(no subject)
Just a few things that I feel about the election yesterday, and some op-eds from the Globe that I really agree with.
First, by Jeffery Simpson
Elections tell us lots about ourselves -- especially what we want to hear about, and what we don't. Those preferences explain who we are.
Judging by this campaign, Canada remains a small, parochial, even self-absorbed country. Not once in the campaign did a leader give a major address on international affairs. Indeed, the space devoted to the world in the parties' platforms was tiny relative to everything else. (The Liberals were better than the NDP and Conservatives.)
Here we are in a country, one of whose sustaining myths is that the "world needs more Canada," except that in a national conversation-cum-shouting match called an election campaign nobody talked about the world.
What did our politicians have to say about Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, the rise of India and China, or any number of other issues? The answer is obvious, in part because Canada doesn't count on these issues.
Advertisements
A debate about the world dissolved into the Liberal/NDP campaigns' emphasis on how to beat up on the Bush administration, and the Conservatives' determination to say as little as possible about that subject or anything else international.
The other reason is simple: Politicians and their aides have polled Canadians relentlessly to discover what might motivate them to vote in a certain way. The probers for all parties found that the world doesn't count. Which partly explains why Canada will have a prime minister, Stephen Harper, with no experience or apparent interest in the world, and a party in power without a single frontbencher qualified by experience or interest to become foreign affairs
minister.
Elections in most countries are fought on domestic issues. Bill Clinton didn't become U.S. president because he was a foreign affairs expert; nor certainly did George W. Bush. But in important countries, a degree of interest in, or knowledge of, the world counts to some degree where the media won't let campaigning candidates avoid questions about things outside the country's borders.
The probers also must have discovered that voters, not for the first time, prefer being bribed with their own money rather than confronting medium- and long-term challenges.
In this, the Conservatives' GST cut proved brilliant politics, even if it is lousy economics. The other little tax gimmies they offered -- for buying tools, public transit, child care -- do absolutely nothing about the country's No. 1 challenge: how to raise stagnating productivity.
In an ideal world, that ought to have been the campaign's central focus. But a focus on productivity also requires thinking about the world, since the challenge to our prosperity comes in part from places such as India and China and Brazil -- and from developed countries that are better meeting that challenge.
Once again, the Conservatives had almost next to nothing to say about productivity and the policies needed to support it. This failure didn't bother the right-wing journalistic cheerleaders who passed for analysts of the Conservative campaign.
The NDP, quite predictably, had nothing to offer, since the party remains consumed with income redistribution rather than income creation. The Liberals, to their credit, had more in their platform about this central challenge, but they could never communicate their ideas to the public once their national campaign went negative. Maybe Canadians just aren't interested in the challenge.
So the world passed unnoticed in the campaign, as did the country's biggest challenge. So, too, did discussion of looming conflicts such as health care and national unity. Almost nothing was said about the scandal of poverty, except for piddling tax adjustments.
There will be a Quebec crisis some time soon. Once again yesterday, almost a majority of Quebeckers turned their back on participating constructively in national affairs by voting for the Bloc Québécois. This pattern took hold in the early 1990s and has become the norm.
When almost half of the population of Quebec prefers the federal politics of opposition and refusal, and when the Parti Québécois stands poised to win the next provincial election, the makings are building for another Quebec-Canada drama.
As for health care, the majority of politicians know the system cannot last as currently organized. Indeed, it will start changing within a year when Alberta and Quebec offend the Canada Health Act. But Canadians apparently weren't ready for serious talk about this issue either.
Maybe Kim Campbell was right after all: Elections are not the time for discussion of serious issues, at least not in a small, parochial country.
I don't agree with all of it, but it's very telling about the state of Canadian politics. This same issue is exactly why the last American elections drove me fucking insane, and we have the same problem. Negative campaigning and vote-buying and regionalism all lead to political navel-gazing.
I'm actually pretty darn pleased with how the election turned out. *pauses for people to jump down my throat and call me a filthy Conservative scumbag* That said, I voted for the NDP. Here's the thing. I couldn't bring myself to vote Conservative. I can't in any remote way support their fiscal, social or (lack of) foreign policy. However, with the current situation:
a) The Liberals have hopefully finally gotten the message that the country isn't theirs by default. I embrace Liberal values as much as the next person (or moreso, I guess), and having actually read the Gomery Report, I'm certainly aware that Martin and his government were completely exonerated. Despite this, there's only so long a party can stay in power and remain effective, innovative and inspired. The Liberals need this. A chance to revitalize, learn to compete, and hopefully find a leader who doesn't need other people to write his or her speeches - hell, at least one who doesn't sound totally bored by everything they say. Maybe it's too much to ask for a Trudeau. Maybe not. But fuck it, I want a politician who gives a shit. Because I hate feeling apathetic about every single fucking party leader.
b) The Conservatives are too deadlocked by their minority government to force any radical change of social policies. Harper won this election on the promise that he's become more centrist and moderate, and he's going to have to hold to that. He's going to have to compromise to pass his major legislation, and ikt sure as hell won't be with the Liberals. So that leaves....wait! The Bloc, and the NDP...two of the most socially left parties in Canada. Quelle surprise!
c) The NDP has 30 seats. Let's face it, the NDP are never going to be elected to the government in the foreseeable future. Plus, I'm not sure if I'd be able to fully support them if they did. Their focus on income redistribution and social justice is wonderful, but pursuit of equality does not a functional government make. What they do a damn good job of is keeping governments honest, and advocating important issues while making deals with the government. Even when the Liberals were in power, the NDP have always seemed to me to be the most effective Opposition. Opposition in the traditional sense - critical, but willing to support - not necessarily malicious, but usually constructive. If Layton props up some of Harper's stuff, concessions are going to be made, and I have no problem with that at all.
d) We're looking at a more unified Canada - unified in political diversity. Granted a more unifyingly Conservative Canada, but we'll see how long that'll last. The West finally has the voice they've been whining about for ages, the number of seats won by the Bloc has decreased, and votes for the Green Party were at 5%, but spread across the country. Parties are getting support from all areas of Canada, and no one party automatically has control of the country.
This is going to be a (hopefully) more interesting minority government than the last one, and if people learn to balance power properly, we could be looking at a fiscally-responsible conservative government that does minimal damage to the fabric of the country, a liberal party learning to rebuild, an NDP with importance and visibility approaching that of the 70s, and (if say, proportional representation somehow happened [which it won't]) the emergance of a fifth party on the scene. Plus, would an elected Senate really be that bad? And seriously, if everything else goes to hell in a handbasket, at least our PM will look good in a cowboy hat.
First, by Jeffery Simpson
Elections tell us lots about ourselves -- especially what we want to hear about, and what we don't. Those preferences explain who we are.
Judging by this campaign, Canada remains a small, parochial, even self-absorbed country. Not once in the campaign did a leader give a major address on international affairs. Indeed, the space devoted to the world in the parties' platforms was tiny relative to everything else. (The Liberals were better than the NDP and Conservatives.)
Here we are in a country, one of whose sustaining myths is that the "world needs more Canada," except that in a national conversation-cum-shouting match called an election campaign nobody talked about the world.
What did our politicians have to say about Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, the rise of India and China, or any number of other issues? The answer is obvious, in part because Canada doesn't count on these issues.
Advertisements
A debate about the world dissolved into the Liberal/NDP campaigns' emphasis on how to beat up on the Bush administration, and the Conservatives' determination to say as little as possible about that subject or anything else international.
The other reason is simple: Politicians and their aides have polled Canadians relentlessly to discover what might motivate them to vote in a certain way. The probers for all parties found that the world doesn't count. Which partly explains why Canada will have a prime minister, Stephen Harper, with no experience or apparent interest in the world, and a party in power without a single frontbencher qualified by experience or interest to become foreign affairs
minister.
Elections in most countries are fought on domestic issues. Bill Clinton didn't become U.S. president because he was a foreign affairs expert; nor certainly did George W. Bush. But in important countries, a degree of interest in, or knowledge of, the world counts to some degree where the media won't let campaigning candidates avoid questions about things outside the country's borders.
The probers also must have discovered that voters, not for the first time, prefer being bribed with their own money rather than confronting medium- and long-term challenges.
In this, the Conservatives' GST cut proved brilliant politics, even if it is lousy economics. The other little tax gimmies they offered -- for buying tools, public transit, child care -- do absolutely nothing about the country's No. 1 challenge: how to raise stagnating productivity.
In an ideal world, that ought to have been the campaign's central focus. But a focus on productivity also requires thinking about the world, since the challenge to our prosperity comes in part from places such as India and China and Brazil -- and from developed countries that are better meeting that challenge.
Once again, the Conservatives had almost next to nothing to say about productivity and the policies needed to support it. This failure didn't bother the right-wing journalistic cheerleaders who passed for analysts of the Conservative campaign.
The NDP, quite predictably, had nothing to offer, since the party remains consumed with income redistribution rather than income creation. The Liberals, to their credit, had more in their platform about this central challenge, but they could never communicate their ideas to the public once their national campaign went negative. Maybe Canadians just aren't interested in the challenge.
So the world passed unnoticed in the campaign, as did the country's biggest challenge. So, too, did discussion of looming conflicts such as health care and national unity. Almost nothing was said about the scandal of poverty, except for piddling tax adjustments.
There will be a Quebec crisis some time soon. Once again yesterday, almost a majority of Quebeckers turned their back on participating constructively in national affairs by voting for the Bloc Québécois. This pattern took hold in the early 1990s and has become the norm.
When almost half of the population of Quebec prefers the federal politics of opposition and refusal, and when the Parti Québécois stands poised to win the next provincial election, the makings are building for another Quebec-Canada drama.
As for health care, the majority of politicians know the system cannot last as currently organized. Indeed, it will start changing within a year when Alberta and Quebec offend the Canada Health Act. But Canadians apparently weren't ready for serious talk about this issue either.
Maybe Kim Campbell was right after all: Elections are not the time for discussion of serious issues, at least not in a small, parochial country.
I don't agree with all of it, but it's very telling about the state of Canadian politics. This same issue is exactly why the last American elections drove me fucking insane, and we have the same problem. Negative campaigning and vote-buying and regionalism all lead to political navel-gazing.
I'm actually pretty darn pleased with how the election turned out. *pauses for people to jump down my throat and call me a filthy Conservative scumbag* That said, I voted for the NDP. Here's the thing. I couldn't bring myself to vote Conservative. I can't in any remote way support their fiscal, social or (lack of) foreign policy. However, with the current situation:
a) The Liberals have hopefully finally gotten the message that the country isn't theirs by default. I embrace Liberal values as much as the next person (or moreso, I guess), and having actually read the Gomery Report, I'm certainly aware that Martin and his government were completely exonerated. Despite this, there's only so long a party can stay in power and remain effective, innovative and inspired. The Liberals need this. A chance to revitalize, learn to compete, and hopefully find a leader who doesn't need other people to write his or her speeches - hell, at least one who doesn't sound totally bored by everything they say. Maybe it's too much to ask for a Trudeau. Maybe not. But fuck it, I want a politician who gives a shit. Because I hate feeling apathetic about every single fucking party leader.
b) The Conservatives are too deadlocked by their minority government to force any radical change of social policies. Harper won this election on the promise that he's become more centrist and moderate, and he's going to have to hold to that. He's going to have to compromise to pass his major legislation, and ikt sure as hell won't be with the Liberals. So that leaves....wait! The Bloc, and the NDP...two of the most socially left parties in Canada. Quelle surprise!
c) The NDP has 30 seats. Let's face it, the NDP are never going to be elected to the government in the foreseeable future. Plus, I'm not sure if I'd be able to fully support them if they did. Their focus on income redistribution and social justice is wonderful, but pursuit of equality does not a functional government make. What they do a damn good job of is keeping governments honest, and advocating important issues while making deals with the government. Even when the Liberals were in power, the NDP have always seemed to me to be the most effective Opposition. Opposition in the traditional sense - critical, but willing to support - not necessarily malicious, but usually constructive. If Layton props up some of Harper's stuff, concessions are going to be made, and I have no problem with that at all.
d) We're looking at a more unified Canada - unified in political diversity. Granted a more unifyingly Conservative Canada, but we'll see how long that'll last. The West finally has the voice they've been whining about for ages, the number of seats won by the Bloc has decreased, and votes for the Green Party were at 5%, but spread across the country. Parties are getting support from all areas of Canada, and no one party automatically has control of the country.
This is going to be a (hopefully) more interesting minority government than the last one, and if people learn to balance power properly, we could be looking at a fiscally-responsible conservative government that does minimal damage to the fabric of the country, a liberal party learning to rebuild, an NDP with importance and visibility approaching that of the 70s, and (if say, proportional representation somehow happened [which it won't]) the emergance of a fifth party on the scene. Plus, would an elected Senate really be that bad? And seriously, if everything else goes to hell in a handbasket, at least our PM will look good in a cowboy hat.