Martin Must Take Chances

In the lead up to any debate, we always hear talk of "knock out punches", but we rarely see it. The last great debate moment may well have been the Mulroney smackdown of Turner. Every since that debate, handlers have gone to great pains to make sure their respective candidates avoid obvious gaffes. The resulting debate performances are often times bland, consisting mostly of shallow retorts and benign exchanges. If Paul Martin hopes to snatch this election away from the Conservatives, he must be a risk taker. With any risky strategy, there is a chance for blowback, but the gains can be substantial.

The dynamic for this debate is interesting, and affords Martin a great opportunity. No longer is Martin the sole prey of the other parties, now the limelight will surely be shared with Harper. The Bloc is confronted with the possibility of Conservative pickups in Quebec, while the NDP are increasingly wary of what a rightwing government will mean. So, instead of three leaders lambasting Martin relentlessly, we could see Harper put on the defensive. Martin can take some cover with his rhetoric and must use almost offensive language to make any impact.

Canadians often say they resent negative campaigns and harsh debating. Martin can't approach this debate with any hesitancy. Martin must frame Harper as an extremist who doesn't reflect mainstream values. When Harper speaks of corruption, Martin must be forceful and use blunt language to show how his involvement has been distorted. When Harper speaks of average Canadians, Martin should remind voters that the current incarnation of Conservativism is the Reform Party in disguise. Martin needs to take chances with his rhetoric, raise the stakes and go for broke. Make it personal, light a fire under the press and force this election to be a watershed moment.

Harper approaches this debate with one goal in mind, emerge unscathed and move towards government. Martin can't allow Harper another opportunity to paint himself as a moderate and must expose him at all costs. If the Liberal handlers insist on presenting a kindly statesman, then Martin has surely lost. This debate must be viewed as a streetfight, wherein Martin may find unlikely allies to derail Harper. A small victory on semantics is meaningless, it must be a passionate, unscripted Martin that reveals his soul to a suspicious electorate.

Packaging Harper

Reality is subjective, and presentation is everything. The most striking development in this election campaign is how successful Stephen Harper has been at transforming himself into a moderate alternative to the Liberals. For people that pay close attention to politics, it is easy to see through the Harper veneer, but strategists rely on relative disinterest to package and manipulate. A few broad soundbites, targeted campaign promises and tight access allow for a simplistic, general theme to emerge that paints a picture.

The Conservatives have learned their lessons from the last campaign, becoming masters of propaganda. Stephen Harper is just an average guy, much like you and me. There is nothing to fear from his policies, his vision reflects the wishes of the mainstream. The radical right that dominates the party power structure is muted, replaced with the Bush model of compassionate conservatism. The Liberals are the corrupt elitists, detached from the people, while the Conservatives find their strength through the grassroots, a party for the people.

Enter the media, and their supposed role as independent source. The media are well aware of the political tactics at play, yet they continually fall into the trap of perpetuating the propaganda. They allow Harper to define himself, and they merely report on the packaging. This campaign, to date, has demonstrated the complete failure of the media to react to the new politics. Oh, of course there are the "fact checks", which convey a measure of honest reporting, but generally the media are the puppets of the spinsters.

We see images of Harper with a 5% GST sign on a car, but no followup to call him on the distortions. We see Harper in Quebec, acting the statesman that will protect Canada's duality, without any mention of his previous intolerant viewpoints. No one does the math on how Harper's litany of well placed promises and subsequent taxcuts will affect our future balance sheet. The media is relegated to projecting the illusions, allowing them to gel, rather than expose the manipulations.

The media bends over backwards to appear fair, forever resisting the appearance of bias. Political strategists recognize the situation, and in turn use the media to export their carefully crafted message. The media is our only source to get accurate information and sadly they are failing miserably this campaign. Why are they so accepting of this new image that Harper projects? Where is the scepticism?

The Canadian media is falling for the same trap used to elect George Bush. Would anyone argue today that George Bush is a "compassionate conservative"? With this lesson learned, why is so easy for our media to allow themselves to be manipulated in this way. Stephen Harper has a long history, this reality isn't ignored just because someone wishes to package themselves into a desired image. The media gives Harper a free ride, despite the fact that deep down their own knowledge and instincts would suggest that it is all a ruse. The media is failing in its responsibility to act in our interests.

Greens Should Be Allowed to Debate

Yesterday, the Green Party launched a formal complaint with the CRTC over the exclusion of Jim Harris from the upcoming debates. This blatant snub begs the question, what is the criteria for inclusion in the debates?

The debates represent the best chance for the parties to get their message out, as well as contrast their platform with their rivals. The Green Party has emerged as a relevant option, obtaining a respectable 4.3% of the vote during the last campaign. This outcome despite being virtually ignored by the mainstream media, as well as no debate appearances. It would be logical to assume that a debate appearance would cement the Green Party as credible and expand their voter base.

Any article I have read on the Green Party always posits the fact that the Greens have no chance of forming a government. This argument is used by those that support the Green Party exclusion from the debates- a fringe movement, which distracts from the real options. If this is the criteria for inclusion, I would suggest a re-examination of the entire process. The NDP has no serious claim to governance, predestined to marginal status- more king maker than credible threat. Does the NDP presence distract from the real debate, diluting the arguments from the serious parties?

And what about the Bloc? The Green Party offers a full slate of candidates across the entire country. The Bloc, however, is a regional party with no realistic aspiration to govern. Does anyone even contemplate omitting the Bloc from the debates, particularly the English one? We allow a party to participate thats sole purpose is the destruction of the entity to which we vote, yet we have no room for a grassroots party with pockets of relatively strong support nationwide. Strange.

The amendments to the Canadian Election Act make sure every vote counts in a financial sense. The Green Party has targeted one million votes as a goal for this election, and that figure is reasonable. That number is substantial, by anyones measurement, and has the potential to grow if the Greens receive legitimacy through the debates. In this campaign, the media has given the Green Party sporadic coverage, but exponentially more than previous campaigns. The next logical step is too include a growing party into the national dialogue.

I wonder what role the other parties have in tempering the Green Party influence. None of the established parties want another party in play. But, a party like the NDP that claims to be egalitarian, inclusive and progressive, would surely support a Green Party appearance for philosophical reasons. Self interest may be at odds with ideals.

I guess the only way to ensure future Green Party participation is a greater vote count. However, you need exposure to increase your profile, so we have a institutional barrier that may cap what the Greens can achieve. I can understand why we don't include all the fringe parties in the debates, the clutter would make the exercise meaningless. But, the Green Party isn't "fringe" anymore, by whatever definition you choose. Democracy thrives through participation, and it is a serious mistake to omit a party that many people are passionate about.

Harper Peaking Too Early?

On the surface, it would be hard to be anything but ecstatic if you're a Conservative. Pulling ahead nationally, actually competitive with the Liberals in Quebec, neck and neck in seat rich Ontario. I offer a word of caution to Stephen Harper, you're peaking too early.

The new dynamic of this race will now surround a personality and its consequences. Stephen Harper looks the PM in waiting, this will necessitate a close examination of the consequences. Up until now, the entire campaign has centered around the Paul Martin and his "corrupt" party. Attack, attack, from all sides and all parties, while Martin stumbles along on the defensive. With these fresh poll results, the focus has changed and Harper best beware.

We have already seen Layton changing tactics, no longer attacking Martin, but warning of the costs of a Conservative government. In bed with the seperatists will play very well in Ontario and leave Harper's commitment to Canada in doubt. Instead of the Liberal record, we now look at the future and what this all means. I am curious how the Bloc reacts to voters moving to the Conservatives, surely we will see some pointed rhetoric.

Martin is now in a relatively advantageous position, despite the polling. The Liberals have been desperate to change the dialogue, with these latest figures I suspect the media may allow for a new agenda. Who is Stephen Harper? What does this mean to federalism? Are the Conservatives the moderate option they portray? The election is just now becoming focused, and time is eternal for a rebound or a collapse. People have shown tertiary interest thus far, but as we draw nearer to the possibility of a Conservative mandate, I suspect the interest will become more pointed.

The main caveat for the reeling Liberal party is the volatility of the electorate. A whooping 40% say they could change their vote, which speaks to soft support and the fluid nature of this race. I suggest that Harper may have peaked too early, that it was best to fly under the radar and snatch the government on the eve of the vote. Now, Harper is naked on the open plains, just as voters begin to engage. It remains an open question if they will like what they see and I suspect the free ride with the media is over. This election has really just now become joined, lets see if Harper can take the heat.

Us vs Them

Isn't it ironic that the rise of regionalism and divisiveness has occurred during a historical era which supposedly represents the emergence of a "world community". Terms such as multinational, mosaic, ethnic diversity, world wide web, free trade, United Nations, European Union all speak to a world where borders are less rigid, geographic distance less daunting. Why is it then that a nation such as a Canada, often cited as the premier example of the new world reality, is falling prey to the backward lure of narrow self interest?

We live in an age where interconnectedness is growing exponentially(this medium a perfect example), yet the Canadian experiment of inclusiveness and commonality is failing. Instead of breaking down barriers, we are witnessing the emergence of new "peoples", based on nothing more than an imaginary detachment which is clearly a product of ignorance.

I have lived in the West on a couple of different occasions. What is particularly striking about the different regions of English Canada(Quebec is another matter), is how strangely similar we all are, despite geography. I have never felt as though I couldn't relate to anyone on a personal level, never felt out of place or alien. The everyday issues that concern people in Fergus, Ontario are eerily similar to the ones that concern people in Sundre, Alberta. The issues that urban communities wrestle with are all the same, whether it be Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax for that matter- more a question of degree than anything. My point, we are close despite the distance.

My ideal of a common human spirit took a direct hit on my last visit to Alberta this past summer. The level of vitriol, the overt hatred for all things eastern and the misplaced sense of alienation that continues to fester is downright disheartening. This Us vs Them mentality that is institutionalizing itself in the West is a dangerous development.

The entire premise seems to surround this notion that those in the West have no say, their voice is irrelevant. Well guess what, my voice is irrelevant too and that is the nature of "one man, one vote". I live in rural Ontario, we elected a conservative MP, whose views have no resemblance to mine. Should I erect a fence around my property, stop paying taxes and declare my backyard Stevieumbia? The sad reality is a person in Olds, Alberta has more in common with rural Ontario than the do with someone from Edmonton. Yet, the stereotypes remain and a warped sense of nationalism develops under the banner of an arbitrary border, mostly through illusionary differences, but perpetuated by a sense of "team" that regionalism fosters.

This is mostly incoherent I know, but I think I can sum up my point with this one example. When we arrived in Alberta for our last visit, my wife's uncle asked us "did you fly WestJet?" I said yes, and he smiled like a proud papa, "better than Air Canada eh?". My only response, "it was cheaper". See, I booked my flight based on economics and convenience. Air Transit, Air Canada, WestJet, whatever, just get me there in one piece and don't shaft me. What was apparent, and I heard this a few times, is that many Albertans will only fly WestJet. If I had flown Air Canada, I have this vision of my wife's uncle using it as proof of my anti-western bias- it really has become this silly. The global experiment called Canada is wanting.

A Conservative Minority: The Best Option?

As a progressive, it is hard to endorse any government that has the Conservatives at the helm. However, when I look at the current political landscape, as well as the future prospects for Canada, I wonder if the best post-election scenario isn't a Conservative minority government. Strange request I know, but bear with me.

The Liberal Party is a mess of patronage, corruption and old cronies that has become detached from the grassroots. This situation is not historically unique, most parties that hold power for prolonged periods suffer this fate. Martin looks the tired politican, who seems increasingly idea challenged. With these facts in mind, another Liberal government would only serve to further institutionalize this bloated legacy. The only way for a substantial purge to occur is electoral defeat- the party needs to cleanse itself. New leadership, fueling a new vision, and a renewed sense of purpose. A Liberal victory means the status quo and that is increasingly unacceptable.

Now factor in the overt feelings of alienation from the west and you begin to see a timely solution. I am not speaking to the merits of western alienation, merely to its existence. With this election, we are witnessing some sort of "line in the sand" mentality, wherein another Liberal victory and subsequent rejection of the Conservatives is seen as a watershed moment. Albertans in particular view this election as a turning point, where we either embrace their ideas or force the talk of seperation to the fore. It really seems a dangerous time in the history of Canada. Seperation has historically been Quebec's domain, now it has found an interesting ally.

Solution? A small Conservative minority. This outcome accomplishes many things in the short term. The Liberal Party will reconfigure itself and emerge relevant again. The feelings of western alienation will be tempered and a sense of inclusiveness will emerge. Quebec will still be Quebec, irregardless of whether the Liberals cling to power- you could argue a short term fall from power may be the key to blunting the seperatist movement.

Also, and most important, a Conservative minority has the added benefit of a relatively neutered Steven Harper. The Conservatives would be unable to enact a bold right wing agenda and in turn would be forced to temper policy to appease a predominately moderate house. Shortform, the Conservatives would accomplish little. A minority government would have a shelf life of two or three years, within that time the Liberals would have ample time to morph back to a real party for the people.

If we think longterm, a tiny Conservative minority in the near may be the best medicine for a country increasingly in disarray.

Disclaimer- I still can't actually see myself pulling the lever for shark eyes.

Hardly Inspired

I can't remember an election campaign so completely bereft of passion and vision. I consider myself a political junkie of the highest order, yet I was unable to muster the energy to endure the entire leaders debate. What a collection of uninspiring duds.

The audio from the Martin stump speech would be excellent therapy for those that suffer from sleep deprivation. Why does this man want another mandate, surely the fire is long since doused? It looks more a desire for historical recognition, than it does a genuine cry for progress.

Harper is trying, trying to convince us all that he is not the Canadian Shrub. I think thou doust protest too much- the transparent manipulations do not require much perception. If Harper is a centrist, then the new political spectrum must make me a raving Marxist-Leninist. The old Conservative line of taxcuts, a bounty for all, represent the cynical agenda, meant to buy our vote, instead of offering concrete policy. Oh yes, Harper is busy with a myriad of policy positions, meant to demonstrate his "moderate vision", but somehow suspicion abounds. Given the sad state of the Liberal Party, it is quite telling that polls show a consistent Conservative ceiling. Maybe we aren't that naive to the tired propaganda.

Layton seems more preoccupied with forming turt political soundbites than he does honest dialogue. I had high hopes for Layton when he took the NDP helm, and while the party has rebounded support wise, his leadership style is more bullshit than statesman. There is something about the man that reeks of over polish, at the expense of himself. I call it the John Kerry syndrome, wherein you know the person is intelligent and has ideas, yet can't seem to speak without political calculus in mind. I like some of the policies, but the messenger is hard to watch.

Maybe the Green Party, despite the obvious protest vote element. I agree with many of the ideas, but it is troubling to vote for a party, wherein you know prior to casting it that is basically a spoiled ballot. However, the party is emerging as a relevant alternative and any additional votes may help spur this momentum. Besides, who the hell else are you going to vote for?

This whole campaign, the whole system for that matter, is so disappointing and increasingly irrelevant. It's like the parties move in some alternate universe, with their own detached set of laws that have no resemblence to our world. I thought the cream usually rises too the top, instead it looks like the turd floats to the top of the bowl.