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.

Here Come the Deficits

Granted, Canadians didn't vote for a coalition Prime Minister, but they also didn't vote for 4 years of deficit. In fact, you can still go the the Conservative Party website and see Tory campaign pledges to maintain a balanced budget (here's one, here's another).

Of course, being a Conservative campaign promise of real significance, the Tories are now officially admitting it will be a broken promise. According to CBC (citing a Department of Finance report), the Canadian government will run a $5 billion deficit for 2009-2010 and a $5.5 billion deficit for 2010-2011. The CBC is also reporting that the report, if extrapolated for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, tells Canadians we can expect 4 years of spending more than we make.

The Tories, who apparently knew and planned for the current fiscal crisis, told us they would give us balanced budgets. Now they're practically guaranteeing that won't be the case for at least the next 4 years.

The list of Tory lies just keeps getting longer. Maybe you didn't vote for the Liberals or the NDP, but you also didn't vote for more economic mismanagement. The Harper government has to go. Flaherty did this to Ontario and now refers to his home province as "a bad place to invest." When he's done with Canada, will Canada be "a bad place to invest?" It is starting to look that way.

Vote Liberal and get budget surplus with social programs. Vote Conservative and get budget deficit with tax breaks for the wealthy. Seems like an easy choice unless you own RIM or your last name is Thompson...

What About Me?

It seems the Liberal Party had decided to select its new leader via a vote by 800 high-ranking Liberals. While Bob Rae has rendered that vote moot by stepping aside, the outcome essentially remains the same: Liberals didn't choose their leader.

Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian professor in Boston, has ascended to the leadership of Canada's traditional ruling party (fact, not arrogance). A man who has been in federal politics for less time than I have (only since 2006...though at a much higher level) is now our Leader. A man who had spent much of his adult life in another country is now our leader. A man who was never elected as leader by Liberals is now our leader.

As if there wasn't enough fodder for the Tory media machine to counter Ignatieff, now he's been appointed the leader. Why did the Liberal executive drag their feet so long on a permanent leadership convention that could have been held before January 26, 2009?

Ignatieff's eloquently forceful media acumen may not be enough to win a probable March election. Perhaps, as a friend noted, his centre-right political bias might be able to save the party in the long-run, but will he have that opportunity? What happens if the Liberals get trounced in a March election? If Ignatieff delivers even fewer seats than did Dion (which I fear is probable), will Liberals give him an extended mandate in May? Likely not.

That will leave Liberals with a meaningful leadership convention in May. At which point, Dominic LeBlanc will likely challenge Rae and Ignatieff for the leadership. Perhaps, if we're lucky, Justin Trudeau will join the race and we'll get a sneak preview of another Chretien-Martin regime.