TORONTO, ONTARIO - This week's quality radio pick comes from CBC Radio One's Quirks and Quarks.
With elections looming in the United States and Canada, it was hard to avoid a political feature, but an unexpected one stood out. Dr. James Fowler, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California-San Diego, described how political thoughts and activities may have a genetic component, in this nine-minute segment.
Listen to streaming MP3 of Quirks and Quarks "The Biology of Ideology"
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Politics: In Thinking-World Canada
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In a previous post, the impact of the "emotional" world culture of the United States on its politics was discussed, creating an atmosphere in which feelings and image matter more than facts or logic. Canada, while of course still showing great regional variation, has on average a "thinking" world perspective, and thus ideas and debate tend to be more important in political campaigns.
As the moniker implies, the "thinking" world operates mostly in the realm of ideas. Various specific types within the world like to combine ideas, debate them, become experts in them, and expand them. The debating strain is strongest in Canada--culturally, the tendency here is to get all the ideas out on the table here, whether appropriate or not, thoroughly understand them and discuss their merits, and then make a decision on how to proceed.
Note that this is not the same thing as applying logic. The "thinking" world likes to jump from one idea to another, seeing connections that may or may not actually exist. There's no need to go from "A" to "B" to "C" to "D"; the "thinking" world can jump from "A" to "D". It takes an analytical approach, as opposed to a logical approach.
The idea focus shows itself in the focus on party platforms. Whereas in the US, the charisma of the Party Leaders would likely be most important, here the focus of the campaigns tends to be on the party platforms, whether involving big ideas like the Liberals' "Green Shift" or NDP calls to ban private health care, or comparatively small ideas like arts budgets. The initial part of the campaign saw a lot of focus on gaffes by the candidates, but this did not attract much attention. Instead, it was arts funding in Quebec and the economy that started to get "thinking culture" people interested.
One of the defining characteristics of the "thinking" world is that it looks to the future (as opposed to the present or the past), generally with a vision. It's not a coincidence that Canada achieved universal health care in 1966, while the United States still hasn't achieved that. In the last half-century or so in Canada, the vision has been a multi-cultural one that has been solidified with immigration policy and cultural funding. The downside of all the forward-looking is that long-outstanding issues tend to be ignored. Quebec separatism is powerful enough that it periodically rises to be noticed, but it took until the current Harper government for even an apology to be issued for Indian Residential Schools and the Chinese Head Tax. The forward-looking even appears in the Liberal Green Shift proposal in the present campaign--it's more about long-term climate change and creating a long-term healthier economy, and does not address (in any direct way) the present economic crisis.
All this is not to say that image and feelings are unimportant in a Canadian campaign. The "thinking" world is attracted to the "emotional" world, so emotional trappings can garner attention and bring out the subconscious of the voters. But, they are also a foreign language of sorts, especially to the current crop of party leaders. In the current electoral environment, which pundits claim as being characterized by a desire for empathy, none of the candidates manage to do it. Andrew Coyne, on CBC Television's "The National", pointed out that Jack Layton's NDP message may resonate with the desire for empathy, but not because of any feeling or image created by Layton, but by the inherent platform of the party which has been in place for years.
So what does all this mean to Tuesday's election? All four parties have plenty of contrasting ideas. Despite nearly two years of a Conservative government and the current perceived economic crisis (perhaps tempered by news that Canadian banks have been listed as the most stable in the world and job numbers in September showing substantial part-time job growth), the polls would seem to indicate that Canadians pretty much identify with the same ideas they did in early 2006. It will be interesting to see if they vote that way on Tuesday.
As the moniker implies, the "thinking" world operates mostly in the realm of ideas. Various specific types within the world like to combine ideas, debate them, become experts in them, and expand them. The debating strain is strongest in Canada--culturally, the tendency here is to get all the ideas out on the table here, whether appropriate or not, thoroughly understand them and discuss their merits, and then make a decision on how to proceed.
Note that this is not the same thing as applying logic. The "thinking" world likes to jump from one idea to another, seeing connections that may or may not actually exist. There's no need to go from "A" to "B" to "C" to "D"; the "thinking" world can jump from "A" to "D". It takes an analytical approach, as opposed to a logical approach.
The idea focus shows itself in the focus on party platforms. Whereas in the US, the charisma of the Party Leaders would likely be most important, here the focus of the campaigns tends to be on the party platforms, whether involving big ideas like the Liberals' "Green Shift" or NDP calls to ban private health care, or comparatively small ideas like arts budgets. The initial part of the campaign saw a lot of focus on gaffes by the candidates, but this did not attract much attention. Instead, it was arts funding in Quebec and the economy that started to get "thinking culture" people interested.
One of the defining characteristics of the "thinking" world is that it looks to the future (as opposed to the present or the past), generally with a vision. It's not a coincidence that Canada achieved universal health care in 1966, while the United States still hasn't achieved that. In the last half-century or so in Canada, the vision has been a multi-cultural one that has been solidified with immigration policy and cultural funding. The downside of all the forward-looking is that long-outstanding issues tend to be ignored. Quebec separatism is powerful enough that it periodically rises to be noticed, but it took until the current Harper government for even an apology to be issued for Indian Residential Schools and the Chinese Head Tax. The forward-looking even appears in the Liberal Green Shift proposal in the present campaign--it's more about long-term climate change and creating a long-term healthier economy, and does not address (in any direct way) the present economic crisis.
All this is not to say that image and feelings are unimportant in a Canadian campaign. The "thinking" world is attracted to the "emotional" world, so emotional trappings can garner attention and bring out the subconscious of the voters. But, they are also a foreign language of sorts, especially to the current crop of party leaders. In the current electoral environment, which pundits claim as being characterized by a desire for empathy, none of the candidates manage to do it. Andrew Coyne, on CBC Television's "The National", pointed out that Jack Layton's NDP message may resonate with the desire for empathy, but not because of any feeling or image created by Layton, but by the inherent platform of the party which has been in place for years.
So what does all this mean to Tuesday's election? All four parties have plenty of contrasting ideas. Despite nearly two years of a Conservative government and the current perceived economic crisis (perhaps tempered by news that Canadian banks have been listed as the most stable in the world and job numbers in September showing substantial part-time job growth), the polls would seem to indicate that Canadians pretty much identify with the same ideas they did in early 2006. It will be interesting to see if they vote that way on Tuesday.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Politics: Regionalism Danger?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Perhaps Canadians are a bit touchy about the subject matter because of the history of Quebec separatism, but just a couple weeks ago there seemed to be the distinct possibility of the current election having very regional results that might have again placed national unity in question.
Many have viewed Canada as only having two national parties in this century, the Conservatives and Liberals. The Bloc Québécois for obvious reasons (as a nationalist party) only existed in Quebec, the NDP might be all over English Canada but had no electoral success in Quebec, and no other party looked like a serious contender for a seat in any riding.
Before this election was called, it looked like there might be four national parties. The NDP had finally elected someone in Quebec, Thomas Mulcair in the Montreal riding of Outremont, and was positioning itself as a truly national party. The Green party had a convert in parliament, in British Columbia's Blair Wilson, and party leader Elizabeth May had a high media profile and was inching her party's national numbers up toward 10%. Meanwhile in Quebec, the ultimate regional party, the Bloc, seemed to be in retreat, and the bizarre series of events in May 2007 in which Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe was running for the leadership of the provincial Parti Québécois one day, and not running the next seemed to symbolize the disarray. Some even thought the Bloc might be disappearing.
Then, after a few weeks of campaigning, all of the sudden the trends all seemed to turn back to regionalism. Far from being a dead party, the Bloc gained traction claiming that they were the only way to stop a Conservative majority and its perceived anti-arts agenda. The NDP started looking like a regional Vancouver-area party (never mind its Ontario incumbents) as the Liberals reeled from the effects of a provincial carbon tax in British Columbia. And, the Liberals were being treated as a non-factor except around Montreal in Quebec and in retreat in so much of the country that some whispered that it might be reduced to an essentially Ontario-only party. Add to all that speculation some wild rumors that the Greens were making serious inroads in the Maritimes, and all of the sudden there was the specter of a NDP British Columbia, Conservative Prairies, Liberal Ontario, Bloc Quebec, and Green Atlantic Canada.
One of the criticisms of the current Conservative government has been that it has trouble representing the whole country because of its relative lack of seats in certain areas, most notably Quebec. Some blamed the whole Maxim Bernier scandal on the Conservatives trying to make an under-qualified Member of Parliament take on too prominent of a role in an attempt to better represent Quebec. If all parties had only regional bases, it would be almost impossible to form even a coalition government that truly represented the whole country--since even that coalition would leave everyone else out.
Of course, as more polling data comes out, the absurdity of that whole thesis is becoming clear. The Greens may not win a single seat, as one poll has now shown even party leader Elizabeth May in third place in her Central Nova riding. The NDP may be getting all the positive publicity in BC, but ElectionPrediction.org shows the Liberals hanging on to at least three seats, and probably closer to ten. Furthermore, it's even possible that the Liberals will have as many seats as the Conservatives in Quebec--ElectionPrediction.org shows them with ten clear ridings as of today.
The real story of this campaign seems not to be regionalism, but a step toward John Duffy's thesis of a urban-rural divide discussed previously. The Conservatives, if they make any gains at all, will likely do so in rural areas, and the NDP looks to hold onto and perhaps add to its urban successes across the nation.
Of course, there's still a few days left for things to swing back toward regionalism again.
Many have viewed Canada as only having two national parties in this century, the Conservatives and Liberals. The Bloc Québécois for obvious reasons (as a nationalist party) only existed in Quebec, the NDP might be all over English Canada but had no electoral success in Quebec, and no other party looked like a serious contender for a seat in any riding.
Before this election was called, it looked like there might be four national parties. The NDP had finally elected someone in Quebec, Thomas Mulcair in the Montreal riding of Outremont, and was positioning itself as a truly national party. The Green party had a convert in parliament, in British Columbia's Blair Wilson, and party leader Elizabeth May had a high media profile and was inching her party's national numbers up toward 10%. Meanwhile in Quebec, the ultimate regional party, the Bloc, seemed to be in retreat, and the bizarre series of events in May 2007 in which Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe was running for the leadership of the provincial Parti Québécois one day, and not running the next seemed to symbolize the disarray. Some even thought the Bloc might be disappearing.
Then, after a few weeks of campaigning, all of the sudden the trends all seemed to turn back to regionalism. Far from being a dead party, the Bloc gained traction claiming that they were the only way to stop a Conservative majority and its perceived anti-arts agenda. The NDP started looking like a regional Vancouver-area party (never mind its Ontario incumbents) as the Liberals reeled from the effects of a provincial carbon tax in British Columbia. And, the Liberals were being treated as a non-factor except around Montreal in Quebec and in retreat in so much of the country that some whispered that it might be reduced to an essentially Ontario-only party. Add to all that speculation some wild rumors that the Greens were making serious inroads in the Maritimes, and all of the sudden there was the specter of a NDP British Columbia, Conservative Prairies, Liberal Ontario, Bloc Quebec, and Green Atlantic Canada.
One of the criticisms of the current Conservative government has been that it has trouble representing the whole country because of its relative lack of seats in certain areas, most notably Quebec. Some blamed the whole Maxim Bernier scandal on the Conservatives trying to make an under-qualified Member of Parliament take on too prominent of a role in an attempt to better represent Quebec. If all parties had only regional bases, it would be almost impossible to form even a coalition government that truly represented the whole country--since even that coalition would leave everyone else out.
Of course, as more polling data comes out, the absurdity of that whole thesis is becoming clear. The Greens may not win a single seat, as one poll has now shown even party leader Elizabeth May in third place in her Central Nova riding. The NDP may be getting all the positive publicity in BC, but ElectionPrediction.org shows the Liberals hanging on to at least three seats, and probably closer to ten. Furthermore, it's even possible that the Liberals will have as many seats as the Conservatives in Quebec--ElectionPrediction.org shows them with ten clear ridings as of today.
The real story of this campaign seems not to be regionalism, but a step toward John Duffy's thesis of a urban-rural divide discussed previously. The Conservatives, if they make any gains at all, will likely do so in rural areas, and the NDP looks to hold onto and perhaps add to its urban successes across the nation.
Of course, there's still a few days left for things to swing back toward regionalism again.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Politics: Predictions? No Clue
TORONTO, ONTARIO - A striking difference between the ongoing elections in the United States and Canada is the quality and availability of the polling data available. While I will be the first to dismiss poll results in favor of the one poll that really matters, the net impact is that US citizens have a much better idea how their election, four weeks away, is going to turn out that Canadian citizens do about their election, just one week away.
The proliferation of web sites providing meaningful polling information in the United States is rather stunning. Individual pollsters have their own sites, and then there are aggregation sites like Electoral-Vote.com and Real Clear Politics; my personal favorite is the left-leaning FiveThirtyEight.com, a reference to the total number of electoral votes in the presidential election. The "Super Tracker" in the right-hand column of FiveThirtyEight.com summarizes quite well the long story of the election and Obama's presently-widening lead.
Of course, the Presidential race, even if viewed as about fifty separate races (Maine and Nebraska's apportionment of electoral votes in a non-winner-take-all fashion make it more than just 51) is not really the correct analogy for Canada's parliamentary election, which is really 308 separate elections in individual ridings. The closer analogy in the United States is the election of the House of Representatives, with 435 separate races. Granted, part of the difference is that political gerrymandering and the power of incumbency mean that most of those seats are quite safe, but even for the House, there are fairly predictive polls. Real Clear Politics considers only 50 of 435 races worth watching, and only 17 of those as toss-ups--indicating a certain majority for the Democrats. Electoral-Vote.com similarly picked only 59 races worth tracking. ElectionProjection.com projects 246 seats for the Democrats when only 218 are required for control. Short of enormous change in the political atmosphere, US citizens already who will likely control Congress.
In contrast, Canadian polls tend to track party preference over the entire country, such as the well-known NoDice.ca poll aggregator. This is a nearly meaningless metric, as even at the provincial level (much less the riding level) the only party that actually has somewhat even support is the Green Party at 10% across the nation. While it would be surprising if the first-place party in this kind of poll did not form the government, it does little to say if that party will form a majority or not, which seems to be the biggest question for pundits in this election.
A few sources do try to look at what really matters--the results, riding by riding. Probably the best of these is at ElectionPrediction.org, which of as today is projecting 118 Conservative seats, 71 Liberal, 37 Bloc Quebecois, 26 NDP, and independents Bill Casey and Jean Paradis hanging on to their seats. But, they show 54 seats as too close to call--enough to give the Conservatives a clear majority, or (much less likely) give the Liberals a plurality and hence minority government.
People who wish to put their money behind predictions can participate in the University of British Columbia's Election Stock Market. While the raw party numbers there look much like the actual polls, they have an interesting market in who will form a majority--and as of today, 80% of investors (and rising) think there will be another minority government, and only about 20% are betting on a Conservative majority.
The bottom line is that those who would like to tell the public what is going to happen on Tuesday don't have an especially clear idea, unlike in the United States. There is ample incentive, particularly for those in the 45 key ridings and others with less-expectedly close races to get out and help your favorite candidate. Certainly, there is ample reason to get out and vote next Tuesday.
The proliferation of web sites providing meaningful polling information in the United States is rather stunning. Individual pollsters have their own sites, and then there are aggregation sites like Electoral-Vote.com and Real Clear Politics; my personal favorite is the left-leaning FiveThirtyEight.com, a reference to the total number of electoral votes in the presidential election. The "Super Tracker" in the right-hand column of FiveThirtyEight.com summarizes quite well the long story of the election and Obama's presently-widening lead.
Of course, the Presidential race, even if viewed as about fifty separate races (Maine and Nebraska's apportionment of electoral votes in a non-winner-take-all fashion make it more than just 51) is not really the correct analogy for Canada's parliamentary election, which is really 308 separate elections in individual ridings. The closer analogy in the United States is the election of the House of Representatives, with 435 separate races. Granted, part of the difference is that political gerrymandering and the power of incumbency mean that most of those seats are quite safe, but even for the House, there are fairly predictive polls. Real Clear Politics considers only 50 of 435 races worth watching, and only 17 of those as toss-ups--indicating a certain majority for the Democrats. Electoral-Vote.com similarly picked only 59 races worth tracking. ElectionProjection.com projects 246 seats for the Democrats when only 218 are required for control. Short of enormous change in the political atmosphere, US citizens already who will likely control Congress.
In contrast, Canadian polls tend to track party preference over the entire country, such as the well-known NoDice.ca poll aggregator. This is a nearly meaningless metric, as even at the provincial level (much less the riding level) the only party that actually has somewhat even support is the Green Party at 10% across the nation. While it would be surprising if the first-place party in this kind of poll did not form the government, it does little to say if that party will form a majority or not, which seems to be the biggest question for pundits in this election.
A few sources do try to look at what really matters--the results, riding by riding. Probably the best of these is at ElectionPrediction.org, which of as today is projecting 118 Conservative seats, 71 Liberal, 37 Bloc Quebecois, 26 NDP, and independents Bill Casey and Jean Paradis hanging on to their seats. But, they show 54 seats as too close to call--enough to give the Conservatives a clear majority, or (much less likely) give the Liberals a plurality and hence minority government.
People who wish to put their money behind predictions can participate in the University of British Columbia's Election Stock Market. While the raw party numbers there look much like the actual polls, they have an interesting market in who will form a majority--and as of today, 80% of investors (and rising) think there will be another minority government, and only about 20% are betting on a Conservative majority.
The bottom line is that those who would like to tell the public what is going to happen on Tuesday don't have an especially clear idea, unlike in the United States. There is ample incentive, particularly for those in the 45 key ridings and others with less-expectedly close races to get out and help your favorite candidate. Certainly, there is ample reason to get out and vote next Tuesday.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Politics: Liberal Horses
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the 30-September-2008 episode of the CBC Television satire show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", comedian Geri Hall made fun of an apparent demographic focus by the Conservatives on single women by "chasing after" Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. I doubt Harper was harmed or helped by the encounter; he looked modestly stiff (this is Stephen Harper, after all) and upon prodding did play along with the joke by speaking in a robotic voice. On the other hand, I suspect Dion might have been helped somewhat by the piece, in which he donned sunglasses and a leather jacket and stated "Hasta la vista, Stephen." While his earnestness certainly wasn't hidden, he seemed to be enjoying the whole thing--indeed, having fun with it--a lot more than Harper, counter to the professor stereotype with which he has been saddled. Once more, the thought went through my mind--why won't the Liberals rally behind this man?
Ever since the December 2006 Liberal Party convention at which he unexpectedly was elected party leader over favorites Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, Dion has had trouble unifying the party. Despite placing his rivals in prominent positions within the party, there have been persistent stories of Rae and Ignatieff supporters undermining his leadership. The Conservatives capitalized on his perceived weak position and his relative difficulty with the English language with an advertising campaign that has left the image of a shrugging, ineffective Dion burned in the public mind. On any call-in talk show talking about the Federal election, there will be at least one caller saying, "Dion just isn't a leader."
The image seems to stand in contrast to the Dion that has appeared publicly during the campaign. During both the French and English language debates, Dion made strong debating points, threw significant accusations at Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, and seemed little like his professorial image. In most polls, he "won" the French debate. His opinions tend to be quite forward-looking, yet are not devoid of immediate political concerns--comments on my previous post on electoral reform revealed that Dion has actually supported an intellectually superior system, but seems to be talking about a lesser reform for political reasons. In interviews across the country, he has demonstrated a deep grasp of issues, whether one agreed with his opinions or not--and presumably, almost all Liberals do agree.
Recently, I asked my barber to explain to why Dion had such trouble getting respect. "I'll tell you what's wrong with Dion," he said. "There were two stallions running for election, and a bunch of ponies. The stallions were so focused on each other, that they didn't notice the ponies getting together and electing a pony. Dion is that pony; he is not a stallion."
It would be one thing for the Liberals to abandon Dion if a clear successor "stallion" was waiting in the wings. Some may feel otherwise, but I don't see one. Rae, who had finished second in the original ballot in the 2006 convention, has the burden of his record as NDP Premier of Ontario in the 1990's. One of the first things I learned about upon moving to the province was "Rae Days," an austerity measure in which public employees were given ten unpaid days off per year. To this day, Rae is ridiculed for that and other actions as premier. With a worst-case scenario in this election in which the Liberals may have few seats outside of Ontario, having a party leader with fundamental issues growing a coalition in the party's remaining stronghold could conceivably be a near death-knell for the Federal party that many delegates would likely try to avoid.
Current Deputy Leader and leader on the first-round ballot in 2006, Michael Ignatieff may not have any such political baggage, but he may not even be re-elected to parliament. In his Etobicoke—Lakeshore riding, just across the Humber River from my residence, Conservative Patrick Boyer is making an issue of the fact that Ignatieff lives in Yorkville instead of the riding and by my observation is winning the lawn sign game.
Fourth-place finisher Gerard Kennedy, currently running as the Liberal candidate in my own riding of Parkdale-High Park, is far from guaranteed to win election himself as he has taken on popular NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. Even if he does pull out a victory, he faces the same Rae and Ignatieff forces that have undermined Dion, as he is ideologically similar to Dion, with only the added advantages of native English speaking and a lack of political baggage in Quebec. Similarly, any other candidate will face the same Rae and Ignatieff forces that have so weakened Dion.
So, in my opinion, there is no clear "stallion" out there to take over. And, in the absence of such a figure, I don't understand why any Liberal would want Dion to falter. Then again, I'm not a Liberal, and maybe that's why I don't understand.
Ever since the December 2006 Liberal Party convention at which he unexpectedly was elected party leader over favorites Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, Dion has had trouble unifying the party. Despite placing his rivals in prominent positions within the party, there have been persistent stories of Rae and Ignatieff supporters undermining his leadership. The Conservatives capitalized on his perceived weak position and his relative difficulty with the English language with an advertising campaign that has left the image of a shrugging, ineffective Dion burned in the public mind. On any call-in talk show talking about the Federal election, there will be at least one caller saying, "Dion just isn't a leader."
The image seems to stand in contrast to the Dion that has appeared publicly during the campaign. During both the French and English language debates, Dion made strong debating points, threw significant accusations at Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, and seemed little like his professorial image. In most polls, he "won" the French debate. His opinions tend to be quite forward-looking, yet are not devoid of immediate political concerns--comments on my previous post on electoral reform revealed that Dion has actually supported an intellectually superior system, but seems to be talking about a lesser reform for political reasons. In interviews across the country, he has demonstrated a deep grasp of issues, whether one agreed with his opinions or not--and presumably, almost all Liberals do agree.
Recently, I asked my barber to explain to why Dion had such trouble getting respect. "I'll tell you what's wrong with Dion," he said. "There were two stallions running for election, and a bunch of ponies. The stallions were so focused on each other, that they didn't notice the ponies getting together and electing a pony. Dion is that pony; he is not a stallion."
It would be one thing for the Liberals to abandon Dion if a clear successor "stallion" was waiting in the wings. Some may feel otherwise, but I don't see one. Rae, who had finished second in the original ballot in the 2006 convention, has the burden of his record as NDP Premier of Ontario in the 1990's. One of the first things I learned about upon moving to the province was "Rae Days," an austerity measure in which public employees were given ten unpaid days off per year. To this day, Rae is ridiculed for that and other actions as premier. With a worst-case scenario in this election in which the Liberals may have few seats outside of Ontario, having a party leader with fundamental issues growing a coalition in the party's remaining stronghold could conceivably be a near death-knell for the Federal party that many delegates would likely try to avoid.
Current Deputy Leader and leader on the first-round ballot in 2006, Michael Ignatieff may not have any such political baggage, but he may not even be re-elected to parliament. In his Etobicoke—Lakeshore riding, just across the Humber River from my residence, Conservative Patrick Boyer is making an issue of the fact that Ignatieff lives in Yorkville instead of the riding and by my observation is winning the lawn sign game.
Fourth-place finisher Gerard Kennedy, currently running as the Liberal candidate in my own riding of Parkdale-High Park, is far from guaranteed to win election himself as he has taken on popular NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. Even if he does pull out a victory, he faces the same Rae and Ignatieff forces that have undermined Dion, as he is ideologically similar to Dion, with only the added advantages of native English speaking and a lack of political baggage in Quebec. Similarly, any other candidate will face the same Rae and Ignatieff forces that have so weakened Dion.
So, in my opinion, there is no clear "stallion" out there to take over. And, in the absence of such a figure, I don't understand why any Liberal would want Dion to falter. Then again, I'm not a Liberal, and maybe that's why I don't understand.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Photos: September Steam in Ontario
TORONTO, ONTARIO - This week's update on my photo site features opportunities to step into the past.
The smell of steam was alive and well in the province of Ontario in September 2008. Classic tractors dating back a century gathered in Milton, Ontario on 1-September-2008. The following weekend, a Railfan Day was held at the Huntsville and Lake of Bays Railway in Huntsville, Ontario featuring steam locomotive #2.
Historic buildings in Milton and Huntsville were also included.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)