Harper's Misdirection Is Leaving Canadians In The Cold

Gerard Kennedy nailed it on the head today when he indicated Harper’s game today is to divert attention from his lack of action on the economy. Aside from their laughable claims that they’ve already taken steps to help by cutting taxes – because we all know one cent off the GST will help replenish that RRSP that’s lost 30% of its value or will pay the mortgage after losing a job – the Conservatives have no idea what to do. Therefore, they’re playing a misdirection by whipping everyone, and I mean everyone, into a frenzy over the public financing of political parties. The amount of speculation and rumour this evening is startling, even for the world of politics.

Let’s look at the three angles of this story: the public financing of political parties; the politics of the situation; and finally the timing and motives of this action.

Andrew Coyne argues that the removal of public funding for political parties is the right thing to do, regardless of motive or timing. He argues that ensuring the only fiscal connection between parties and voters is on an individual basis is more democratic. He also raises the favourite bugaboo in this argument, the taxpayer funding of the Bloc Quebecois (y’know, the party who wants to break up Canada). Quite frankly, as opposed as I am to the intentions of the Bloc, as long as they get votes they are a voice of a segment of Canadians and are entitled to the same rights as all other parties. Quebeckers historically have favoured public funding for most things over private enterprise, so the fact their predominate party of choice on the federal scene gets most of its money from taxpayer dollars isn’t that surprising. Hey, I oppose the Conservatives and think they’re trying to break up the country too, but I don’t begrudge them their funding.

While essentially Coyne is right, the direct funding of parties by individuals is more democratic, I think this is one of those situations where reality imposes on the ideal. In any open market solution we have to weigh the risks of failure or impediments to competition, since both come with undesired and sometimes unmanageable consequences. Our democracy is one such thing that needs protection from unintended consequences. It was this understanding that prompted the Liberals to implement the public financing of parties when they limited the contributions of companies and individuals. The playing field needs to be kept somewhat level economically so we can vote on parties based on their ideas and not their ability to raise money and advertise. Parties are therefore rewarded for raising votes, not donors. Further, very few Canadians give to political parties and the support in the comments sections of newspapers for the removal of public funding shows how much resentment and cynicism there is out there about their money going to political parties. Adam Radwanski’s point that there may not be enough private dollars to support our multi-party system is a salient one. So if Harper succeeds in bankrupting the Liberals, Greens and Bloc and kneecapping the NDP, are we ok with the consequences? Is our democracy really that much stronger?

The second angle on this is the politics of the situation. Clearly Harper intends to weaken the opposition parties under the guise of fiscal constraint. Will it work? What should we, as Liberals, do about it? Calgary Grit makes the astute observation that the Conservatives’ ploy could help the cause of the opposition parties. I received calls from fellow Liberals today talking about what we can do to start improving our fundraising immediately. It merely means rushing plans that were already afoot, but this certainly adds oxygen to what was the smoldering embers of dissatisfaction among Liberals on the subject of fundraising. If Rae, Ignatieff or Leblanc succeed in revitalizing the party and the money starts flowing in again, this little episode of panic will look pretty silly one or two years from now. It’s up to the opposition parties to decide whether this will defeat them or not.

On the idea of defeating the government and forcing an election, it’s a reckless and undesirable option given the economy. The next few days should be spent leaning hard on the Conservatives to remove this poison pill and offer Canadians a better solution to our bleeding economy. Let’s see what other options exist before bringing down the government.

The response to all this also, more than anything, needs to be clear and cogent. Getting angry and calling Harper names won’t win us a single vote, won’t sway him to change his mind, and won’t gain any sympathy from the general public. Canadians need to understand why the public funding of political parties is good for them – frothing at the mouth and talking about wars is not how to go about that argument.

Finally, there is the angle of the timing and motives of this action. Harper partisans are already sympathetic to the ‘less government’ and ‘less taxes’ argument so they’re onside with this idea at any time for any reason. But Canadians not caught up in left/right arguments need to ask if this is the kind of governance they want from their Prime Minister. His constant promotion of partisanship at the expense of our nation’s political fabric and his persistence in playing political games over responding to the needs of our country is something that must be of concern to Canadians of all political stripes. How you do things is every bit as important as what you do – just ask Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien. Do we want Machiavelli’s Prince as a leader? Is that really what Canada has become? It’s been clear for a while that Harper dislikes the Canada that is and is striving for something quite different; something that, to me, appears to be a meaner, weaker and less likable character. If there’s any reason to rally against Stephen Harper at this point, this is it.

We need to argue the merits of the public funding of political parties for the good of our democracy, and we need to do so clearly, articulately and convincingly and not with hyperbole. We need to prepare for the loss of public funding and jolt our fundraising efforts. Finally, we need to remind Canadians that they have a Prime Minister who is more concerned with his personal agenda and is leaving them in the cold when they need him most.

Obama A Legitimate Prospect For Positive Change

The prospect of Obama winning Tuesday’s election is very real. US and even Canadian newspapers this weekend are full of commentary about the election and most focus on what an Obama presidency will mean. Not surprisingly, conservatives are fearful, liberals wary but hopeful, and those at the poles are as hysterical as always. I strongly believe Obama is the right choice for the United States; not just because he offers better solutions than John McCain, but because he’s the most inspiring and capable politician the US has produced since Bill Clinton – who just happened to be the only successful president since Eisenhower.

What marks a successful presidency? Indeed the markers are different depending on your political outlook. All want prosperity but conservatives are less concerned with the shared distribution of prosperity (sounds too much like socialism even if the wealth is created through capitalism and the result is more people are happy). Both want an effective foreign policy but liberals are less concerned with enforcing an American vision of the world; instead focusing on results that help others in addition to protecting American interests – whether they be achieved multilaterally or independently. Of course, domestic political support is essential, though the Democrats show a greater concern for the impacts on the nation’s fabric than have the Republicans under Gingrich, Rove and now as guided by the voice of Sarah Palin. Partisanship has been an effective tool for Republicans but has also created destructive schisms within the American public whether they are religious, urban/rural, geographic, or by class.

What do I expect from Barack Obama? How will he be successful?

On the economy, it’s Obama’s pledge to return some balance to the tax burden by alleviating the strain on the middle-class that will pay the largest dividends for the US. It will be quite awhile before spending can be brought under control and budgets balanced. It was an extraordinary feat when Clinton did it and will be as extraordinary if Obama manages it. It’s too bad the effort has to be repeated. The greatest domestic challenge will be providing a stable energy supply between the horns of a dilemma: climate change and a dependency on a declining oil supply. Obama’s willingness to work with others will bear more fruit for the US than the simplistic “drill baby drill” views of Republicans.

Obama’s promise to change Washington politics into a less partisan and more collaborative environment seems more plausible now than it did when he first made the claim. I expect the Republican enterprise to struggle for awhile, thereby opening the door for compromise far more than would have been expected if the Republicans had finished this election strong. While some will charge that McCain’s moderate nature hurt them, the reality is that in the end McCain ran as partisan a campaign as ever and it will be rejected by voters. If the result is that the hyper-partisan leaders within the party are shunted to the side, Obama will face a far more open Republican caucus than Clinton did, which bodes well for everyone.

Foreign policy is the area that will see the most amount of change. Obama will get out of Iraq, eventually, but will also step up their presence in Afghanistan. But the result of this will be greater international support for their actions. Further, Obama’s willingness to engage his enemies will help reduce the future potential for warfare – it won’t eliminate it, but it’s a start to more diplomacy and less conflict. So look for greater US engagement through NATO and the UN – which by the way will help Canada as those are the best places for us to influence international behaviour.

In Canada, some seem concerned that Obama will harm us with a supposed anti-free trade approach. These assumptions are based on comments made by Obama during the primaries that NAFTA should be renegotiated, though he later softened his comments. Under the headline, “Trade Policy That Works for All People in All Countries,” his website states, “Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. They will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security and will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.” This sounds like something any leader would say about their trade policy, and is so generic that any meaning could be placed against it. Protectionism? Maybe. But let’s not ignore but give credence to Obama’s intelligence. He’s not going to preach engagement with his enemies and then antagonize his allies. He’s going to try and stop the exportation of American jobs, not the importation of Canadian products. Obama will be good for Canada because he is open, engaging and pragmatic. For Canada, rebuilding the US economy will help us far more than any ill incurred through the renegotiation of NAFTA. Removing the Republicans is the first step to fixing the US economy, and that alone makes Obama a plus for Canada.

The last things I’d like to comment on are race and hope. For both, Obama carries considerable expectations. Race will be a factor but not a deciding one. Those who will not vote for a black man are most likely already concentrated in areas that are already Republican – i.e. the rural south and Midwest. Yes, it’s likely to happen in cities and the north but not to a degree that will change the outcome of those areas. I also look for greater turnout among blacks, who overwhelmingly support Obama, to alleviate any anti-black impacts. There are likely to be continued discussions of race and small groups who will continue to antagonize against a black president, but ultimately this is a critical and large step for America towards healing its race issues. It’s not the end, but it’s a significant step forward.

And yes, there will be an inevitable letdown in the early going because, since democracy is slow and messy and the US’ problems are large and widespread, Obama will not be able to instantly transform his promises into reality. I can only hope that the hope Obama has engendered is not quickly extinguished. If there is any risk to Obama’s long term prospects this may be it. He’s already changed his language over the past two months to be less grandiose and more pragmatic, but it will be a challenge for him to manage expectations through his first years in office. Clinton failed in his first two years on this score and Obama would be wise to learn from the last Democratic president’s experience.

This is an exciting time for America politically and, if there’s one ray of solace for Canadian progressives, it’s that Harper’s conservative agenda may have to be tempered in the face of a more progressive American presidency. Obama has been touted as transformational not just for America but also for the world, and I agree. Canadians should fear not in Obama (and polls show we do not), and Americans can turn the corner from the failed ideologies of the Republican Party.