Entries Tagged as 'liberal'

Coalition for Change: The Real Team of Rivals?

(Hi everyone, I’m the new guy, Pink Polo. The Pundit should adding my bio shortly. Below is my first post here at IDB, which is also crossposted on my blog, Theory in Practice. To get a sense of what you can expect from me, check that out – or my travelogue from 2006, the Pink Polo Goes to Africa. Anyway, here beginneth my first post. Hope you like it! – The Polo)

Amidst the media-driven furore surrounding the rollout of Pres.-Elect Obama’s cabinet, and the “One President at a Time” message that has become a press meme over the last weeks of economic consternation in this country, there is a real, no-foolin’, honest-to-goodness street fight for the governmental leadership of a major Western power: Canada.

Yup, America’s Hat decided that what’s good for those of us below the 49th Parallel might make sense for them too.

You might remember (though no one would blame you if you didn’t) that Canada held a federal election less than 45 days ago. That election, despite some close polling just days before the election spurred on by the horrendous economic news that hit in October, was won handily by the Conservative Party, and the incumbent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. There has been, however, no honeymoon period for the new government. As you’ve no doubt seen from the news in this country, the economic news has gone from “Holy Crap” to “Stockbroker Suicide Watch” to its current state, “China’s Redheaded Stepchild” in a matter of what seemed like hours. Leading the charge to ignominy has been the automotive industry, especially General Motors, which has very quietly become one of the most unfathomably awfully run companies in the history of modern economics. Adam Smith himself, were he to come back from the dead, would take a look at GM’s books and “future plans” and quietly cry himself to sleep reading a copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

Would care to hazard a guess as to what one of Canada’s largest employers is?

Anyone?

Yup. General Motors. Ford too, for that matter. Windsor, Ontario – just a Sarah Palin glance away from the rusting former automotive capital of Detroit – became a hub for car production over the last few decades thanks to Canada’s national health care scheme, which helped (wait for it…wait for it) shave overhead costs while getting essentially the same quality of work.

Now, back to today’s issues for our neighbours to the, uh, Nourth. As Pres.-Elect Obama has already begun tackling the severe economic crisis that he will face as President beginning the 20th of next January by touting his new team of advisers, promoting economic stimulus and infrastructural redevelopment across sectors, so too has Mr. Harper, the Canadian Premier set to work on a new budget that will drastically and directly affect the lives of ordinary Canadians who seek assurances that their government, as ever a world leader in the welfare of its citizens, will once again provide the safety net they need to survive this deep, globally interconnected recession.

So, as Mr. Harper presented his budget to the Parliament last week, what schemes might his Conservative government concoct to see Canada through rough seas? Increased unemployment benefits? Job retraining programs to keep workers at pace with global trends? An Obamaesque commitment to reinvestment in infrastructure?

The answer they got was very simple. Nothing.

The Harper government provided no economic stimulus in the new budget, not even one of his good buddy George W. Bush’s ridiculous tax rebate debacles.

And that brings us to the extraordinary situation we see unfolding right above us as we speak. Almost immediately, the opposition parties saw their moment, and thus was born one of the oddest political marriages in Western political history. The three major players in this new arrangement – Canada has never had a formal coalition government since the end of the Dominion – come from very distinct political paths. First, the leader of the opposition, Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party. Quebecois, and with a political mindset forged from the rule of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, Dion led his Liberal Party since defeat in the 2006 election, after the disgraced Paul Martin was forced out by a Conservative non-confidence vote, through this latest round of voting, which saw the worst Liberal defeats in the history of the Party. He was so reviled within his own party that he began the leadership fight to succeed him even before ballots were cast. At this moment, three men are lined up behind him, fighting it out for the position of Liberal leader from May 2009. His political obituary was written, in stone, over the last month, as he seemed bound and determined to leave his party in disarray.

And now, Stephane Dion is the clubhouse leader for Prime Minister in a new government that could be formed within days. Talk about zero to hero…

Also in the mix is the man who has very quietly risen to prominence as one of the most Progressive political leaders in the Western world, Jack Layton. Layton, an Ontarioan and leader of the New Democratic Party has very quickly made himself into a kingmaker of sorts in federal politics. By providing the roadmap back to governance for the Liberal Party, Layton was able to secure six cabinet positions in the proposed new government, as well as a number of lower-level bureaucratic positions of importance for his party. Layton, and the NDP’s, influence will thus have much more of a broad impact under this arrangement, particularly given the leadership struggle in what would be the ruling party. Thus, while Layton’s gamble does not necessarily cement the NDP as a force to be reckoned with on the federal stage, it does better serve his constituency than Ed Broadbent’s fool’s errand during the Trudeau period in the 1970s. This, then, is truly the exciting part of the story for progressives on both sides of the border, as Canada looks towards a more progressive stance as America’s staunchest ally. Now, that’s change you can believe in!

But here’s where the story gets really, really (are you even still reading), and I mean, really interesting. Given the disastrous results for the Liberals in the October poll, the combined NDP/Liberal Alliance would represent only 44% of Canadian support and only 114 seats in the Parliament, as opposed to the Conservatives 37% and 143 seats, respectively. So, how do we get this idea off the ground? Mais oui! Le Bloc!

The Bloc Quebecois’ 50 seats, and 10% of federal support would push the coalition government to a majority government, of sorts. So, done deal, right? Well…geh…okay, does anyone know the Bloc’s single, solitary issue?

Health care? No. The economy? No.

Reinstituting the Quebec Nordiques’ hockey franchise? No…well, okay, maybe that too?

Yeah, Le Bloc is the separatist party of Quebec. So now, this coalition Canadian government will be held up by a party whose sole purpose is to work for the “rightful” independence of one of its provinces. However, of all three men who entered into this compact in Ottawa this morning, Gilles Duceppe may be the one who made the critical misstep. First of all, he is now going to have problems at home with the hardcore separatists who will only see him ganging up with a Federalist Quebecois and the Anti-Conservative (BQ voters tend to be issue matched with the Conservative Party) Layton. And second, perhaps more critically, Duceppe has promised to not push a non-confidence motion of his own for eighteen months, effectively declawing Duceppe to hold his former rivals to the fire on issues of import to Quebecois voters. At the first sign of trouble, he should expect a leadership fight bubbling up from the PQ (the provincial wing of the party), especially given Duceppe’s own inability to secure more seats in the Federal Parliament or push a referendum on independence in his nearly ten years as party leader.

Now, these three men sit at the same table, a partnership forged from practicality, not politics, putting country before party. This team of rivals can look forward only to uncharted waters and stormy seas, but, if they can make this almost farcical arrangement work, it may cement prosperity for Canadians for decades to come. And, hey, it’s fun to watch for us Americans. (Okay, maybe just us political geeks…)

Bookmark/FavoritesDeliciousDiggEvernoteFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle ReaderInstapaperRedditSlashdotStumbleUponStumpediaTwitterTypePad PostWordPressShare

Clark v. McCain: McCain’s Losing & Here’s Why

By Ara Rubyan (cross posted at E Pluribus Unum)

I like Chuck Todd (and his posse of deputies Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro) but I think they’re off in the tall grass on this:

[...[D]oes this entire episode remind anyone else of John Kerry’s botched joke before the 2006 midterms — when Kerry’s mangled swipe at President Bush got twisted into a slap at US troops?

That’s a misreading of what’s happening here because Clark’s point was made with far more intelligence and articulation than Kerry’s (despite Obama calling it “inartful” but that’s another story).

Here’s how I see it:

McCain, trailing badly by most meaningful metrics, wants the Obama camp to hit him hard. Why? Three reasons:

  1. So that he can get as much free media as possible, but more importantly…
  2. So he can play the aggrieved victim, which leads to…
  3. Drawing the Republican base closer to him (McCain) in his defense.

That’s it. So how’s he doing? Not so good.

Obama is not the candidate that will lash out at his opponents. McCain should know this by now — Obama is preternaturally cool (for a national politician) — it is McCain who is the hothead. Instead of lashing out, Obama has repeatedly stated how much he honors McCain’s sacrifice, but…that isn’t enough to qualify McCain to be president. The longer McCain strikes back, the weaker and more petty he looks.

I think I know what McCain is trying to do: he (consciously or otherwise) is trying to take a page out of Richard Nixon’s campaign playbook circa 1967. Back then, Nixon was perceived as a has-been, a loser that no one in their right mind would listen to. But Nixon figured out that if he could goad LBJ into lashing out at him personally, he could elevate his stature to that of the sitting president. And (more importantly) he could paint himself as a victim/outsider being picked on by the bully/insider. Nixon understood the simmering resentment against Johnson and knew that as soon as Johnson struck back it would draw the Republican base closer to him. It worked for Nixon back then.

But it won’t work for McCain today because Obama isn’t a bully and McCain isn’t an outsider. Oh, he’ll draw the Republican base closer to him because these are the same people that give Bush a 60% approval rating and they’ll believe just about anything. But as far as getting the independents and disaffected Democrats…not so much.

Furthermore, the free media thing isn’t working out so well either. For one thing, Wesley Clark has made his point with clarity … and humility: Clark honors McCain’s sacrifice, but will not concede that it automatically makes McCain the superior candidate for president. In my book, this makes him a decent candidate for Secretary of Defense or Chariman of the Armed Services Committee … but not Chief Executive of the United States. Of course, McCain’s camp simply won’t accept that and continues to play the “sacrifice card” and the “military experience” card. But that misses the point and gives Clark yet another chance to repeat his point.

And you know what? Every day that this story stays alive cuts against McCain by allowing Clark’s argument to be discussed in greater detail. It gives Sen. Webb a chance to weigh in. It gives McCain another opportunity to screw up by bringing in the bad actors from the Swiftboats for Slime — the guys who trashed Kerry by trashing his military career.

Bad move Senator McCain: now YOU look like the bully. Can’t you see? No one is trashing your military career. Not Clark, not Webb, not Obama. They are simply making a simple case: Being a hero yesterday does not punch your ticket to the Presidency…tomorrow.

Everyday that this issue is discussed AGAIN is another day where we get to consider whether we elect a president based on his judgment instead of his sacrifice. Hillary tried to frame her fight with Obama in a similar way — experience versus judgment. She lost. If McCain wants to fight that battle again, he’s going to lose just like Hillary did.

Elections are about the future, not the past. If McCain doesn’t know that by now, he’s doomed.

Bookmark/FavoritesDeliciousDiggEvernoteFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle ReaderInstapaperRedditSlashdotStumbleUponStumpediaTwitterTypePad PostWordPressShare

If you try, you just might find that you get what you need.

As I understand it, conservatives think that it is silly to talk with Iran until Iran A) stops supporting Hammas B) gives up it’s nuclear ambition C) stops repressing its own people. Doing anything about point C) would violate the priciples of the treaty of Westphalia, so I assume this is mere saber rattling.

As for the rest: my understanding is that these are the points to be negotiated. Which means setting them as preconditions indicates that certain parts of our governing class really do not wish to meet at all– outside the field of honor. This, of course, makes them wildly out of touch with most Americans:

.

Seems like talking with people we don’t like in an attempt to settle our differences is a political winner. Who knew?

Bookmark/FavoritesDeliciousDiggEvernoteFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle ReaderInstapaperRedditSlashdotStumbleUponStumpediaTwitterTypePad PostWordPressShare

California’s Anti-Kelo Initiatives

California is holding a primary election tomorrow (Tuesday, June 3). Among the initiatives on the ballot are two amendments to the state constitution which would provide protection against Kelo-style takings (where Eminent Domain is used to force the sale of property to another private entity, nominally to foster economic development). If you’re registered to vote in California, I urge you to vote for Prop 98 and against Prop 99. If both propositions get a majority, only the one with the larger majority will go into effect, and Prop 98 offers much better protections than Prop 99.

The key differences are:

  • Prop 98 protects all private property against Kelo-style takings, including farms, small businesses, and rental property. Prop 99 protects only owner-occupied primary residences.

  • Prop 98 guarantees strong procedural protections for people whose property is taken for public use (a jury trial to settle contested claims as to the proper level of compensation, and prompt payment of compensation). Prop 99 does not.

  • Prop 98 would abolish rent control, which is a textbook example of a government program which just plain doesn’t work. Rent control was intended to guarantee affordable housing, and instead it causes the supply of rental housing to dry up, and it degrades the quality of what rental property remains. It says a lot when Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman agree that a program is a terrible economic idea.

Anti-Prop 98 groups have been spreading FUD that Prop 98 includes language which would require compensation for regulatory takings (i.e. require the state to compensate people who are unable to fully use their property due to environmental or land-use regulations). I’ve read the full text of the proposition and see nothing of the sort there. Neither did the judge who heard the case when Prop 98 opponents argued that the ballot summary was misleading. If Prop 98 restricts regulatory takings, then so does the Fifth Amendment.

More on the need for Prop 98′s protections in this LA Times editorial by Ilya Somin.

Conflict-of-interests disclosure: I will be moving back to California later this month, albeit too late to vote on these initiatives. I plan on renting.

[Cross-posted at the Office of Naval Contemplation]

[Cross-posted at Dean's World]

Bookmark/FavoritesDeliciousDiggEvernoteFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle ReaderInstapaperRedditSlashdotStumbleUponStumpediaTwitterTypePad PostWordPressShare