Politics: Harper's Thinking World Budget

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I've avoided weighing in on the personality of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Chinese meridian-based system that I like to use. I've actually long suspected that he was in the thinking world, but since Canada itself has a thinking-world personality, it could have just been a cultural overlay. I've been fooled about a number of people in that way. However, in light of the Conservative government's budget released today, I'm finally convinced that Harper must indeed be coming from the thinking world, though I still won't commit on a specific personality type within the world.

It's been clear since he came on the political scene in Canada that Harper's strength has been strategy, and not charisma. Some would say he completely lacks charisma. The attention placed on trying to create a more human image for Harper, notably the sweaters of the 2008 election campaign, underline this weakness. Yet, personality theory teaches us that the traits of the "balancing" type are in the "subconscious" of the a given type, and those traits can come out with effort when the individual is healthy. Harper's famous piano performance with Yo-Yo Ma of "With a Little Help from My Friends" demonstrated that he does have an emotional-world performance side that can come out, implying that he does reside in the balancing, thinking world.

The hallmark of the thinking world is that it thinks in terms of the future, often making decisions for the sake of a long-term vision that completely ignore contemporary reality or lessons from the past. While a case could be made that many political decisions Harper has made follow that pattern, seeming to have a tin ear to the opening days of a recession or to the historic importance of the arts in Quebec for example, never has the trend been more clear than in the present budget. Instead of spending money on programs (such as additional stimulus spending or Employment Insurance reform) to ensure that the country exits the recession, instead the bulk of the limited new spending in the budget is designed to grow high-technology businesses to create a stronger economy years down the road. While entrepreneurial students have plenty to be excited about in this focus, the currently-unemployed have something to be upset about. It's not hard to argue that this is the correct long-term strategy for Canada, but if the opposition parties are clever, they will be able to use this against Harper in the short term.

The thinking world is also known for being proactive, which means that sometimes they try to solve problems that don't even exist. Though there are a number of more crassly political possibilities for the move to remove gender-specific language from the national anthem, this could also reflect the proactive, thinking world view. Harper may have created a problem that actually did not exist and tried to solve it.

The good news for Stephen Harper is that the opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff, also seems to hail from the thinking world. The odds that Ignatieff will be able to focus on the present and poke holes in the budget based on the current conditions in a compelling manner seem long. That, in fact, may be part of what the future-looking Harper is counting on, just as much as he is counting on an improving economy.

Politics: What Has Harper Done?

TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the United States, President Obama has gotten a lot of negative press lately for a lack of accomplishments in the office. The epitome of the criticism came nearly two months ago on Saturday Night Live skit, featured in this Fox news report. Fred Armisen as Obama describes his successes as two--jack and squat. However, while Obama may have little to show for his administration to this point, even his opponents would never say that he has been lazy and not trying to advance his agenda. Between the economic collapse, two wars, health care reform, climate change initiatives, and other measures, there is no question what Obama has been trying to do, whether he has accomplished it or not.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been in office far longer than Obama and in fact has been elected twice, in 2006 and 2008. Yet, I cannot think of single significant accomplishment of his government since the 2008 election. A stimulus package was passed, but based on what was happening a year ago (refresh your memory if needed), that only occurred because otherwise the opposition would have toppled his government, not by the government's own initiative. What else? Nothing comes to mind. Go back to the 2006-2008 government, and there are some symbolic domestic measures (declaring Quebec a "nation" and the apology for the native residential schools), but no other notable legislation. It seems to me that far more so than Obama, it is the Harper government that has exactly two accomplishments--jack and squat.

Furthermore, I can't point to what significant legislation the government has even been trying to get through parliament. There's no climate change legislation, or energy policy. There's no change in tax policy. What exactly is this government trying to do? Based on the last publication from my local Member of Parliament, just about everything on the legislative docket is a crime bill of some kind. Liberals claim this is to "scare the public before the next election," but whatever it is, the government itself isn't talking much about it.

It is a major indictment of the opposition Liberals that they have not been able to articulate a vision of doing ANYTHING that might be more popular than the apparent do-nothing stance of the government. It should be easy to build opposition to a government without obvious accomplishments, but they haven't yet done it. Considering how pathetic that is, it is little wonder that the public continues to favor the ruling Conservatives.

For Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, though, the record should be ominous. A government without significant legislation to point to, and no clear articulated vision to advance in the future, can only run on a record of competence and fear of the unknown competence of the opposition. Inevitably, all governments make mistakes and seem incompetent--when that moment comes, the fear seems insignificant. If it continues on its current course, the Harper Conservatives will face such a moment someday--and they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Politics: Nixonian Indeed

OTTAWA, ONTARIO - It's hard not to pass through the epicenter of Canadian politics without paying some attention to recent happenings here. The talk of much of Canada in recent days has been the announcement by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that the budget deficit for 2009 will be $50 billion, a substantial increase since the last official estimate in February, which was $19 billion.

In many ways, I have some sympathy for the current government in general and Jim Flaherty in particular. It is his job (and that of the government as a whole) to be a cheerleader for the economy to encourage people to behave as normally as possible. They have to balance not overstating a deficit--which would cause unnecessary panic in financial circles--and underestimating the deficit by so much that their competence is called into question. Unfortunately, they appear to have taken the latter course and missed the mark so widely that the opposition is rightfully questioning their competence. The general consensus is not that the deficit is necessarily too large in a severe recession--most of those who think that are Conservative supporters anyway--but that the government doesn't seem to have a clue how big it will actually be.

So, the opposition in general and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in particular have been having a field day criticizing the government. The government's reaction has been more than a little odd, increasing their running of attack ads against Ignatieff, many of which focus on his time spent outside of Canada. Besides alienating the substantial number of immigrant voters in Canada, which makes the whole tactic somewhat questionable, this play to patriotism also seems to head straight toward the old adage about patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels. By trying to make the patriotism of the opposition leader an issue, the Conservatives may be marking themselves as scoundrels.

Then there's the recent statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he is happy that Ignatieff is the opposition leader because of the tapes he has of the Liberal. It's not entirely clear what that meant. Ignatieff has responded by calling the statement "Nixonian." Funny, I think accused Harper of being Nixonian in one of my first blog entries. I rather hoped it wouldn't prove to be the case, but now it seems to be an increasingly common opinion.

The Harper government is in a tough position in this economy and I suspect most voters understand and appreciate that. But, missing deficit estimates by nearly a factor of two and not offering much of an explanation while making questionable accusations and implied threats to the opposition is not a good strategy for winning the confidence of voters. The government needs to start trying a new strategy, or their worst fears may be coming in the next election.

Margin Notes: Obama Visit, Presidents, Models

Very large snow flakes fell on Toronto, Ontario on 18-February-2009

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Just when the rains of last week had cleared most of the snow off the ground, guess what showed up? Some of the largest snowflakes I had ever seen were included in the snowfall on Wednesday as pictured above. When it was all over, we had a fresh coating of white. As a consolation prize, freshly-fallen snow is always prettier than old, dirty snow.

* * * * * *

Today, as I walked around the neighborhood, the sun came out while the snow was still falling. While I looked around, I was unable to find a "snowbow."

* * * * * *

The weather was especially miserable on Thursday as United States President Barack Obama made his first foreign trip to Canada's capitol of Ottawa. Fortunately, nothing needed to take place outside. Prime Minister Stephen Harper--who had been almost absent from public view this year--looked very good during his joint press conference with Obama as well as in follow-up media interviews. He appeared to be someone that Canadians could be proud to call their leader. His best line? "When you disagree with the United States, it doesn't matter if you're right or you're wrong, you lose."

* * * * * *

Amazingly, though, no less than National Public Radio managed to get Prime Minister Harper's name incorrect that day. During an hourly update at 15:00 Eastern, the NPR news announcer stated that "Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Hadley." Hadley, by the way, was a National Security adviser to President Bush.

* * * * * *

While most of the media attention on the visit focused on the meeting with Harper, the more significant meeting may have been that between Obama and Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean. This was the first meeting between black heads of state of the two countries. Also of note was that Obama reportedly had a constructive meeting with opposition leader Michael Ignatieff.

* * * * * *

The best quote I heard surrounding the Obama visit to Canada was a wag who noted that the biggest security threat was that "Obama might be crushed by an enormous group hug."

* * * * * *

Between the US President's Day holiday and the Obama visit, it seemed like Shopper's Drug Mart had presidential envy this week. Their advertising this week touted a "Presidential Sale." Sure, they tried to claim that it was about special deals with the presidents of the companies making the various products that were on sale. I think their advertising agency had something entirely different in mind.

* * * * * *

The way the economy is going, Shopper's Drug Mart might soon need much deeper discounts. In a piece about Family Dollar stores on National Public Radio's All Things Considered this week, Target was referred to as a "high-end retailer." Last I checked, Tiffany's was a high-end retailer, not Target. If Target is high-end, only dollar stores must count as a normal retailers now!

* * * * * *


The engine facility at East Davidson on the O-scale Model Railroad Club of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario was viewed during a public show on 22-February-2009

I thought I must be going to a high-end train show when I saw that the Model Railroad Club of Toronto was charging $8 adult admission to their show. Perhaps it wasn't a bargain, but considering how impressive this 62 year old, 7000 square foot model railroad was in person, I wasn't complaining. There will be more on the Model Railroad Club of Toronto in future posts.

Philosophy: Glitch's Razor

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I violated one of my strongest personal principles in my Friday post on the Fiscal Update Crisis in Canada. I tried to create a case for a conspiracy within the Conservative Party. This was a violation of what for lack of a better name I'll call Glitch's Razor: Never blame on a conspiracy what can be blamed on simple incompetence.

Pretty much everyone has heard of Occam's Razor. While more formal treatments and even Wikipedia explain how the modern interpretation of it is not strictly accurate, in modern North American culture it can be summarized as "the simplest explanation is usually the best." Sometimes it is even equated with the KISS principle--Keep It Simple, Stupid. I personally always liked the wording that is apparently common in medical school, "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras."

Glitch's Razor is a corollary of Occam's Razor, postulating that incompetence is a simpler explanation for a low-probability event than a conspiracy, and thus in applying Occam's Razor, the explanation involving incompetence would be expected to be correct. Even under more rigorous views of Occam's Razor, Glitch's Razor would still follow, as it is about ignoring superfluous portions of an explanation (the conspiracy, which by definition involves at least a small group people if not a large one) when the core explanation (incompetence, often of only one person or perhaps a small group of people) is all that is needed.

It seems such an obvious corollary that I am surprised it does not appear to have ever been named. Clearly, thousands of people have had the same thought, and the similar wording "never suspect conspiracy when incompetence can achieve the same result" appears in many counter-arguments to conspiracy theories. If anyone knows of a citation of the origin of this thought, I will be happy to quit calling it Glitch's Razor, as it is far from my original thought.

As a principle, Glitch's Razor applies throughout one's life. In a number of work situations, I have used it to accurately predict the behavior of remote management. Once, my immediate supervisor was convinced that he was to be fired because of a string of events that he took as directed at him personally. Applying Glitch's Razor, I predicted that the events just showed a lack of understanding by the remote management team--basically, incompetence in managing our site, not a conspiracy against the site or my boss in particular. While I was right on that point, the same incompetence detected by Glitch's Razor eventually caused the whole site to be closed in an ill-advised manner.

Do you think your bank is out to get you? More likely, their programmers didn't test their own software adequately. Do you think the government is trying to bankrupt you? More likely, they can't understand and administer their own taxation laws. Was there a conspiracy to make your train late? More likely, a maintenance or operations employee didn't perform some task, and the train was delayed enroute as a result.

Obviously, Glitch's Razor applies in politics, even in Machiavellian politics. Even people that are trying to put something past their rivals or the populace can mess things up. Perhaps the best recent example occurred in Washington state, where professional initiative organizer Tim Eyman simply wrote Initiative 985 poorly. There was no big, successful conspiracy ganging up on him--people just didn't like the initiative.

So that brings us back to what has happened since last Thursday in Canadian politics. It is entirely possible that the Conservative over-reaching in the Financial Update was strictly incompetence by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He could have misjudged the reaction that would come from the opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Party. By Glitch's Razor, the possibility of incompetence is more likely than a conspiracy within the Conservative Party.

I still have a hard time believing that Stephen Harper is actually that incompetent. But, in the absence of evidence for an alternate narrative, it is an explanation that probably should be accepted, at least if I really believe in my own Razor.

Politics: It's the Canadian Economy, Stupid

TORONTO, ONTARIO - It can't be a surprise to Stephen Harper. When the Prime Minister requested that the Governor General dissolve the government and call an election on September 7th, he had to see what was coming. A string of disturbing financial news has shifted the campaign to one focused on the Canadian economy--and so far, that appears to be hurting Harper.

For the longest time, the current Canadian election seemed like a "Seinfeld" election, an election about nothing. Nobody saw a compelling reason for calling the election, dismissing the Conservative line that they wanted a renewed mandate. The national polls had been essentially stagnant for weeks, with the Conservatives polling in the upper-30% range, the Liberals in the upper-20% range, the NDP in the upper teens, and the Bloc and the Greens trying to break 10%. While the Liberals and the Greens tended to talk most about the environment, no issue was really catching fire anywhere, except maybe for the current government's arts cuts curtailing their prospects in the province of Quebec.

Yet, the economic situation was building up. While the August employment figures were spun as positive by the government, the unemployment rate stayed at 6.1% and the 15,200 jobs added that month only partially offset the more than 55,000 that had been lost the month before. As the price of oil started to flow downward after a spike caused by Hurricane Ike in mid-September, so did the value of the Canadian dollar. Today, it closed below 90 US cents for the first time since May 2007.

The real damage, though, would come from the United States. As Canadians watched the drama of Congress trying to pass a "rescue" package, stock markets were falling, and the Canadian exchanges went right along for the fall. The most-watched S&P/TSX index, which had been over 15,000 in June, dropped below 10,000 yesterday, and just regained that benchmark today. Canadians have watched the value of stock investments decline by as much as one-third from their peak.

Stephen Harper has tried to campaign as the safe choice for the economic future, that the Conservatives would continue competent management of the economy, whereas all of the left-leaning parties would introduce "risky" environmental measures that would have an unknown impact on the economy. That strategy was largely viewed as credible--and seemed to be working--before the public perceived the economy to be falling apart.

Now, the specter of the Bush administration looms large. As late as July, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulsen stated that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac "remain adequately capitalized." In September, he effectively took them over to prevent their collapse. As late as March, he used the word "fine" in referring to the broader economy. In September, he was asking Congress for $700 billion to restore liquidity. Suddenly, saying everything was fine--even in a country that actually has regulations in place--no longer seemed credible.

The other parties are now portraying Harper as just like Bush, not wanting to take action until there is a crisis. The aura of inaction may have been best symbolized by the first item on This Hour Has 22 Minutes in the 7-October-2008 episode. Harper takes essentially no action as a young supporter faints behind him during an event. Some wags have nicknamed that supporter "Economy."

Now, the race suddenly seems dynamic. Polls show the Conservatives falling in the national polls and the Liberals rising. The NDP also seems to be gaining at the same time--the first time the Liberals and the NDP have both seemed on the rise in this race. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion started using the line "It's the Economy, Stephen" back on 25-September, echoing the slogan of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign in the United States. Indeed, in the election that had been the "Seinfeld" election, it's now the Canadian economy, stupid.

Margin Notes: Elections, One World, Guilt

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I thought I heard a quote on the CBC's The World This Weekend on Saturday night that might have been taken out of context, so I looked it up. Also according to the Toronto Star and others, Stephen Harper really did say “What we know about voting patterns across the country generally is that less and less people you know kind of vote for their grandfathers, right? They basically vote on what they think their needs are and how they think the parties are responding in this election.” Granted, he was speaking descriptively rather than prescriptively, but he's saying that voters are becoming more individualistic and selfish and are not only not thinking less about society, but less about even their other family members. Doesn't he think there's anything wrong with that?!? What about voting for the sake of one's children and grandchildren? Canadians, keep thinking for the good of society, and not narrow selfish wishes--dare I say it--like Americans!

* * * * * *

In the vice-presidential debate in the United States on Thursday night, many people couldn't help but notice that Republican Sarah Palin's body language--especially all the winking she was doing--was straight out of a beauty pageant. In fact, Palin's background as Miss Wasilla and runner-up to Miss Alaska in 1984 seems to surface fairly regularly. Why did she give virtually non-sense answers to Kate Couric during the now-infamous interview, and appear to have more confidence than content during the debate? Beauty pageant contestants are rewarded for keeping their poise in all circumstances and saying something, even if there isn't much content behind it. Basically, beauty pageant contestants are rewarded for spin--and Sarah Palin learned her lessons from those experiences, perhaps too well. It seems that she can't transition from beauty contestant to substantive politician on the national stage.

* * * * * *

I have contemplated if there is anything significant about the fact that John McCain has surrounded himself with "Beauty Queens" in the form of his wife Cindy and running mate Sarah Palin. While Palin may not be rising above her past, Cindy McCain most certainly is a woman of substance--whether I agree with her views or not--so I'm not certain that it says much about John McCain. I think he fits right in with many Americans and their emphasis on appearance.

* * * * * *

On last weekend's God Talk on San Francisco's KGO Newstalk 810, host Brent Walters stated that contrary to some teachings, "In all western traditions, God never deals through guilt; God only deals through encouragement... Guilt only cripples us." One doesn't need to have religious faith to recognize the truth in the latter sentence.

* * * * * *

For those that aren't familiar with Paul Harvey's "This Is Not One World" features on the radio, he includes them in his commentary broadcasts in an attempt to demonstrate that the United States is better than the rest of the world. Often, they are bizarre interpretations of news stories, to the extent that I've long-felt some counter-point was needed, because like it or not, there is only planet for all of us and there are more ways in which we are all similar than different.

In the "This Is One World" Department: The Christian Science Monitor quotes Ozlem Sandikci of Bilkent University as stating that "Across the Muslim world, there are numerous signs that Ramadan... is transforming from a religious month to a cultural and commercial holiday." In an article focusing on Turkey's Ramadan fast-breaking Iftar dinners, Monitor correspondent Yigal Schleifer notes that they are resembling "gala events" instead of religious ceremonies. I hope they don't invite Stephen Harper...

Politics: Nixonian Stephen Harper

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Earlier this month, columnist Paul Krugman received considerable attention in the United States for a piece in the New York Times, echoing historian Rick Perlstein's book “Nixonland,” claiming that Republican politics in the United States had been exploiting the resentments and fears of voters toward various other Americans ever since Richard Nixon came onto the scene. George W. Bush's anti-intellectual, anti-elitist, anti-government campaigns, so effective against both Al Gore and John Kerry, could be directly traced to Nixon's establishment of the "Orthogonians" at Whittier College to counter the Franklin Society that had rejected him.

Any doubt that Conservative Party of Canada leader Stephen Harper had learned from the Republican tactic should have been dispelled this week. Yesterday, Harper defended his controversial recent cut of $45 million in arts funding by saying that "ordinary Canadians" did not appreciate people attending "rich galas" (Harper felt the need to repeat the word "rich" throughout the speech) complaining about the loss of subsidies. He also stated that "cultural funding" had increased under his government.

On that final point, Harper is technically correct. Government spending on "culture" has increased under his administration. The problem with the statement is that "culture" is quite broadly defined in official terms. It includes institutions such as the CBC and other government funding of the media, and sports funding. Most Canadians would probably agree that hockey and curling count as culture. However, the increases in "culture" funding have mostly been directed at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, in the realm of sports, and into "new media" ventures in the media. Funding for items that would be considered "arts" has gone down modestly, though even the CBC has had trouble pinning down the exact amount.

Skepticism of the Conservative government on arts spending has been largely driven by a provision of Bill C-10 from the recent parliament, which gave the Heritage Minister the right to refuse tax credits for a project deemed "offensive or not in the public interest"--after the completion of the project. C-10 was expected to lead to considerable self-censorship amongst artists out of fear of losing the tax credit. The passage of C-10 in the House of Commons led many artists to turn against the Harper government, and Harper's recent comments seem to reinforce the impression that the Conservatives are not interested in maintaining the current arts atmosphere in Canada.

Backlash against C-10 and Harper's recent comments seems to building, especially in Quebec. A popular and hilarious You Tube video (the linked version has English subtitles) paints the Conservative government as hopelessly unable to understand Quebecois culture. If any resentment is incited in Quebec, it may be against the Conservatives.

The use of resentment seems to have become a real theme of the Conservative campaign. About two weeks ago, I received campaign mail that stated "Why should thugs, drug dealers, and sexual offenders serve their sentences at home watching TV, playing video games, and surfing...the Internet? They shouldn't. The Conservative Government Supports Ending House Arrest for Serious Offences." Yesterday, Harper himself started making this case in his speeches, apparently an attempt to make people resent certain criminals for having an easy lifestyle. It turns out that only 11,000 people nationwide are in house arrest, most of them in transition to release after having served much of their sentences in jail. Putting all of them in jail would not be likely to have any actual impact in the discouragement of crime. Thus, the point of the campaign is clearly more symbolic. At some level, building resentment against criminals may be preferable to inciting fear in the electorate. In this case, the campaign tactic chosen to sell the policy seems to be more revealing of the candidate than the substance of the policy.

Harper's Nixonian tactics have not been limited to the incitement of resentment. Nixon was well-known for using coarse language, especially in private, and Harper has taken to using surprisingly coarse language during this campaign. Referring to the Liberals' "Green Shift" environmental proposal, he has talked about the "Green Shaft" and stated that it will "screw everybody across the country." Whether intended as a sexual or carpentry reference, that's quite colloquial and graphic language to be using in a Canadian political campaign, and he's repeated it often enough that it can't be passed off as an off-the-cuff remark. That's the language Harper apparently wants associated with his campaign.

While a case could be made that there has been a shade of anti-elitism in American politics ever since the Declaration of Independence, Nixon and Republican strategists right through to George W. Bush's Karl Rove have taken it to new levels, creating a division in the electorate that has resulted in the deep "blue and red America" divide that has made centrist politics almost impossible to practice in the United States. In contrast, Canada has no such long-standing tradition, and the two largest political parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, have traditionally tried to claim--and govern from--the political center. Canadians from all political stripes still talk to one another and seem to prefer centrist policies.

Many Canadians have found Stephen Harper to be a competent and centrist Prime Minister, as reflected in his positive leadership poll numbers. There seems to be far more to question in his campaign tactics than in his actual policies. The channeling of Richard Nixon by Harper should be closely examined by everyone in Canada, starting with Stephen Harper. One look down south should show where it could be taking Canada, and I don't believe that even Stephen Harper wants to end up with the divisions that exist in the US electorate.