Canadian Steele

Finally - a relatively quiet news week for Canadians. No major scandal, no defections or potato-patch interviews, no ridiculously close confidence votes, just normal news for once. It was nice to catch my breath. However, there were two stories that have gained the political spotlight and promise to be the next most provoking items. These are the nominations of Christian activists to some Tory ridings, and Tories vowing to rekindle the attack on the Liberal government once again.

The implications of these two stories coupled with the conservative’s inability to solidify support has some serious consequences for their movement. This is a movement that, while making some solid ground in the last year, has shuddered to a halt recently. Entirely negatively tactics, questionable leadership, and the Liberal’s superior machinations have all combined to put the brakes on the conservative climb. This is really too bad, because what Canada needs most is a more applicable opposition. We need a legitimate choice, and right now, the conservatives have not been providing that.

Many different forces factor in this. For instance, the conservative’s vow that they will continue along the same arc and press the attack on Adscam. This seems like the greatest of follies on the Tories part. We have already seen the Liberals, while mired in scandal, use some questionable tactics to gain the confidence of the house, and bounce back in the polls. They were on a platter and the conservative’s failure clearly demonstrates a major misdirection with their approach. To conservative strategists: that wave has crested. To continue to rely on Adscam and attack politics will get you no where. Sure, it will probably factor in the next election, but you need a new focus.

Earlier I posted the idea that Harper is not trusted by the public. This may only be a partial view of the trend we are starting to see. According to this poll reported on by the Globe and Mail it was not the leader that stopped people from voting conservative, it was the idea of the conservative hidden agenda. To further cement the idea of a hidden agenda in the publics mind christian activists have been able to secure conservative nominations in a few ridings across the country. While most wish to criticize the Globe and Mail and the public for their treatment of the Christian nominees, the rest would like to pass this off as a non-issue. The fact of the matter is, this is important, especially to conservatives. The entire idea behind the Tory convention in March was an image facelift, one of moderation. Over the past couple of months, moderation can hardly be equated with their political strategy. Now, when the public fears a hidden agenda, and special-interest groups are able to grab hold of at least a modicum of power within your party, start worrying. When you are completely stuck with a negative image (whether it is true or not), and your solution is not to present fresh ideas but to continue divisive mud-slinging after the Canadian public has already shown its exasperation with these actions, really start worrying. Thus, I was a bit premature in placing the onus entirely on Harper; however, my conclusions were met. The conservatives leave the public feeling uneasy. This is the issue that puts a ceiling on the conservative movement. This must be addressed for the Tories to make and keep solid ground.

Now, however, there really are very few options left. Some would say continue on, but good luck getting votes across the country.Warren Kinsella’s advice for Harper to “kick out the wackos” is extremely short-sighted. While this will save you from special-interest status, it might gain conservatives an “anti-democracy” status. As I have stated before, the activist will always have a stronger voice; they are that much more zealous and will get that much more done. Moderation needs to be the agenda for the conservatives to rise, but this seems unlikely. In short, the gains the conservatives once had have been put in remission, and it looks like this is a trend that may continue for some time.

Recently, as I have stated before, I joined the Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians, and the topic of what it is to be non-partisan has cropped up recently in the blogging world. You can find good examples at Breebop, or Jay Currie. Even the BANPC’s originator,James Bow, steps in and delineates his reasoning for the non-partisan alliance. The importance of the ideal behind the alliance, that most of us who joined can sense, is one that has waxed in my mind for several years now. Looking back on my posts, I can detect a strong flavour of this in almost every entry. Most comments of mine and others so far consider the importance of being non-partisan in a micro-cosmic sort of way. So, I move to the big picture. In this post I will defend so called problems with declaring oneself uncommitted to a party, and attend to the larger idea behind the suspension of commitment that I feel is essential but almost always overlooked.

Firstly, what is non-partisan? Non-partisan can most easily be defined as free from party affiliation or bias. Basically, you don’t throw your lot behind a party and you are able to take in information and express yourself without party colours skewing your vision. A simple definition.

So, where does the criticism come from? Most common of the attacks on this position question the motives behind being non-partisan. A critic will often sense someone hiding true political colours (whether this is conservative or progressive, or even mental laziness) behind a non-committal banner, and they mistrust the non-partisan. Since their views can obviously be labelled somehow, these labels can give an overall measurement of the person’s political leanings. To say someone is non-partisan while displaying a certain political inclination makes the critic distrust them. However, this is looking at the idea the wrong way. It is not a question of support, but rather a question of bias. To identify with a group means you immediately incorporate the meme, or idea, of that group. You like the group you identify with, you feel good to be in that group. The consequences, then, are your own self-biases are bridged to that group. To criticise the group you belong to is equivalent to criticising a part of your identity. Obviously, you don’t like this. The human mind has long since created self-serving biases. These predispositions are not a bad thing. They help us function as happy, good individuals. However, since we have introduced a group component into our self-concept, these self serving biases colour the way we view the group we now belong to. And I doubt this could be shown otherwise. Show me someone who does not like their group, and I’ll show you someone who identifies with a smaller sub-group.

Then, by reserving yourself against outside affiliation, you keep what little objectivity you have as an agentic being intact. Many people would love to believe that changing a part of yourself from “I” to “we” has no effect, the reality of this is untrue. We like to come up with reasons explaining how we are unaffected by the social world we create, but these are only justifications coming after the fact. Belief can lead to behaviour, but behaviour more often leads to belief. Why do you love your hometown, or province, or even this country, when you were really randomly assigned to it? Why is your religion or, more importantly here, your political affiliation the same as your parents or peers? The reasons you could come up with to answer these questions would be the exact same type of answers had chance doled out a different life. Of course, there are exceptions to my examples, but you would only be arguing the specifics. Instances where people could think outside their world would only be instances of individuals who had stepped back from labels.

So, non-partisanship is crucial in keeping a flexible mind; a mind that is capable of receiving information, processing it, and expressing opinion while keeping biases to a minimum. Sounds obscure, I know, but I do not like the idea of surrendering a part of my intellect up to protecting a group. I would rather have an open mind. And I think this is the effect James Bow wanted.

Others know what I am talking about. Jay Currie nearly hits this on the head. He said, at Breebop

Non-partisan is not a disguise, it is a habit of mind which refuses to put up with the lies, corruption and short-sightedness which passes for party platforms in Canada at the moment.

Drop everything after “mind” and this is the essence of what I am saying. What suspension of commitment does is not betray your beliefs and values; rather it enables the individual to gather them as truthfully as possible. This is something that is extremely valuable in the polarized world we live in.

Now this is only a beginning move to what could be a good debate. There are many counters open here, and I encourage you to pick me apart. However, I have committed to the Non-Partisan group, so anything you say will be coloured by my commitment. Ha-ha.

Well, it has been about three weeks in to my foray into blogdom, and I think it is going well. My opinions are generally well recieved (except for one guy that called me a “girly man french-canadian liberal weinie”. haha. What a “weinie” is, I don’t know), here and at other sites. I’m very happy to be a part of the Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians and, most importantly, blogging gives me the discourse that I was looking for. There are some good people out there.

However, that is what I think. I want to know what you think. My site has turned out to be more essay style commentary than daily report and comments, which in turn greatly reduces the number of posts. So, is this what you want? Do my posts do justice to this type of essay style blogging? Any comments, criticisms, and compliments would be welcome. I know blogging is all about getting your own individual self and opinion out there, but another’s perspective is essential to improving my ability to reach people.

So, give me what you got. Thanks in adavance.
-Tommy Eliot Steele.

Well, this is exactly why you have got to love politics. Just when you think you could plot the next year and half of Canada’s political timeline, something happens that comes straight from left field. Today, I definitely did not see this coming.
Belinda Stronach, a one time candidate for the Conservative party leadership, crossed the floor today and will sit in the PM’s cabinet as the minister of human resources and skills development. This is a significant development, as not only will this possibly save the Liberal government, it could also undermine what has been long term conservative growth in Canada.
So, obviously, there are blogs and comments abound concerning Belinda’s motivation in crossing over… and I’ll be no different. Speculation can usually be grouped according to affiliation. However, to me, it is clear that Stronach is attracted to power, and this is the impetus behind Belinda’s move. I consider it quite telling that her first foray into politics was a run for the conservative party’s leadership. Failing that, she quickly moved into an MP position on the momentum of her “fresh face” appeal and the massive exposure she bought. Her attachment to Peter Mackay, while not a strategical move, does betray her attraction to power (not taking anything away from the dashing Peter Mackay, of course). And finally, her rhetoric does not match her actions today. In the past she has been highly critical of this government’s credibility and political agenda. She even criticized Paul Martin and his role in the Liberal scandal.(see here for a good post) . This interview further demonstrates Stronach’s divergence between talk and walk. Either she is of two minds, or, and more likely, she is taking advantage of current political turmoil. Belinda uses current situations to further her own goals, and the recent noisome gaming on the hill was fertile soil for this defection. Harper, however predictably, called her move ambitious and nothing in her actions has proved otherwise. You are the choices you make, so forget what the PM, overly enraged conservatives and Belinda herself say today. Belinda has made a play for power; a play that is certainly fraught with risk. In any case, power hunger has been quite becoming as of late, and she should find no problems in that regard.

Currently, if I were to hazard a guess, when asked, many people would not have many positive things to say about our government. Recent scandal and conduct on the hill has, I am sure, significantly contributed to this, but you have to remember that any good Canadian has to be a good complainer. We are always able to find something to shout out about. Of course, in no way is this entirely a bad thing. Constant discourse and debate is the only way to promote societal growth and avoid stagnation. Canadian opinion, however, does tend to lose sight. It reminds me of my Grandfather. He was rich, he was well situated, and he was in great health, but if he wasn’t finding something wrong with the situation he was presently in, I don’t know what he would be doing. Canadians are no different; if it isn’t something that should rightly dominate the public’s concern (i.e. Adscam), we slide the slope to problems that are relatively unimportant (i.e. potholes). Here, we begin to take for granted how good we have it, just like my Grandfather did. He could go golfing anytime, and I could reach my MP anytime. What is important is that while we push for the things we believe in, it pays to be mindful of the things we have. Now I know it may be hard to recognize the good in our government, especially a stalled government, but I think that we (and I am certainly not biased here…cough) have one of the greatest examples of what a government should be. Of course I speak not of the current Liberal government but of our system. Even in other democracies, the individual does not have the voice a Canadian does. Ours is a government where politicians are accessible, can be held liable, and represent us in a deliberative body that can both preserve our values and promote change for the better. Thomas Friedman calls the US a “shining beacon of Democracy” in the world, but the US does not display fully the qualities I listed above. So, I would suggest that while doing your duty as a good Canadian and whining about something, remember to reflect on the value of our system. Don’t stop forwarding what you believe, but be mindful of what we have. When viewed this way, I think that present action in the House is not actually a degradation of our gov., but instead a testament to its strengths. Hopefully, people remember this and avoid the disillusionment that is taking place, and grasp the power they can wield.

There, a nice little shot of something positive. Do you feel better? Now back to finding fault…

So, why is it I think Martin is in his final hours as the leader of this country? It would be easy to say that Adscam is going to play out badly, or the country has shifted to the right and Liberal no longer directly reflects the peoples sentiments , or Harper will strong arm Martin out with savvy political manoeuvring and etc, etc, but what it really comes down to is perception. I feel Paul Martin has suffered too many blows to his public image to be spared.

Governments do not rise and fall with over the finer points of technically complicated and convoluted issues, nor is power based on the success of political stratagem. Rather, the perception, the image, built around these parties and their agendas is the crux of the political game. What value the public attaches to the manoeuvring, the rhetoric, the accomplishments and failures, and even the figures themselves is what matters. And politicians are definitely aware of this. No matter what happens on the hill, in the battle to rule, an official will seek to construe his or his party’s actions as positive and his opponent or the opposition’s actions as negative when striving to gain. Of course this has intensified as of late and it can be definitely be taken too far (hence my criticisms of Harper).

For an example of the power of perception, take Tony Blair’s recent re-election in Britain. In any other election his win would have been considered a considerable and decisive majority. With the precedent set of his last two elections, which were impressive landslides, this more average and normal result could be construed to reveal a chink in Blair’s armour. In normal times the election results would have been viewed as a successful and solid majority. Now, however, some took advantage and spun the tale of Blair’s weakening power. Obviously, just a subjective opinion, but enough momentum was gathered by this push that many considered Blair’s career as ending.

Or, take the previous Canadian election. Conservatives were a real threat for the Liberals and had a solid chance at being elected. When the voters stepped up to the polls, however, habit kicked in and old appraisals moved Martin into 24 Sussex Drive.

So, it becomes increasingly clear that perception of parties and their leaders is at the heart of who gets elected. What happens in parliament isn’t as important as what people think happened and how they view those events. That is why I caution those who deride political display as being “manufactured” because manufactured or not, it is vital.

Now, applied to Martin we see why I contend that it is over for him. Maybe not right away, but it won’t be long before we have a new Prime Minister. This is because Martin himself has taken too many blows to recover well enough to continue as a “strong” leader. Martin is seen as dishonest, according to new polls. His immorality is on trial, due to possible involvement in Adscam ethically questionable political tactics. His party’s reputation isn’t so hot right now (see any news report or blog site for further unending info). And let’s not forget his enduring nickname “Mr. Dithers”. All these bruises to Martin image raise legitimate points, but what is important is how these points were pushed. And the damage is done.

What is going to happen then? Well, as you can see below, I already think Harper is in trouble too, so here is how I think the scene will play out.

• Spring or summer election.
• Slightly less of a majority for the Liberals
• Conservatives in line oust Harper
• Perceived Strong CPC leader puts hurt on Martin
• Martin out

The upcoming election, I think, will again result in a Liberal minority. Here is where the opportunists step in. Conservatives will jockey for increased power and position by backing new candidates for opposition, as Harper will be removed. Martin may survive a while longer, but with a new opponent who has the fresh face advantage; Martin will be pressured into stepping down as well. Even if Martin is able to avoid election and Adscam guilt, a new conservative leader is not far off, and once again, the public’s perception shall be the key to the political process. An electorate has attached negative connotations to almost all involved, and the first to “clean house” will seize a major advantage. Either way, Martin’s day in the “reign” darkens even now.

If any of you watch “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart you’ll probably know what my title means. This saying originated from the episode featuring John P. Avlon, an eloquent campaigner of the “centrists”, a group that has lost all political control in the US despite being the majority. This is a sad thing, as extremists are responsible for the take over, and the result is a tug-o-war between two very different view points. The moderate middle gets left behind. It is not too difficult to find reminders of this, for example
this story from DailyKos.

What worries me is in times of importance this process seems almost inevitable, because for every 1 proactive “undecided” you have 100 proactive extremists. The centre just doesn’t care as fanatically as the special-interest groups who will work much harder during these crucial times (i.e. our post-9/11 world).
Consequently, due to the paranoia-drenched culture and the furor kicked up by the Liberal scandal, this fake polarization is taking place in Canada and the middle has lost its voice. Those who are most respectful, tolerant, and insightful are those who can see good in both sides of an issue, so it is precisely those people who need to be able to be heard. I see 2 full-page articles denouncing gay-marriage that have nothing to do with reasoned debate in the same issue of National Post and I wonder where that money came from. Or I see “Librano/Konservative” posters and I know Canadians are better than this. This type of politics leads to division. Respect is what we are known for. Let’s go with that instead; respect, reason and a good dash of not taking ourselves too seriously. The forked road the American political scene is one I do not wish Canadian politics to follow. So let politicians and their pundits hear your shout “Be Reasonable!”, because most of us are.

In the previous post I took a look at numbers from the Ipsos Reid poll from late April that showed Stephen Harper’s polarizing effect. Coupled with the latest numbers showing conservatives and liberals basically tied, what can now be surmised is the fact that while people are mad at the liberals, they do not trust Harper.
The Liberal scandal and corruption should be more than enough fodder for conservatives to translate that into more seats with a possible majority government. What is becoming readily apparent is people do not like the way Harper is using this issue, nor do they like being told how they should feel either. The chance for the tories is slipping away, and Stephen Harper is to blame.
In the past, Harper has accused the Liberal party of engaging in “American Style Politics” where it is quite evident that he himself typifies the american stratagem to vote getting. The former NDP leader Ed Broadbent has recently denounced this brand of politics, a brand he claims is getting more popular. The lack of respect, concentration on the opponent’s negative qualities, the “spin”, etc. etc. etc. is the type of discourse we see daily from Stephen Harper. Granted both sides engage in this, but in Harper we see something more exemplary of American tactics rather than Canadian tactics. They are divisive and harmful politics. This is readily apparent when one looks at the highly polarized and reactionary product the states are left with. I think people would love to have a change, but the type of change that Stephen Harper represents does not reflect the people’s wishes, nor the conservatives as a whole.
From rhetoric unrepresentative of Canadians (i.e. his pro-war speech) and questionable inner circle advisors (i.e. Tom Flanagan, a U.S.-born professor, University of Calgary, known for questionable native policy including assimilation) to placing personal agenda before a nation’s agenda and polarizing political strategy, Stephen Harper may not be the promising leader tories were hoping for. I feel that a change in leadership to someone that can actually represent Canada, and not leave them feeling uneasy, would be the most important step in enabling tories to “clean house”.

Traditionally, even if you’d like to, you don’t vote NDP. Why? Well, an NDP vote is seen as a throw-away vote, it is simply not going to make a real impact. Sure, there are some ridings where this is not the case, where NDP might even be heavily favoured, but on the whole, an NDP vote is nothing more than a gesture. And I think this idea has become fused with the party’s image. The public, the political community, even the NDP itself, take the party somewhat lightly, complacently. NDP perpetuate this image with “kid brother” politics and underdog dialogue (now that rolls off the tongue, I must say). The result, NDP’s power is confined and cyclically renewed as minor. Despite a small resurgence under Layton from the dismal 2000 election, historically, the NDP doesn’t crest past 20% of the vote (I think doing this once, I could be wrong).
Now, however, an unusual and interesting opportunity has presented itself to the NDP. The people are tired. Liberal and conservative options seem like no option at all. The chance to shed the little guy image is now. Why is this?
A recent Ipsos-Reid poll was conducted on the effects of Gomery of voter’s intentions and opinions. Now, the only real conclusion the media could hop was tainted by interests. Conservative sources saw the results of sliding Liberal support. Liberals interpreted, of course, a sympathetic view. What I found interesting was the improved/worsened opinion question of the respective political leaders. Had recent events changed your view on those leaders, in effect? Where it is no surprise that PM’s image took somewhat of a slide, but Harper had interesting results. Opinion of him was split- 27% of people asked improved and 27% thought less of Harper. It would seem people aren’t too keen on Harper’s politics at the moment either. I completely understand. His posturing and rhetoric whisper concern for power, not justice. Whether this is actually the case, this is how he is percieved outside conservative circles. Layton, on the other hand, took a considerable boost. I can see why. Passing a budget that championed NDP politics whilst continuing to focus on the implications of Gomery was a major NDP score. Strong politics and consistency, you have to like that. We see then, while Harper is standing over the people and Paul Martin is begging below, Layton and the NDP come off with somewhat of a newly acquired stride.
So, we approach what seems like an inevitable election. And it is clear the NDP have window of opportunity just gaping for them. To translate that stride into a strong run and outdistance the detrimental image dogging them must be their focus. The question is, “How is this done?”, and “Is Layton strong enough for the job?”

Well, the site works just peachy, so, a little something about my purpose here.
My name is Tommy Eliot Steele. I’m an honours student at U of Manitoba. I enjoy reading, writing and sports. Why the site? Well…I have recently been afflicted with a burgeoning compulsion to weigh in on Canadian issues. So, I’ve got to get in there, and I see no better way than this exciting medium.

I want this site to, in the beginning, focus on politics and related matters (mostly Canadian). As I grow more comfortable and adept at blogging, I hope to evolve into many other areas. However, other intersting topics are certainly open. This site, I hope you will find, is neither left or right. While my views may tend to lean a certain way, another blog devoted specifically to one group over another is hardly needed. Rather, I intend this site to appeal to those who haven’t had reason hijacked by partisan attachments. That isn’t to say fence-sitting is the name of the game, nor will this be a boring and weak forum. I simply want the best here. So, don’t be surprised if I’m strongly critical of persons who “cheer” rather than reason. Spinning just annoys me.

Personally, I have a few reasons to blog. (1)I find debate endlessly entertaining, (2)cogent opinions and well-reasoned views seem hard to come by (and so I move into this larger arena) and (3)debate needs me. You’ll see what I mean.