Election 2011: What's Happening

We're pretty well at the mid-point of the 2011 General Election.  Looking back over the last few weeks, I've noticed some trends.

The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy.  The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election.  While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election.  My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone.  The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready.  What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote.  The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt.  Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly.  So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt.  The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.

The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate.  They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two.  After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre.  The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls.  Then came the turning point.

At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals.  Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives.  The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally.  Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter.  That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion.  All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning.  Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility.  With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.

The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage.  While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened.  The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.

So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed.  Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority.  That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now.  The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture.  The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media.  They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth.  Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.

Where do we go from here?  Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message.  Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working.  The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch.  Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence.  While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new.  They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones.  The message needs to be health care.  That's what Canadians care about.  That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable.  And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.

Let`s see where we go from here!

If an election is coming, here's how the Liberals can win it

My former co-blogger Pat McIver tweeted today in reference to a recent Globe and Mail article.  The article explores Liberal Party and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's options should an election everyone thinks is coming actually come this spring.  The numbers show a slight Conservative advantage (generally in the range of about 5% +/- a couple).  So where should Iggy and the Grits be looking for votes?  Should they target the NDP, who has long been stealing left-leaning Liberal voters, or the Conservatives themselves?

In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives.  Bold?  Absolutely.  But not foolish.  And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.

The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters.  The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included).  While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister.  Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister).  Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.*  There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.

But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either.  Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility.  This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work.  This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want.  Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state.  To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible.  By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.**  Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.

The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts.  The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts.  Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order.  Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent.  Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.

My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending.  Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office.  Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries.  A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians.  Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message.  Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else.  It is time to give them that reason.

----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake.  But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility.  Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget.  It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget?  No.  But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong."  Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.

** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against.  And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense.  That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible).  It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense.  Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming.  It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.

A Liberal's Manifesto

 I’ve been asked many times before, often by my former co-blogger Mr. McIver, why I support the Liberal Party of Canada.  My explanations range from legitimate politics, to historical alignment, to convenience.  Here follows some of my reasoning.

I have always seen myself as a Liberal.  My first political memory is probably Jean Chretien’s electoral victory in 1993 (when I was 11).  I vaguely remember hearing about the GST and NAFTA before that, but I didn’t have any understanding of what they meant.  It wasn’t until well into the Chretien years that I started to understand and admire how the Liberals rationalized government spending.  But more than how the Liberals governed, I think I was made a Liberal simply because they governed.  At that time the Liberals dominated federal politics.  The PC Party had been destroyed and the only viable opposition was the Bloc.  Who could I have supported at the time?  From 1993 until the new millennium there was no legitimate alternative for a political neophyte.

Then came the resurgence of the Conservatives.  I remember watching as Preston Manning, whom I quietly supported, lost the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party.  I decided I couldn’t support Stockwell Day.  Then I watched Peter MacKay hand the PC Party over to Stephen Harper.  Those two events have kept me from considering a shift to the political right.

The other primary reason I originally aligned myself with the Liberals was a job.  After two years studying political science at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo I got a summer job at then-MP Roger Gallaway’s constituency office.  I was recruited by the many local Liberals who passed through the office.  My respect for these people (and, secondarily, my own selfish reasons) made me want to join the party and I haven’t wanted to leave since.

But more than coincidence and timing, I consider myself a Liberal for many concrete reasons.

I believe in fiscal prudence.  While some might point to Martin’s liberal spending increases during the latter years of his reign, I prefer to point to how he and Chretien gave the government a surplus and how he left the government with a surplus.  Martin's spending increases came when the economy was growing.  To do otherwise would have been irrational.

I believe in a strong national government.  I believe that Canadians need national standards.  I understand that there are federal and provincial jurisdictions, but they too often lead to varying standards and inconsistencies.  What good will BC’s carbon tax do when Alberta’s tar sands industry is ravaging our environment?  How can we have Ontario’s manufacturing base and Alberta’s energy base fighting tooth-and-nail?

I believe in giving Canadians a level playing field.  Tax cuts shouldn’t be for the wealthy, but for the poor.  Social programs are necessary.  War can be justified in extreme circumstances.  Policy isn’t good or bad based on the public’s ability to understand it.  It is a party’s and a politician’s obligation to educate the public about policy.  Elections should be fought on policy and principle, not vague concepts, lies, and libel.

Ultimately, I support the Liberal Party because I have, over my seven years as a member, felt a part of the party’s decision making.  I have drafted policy proposals, and voted for leaders and candidates.  I have supported fundraising and profile-raising events.  I have been intimately involved in election campaigning.  I have seen discussion and disagreement within the party.

Could I ever switch allegiances?  Perhaps.  Crowning Ignatieff instead of insisting on a vote is just one example of where I’ve disagreed with the party.  But for now, I respect the tradition and believe in the future of the party.

Do I always support the Liberal Party?  No.  If you’ve read my blogging you know I have a mind of my own.  When conceiving the Political Polarity blog, Pat had suggested names that included the words “Grit” and “Tory”, but I suggested something more non-partisan (thus we had www.politicalpolarity.com).  I believe I am slightly left of center on many issues, but surprisingly right on others.  I believe the Liberal Party best represents my political philosophy - more often than any other party.  Perhaps Pat put it best: the Liberal Party “stands up for my freedoms and my rights as a citizen, respects my pocket book whenever possible and has clearly defined positions, regardless of other people’s opinions, on the major issues of the day.”

And that’s what matters to me.

President Obama...*Yawn*

A few weeks ago Senator Barack Obama was elected Most Powerful Man in the World. Upon his inauguration he will become the first African-American President in United States history. So what does this mean for the world? It means no more G.W. Bush. Perhaps that means no more unilateralism/bilateralism. Perhaps that means decreased militarism. Perhaps that means more fiscal responsibility. Perhaps it means nothing.

A veteran US campaign analyst noted that Democratic Presidential candidates tend to campaign from the left then (if elected) govern from the centre. Obama campaigned from the left, but, especially considering his staffing choices, seems poised to govern from the centre. Going back through the history of American Presidents, it seems apparent that who is President is less significant than we might assume. Like the two Bushes, Clinton fought in the Middle East. Like the two Bushes, Clinton never created universal health, never fixed the broken banking system, never fixed the broken insurance system, never really governed from the left. So, in my mind, the President of the United States doesn't generally change the course of American history.

Why do American Presidents not matter so much? For a few reasons. The establishment in Washington is too large, too entrenched. For instance, G.W. Bush essentially hired G.H.W. Bush's crew and so far Obama has brought back a number of Clinton's people. More precisely, when G.W. Bush was trying to mount a response to 9/11, he was getting advice from the State Department headed by Colin Powell and the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfeld. On one hand, Powell was pushing for a multilateral response headed by the UN. On the other, Rumsfeld was pushing for a bilateral response headed by the US. Rumsfeld eventually won the battle and Bush will be remembered as the ultimate bilateralist. It was the establishment, not the President, who directed American foreign policy. The bureaucracy is too large, too powerful. Government bureaucracies rely on government funding and changes in government mean potential changes in funding. To combat this reality, bureaucracies have become very similar to interest groups - they campaign for money and, in some cases, for their continued existence. At the end of World War II, the US government dissolved the Office of Strategic Security (OSS). William J. Donovan (creator and Head of the OSS) suggested that President Truman create an office to supply the US government and armed forces with intelligence. Truman agreed and created the CIA. Don't be fooled by the name change, Donovan was campaigning to have his department restored, and he was successful. Truman was President, but it was the bureaucracy that made history by restoring the OSS/creating the CIA. And corporate America is too big and too powerful. Why have universal health care and insurance remained American pipe dreams? Because the corporations behind health care and insurance in America are far too large, rich and powerful. "Money is power."* No President has ever had a chance to create a national health insurance program because every President has relied on insurance company money. President Obama may be the first to have this opportunity considering the current bank and insurance meltdown that has sunk the world into economic recession. Basically, I don't believe life will be considerably different for anyone with Obama as President. And I don't think life would have been considerably different for anyone had John McCain won the election.

That's why I don't tend to follow the American election very closely. That's why it has taken me so long to comment on the election (sorry Anne-Marie!).

On a more positive note, I'm hoping Obama will become one of those rare Presidents who is able to positively shift the course of American (and world) history. Obama is the son of a Kenyan economist, giving him a real connection to the poorest part of the world. Perhaps this bodes well for a continent in dire need of financial and developmental aide. He was against the war in Iraq and has generally been a Dove in the past. This should bode well for world peace. These are the two areas I most believe Obama will change the path taken by G.W. Bush. For all other major areas, including the ones I mentioned above and including environmental policy, don't count on any significant change.

Lets see if I'm right.

*****
* quote taken from Marc "Loafy" Henein

"Democracy" or "Governing for the Next Election"

...unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless, that is to say, political power and philosophy meet together, there can be no rest from troubles...for states, nor yet, as I believe, for all mankind... (Plato, Republic)

...He who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire. (Aristotle, Politics)

I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with politics. Why? Democracy. Democracy is the problem.

I'm not the only one who holds this belief. I'm not even the first to argue this. Aristotle classified democracy as one of three perverted constitutions.* He was building upon Plato's idea of the philosopher king. In Republic, Plato argued that we are too easily seduced by our own selfish desires to rule properly and that only a philosopher, who is only interested in virtue (and who knows true virtue), could truly rule for the collective good. Plato also spoke of the decline of this ideal state as the eventual corruption of the philosopher king. Plato says that there can be no true philosopher king because philosophers, once they've seen what real justice (virtue) is, will no longer be interested in ruling this unjust world. Therefore Plato admits that kings and rulers must become "sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom," rather than, as is ideal, philosophers, who already have this genuine desire, be compelled to become kings.** Because of this, the philosopher king will not be a true philosopher and Plato's ideal state will fall. Aristotle's answer is to have law rule, not man. In his view, law is inalienable and intrinsic in nature. It is not law found in books and court rulings, but law found in nature. Philosophers can see this law, but the average person does not. In democracy we create law. Our law is at best, in the views of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, imperfect representations of an ultimate reality (or of real law). As such, democracy is not a good form of government. As Winston Churchill said, it is "the worst form of government" (except for all the others that have been tried).

For me, politicians have been fairly good. For the most part, politicians do an honest job of doing what they honestly believe to be the best for their population. Problem is they soon realize they can only do this if they're elected (and re-elected). The result is that politicians have a habit of becoming consumed with public opinion polls and special interests. The weakest politicians allow this to consume them, while the strongest ones try to rise above this. Former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin wobbled back and forth on ballistic missle defence (he was for it, then due to fears about his electability in Quebec, against it) and the war in Iraq (he spoke out against it to buy the passifist vote even though speaking for it would have been in our national interest and would not have cost many lives or much money - we were over-extended in Afghanistan and therefore had nothing left to commit to Iraq except a hearty "good-luck"). On the other hand, Pierre E. Trudeau looked straight into the eyes of the dissenters and told them he was going to give us a Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms because (he believed) it was in Canada's best interests. Louis St Laurent, as Justice Minister supported conscription in 1944 inspite of its unpopularity because it was in Canada's national interest. He also agreed to expand Canada's military commitments abroad in the 1950's (Korea and NATO commitments in Germany). The former, Paul Martin, governed for the next election while that latter, Trudeau and St Laurent, governed for Canada. Whether or not you agree with how Trudeau and St Laurent went about promoting Canada's interests, they were promoting their view of Canada's interests rather than promoting their electability. Unfortunately, the examples of good politicians are too few, and the example of bad ones, too many.

The best way to ensure politicians govern for the people instead of for the next election is to remove the need to worry about the next election. Some politicians, notably Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, take the approach of doing the "general good" things as early into a mandate as possible because by the time the next election comes up, people forget. McGuinty introduced his "Health Premium" very early so people might forget when the next election came around in four years (it seems to have worked since he was re-elected with another majority). Assuming this philosophy is a popular one among power-seekers (as all politicians naturally are) in democracies, it might be wise to extend the period during which they believe they can get away with governing for the "general good". I'm proposing a "Decade Democracy".

My Decade Democracy will see fixed elections at the beginning of each decade (January 2010, January 2020...). This will extend the period of time for which politicians like Dalton McGuinty could govern for the general good. With a full decade to govern, politicians will have to be concerned with the long-term good of the country (after all, ten years is pretty long-term). But there's more.

My Decade Democracy will see leaders limitted to one term - no possibility of re-election. This way they will never have the incentive of governing for the next election. With out electibility concerns, politicians, who are generally good, will be able to act free from election considerations - they will act purely for the "general good".

My Decade Democracy will see the winning party given 50% plus 1 seats in the house (currently, 155 seats - or 308 divided by 2 plus 1). The rest of the seats (currently 153) will then be divided between parties relative to the percentage of total votes (not including votes won by the winning party) earned.*** This would guarantee a majority government (which historically work much better than minority governments in Canada), while equitably distributing the remaining seats. Such a small minority, however, would also mean the government would be unable to bully the rest of the House.

My Decade Democracy would see the Senate elected, every ten years, mid-way through the House's tenure (i.e. January 2015, January 2025...). This would give the government a sort of progress report half way through their mandate. It would keep the Senate from worrying about the next election. The Senate would have a similar duty as they do now - sober second thought, but without much legislative power. The Senate would consist of 130 members (10 from each province and territory), would be party-neutral, and elections would depend mostly on attaining media coverage, not on buying one's way into the media.**** The Senate would have 10 votes in the House of Commons. This would allow them to first influence the House via their reading of bills and would allow them to overturn only those votes that are very narrowly decided (i.e. by fewer than 10 votes).

Otherwise, the political system would remain mostly unchanged, meaning democracy cannot be legislated out of existence (as Hitler did in Germany) and those inalienable rights and freedoms in our Charter would be guaranteed.

Consider this a couple hours worth of rough draft and rather superfiscial idealizing. I'll refine this over time through discussions and further thought.

*****
* Nelson, Brian R., Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology, (2nd Ed), Prentice Hall, 1996, p. 59
** Plato, Republic
*** For example, if the vote were to break down as follows:

Liberals - 44% (440,000 votes)
Conservatives - 26% (260,000)
NDP - 20% (200,000)
Green - 10% (100,000)
Total Votes Cast - 1,000,000

The Liberals would win 155 seats. The Conservatives would win 71 seats (26% of 1,000,000 equals 46.4% of the 560,000 votes not won by the winner which equals 46.4% of the votes not won by the winner, which equals 71 of the remaining 153 seats). With the same math, the Greens would win the remaining 27 seats.
**** Twenty to twenty-five Senate candidates would be chosen in each province/territory by a coalition of local government, business and academic leaders, then there would be a general vote in which the population would chose 10 of the 20 to 25 candidates. (I'll refine this later, as it is clearly quite problematic.)

A Politician's Master?

A recent article by my great friend and political-economics sage Mr. McIver got me thinking about a politician's master:

With government of any kind: no ruler, so far as he is acting as ruler,
will study or enjoin what is for his own interest. All that he says and does
will be said and done with a view to what is good and proper for the subjects
for whom he practices his art. - Plato

Politicians are Liars

Here is an article from Psychology Today that I found very interesting:

For many Americans, the words "government official" and "lying bastard" are practically synonymous. Now Colgate University psychologists report that leadership skills and the ability to deceive do, in fact, go hand in hand. And the connection begins earlier than you might think.

The researchers gave preschoolers a drink that was either sweet or tart. Then they asked the kids to say that the drink was sweet--even if it wasn't. The best deceivers, it turned out, were the same kids who had emerged as leaders during an earlier play period. Their superior social skills and ability to manipulate others helped them both lie convincingly and attain top ranking in the playground pecking order, report Caroline Keaating, Ph.D., and Karen Heltman, Ph.D., in Personality and Psychology Bulletin (Vol. 20, No. 3). A second experiment, this time with college students, produced similara (sic) results, particularly with men.

So with presidential primary season upon us, a little skepticism might be a good idea. The fact that leaders are masters of deception doesn't mean that politicians actually lie more often than the rest of us, Keating cautions. "But if they did, we wouldn't be able to tell because they are better at it."

Here's the article as published by psychologytoday.com.