No joy in Liberalville.
After that nice Christmas respite, things are looking bad again for my Liberals. Despite the humming economy, our apparent and surprising political and economic independence from the US, and being the only G8 country current paying off our astonomical federal debt, it's not enough to nullify the fact that Canadians really, really want a functional opposition party. The definition of a functional opposition party is that they win the occasional election. That's a hard sentiment for a liberal to argue with, and the Cons have learned how to look like they fit the bill. Harper is dominating the sensible, level-headed, policy-oriented middle in the campaign. Even I find some of his proposed initiatives obvious and appealing. (At face value that is. There are lots of little right-wing poison pills included in the Tories' crime and justice proposals, like making it illegal for incarcerated criminals to vote in federal elections -- at least assuming they haven't flipped from that rancid position since 2004).
To some extent, it's all a ruse -- the Galloping Beaver shares some of the nitty gritty details of the party that still features Stockwell Day on its candidate roster. But probably, the Cons would, in fact, govern as moderates for awhile. You have to govern at least in the general ideological vicinity of your campaign. The Tories have tempered down their socio-con rhetoric, knowing it fails them, and have walked back from the sort of big tax cutting (phasing out the middle 22% income tax rate and rasing the income threshold for the top rate) from their 2004 platform in favour if the more immediately progressive GST cut (which is still, by the way, a terrible proposal in that it introduces massive transactions costs and presents a long-run tying of the government's revenue-raising hands meaning higher income taxes in the future) and various targetted incentives befitting an American Democrat.
I don't care. I'm glad to see the Cons moderating themselves, but Harper is a horrible leader. As a flipflopper, he puts John Kerry to shame every time. Actually, some of the flipflops listed at the site are a bit unfair; to my knowledge, Harper has always supported North American BMD, not that this is a good thing. But his health care and Kyoto flipflops, though, are pretty amazing. He's a conservative demogogue of the worst kind when it suits him -- don't forget how he suggested not long ago that the gay marriage bill C-38 shouldn't be considered a done deal because it relied on PQ votes to pass and most "federalist" MPs opposed it, or would have in a fully open vote or something. Plus, whatever they're saying now, his party really wants to re-open up the can of worms on abortion, a subject over which Canada has been blissfully unperturbed (and actually boasts a slightly lower abortion-rate-per-1000-women-25-to-44 than does the US with its bevy of restrictions on poor people with unwanted pregnancies) but over which emotions can always be stirred up by preening, opportunistic conservative pols and asshole religious right leaders.
Mostly, though, a Tory victory will look exactly like what it is: a victory for still-ascendent international conservatism. It's time for that particular ascendence to end, not swallow up another government. This is bigger than Harper or Stockwell or any individual scary potential MP ranting about "activist judges", just like American conservatism is bigger than Bush or Abramoff or Pat every-untimely-death-is-an-act-of-God Robertson. That's a hard message for the Liberals to get across, but they need to try. I won't blame my fellow Canadians for electing a Tory minority -- which looks extremely likely right now; and I never thought that in 2004 -- because one-party-rule is never a good thing and Canadians are right to be distrustful of it. But flirting with and ultimately saying no to the Tories will push them further to the left and help show what kind of country we are. Saying yes to them, on the other hand, might feel good for its dual: the rejection of continued Liberal rule. But it will also be an invitation to all sorts of things I don't think we really want as a country.
Update: Cathie from Canada has a good take on the "ruse" part of the Conservative gains. Though I wouldn't say the Tory strategy is quite comparable to Bush '00. Back then, the Republicans were promoting a huge tax cut for the rich and were trading as hard as they could on socio-con issues. Bush declaring himself "a different kind of Republican" was basically enough to satisfy the press opinion-makers that he was a different kind of Republican.
Harper, on the other hand, has backed away from his and Day's earlier wingnuttery, and to boot has endorsed the federal role in health care and moved from letting the rich deduct child care expenses to actually offering a universal credit for rich and poor alike. All this is attributable to the Canadians refusing to indulge wingnuttery. Had American voters rejected Bush's wingnuttery in '00, we might now be seeing Republicans pretending to be Democrats rather than Tories pretending to be Liberals. Alas, that was not to be.
To some extent, it's all a ruse -- the Galloping Beaver shares some of the nitty gritty details of the party that still features Stockwell Day on its candidate roster. But probably, the Cons would, in fact, govern as moderates for awhile. You have to govern at least in the general ideological vicinity of your campaign. The Tories have tempered down their socio-con rhetoric, knowing it fails them, and have walked back from the sort of big tax cutting (phasing out the middle 22% income tax rate and rasing the income threshold for the top rate) from their 2004 platform in favour if the more immediately progressive GST cut (which is still, by the way, a terrible proposal in that it introduces massive transactions costs and presents a long-run tying of the government's revenue-raising hands meaning higher income taxes in the future) and various targetted incentives befitting an American Democrat.
I don't care. I'm glad to see the Cons moderating themselves, but Harper is a horrible leader. As a flipflopper, he puts John Kerry to shame every time. Actually, some of the flipflops listed at the site are a bit unfair; to my knowledge, Harper has always supported North American BMD, not that this is a good thing. But his health care and Kyoto flipflops, though, are pretty amazing. He's a conservative demogogue of the worst kind when it suits him -- don't forget how he suggested not long ago that the gay marriage bill C-38 shouldn't be considered a done deal because it relied on PQ votes to pass and most "federalist" MPs opposed it, or would have in a fully open vote or something. Plus, whatever they're saying now, his party really wants to re-open up the can of worms on abortion, a subject over which Canada has been blissfully unperturbed (and actually boasts a slightly lower abortion-rate-per-1000-women-25-to-44 than does the US with its bevy of restrictions on poor people with unwanted pregnancies) but over which emotions can always be stirred up by preening, opportunistic conservative pols and asshole religious right leaders.
Mostly, though, a Tory victory will look exactly like what it is: a victory for still-ascendent international conservatism. It's time for that particular ascendence to end, not swallow up another government. This is bigger than Harper or Stockwell or any individual scary potential MP ranting about "activist judges", just like American conservatism is bigger than Bush or Abramoff or Pat every-untimely-death-is-an-act-of-God Robertson. That's a hard message for the Liberals to get across, but they need to try. I won't blame my fellow Canadians for electing a Tory minority -- which looks extremely likely right now; and I never thought that in 2004 -- because one-party-rule is never a good thing and Canadians are right to be distrustful of it. But flirting with and ultimately saying no to the Tories will push them further to the left and help show what kind of country we are. Saying yes to them, on the other hand, might feel good for its dual: the rejection of continued Liberal rule. But it will also be an invitation to all sorts of things I don't think we really want as a country.
Update: Cathie from Canada has a good take on the "ruse" part of the Conservative gains. Though I wouldn't say the Tory strategy is quite comparable to Bush '00. Back then, the Republicans were promoting a huge tax cut for the rich and were trading as hard as they could on socio-con issues. Bush declaring himself "a different kind of Republican" was basically enough to satisfy the press opinion-makers that he was a different kind of Republican.
Harper, on the other hand, has backed away from his and Day's earlier wingnuttery, and to boot has endorsed the federal role in health care and moved from letting the rich deduct child care expenses to actually offering a universal credit for rich and poor alike. All this is attributable to the Canadians refusing to indulge wingnuttery. Had American voters rejected Bush's wingnuttery in '00, we might now be seeing Republicans pretending to be Democrats rather than Tories pretending to be Liberals. Alas, that was not to be.
2 Comments:
Great post Laura. I guess my fear is that IF the Conservatives form government they will actually behave. (Yes, you read that correctly).
I believe the best they can do is a very shakey minority. I view Harper as 'Bush with intelligence'. I will project that he will maintain enough discipline to keep his nuts in line, hoping a future election will give him a working majority... then watch out.
Don't give up on the Liberals yet. The fact that they have slipped in the polls is probably enough to shake up the liberal base and get their butts to a voting place. Well, I'm hoping, anyway.
Yeah, Dave, that's my fear as well.
If the Cons get in and take the Charest approach to health care, it will also pretty much end any chance of the Americans moving toward a Canadian style system (which is neccessary to save both our systems I think).
I just don't know how much of a "Liberal base" there is. We're not an overwhelmingly partisan country. It might swing some NDPers to the Liberals. But I don't see the wingnuts! hidden agenda! arguments that worked at the end in 2004 working this time. The positive arguments aren't working very well and we need smarter, broader negative arguments.
Post a Comment
<< Home