commentators at the increasingly-FOX News-like CSNBC, people like themselves -- and clods like Janeane Garofalo -- have been utterly unrepentant about their relentless playing of the race card.

Carter, for his own part, ought to be embarrassed. Race-baiting should be considered below any former President, even one as terrible as Carter was.

“I’m deeply disturbed by those accusations because it’s a unfair and untrue commentary on the American people and them exercising their god-give rights to disagree with the administration," said John McCain. "It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as – if not the worst President in history – certainly the worst in the twentieth century.”

McCain, as some may recall, was also accused of racism during the 2008 election, particularly when Obama's most unscrupulous supporters had no other rebuttal to offer.

Fortunately, Barack Obama himself takes a very different take on the matter. He knows full well that there isn't a total absence of racism in the movement that has risen against him, but at least he refuses to exaggerate it.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here," Obama recently said. Instead, Obama rightly attributes the criticisms to a debate over the role of government "usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes."

Just like Gil Troy suggested.

"Even though we're having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil with each other, and we can try to express ourselves acknowledging that we're all patriots, we're all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people's motives," Obama concluded.

To which any rational individual should be able to say "amen".

But people like Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow clearly don't want cooler -- and more rational -- heads to prevail. It's just not in their game plan.

"It is dishonest for Mr Carter, Ms Dowd and others to play the race card, implying that anyone who dares disagree with Mr Obama's health-care plan or stimulus package is a redneck," Troy concludes. "American politics needs a different tone – these delusional, demagogic, racial recriminations only make things worse."

Barack Obama -- in his handling of this issue and others -- has shown himself to be a very wise leader. But unfortunately, both Obama himself and the issue of racism are being done a severe disservice by Carter, Dowd and company. By envoking racism for petty political purposes they risk casting the entire issue as permanently vapid and meaningless.

The very best that can be hoped for is that the opportunistic and savage attempts of these demagogues to steamroll their opposition under accusations of racism will help challenge some traditional -- but fallacious -- notions about racism.

" It was always said that racism can only come from a group with power. That's a deeply fallacious argument and, even if it were true, power is no longer in the hands of a creamy few," Michael Coren concludes. "Obama is powerful, not a racist. Some of his friends who are black, such as his former minister Jeremiah Wright, are not powerful but are racist."

Unfortunately, it all may be too much to hope for so long as partisan demogogues are bastardizing the issue.

Randy Hillier: Kingmaker in Cattle Country?

Hillier picks a horse in Wildrose Alliance race

Fresh out of helping Tim Hudak become the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, Randy Hillier has apparently decided to try his hand at kingmaking in another province.

Hillier has endorced Mark Dyrholm for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance.

The Wildrose Alliance has been steadily picking up steam as the polish continues to wear off the governing Progressive Conservative party of Alberta. Four hundred people showed up to witness a debate in Calgary this week, as the party continues to collect supporters like Tom Flanagan, Phil Klein, and possibly another MLA in Guy Boutilier.

The Western Standard's Hugh MacIntyre reports that Hillier has sent emails endorsing Mark Dyrholm for the leadership of the party.

It may not seem intuitive to suggest that Randy Hillier may be able to exert some pull in this race. However, many observers of the Ontario PC leadership campaign credited Hillier for making the Ontario Human Rights Commission an issue Tim Hudak could capitalize on.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission is, likewise, an issue of some controversy among Albertan conservative circles. The Alberta Tories have provoked displasure among conservatives by conributing further material support for the activities of the AHRC, including the services of government-employed lawyers.

Dyrholm's principal opponent in the leadership contest, Danielle Smith, has taken a stance on the matter that seems very similar to the position that Christine Elliott took, favouring reform over abolition.

She has, however, offered far greater detail regarding what her reforms would entail, calling for an end to the censorship powers detailed in section three of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

"Now it's been perverted so that the human rights commission is delving into an area they shouldn't," said Smith. "They need to be reined in and get back to their original mandate."

Smith is also critical of Bill 44 -- the human rights legislation that would allow parents to withdraw their children from classrooms where religion or sexuality are being taught.

"The Minister [Lindsay Blackett] started out trying to make the human rights commission less powerful and ended up making it more powerful," Smith explained. "You'd think Alberta would be a leader in things like free speech, citizen participation in decision-making and democratic reform. But recent developments like Bill 44 suggest just the opposite."

Mark Dyrholm's position on Alberta's Human Rights Tribunal seems a little more ambiguous. He criticises section three, but doesn't seem to offer any particular prescription for how the HRC issue should be handled.

This, naturally, should make many Albertans wonder if Hillier has been in touch with Dyrholm on the subject and knows something about his position that the rest of Alberta doesn't.

To pretend that Randy Hillier's endorsement is going to decide the Wildrose Alliance leadership race is likely excessive. But it could certainly become a factor.

Just as Hillier helped Tim Hudak win the Ontario PC leadership by virtue of second-choice preference, Hillier could well help Mark Dyrholm win the Wildrose Alliance leadership on the strength of the Human Rights Commission controversy.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Brian Dell - "Canadian Teabaggers"

MJ Murphy - "WAP Leadership Wannabe Endorsed By Rural Separatist"

Maybe That's What the Problem Is

Ontarians may just not object to McGuinty's culture of entitlement

Reporting on the aftermath of the Ontario Liberal party's recent by-election victory in St Paul's, Toronto Star columnist Royson James has phrased the matter rather succinctly.

"Either the St Paul's riding is incurably Liberal, as defeated Conservative Sue-Ann Levy says, or voters are content with life in Ontari-ari-ari-o," he muses.

And therein could lay the problem -- that Ontario voters have simply become accustomed to scandal to the point where they don't even blink when a seemingly unending flood of it bursts forth.

And indeed these scandals do seem unending.

Yet another contract tendering scandal has emerged, this time in London hospitals. According to accounts, up to $3 million in contracts were awarded untendered, at a cost to taxpayers of $1500 per day. According to these accounts, these contracts were issued to a single consultant.

To make matters worse, the contract was signed by a hospital administrator who lacked the authority to make the deal. The consultant in question was a former employee of the hospital.

"Giving an un-tendered contract to a former colleague — at first glance, it doesn't look very good," said Progressive Conservative party deputy leader Christine Elliott. "We need a full investigation."

"“We have had this culture fostered over six years by the [Dalton] McGuinty liberals. It’s ok not to tender a contract. It’s ok — nod, nod, wink, wink — to give contracts to your insider friends,” said provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath.

Horwath echoed the words of Tory leader Tim Hudak in predicting yet more scandals to come.

“It’s really the tip of the iceberg,” she insisted. “There are all sorts of insider sweetheart deals. We haven’t even scratched the surface.”

"It’s outrageous. It’s just another example of the lack of oversight ... and insiders getting sweetheart deals," Horwath added.

Observers of Ontarian politics know by now that this episode isn't an isolated incident. It follows scandals at eHealth, the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, as well as complaints that Dalton McGuinty misled Queen's Park when he announced that he had paid a retainer to an investigating firm when no such retainer had been paid.

To date, Hudak and Horwath's prediction has unfolded as foretold. There's little reason to think it's going to stop any time soon.

So, if Royson James' assessment rings true, and Ontarian voters remain perfectly comfortable with Dalton McGuinty's government, it's pretty clear that there are very deep problems in Ontario.

As some Canadians may recall, the Liberal party vote in the 2004 federal election remained strong in Ontario despite widespread knowledge of the sponsorship scandal. While the specific scope of the scandal was not yet known to voters -- but would be in 2006 -- the nuts and bolts of the scandal itself were widely known.

Yet Ontario returned 75 Liberals to Ottawa. In 2006, even in the wake of full public knowledge of the scandal -- knowledge that was obtained over the objections of the Liberal party -- Ontario elected 54 Liberals, a majority of the seats in that province.

It may not be unfair to theorize that Ontarian voters are unusually tolerant of scandal. It seems that the politics of self-service -- the ugly handmaiden of what Barry Cooper would describe as the politics of public virtue -- may have taken root deeply in Ontario.

To make matters more disturbing yet, the politics of public virtue may have become deeply distorted in Ontario. One would expect that the politics of public virtue would have room within its enclave for honest, accountable, and responsible government -- government that doesn't allow its various agencies to run wild spending public monies, and doesn't mislead the legislature and cancel independent investigations.

Yet even amidst all of these shenanigans in Ontario, the Liberals were able to walk away with what many considered to be a key by-election in Toronto. If voters in St Paul's had taken a thoughtful appraisal of their government, one would have at least expected a closer race.

It's possible that this assessment may not be entirely fair. Dr Eric Hoskins may well have won the riding based on the strength of his own candidacy. But based on evaluations of the matter by Chris Selley, that doesn't seem entirely likely.

Perhaps voters in "Ontari-ari-ari-o" are simply very comfortable with millions of taxpayers dollars being handed out by people with no authority to do so without so much as a contract tendering.

Perhaps this is more exclusive to voters in St Paul's.

One way or the other, the matter bodes very poorly for Ontarian politics. Then again, perhaps Ontarians will surprise their fellow Canadians by throwing the derelict McGuinty government out in 2011.

Tracking Canada's Evangelical Vote

Evangelical Christians flock to Tories, NDP from Liberals

For the casual follower of Canadian politics, one may think it's safe to assume that the Conservative party has the votes of Canada's Evangelical Christians essentially locked down, and always have.

But that assumption is really only half-true.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada recently released a report on the voting habits of Evangelical Christians. They concluded that Canadian Evangelicals are turning away from the Liberal party. Two-thirds of the Evangelicals are moving to support the Conservative party. The other third are supporting the NDP.

Few Canadians would intuitively equate the Liberal party with Evangelical Christianity.

This has increasingly been the case over the past 12 years. As the Examiner's Brian Lilley notes, in 1996 -- in the midst of the Reform party's heyday -- Evangelical votes were well predicted by regional preferences. In Western Canada 33% of Evangelical voters supported the Reform party (30% supported the Liberals). In Ontario, 44% of Evangelical Christians supported the Liberal party (an anemic 15% supported Reform).

But by 2008 the preference of Evangelicals have tipped inexorably away from the Liberals. Only 11% of Canada's Evangelical Christians continue to support the Grits. In 1996 the figure was 44%.

Senator David Smith attributes the loss in the Liberal share of the Evangelical vote to Liberal party stances on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

"These have been polarizing issues. I would hope that with the work [Toronto Liberal MP] John McKay is doing, (many former Liberal voters) will come back," Smith said.

Indeed, John McKay has been at the head of efforts to solidify Liberal party inroads to religious communities. McKay has been working not only with Evangelical Christians, but but also with Catholics.

“I am hoping that this initiative will free up some political space for faith leaders to speak into the marketplace of ideas and not feel that they will end up battered and bruised and run out of town on a rail,” McKay said.

McKay believes -- hopefully rightly -- that more reasonable debates on moral issues can be fostered if only enough people cared to try.

"I think from time to time the Liberal party has edged into the areas of being disagreeable," he explained. "And I don’t think that’s right or respectful. It doesn’t allow for a fruitful, mature, intelligent dialogue on both differences and commonality."

"The Liberal Party is a big tent," he concluded. "I would hope that all things being equal that Evangelical and active Catholics would feel very comfortable in that tent."

Evangelicals concerned about same-sex marriage and abortion are clearly turning toward the Conservative party. Even if Conservative policy declines to substantively address either one of those issues, their views still tend to find a more receptive audience amongst the Tories.

According to former NDP MP Bill Blaikie, many young Evangelicals are moving toward the NDP. Blaikie argues that these Evangelicals have "moved beyond the culture wars and see their commitment to be acting out the gospel, preserving the environment and fighting AIDS."

These Evangelicals have clearly subscribed to the Tommy Douglas brand of the social gospel -- it can be easy for many Canadians to forget that Douglas was an ordained Baptist minister.

Blaikie notes that Evangelicals are "principled voters", and will vote with whatever party pays the most attention to their particular principles.

The EFC paper also notes that "the growing evangelical support for the Conservatives had more to do with the Conservative' offering a viable alternative to the Liberals, whom many perceived as corrupt and hostile, than with a hope for potential policy gains."

As those Canadians who pay close attention to Canadian politics can easily conclude, the Liberals have rarely been a viable alternative to the NDP. Their commitment to issues of social justice have constantly be proven to be far too flexible for anyone who embraces social justice as a tenet of their religious beliefs.

Various Liberal electoral tactics -- including 2004 push polls that concerned the Conservative party's association with Evangelical circles -- have also served to distance the Liberals from Evangelical voters.

The Liberals once had one significant portion of Canada's Evangelical vote essentially sewed up. In Like Father, Like Son (a book about Earnest and Preston Manning) Mackey notes that Ethnic Evangelicals -- one of several subcategories of Canadian Evangelical Christianity, which also includes the Pentacostal, Charismatic, Holy, Reformed and Evangelicals in Mainline Churches, as well as "Mainstream" Evangelicals -- often tended to support the Liberal party (mostly, by his reckoning, because the Liberals happened to be in power when they arrived).

As Brian Lilley notes, Canadian Evangelicals are not nearly so frightening as some observers of Canadian politics would want Canadians to believe -- the EFC's study seems to bear this to be true. The Liberal party's loss of faith (so to speak) amongst the Evangelical vote has certainly contributed to its downfall. Arresting its declining poll numbers among Evangelicals may be a crucial step in reversing its general electoral fortunes.

The Road to Universal Health Care Begins At the State

Speaking via ForaTV, TR Reid has a message for US President Barack Obama:

You're going about health care reform all wrong.

Reid uses the story of the evolution of Canadian health care as an example of how Obama should develop his own reforms.

As Reid notes, Canadian health care wasn't originally a child of the federal government -- it was a child of the Saskatchewan Provincial government of Tommy Douglas.

Beginning in Saskatchewan, Douglas' program was eventually implemented by the federal government.

Reid does make a few errors in his description of the evolution of Canadian health care. First off, doctors didn't flock from the other Provinces to Saskatchewan begause they "knew they'd get paid". Doctors flocked from other Provinces to Saskatchewan because doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike after Douglas introduced universal health care in that Province.

Nor did universal health care become implemented at the federal level because the other Provinces demanded it -- although the "demonstration effect" was almost certainly a factor. Rather, universal health care was implemented at the federal level because Lester Pearson needed Douglas' support to keep his minority government alive.

(Although Pearson dearly wanted a majority government, he never managed to secure one.)

Universal health care was implemented federally largely incrementally. Tommy Douglas can certainly take the lion's share of the credit, but policies instituted by Louis St Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney (among many, many others) contributed to the slow evolution of Canadian health care into what it is today.

It started, however, with the successful implementation of the model in a single province. This is a lesson that US President Barack Obama should take to heart.

Instead of ramming a single 1000-page bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate (a fool's errand in any case), Obama could instead make additional economic stimulus funds available to states that wish to implement their own form of health care reform.

As Reid notes, this could allow for something of a "policy laboratory" to emerge in various US States in order to find a package of reforms that works for the specific needs of the United States.

As TR Reid concludes, any governor that could plant that first seed of a successful health care reform program could some day be the United States' very own Tommy Douglas -- not only the father of universal health care, but perhaps even win a Greatest American poll someday.

Tony Blair and the Limits of Charisma

When Barack Obama gave his victory speech on November 4, 2009, he must have felt a lot like Tony Blair giving his victory speech on May 1, 1997.

As Michael Cockwell notes in Tony Blair: The Inside Story, Blair, like Obama, came to power amidst the corruption and incompetence of his political opposition. For Obama it was George W Bush and the Republican party. For Tony Blair it was John Major and the Conservative party of Britain.

Like Obama, Blair came to power with a tremendous mandate. Blair came to power with a Parliamentary majority greater than 200 seats. Obama came to the White House with a massive majority in the House of Representatives and a nearly filibuster-proof Senate.

Yet, just as Obama managed to break promises made about issues such as Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Blair's government quickly tarnished itself with a scandal over an exemption given to a Formula One race to Britain's laws forbidding the sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies.

Like Obama, Blair came to power with a gifted corps of media advisors, led by Press Secretary Alasdair Campbell. But like Obama, Blair found his ability to manage the media hampered by the modern 24-hour news cycle.

While Obama came to power with the resounding support of comedians such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, Blair had enjoyed the support -- to the extent that he agreed to appear in Labour party TV spots -- of Stephen Fry.

Just like Barack Obama, Tony Blair was hailed as a "destiny" candidate. He was treated as if he were destined to be Prime Minister, just as many media commentators came to treat Barack Obama as if he were destined to be President (this even despite the alleged inevitability of Hillary Clinton!).

Yet like Obama, Blair quickly found his ability to push through his policies to be rather limited. As Obama struggles to gain traction for his health care policies, Blair stumbled over the construction of the Millenium Dome.

Just as Obama must imagine his health care reform to be integral to his legacy, Blair consiered the Millenium Dome to be centraa to his legacy -- to the extent that he even spoke of it as a "legacy" to the British media.

Like Barack Obama, the experiences of Tony Blair show how quickly the lustre can wear off of even those leaders hailed as "destined" for high office. It's a lesson that a great many prospective leaders -- regardless of however charismatic they may be -- can stand to learn.

Tories Get Ignatieff's Man

Chris Alexander spurns Liberals to join Conservatives

Michael Ignatieff wanted him. Michael Ignatieff didn't get him.

In what comes as close to a blockbuster announcement in Canadian politics as any, Chris Alexander, Canada's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, has rejected an offer to run for the Liberal party in favour of joining the Conservative party and contesting the Tory nomination in Ajax-Pickering.

Should he successfully secure that riding's nomination he will face off against Liberal MP Mark Holland -- an individual who, for a time, seemed to aspire to claim the long-dormant mantle of Jack Pickersgill.

When Holland fought the 2008 federal election against Conservative candidate Rick Johnson in that riding, he won with 44.3% of the votes in that riding. Johnson claimed 37.8%.

In other words, that riding is within striking distance for the Conservative party -- particularly for a dynamic young man who, at age 34, was named Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan (by a Liberal government nonetheless, which must be adding some sting to Alexander's rebuff) where he reputedly decided Canadian policy while touring in an open Jeep.

If that sounds disimilar from Stephen Harper bunkering down in the Afghan hills with Canadian special forces during his visit to Afghanistan, it shouldn't.

Considering that policy on Afghanistan seemed to be the sticking point between Alexander and Ignatieff -- Ignatieff is said to have concluded his meeting with Alexander by declaring that the Liberal party would end Canada's combat mission in 2011 -- one may think that Alexander's decision is a little odd, considering that the Conservatives are also committed to ending Canada's combat mission in that year.

But Kelly McParland may have the missing link, so to speak. He notes a recent policy speech given by Ignatieff.

"Our Canada will play a role in Afghanistan after 2011," Ignatieff told the Canadian Club. "A different role focusing on a humanitarian commitment to help rebuild the country and strengthen hard-won gains."

McParland notes that perhaps Ignatieff's seeming insistence that Canadian humanitarian workers would remain in Afghanistan without Canadian military protection worried Alexander -- as well it should.

Then again, Peter MacKay has also made some comments that suggest Canada may remain active in Afghanistan after 2011. Like Michael Ignatieff, he isn't tipping his hand any more than he seems to think he needs to.

Which leads one to wonder if Alexander knows something about the Conservative party's plans for Afghanistan than the Canadian public does.

Either way, Alexander's decision is great news for the Conservative party. Foreign policy is sorely lacking in the Conservative party, and with Dr Eric Hoskins settling into a new role in Ontario's Queen's Park, the foreign policy-star candidate field in the next election has just made some room for him.

Then again, as Sue-Ann Levy's experience shows, being a star candidate isn't necessarily enough in urban Ontario.

In the meantime, Michael Ignatieff will have to contend with an influential new rival in regards to foreign policy and, in particular, Afghanistan.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

The Liberal Scarf - "Tory Secret Agenda on Afghanistan?"

Yaya Canada - "Whiz Kid Warrior"

From the archives:

November 26, 2008 - "Stop the Double Talk on Afghanistan"

September 17, 2008 - "Tory Eyes Blind to the World Outside?"

The ADQ Needs Super Mario to Return

ADQ leadership campaign self-destructive

Canadians, being hockey fans, almost certainly remember the story of the Pittsburgh Penguins in the 1990s.

They kicked off the decade by winning two straight Stanley Cups. The Penguins' fortunes steadily declined until 1997, when Lemieux retired to battle lymphoma. The Penguins struggled after Lemieux's departure, winning only a single playoff series.

Lemieux returned to the Penguins in 2000, and the Penguins continued to struggle. These years of struggle set the stage, however, for a spectacular rebuilding program that eventually resulted in the team winning another Stanley Cup under Lemieux's annointed and groomed successor, Sidney Crosby.

Super Mario Lemieux recognized when his team needed him, and returned to the fray.

Super Mario Dumont may need to do the same.

Dumont resigned his position as leader of the party he founded in 2008, after being reduced from Leader of the Opposition to only seven seats in the National Assembly.

Since then, the ADQ has been in search of a new leader. The results haven't been inspiring.

So far, the main issues discussed in the ADQ leadership campaign have been the disqualification of a candidate, and the allegedly-inflated resume of another one of the candidates.

Where most party's leadership campaigns are characterized by the rush to sign up new members to support a particular candidate's leadership ambitions, the ADQ leadership campaign has been characterized by an exodus out of the party.

"I would say that the meter counting members leaving the party is turning faster than the one counting new members," said Caire, one of the leadership candidates.

Caire has been accused of using a fraudulent resume in which he is listed as holding a Bachelor of Communications degree from Laval University. For his own part, Caire insists that the degree is still "a work in progress", and that his resume was merely subject to a typo.

Caire himself accused Christian Levesque of being unable to chew gum while walking.

ADQ founding member Marie Gregoire has been markedly disappointed in the tone of the campaign.

"You would hope that the debate would be on ideas," she complained.

"The ADQ has always been a party of ideas," Gregoire continued. "They have been putting things on the table that nobody had the courage to talk about."

Enougn is enough. Taillon, Caire and Levesque have embarassed their party enough. Mario Dumont must by now recognize that he's the only one left who can lead to the ADQ.

Even if the party continues to struggle, at least it can continue to rebuild under his leadership. Perhaps one day it will return to the benches of the Official Opposition, or perhaps even the government of Quebec.

All Super Mario needs to do is return.

McGuinty's Comeuppance Deferred

Back to the keyboard for Su-Ann Levy

Conservative hopes at breaking their long shutout in Toronto were dashed yesterday, as Dr Eric Hoskins claimed victory in the St Paul's by-election.

Even as his party is embroiled in numerous scandals and has saddled itself with an increasingly-unpopular Harmonized Sales Tax, Dr Hoskins applied a ring of truth to some recent commentary by Chris Selley:

"Last month, the Toronto Star described Ms. Levy as a 'dream candidate.' On Saturday, Globe and Mail reporter Joe Friesen described her as 'everything the provincial Conservatives could dream of' — not 'frumpy and rural,' but rather 'gay, Jewish [and] fiercely conservative.' Sorry — a dream candidate who’s fiercely conservative? In St Paul’s? I haven’t been this baffled since Rachel Marsden was approached to run federally in Toronto-Danforth in 2006. (The Conservatives eventually came to their senses and sent someone else to be slaughtered by Jack Layton.)

Friesen’s description of Ms Levy standing on a streetcorner in Forest Hill Village complaining about the excesses of the 'nanny state' illustrates the problem beautifully. I grew up with the people of St Paul’s. This is not libertarian country. This is the very spiritual home of Ontario’s nanny state. Helmets, knee pads, mouth guards, booster seats, organic milk and EpiPens for everyone.

So, she’s gay. That’s terrific. What has it got to do with St. Paul’s? And she’s Jewish. Fantastic. The last Tory candidate’s name was Goldstein. Didn’t help her much. If we want to talk about 'dream candidates,' let’s talk about the Liberals’ Dr. Eric Hoskins, president of War Child Canada (pictured campaigning above with singer Raine Maida). While Ms. Levy was harping away endlessly at Mr Miller (sorry, 'His Blondeness'), Dr Hoskins was saving babies in Sub-Saharan Africa. If this was a general election, people would be laughing at Ms. Levy’s chances."

Having friends like Raine Maida certainly couldn't hurt anyone's chances.

Sue-Ann Levy will almost certainly now return to her regular job at the Toronto Sun, raging against the largesse of David Miller.

But if Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government continues on as it has, observers of Ontario politics can almost certainly look forward to a mounting mass of scandal. Sue-Ann Levy will hopefully keep her dance card open for 2011 -- or whenever McGuinty calls a general election -- for a rematch with Dr Hoskins, or with any other Liberal.

Is Revolution the Big Idea in Alberta?

Paul Hinman's victory brings expectations of rolling Tory heads

Albertan conservatives discontented with Ed Stelmach's Progressive Conservative government seem to have a new star in town.

The town is Calgary. And the star is Paul Hinman.

If Doug Firby is to be believed, Hinman's victory over Progressive Conservative candidate Diane Colley-Urquhart indeed represents the first shot in what Dan Arnold describes as "Alberta's revolution" -- and leading the revolutionary are magnates of the Albertan oilpatch.

"[It is] a resounding indictment of besieged Premier Ed Stelmach, who has failed to win the hearts of Calgary’s oil patch power elite – the same group who backed Jim Dinning in the December 2006 leadership contest that Stelmach won," Firby writes. "Stelmach will now almost certainly face serious questions about his ability to continue much longer as political head of the province."

Firby notes that what truly makes Hinman's win special is that it was done without much of the traditional partisan infrastructure in place.

"All the more remarkable is that Hinman won the seat, even though he had lost the party’s only seat in the last general election, bringing to an ignominious end his largely ineffective term as leader of the Wildrose Alliance," Firby continues. "In fact, the party was still nominally leaderless when the grumpy voters of Calgary-Glenmore went to the polls this week."

Adam Daifallah worries that Hinman's victory may be the first step in a long-overdue "political realignment" in Alberta.

The Alberta Conservatives, who have governed the province uninterrupted since 1971, look tired, complacent and vulnerable like never before," he writes. "To finish in third place, behind the normally irrelevant Liberals, in a Calgary riding is a serious embarrassment."

"Alberta is Canada's most conservative province; Calgary the country's most conservative big city," Daifallah reasons. "This fact partly explains the loss: Ed Stelmach's Tories have abandoned any semblance of conservatism. (One could argue that conservatism in Alberta was abandoned after Ralph Klein's first term as premier, but I digress.)"

Daifallah notes that the leadership candidacy of Danielle Smith is particularly troubling to the Alberta PCs.

"There is a clear constituency for a fiscally conservative message in Alberta at present -- not just due to Stelmach, but also because of what's happening in Ottawa," Daifallah continues. "As standard bearer for conservatives' sense of discontent, Smith would instantly become the darling of the Canadian right and make the Wildrose Alliance a serious challenger for power."

In the wake of Hinman's victory, the Wildrose Alliance seems to be drawing more than just media attention -- speculation is that their caucus in the Legislature may double with the addition of spurned former Tory Guy Boutilier.

Boutilier was recently ousted from the PC caucus for being too vocal about the government dragging its feet on a retirement home in Fort MacMurray.

"He represents true conservative values," Boutilier said of Hinman. "Right now, I represent my constituents of Fort McMurray and true conservative values."

To compare Hinman's victory to the 1988 Deborah Grey victory in Beaver River that foreshadowed Preston Manning and the Reform party's 1993 arrival as a political force in Ottawa may be a bit of a stretch.

But in the wake of the victory, Hinman and whomever winds up leading the Wildrose Alliance may be well advised to take Preston Manning's advice to the founding convention of the Canadian Alliance -- "Think big".

Right now, the Wildrose Alliance is a party with no leader, little money, and no track record of success.

In 1993, the Reform party had a leader with little public recognition, little money and no track record of success. That year they elected 52 Members of Parliament and four years later they were Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

They were able to do this because Preston Manning had the courage to think big. If the Wildrose Alliance elects a leader who shares that courage, they may yet be able to shock Albertans -- and Canada -- by unseating Canada's longest-serving government.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Albertosaurus Talks - "Glenmore: Changeout or Old Fashioned Switch?"

Dan Shields - "Paradigm Shift in Alberta?"

Why Canadians Don't Want an Election

At some point, enough is enough

Canadians do not want an election.

Almost no one, anywhere, seems to be willing to argue against this evident point.

When Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff recently announced his intention to defeat the government on a non-confidence motion and send Canadians back to the polls -- hopefully to elect a Liberal government. Canadian voters responded distinctly, as Ignatieff's polling numbers took a dive.

Liberal whip Roger Cuzner credits the dip in Ignatieff's poll numbers to his election-mongering.

"Normally going into an election, there’s about 65 per cent of Canadians who continue to say they don’t want an election," Cuzner explained. "That’s historically. Now it’s a little bit higher. It’s about 70 per cent. That’s probably being reflected. He’s being seen as the guy who may be responsible for it."

The lack of desire for an election seems quite troubling to Ottawa Citizen columnist William Watson.

"What is it about elections we dislike so much?" Watson asked. "After all, our parents and grandparents fought in a world war in which thousands of them died so that we could keep having elections. To be picky, maybe we fought so that Frenchmen, Britons, Norwegians, Dutchmen, and so on could keep having elections."

"It also probably bothers many Canadians that while the election is on they feel obliged either to pay attention to what's going on in their democracy or feel guilty about shirking their democratic duty," Watson continues. "But there's the bit I don't understand. It's not really a duty. It's a great opportunity. This is the one chance we get, not to decide things -- we're not yet so democratic that citizens actually get to decide things -- but to decide who gets to decide. How is it that people don't want to exercise that power as often as possible?"

Watson is certainly right about one thing: an election is a valuable opportunity to discuss the important issues and weigh our political leaders' stance on them.

But at a certain point, Canadians want their elected decision makers to actually make a few decisions before sending them back to the polls.

There's something very troubling about opposition politicians treating sending Canadians back to the polls as a matter of due course. When Canadians have been taking measure of the current political situation in Ottawa, they simply do not see the same urgent need for an election that Michael Ignatieff claims to.

In any government it should take a serious matter of confidence to spark the defeat of the government. To repeatedly send voters back to the polls demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for the electorate that many voters simply cannot swallow.

At some point Canadians want their politicians to stop running for election, and start doing the nation's business.

It isn't that much to ask.

Fortunately, the current Conservative government could last for a long time, so long as Conservative Senator Mike Duffy hasn't missed his mark.

"There are at least four chances for the Opposition to defeat the government in the next month," he explained. "And I think, given the public mood, I predict that that will not happen."

"I think after three or four times, everybody will relax and say, well, here we are," Duffy added. "So I think potentially, if it doesn’t happen next month, I think we’re looking at next spring, unless an odd development occurs in the province of Quebec that would turn off the Bloc."

So Canadian voters can sleep a little more soundly knowing they don't have to go back to the polls for the fourth time in five years. William Watson, it seems, may not sleep quite so soundly.

Sue-Ann Levy's Campaign Strategy: Anger

Levy hopes primal emotion will delvier her victory

Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak's candidate in today's by election in St Paul's seems to have found a thematic niche for her campaign:

People are very, very angry.

“When I do go out, there is a lot of anger about David Miller. I have even had people say to me, ‘If you are a critic of David Miller then I am voting for you,’” Levy says. “There is still resentment about the garbage strike to be sure.”

Others, of course, are angry about the ongoing eHealth, Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation and Property Assessment Corporation scandals.

For his own part, Dr Eric Hoskins, the Liberal candidate in the contest, seems to understand this. He even seemed to echo Hudak's accusations of a culture of entitlement (an accusation that itself echoed Stephen Harper's treatment of Paul Martin).

“Both with eHealth and OLG what happened was unacceptable and in the case of eHealth, mistakes were made. In the case of OLG I think a culture was allowed to develop there and be sustained over a long period of time,” Dr Hoskins said.

If these scandals aren't what the by-election is about, Dr Hoskins isn't about to force that issue. He'd rather let St Paul's residents decide what the by-election is about for themselves.

“I’m so respectful of the views and the opinions of the residents that live here that I am not going to try to presuppose what this by-election is or should be about,” he continued. “I think it is most important that the residents of St Paul’s themselves decide.”

Even with all the anger bubbling toward Ontario's scandal-beleaguered government, Dr Hoskins may be choosing the better part of valour in not making it an issue himself. As Chris Selley suggests, Levy might not have a chance of winning this election.

"[Joe] Friesen’s description of Ms Levy standing on a streetcorner in Forest Hill Village complaining about the excesses of the “nanny state” illustrates the problem beautifully," Selley writes. "I grew up with the people of St Paul’s. This is not libertarian country. This is the very spiritual home of Ontario’s nanny state. Helmets, knee pads, mouth guards, booster seats, organic milk and EpiPens for everyone."

Selley notes that anger over the recent scandals, the Harmonized Sales Tax, and David miller may not be enough to decisively tip the polls.

"Heading into the new session at Queen’s Park, there has certainly been a lot of talk in the media that Dalton McGuinty is losing purchase," Selley concedes. "But the last poll of provincial voting intentions I’m aware of was taken in late July -- before the latest lottery scandal broke, but in the depths of the e-Health fiasco and considerable economic turmoil. Of those polled, 45% said they’d vote Liberal."

But that was before the OLGC scandal. That was before the Property Assessment Corporation scandal.

Anything can happen in the St Paul's by-election, but it may be the first verdict delivered on the stream of scandal enveloping the McGuinty government. Anger may be enough to help Sue-Ann Levy give Dalton McGuinty a shock.

The E-Mail So Nice He Sent it Twice!

Every so often here at the Nexus, we get some mail.

Today, we recieved a hilarious bit of correspondance from yet another jilted debating partner -- Randall White of Counterweights "magazine" (which is actually little more than a blog with delusions of journalistic grandeur.

Needless to say, Mr White isn't very happy with me:

"Mr Ross:

I take it this is your email address, and I've now had a quick look at your assholery site. If I'd seen it earlier we would not have published even as many of your comments as we have.

In any case I did want to let you know that we will not be publishing any more. And I have declined to keep your last submission. No one is obliged to play host to such a rude and ignorant guest forever. It would be different if what you said made sense. But it really doesn't. And having looked at your assholery site for 30 seconds or so I think I now have a better idea of why.

Anyway, if you do send any further notes we just won't publish them. It's the least you deserve.

To me what you really lack is any kind of class at all. I certainly don`t want to live in a country that looks like your website! And rest assured I will work very hard to ensure that never happens.

Cheers
Randall White
for counterweights magazine"

Ouch.

And what, praytell, could it be that Mr White is so outraged over?

Oh, the usual.

It actually stems from a bit of online tripe in which Mr White suggests that the recent announcement by the Bloc Quebecois entails a "Conservative/Bloc alliance".

This, of course, required that I and the incomparable Bruce Stewart to step in and point out the fallacy of their rhetoric:

"In order for that 'Conservative-BQ' alliance to actually be an alliance there would have to be some kind of long-term accord between the two.

Other than that the BQ has decided that they may not necessarily want an election, there doesn’t seem to be any such accord at all — not like a signed coalition accord. But, hey. Details, right?"

At which point Stewart took it upon himself to grind the point in a little deeper:

"Do you suppose you could reconsider your choice of terms?

An alliance presupposes negotiations, agreements, etc, not merely the coincidence of Party B voting 'yea' (or, in this case, 'oui') to Party A’s motion.

I am aware that there are a number of commentators out there desperate to give life to this meme, but it’s merely making all those other authors look foolish. Perhaps you should consider what it would do to your reputations to join them in this?"

At this point, the delightful Mr White decided to respond:

"The Counterweights Editors have asked me to reply, on their behalf, to the interesting points raised by Mr Ross and Mr Stewart above.

We are answering them together, since in the first place they are raising essentially the same objection to our use of the term 'alliance' in connection with the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

First, note that we used the term in the headline to a February 2006 article about the early days of the Harper minority government`s first term in office. If Mr Ross and Mr Stewart care to click on the link above and take a look at the historical article in question, they will see that back then Michel Gauthier, House leader of the Bloc Québécois, told Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail that his party 'intends to keep the Conservative minority government in office for a good while,’ encouraged by the Tories’ openness toward Quebec.'

This seems to us quite in keeping with the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'alliance': eg, 'combination for a common object' (Shorter Oxford) — which does not specify any 'signed coalition accord' or even 'negotiations, agreements, etc' Mr Harper`s party made the first more informal move, by showing a special 'openness toward Quebec' (which culminated, some will remember, late in 2006 with the parliamentary resolution that the Québécois constitute a nation within a united Canada: a concept that both Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff agreed on at that point). In response to this openness, the Bloc kept Mr Harper`s government in office for some considerable time. That certainly qualifies as an alliance as far as we`re concerned — an informal rather than a formal one, no doubt, but an alliance nonetheless.

Subsequently the Tories’ openness toward Quebec faltered, for reasons Mr Ross and Mr Stewart might want to enlighten us about further. And the Liberals had to pick up the burden of ensuring that it was not necessary to hold yet another Canadian federal election every month or so. They have now said that they have carried this particular can long enough — and the burden has fallen back on the Bloc and the New Democrats.

Note, of course, that we did not use the term 'alliance' in the headline to our article here, dealing with Canadian federal politics in the middle of September 2009. That would be inappropriate for what the Bloc has chosen to do this coming Friday. And so we have just said '‘Separatists’ will keep Harper minority government alive.' Now, as far as what 'alliances' may or may not unfold, informally or otherwise, among the current collection of conservatives, 'separatists,' and perhaps 'socialists' who wind up supporting the present Harper minority government — but it is too early to speculate about that, of course."

Well, one would wonder precisely where to start with the "esteemed" Mr Randall White.

First off, one would wonder if he could really define the word "alliance" at all. After all, one could check how the dictionary does:
Hmmmm. "A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes." "A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship." Seems like not even remotely what Mr White said the dictionary definition of "alliance" is.

But even beyond that, is White's argument even defensible? Is the Conservative party's "openness to Quebec" enough to establish an alliance between the Tories and the Bloc, even without any kind of a formal agreement between the two, as White suggests?

Not when one considers that federalist political parties in Canada try at all times to remain "open to Quebec". They certainly don't try to advance the cause of national unity by being closed to Quebec.

By White's logic, the Liberal party, NDP and Conservatives would be allied with the BQ, by simple virtue of their "openness to Quebec".

But apparently, that isn't all. White also wants to argue that Stephen Harper's decentralist policies represent another link in the alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois:

"If you go back and look through the newspapers of early 2006 you will see that many observers, especially in Quebec, and especially among so-called soft nationalists in Quebec, believed the new Harper minority government was potentially offering a more decentralized view of the Canadian federal system, within which at least various degrees of Quebec’s traditional nationalist aspirations would be able to find more breathing room. Mr Harper even gave speeches in Quebec on this subject — and they were quite different from the related speeches of, eg, Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chretien or Paul Martin. I could get into many more details here, but that would take up more space than is really available in this context."

So, then, by White's logic, the Conservative party and Bloc Quebecois are allied on the strength of a mutual belief in decentralism.

But again, White would be wrong. Decentralism has been a demand not only the Bloc and Parti Quebecois, but also of the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Action Democratique du Quebec. By White's logic, that would make the Conservatives allied with all three of Quebec's provincial parties. At least on one count this would be true. It's well known that the Conservative party and the ADQ worked together to help lay the framework for a greater Conservative breakthrough in the 2008 federal election (it didn't work, as the ADQ turned out to have trouble of its own).

So not only can White not defend his argument according to the dictionary definition of the word "alliance", but he can't even defend it based on the Conservative party and Bloc Quebecois' mutual interests in decentralism and "openness to Quebec". After all, other political parties share each interest.

So what really is the source of Randall White's outrage?

What is it, specifically, that he's outraged about?

The idea that corrupt governments should be held accountable?

Noting that the Conservative party plans to win a majority in the next election?

Noting that the Wildrose Alliance won a seat in Alberta?

The idea that support of a government's fiscal agenda tends to entail confidence in that government?

The idea that post-recession planning could help end the deficit faster?

The idea that overzealous reformers should be contained?

Noting that the NDP has chosen to support the Tories EI bill?

Mocking ideologues who make bad arguments? (Come to think of it, he very clearly does object to that.)

The suggestion that destroying religions is a bad idea?

Musing over whether or not the NDP's aforementioned support for the Conservatives' EI bill means there may not be an election?

Musing that the Liberals and Green party are set to have a showdown over environmental policy in BC?

Defending religiously-motivated environmentalism?

Writing about what a fucktard Charlie Sheen is?

Writing about the dilemma Barack Obama's association with hip hop music poses for his Presidency?

Noting that a country's foreign policy past can come back to haunt it?

Suggesting that 9/11 victims were people? (Seems fairly intuitive to me.)

Noting that Barack Obama's own party won't pass his health care legislation?

It could be those things. Or maybe he just can't handle losing an argument. After all, he wouldn't be the first one.

But the hilarious thing is that Randall White was agitated enough to send that delightful e-mail twice. It's usually the hallmark of an extremely irrational individual to get quite that excitable about losing a fairly elementary debate.

The Great MisLeader?

McGuinty accused of misleading Queen's park, impeding access to information

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak and NDP leader Andrea Horwath have gone after the throat of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty by filing a complaint with the Office of the Speaker of the House accusing McGuinty of misleading both the public and Queen's Park.

At the heart of the matter is the Premier's claim that PriceWaterhouseCoopers had been hired to conduct an independent investigation of the spending scandals at eHealth. Instead, McGuinty cancelled the probe.

“Not only did Dalton McGuinty do nothing to stop the spending abuses at eHealth, he misled Ontarians when he said he had any interest in getting to the bottom of the scandal. It is clear that Ontarians cannot trust him to fix the culture of entitlement that he himself created,” said Hudak.

“He misled Ontarians,” he added. “It is clear that Ontarians cannot trust him to fix the culture of entitlement that he himself created.”

If this weren't bad enough, today the NDP claimed that McGuinty's office was impeding Access to Information requests.

According to the NDP, McGuinty's office staff delayed the release of thousands of pages of Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation financial records dealing with expense claims.

"This appears to be political interference of the highest order, with direct connection right back to the premier's office," Horwath said. "Clearly, [McGuinty] and his office were desperately, desperately trying to manage their way out of yet another expense scandal."

The source of the most recent accusation practically comes out of the mouth of Kelly McDougald, the fired CEO of the OLGC, who is claiming she was scapegoated and has launched a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government of Ontario.

"The Minister [Finance Minister Dwight Duncan] advised ...that the government could not delay the release of the records any further," McDougald alleged in her statement of claim.

"It certainly paints a very disturbing picture about the role of the finance minister and the deputy chief of staff to the premier in intervening in the FOI process," said Hudak.

The problem, according to Horwath, is that this is very much becoming the modus operandi of McGuinty's government. "It's quite clear from the documents from Ms McDougald ... that the premiers' office and the minister's office made every effort possible to hold back the information," she announced. "It's really obvious that although the premier talks about transparency and accountability, what comes out of his actions is exactly the opposite."

Horwath couldn't have said it any better -- if the events themselves hadn't already spoken loud and clear.

McGuinty promises an independent investigation into the eHealth scandal, and even claims his government has paid a retainer to a high-profile investigating agency -- then cancels the investigation. McGuinty's staff, knowing full well that the opposition is examining government documents for signs of further scandal, impede access to information.

If the "summer of scandal" (as Hudak has cleverly dubbed it) is making McGuinty's government look more and more like Paul Martin's disgraced government, that isn't coincidental.

Those who have followed recent writings by Barry Cooper may recognize a similarity between McGuinty's obstruction of Access to Iformation and a senior government bureaucrat's attempts to prevent the release of the minutes from a Liberal cabinet meeting in which "strengthening the Liberal party in Quebec" should be a priority of the federal government.

This is characteristic of the kind of scandal that emerges in a government where the culture of self-service and its close friend, the culture of entitlement, have begun to run rampant.

Dalton McGuinty has some serious questions to answer. He needs to start by firing his Health Minister, David Caplan, and his Finance Minister. Then he needs to seriously consider resigning as Premier.


From the archives:

September 1, 2009 - "It's the Regime, Dalton"

Doug Finley: Majority Hunter

Finley needs to keep Harper and he knows it

No sooner has Doug Finley warmed his seat in his first session in Senate than he's put Canada's opposition parties on notice:

The Conservative party is aiming to win a majority in the next election.

Finley, who speculation had suggested would step down from his role as national campaign director for the Tories, insisted that he's going to hold onto that job for the time being.

"I anticipate that's what we'll do. And we'll go for that majority," he told reporters. "I have an excellent team. We're very well prepared, should there be an election — an election we don't want, an election the country doesn't want."

This should come as no surprise to anyone -- especially those who feigned shock at Harper's comments last week in which he told party loyalists that the Conservatives needed to finally win a majority. Although Harper had noted that he was very pleased with a stronger minority after the 2008 election, in order to continue judging his tenure as party leader as successful he needs to continue to improve his successes.

In 2004 he reduced the Liberal party majority government to a minority. In 2006 he won a minority government of his own. In 2008 he won a stronger minority government. At some point, Harper has to either win a majority or quit the game.

At least that's what Algoma University Political Scientist Tom McDowell says.

Another minority could be judged as a setback. Under those conditions "There may be a sense within the party that the party's not moving forward."

"That's the kind of thing that could cause him to leave."

For Doug Finley gaining a majority government may be about more than just majority government for majority governance's sake. It may be the only way for the Conservative party to keep the only truly successful leader it has had in more than twenty years.

Wildrose Alliance Makes The Scene

Alberta's number two conservative party makes bid for relevance

When Alberta's political history books are written, one may wonder how Ed Stelmach will be remembered:

As "Steady Eddie" Stemlach, or as Ed "Stalemate" Stelmach?

Political pundits and historians alike may be leaning toward the latter as the Progressive Conservative party lost its seat in Calgary-Glenmore, a riding the party has held since it first won power in 1971.

The loss is a shock, but a different shock from the one incurred in 2007 when the party lost Ralph Klein's former seat, Calgary-Elbow, to Liberal Craig Cheffins.

This time around, the Conservatives have lost out to the Wildrose Alliance, its conservative competition in Alberta, as Paul Hinman has chipped a little piece off of Stelmach's dominating majority government.

Just as was the case when Cheffins won a longtime Conservative seat away from them, Hinman's victory is being treated as a protest vote against Stelmach.

"Diane Colley-Urquhart took the bullet, but this was aimed at Ed," mused University of Calgary political scientist Duane Bratt.

Hinman seemed to echo Bratt's sentiment.

"I was talking to strong Tory supporters. They said, 'We need to deal with Ed, but we've got to remain loyal (to the party),'" Hinman said. "I said, 'Well you've got to make a choice because if you vote for Diane, it's a vote for Ed and you're endorsing his leadership.'"

Hinman insisted "that they're fed up with the way things are run, the divide and conquer from north to south, east to west, rural vs urban, one industry against another, people do not like it."

"We want an equal, level playing field across the province," Hinman added.

It seems that a lot of high-profile Albertans are giving the Wildrose Alliance a good hard look. Tom Flanagan and Phil Klein (father of Ralph Klein) are both supporters of the party.

Many of those people are looking at Hinnan's victory as the first step to big things -- maybe even supplanting the Progressive Conservatives as the government.

Bratt's U of C colleague Doreen Barrie, however, isn't in a hurry to exaggerate the by-election's significance.

"In byelections, you kick the tires and you don't damage the vehicle," she said. "I think people are being a bit premature when they see this as the first tremor in a political earthquake that's going to dispatch the Conservatives and install a new party."

"The Alliance is going to get a big bounce out of this because their leadership race is coming up in October," Barrie added. "It's going to attract more attention."

Which it will. But Liberals expected big things after their party's victory in Calgary-Elbow. In the next election the Conservatives reclaimed that seat with a victory by Alison Redford.

In other words, one electoral victory does not mean that the Wildrose Alliance has definitively arrived.

But it's a big step toward bigger things if they can maitnain their momentum.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Leight Patrick Sullivan - "Message Sent!"

Earl Amsterdam - "Wild Upset in Alberta"

Rusty Idols - "Talk About Mixed Feelings..."

Confidence

Opposition's fiscal support of Harper could paint them into a corner

Michael Ignatieff may be disappointed in a few days' time when he watches his fellow opposition parties vote on the ways and means measure being introduced by the Conservative party.

NDP leader Jack Layton has tenuously voiced his support for the motion -- although he's noted that "the problem with the Conservatives [is that] the press release comes out, but then the devil is in the details."

Now Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has followed Layton's lead and announced that he will support the bill -- the last fiscal bill the Conservatives will introduce before the Liberals' planned confidence motion at the end of this month (or early in October).

The Conservative party will remain secure in office for at least that time, pushing the time for a possible election back to mid-November or early December.

But there is one thing that even Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will have to admit when he watches the BQ and NDP prop up the government to fight another day: it undermines any credibility for Ignatieff's own promised non-confidence motion.

In Parliamentary terms, there tends to be a word reserved for the sentiments of the opposition whose fiscal bills they support:

Confidence.

It would be hard for the NDP or Bloc to jump behind a Liberal non-confidence motion when they've been helping that government advance its fiscal agenda -- in this case, extending additional Employment Insurance coverage to long-tenure workers and supplying funds to pay for the Home Renovation Tax Credit.

Regardless of whatever campaign strategy-related goals are actually motivating the Bloc and NDP -- and speculation has been all the rage for weeks -- this dilemma is particularly distressing for Michael Ignatieff.

As Margaret Wente speculates in the Globe and Mail, Ignatieff himself is facing a severe crisis of political identity.

Ignatieff needs to establish himself as a "warrior king" before he gets saddled with the wimpy label applied to his predecessor, Stephane Dion.

Ignatieff once seemed to think that being a warrior king was a lot like being a philosopher king, just with tougher words.

But, as Wente notes, "The trouble is that up till now it's been all talk. You can only bluff and bluster so many times without looking silly."

"It's not hard not to conclude that Canada is a stage set for Mr Ignatieff's fantasy life," Wente continues. "He has always been torn between being a man of letters and a man of action, pulled between the ivory tower and the battlefield. He has spent time in nasty war zones."

Wente notes that Ignatieff lacks the political instincts and the killer instinct to defeat Stephen Harper in an election.

"Stephen Harper does not deserve such luck," she concludes. "His opponent is yet another man who vastly overestimates his own abilities. Mr Ignatieff is looking more and more like Mr. Dion, without the accent."

Like Dion, Ignatieff seemingly cannot only not command the confidence of his fellow oppositon leaders, but is seemingly losing the confidence of his caucus as well.

If the opposition parties cannot muster enough confidence in Michael Ignatieff to support his non-confidence motion they'll essentially be painting themselves into a confidence corner.

If they aren't willing to pull the plug on Harper sooner by voting down his fiscal bills, it will take a matter of substantive consequence later to convince them to vote him down at all.

In the meantime, it seems that Stephen Harper may enjoy greater confidence than Michael Ignatieff does as opposition leader.

That bodes all kinds of troublesome for the would-be philosopher king.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "The BQ Blinks First"

Counterweights - "'Separatists' will keep Harper minority government alive (once again, with feeling?)"

Chuckman's Choice of Words - "Ignatieff: Can You Trust This Guy?"

Navigating Canada's Way Out of Recession Redux

Preston Manning calls for post-recession roadmap

In an op/ed column appearing in the Globe and Mail, Preston Manning writes about the current federal deficit, and compares it to the 14-year quest to put an end to Canada's last deficit.

He argues that a lack of planning undermined efforts to control that deficit, and argues that a plan is needed to tackle the current federal deficit.

The best reason for doing this, he insists, is not necessarily the deficit itself, but some of the unconsidered consequences of accumulating debt:

"To combat the current recession, governments around the world have instituted economic recovery measures breathtaking in their magnitude and scope. These include dramatically expanding the money supply (printing money), taking significant ownership positions in key sectors of the economy and heavily engaging in deficit spending.

Such measures have other significant and long-lasting effects besides stimulating economic growth.

Rapid expansion of the money supply can lead to a tsunami of inflation. Government ownership of businesses can lead to unhealthy dependencies, unfair competition, corporate inefficiencies and serious conflicts of interest when governments must also regulate businesses in which they have an ownership stake. And heavy engagement in deficit spending leads invariably to increased public debt, increased interest payments and the necessity of cutting services and/or raising taxes in the future to rebalance the books.

So what must be done to recover from the adverse effects of these measures?

Let me focus particularly on what might be done to recover from the orgy of deficit spending in which virtually all governments in Canada are now engaged."

Manning notes that the 14-year struggle to end balance the budget and begin paying down debt stemmed from not a lack of a coherent plan:

"At the federal level, Canada's last big deficit-spending binge began in the Pierre Trudeau years. Fourteen federal deficits in 17 years eventually led to a national debt of $572-billion and annual interest payments of almost $40-billion in today's dollars (or stated in 1984 dollars, $250.5-billion debt and $21-billion in interest costs).

In 1984, the Liberals were replaced by the Brian Mulroney Conservatives, who promised a more responsible approach to public finances. But federal spending continued to soar, the annual deficit and national debt continued to rise, and the government resorted largely to increased taxation rather than spending reductions to try to tame the deficit dragon."

By the time the Jean Chretien Liberal party was in power and ready (however reluctantly) to start tackling the national deficit, all then-Finance Minister and future Prime Minister Paul Martin could think to do was slash spending on health care, education and transfers to the provinces -- something the Liberals only recently admitted was a mistake.

The skyrocketing public debt and debt service payments that Manning alludes to were thus only one consequence of the Trudeau-Mulroney deficit spending era.

As the '90s wore on, so did public anxiety about Canada's debt. That anxiety was also felt in financial markets, where there was speculation that Canada could potentially default on its foreign debts. This anxiety, however, was not born in the 1990s. Public concern about Canada's debt had begun to solidly take root in the 1989s:

"According to the pollsters, as early as 1984 there was significant public support for deficit reduction as a policy objective, including major cuts in public spending, but politicians were slow to recognize or respond vigorously to this shift in public attitudes. So the leadership of the deficit-reduction movement began largely outside the formal political arena.

Market-oriented think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and the CD Howe Institute provided much of the intellectual capital for the movement, hammering away on the problem's dangers and offering alternatives for alleviating it.

Interest groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues (as it was then called) and later the newly formed (1989) Canadian Taxpayers Federation added their voices, energy and resources to generate public and political support for budget balancing by governments at all levels.

Grassroots publications such as Ted Byfield's Western Report and the radio talk shows gave media voice to the movement, and later several national newspapers joined the fray."

As Manning notes, it was only a matter of time before deficit-fighting arrived as the raison d'etre for a federal political party:

"And on the fringes of the political arena, the embryonic Reform Party (with Stephen Harper as its policy chief and fiscal critic) made budget balancing a central plank of its election platform and set out to prove that it was possible to elect candidates to Parliament on the pledge of saving taxpayers' dollars rather than spending more of them."

The Reform party contested its first federal election in 1988, the year Canadians bequeathed a second straight majority on then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Although he had inherited a structural deficit from Pierre Trudeau, history remembers (and will continue to remember) Mulroney as one of Canada's biggest deficit spenders.

But appearances could be decieving. Free Trade was the central issue in the 1988 election campaign, with Mulroney supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement, and his opponents opposing it. Mulroney won a majority on the back of the free trade issue. But at their earliest opportunity (which came later in 1988), Albertans sent Deborah Grey, their first Reform MP, to Ottawa. Stephen Harper (who will also be remembered as one oc Canada's biggest deficit spenders) went with her as her Parliamentary Assistant.

At a certain point, legislators couldn't ignore the signs the Canadian people were sending them -- get the debt under control. Now. Or else:

"As the movement for deficit reduction grew in public support, municipal and provincial politicians finally began to take notice. (Federal parties, because of their distance from grassroots voters and taxpayers, are usually the last, not the first, to respond to major shifts in public sentiment.)

Though rarely recognized for it, the first provincial government to commit itself seriously to the goal of budget balancing was the Conservative government of Gary Filmon in Manitoba. At the time (1988), the province was running a $500-million deficit on total revenues of about $4-billion and it took seven years to reduce the deficit to zero. Manitoba was also among the first to pass budget-balancing laws making it illegal to run deficits except in specifically defined emergency situations.

Next it was Alberta, where Ralph Klein made a similar commitment in 1993, eliminating that province's $3.5-billion deficit in two short years while at the same time decreasing revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product.

And then in Ontario, where the annual deficit was in excess of $10-billion, the Mike Harris government, elected in 1995, reduced it to zero in four years."

But, as Manning suggests, the federal government can often be the slowest to respond. It took the Reform Party and scathing criticisms from Andrew Coyne to convince Paul Martin that he needed to get Canada's fiscal house in order.

As Manning notes, the Reform party is still remembered as the only party in the 1993 election to present a credible plan for reducing the federal deficit:

"Meanwhile, in the federal arena, where the deficit was approaching $40-billion a year, the 1993 election saw the demise of the Mulroney Conservatives and the election of the Jean Chrétien government. But that election also resulted in the election of 52 Reformers committed to reducing the federal deficit to zero in three years. Eventually, the Liberals, though philosophically inclined to ever-increasing public spending, felt the political pressure to move in the opposite direction, and by 1998 the budget was finally balanced."

This was not nearly so simple for Paul Martin as some would have suggested it was.

The Chretien government, at the time, was also conducting a social services review under Lloyd Axworthy. It took considerable time and effort for Martin to out-maneuver Axworthy in order to impress the importance of his agenda upon Chretien.

Various political tensions -- both inter- and intra-party -- led to the exacerbation of Canada's deficit and hampered the best-intentioned efforts to get it back under control.

Manning seems to suggest that these kinds of tensions are characteristic of a political environment in which there is no real consensus on the matter, and what is needed to ensure Canada can efficiently shed its deficit once the recession is over is a policy similar to Reform's "zero in three" policy:

"The most disturbing aspect of this story is that it took 14 years (1984 to 1998), and an enormous effort at great expense by tens of thousands of people outside the formal political arena, before the federal government could be persuaded to take the self-evidently necessary actions required to balance its books.

Given this history, what will it take to tame the current deficit, the one being incurred in the name of economic stimulation? Political leadership, more likely to come from conservatives than liberals or social democrats, would certainly help. But no doubt another major effort outside the formal political arena – by think tanks, interest groups and media committed to fiscal responsibility – will be needed to create the public pressure required before politicians will act.

That effort would be greatly aided if someone – perhaps one of the think tanks or a respected academic institution – were to provide a definitive history of the last deficit-reduction movement. Most of us involved in that exercise have only partial knowledge of who did what, of what worked and what didn't, and of how the whole process might have been expedited. A road map to deficit elimination, based on a comprehensive analysis of past experience, will be extremely helpful to the deficit-fighters of the future. Hopefully, this time it will not take 14 years to get the job done."

If Canada's political leaders establish a deficit-busting concession now, as opposed to waiting until Canada faces the threat of a complete fiscal collapse, Canada will be able to navigate itself out of the recession fairly quickly -- and perhaps even without an additional five years of deficit spending.


From the archives:

August 5, 2009 - "Navigating Canada's Way Out of Recession (And Beyond)"