On Right vs. Left: An Ideological Battle for the Meaning of Words

What is in the meaning of a word? With many words, context is needed to understand the intent in using it. When terms like environmentalist, progressive, conservationist, conservative are used it could be true that for each person reading, a different meaning is conceived. It is also true that as history is made, words can take on new meanings and contexts. Often ideological arguments revolve around the use of these words and the side that wins is the side that controls the definition of the word. Leftist ideology, primarily consisting of socialism and liberalism in Canada, and mostly liberalism in America, dominates in many aspects of the public sphere. To be certain, and to be fair, rightist ideology, primarily consisting of conservatism and certain tenants of liberal thought, dominate in some places too.

While leftist ideology dominates in our education system and universities, rightist ideology dominates in the business world. This is evident when we look at the common perception of certain words. The common perception of the word 'economy' is largely based on a rightist understanding. A leftist-controlled definition of the term would likely involve a more 'holistic' and egalitarian approach that would shape it in a way that stresses overall well-being rather than as purely financial. Instead, a leftist is often forced to admit their own concern for other issues over the economy because they are forced to use the more specific definition stemming from rightist thought.

I do feel that within political discourse the left is overwhelmingly winning the battle for the control of words. In America, rightist intellectuals have caught onto this and have began trying to take-back or redefine words like liberal and conservative. In Canada the road ahead is longer but I feel it may be less problematic. This is because I see Canada as more conciliatory and pragmatic; we thrive on consensus. While Americans are more oppositional and idealistic; thriving on conflict. In the ideological battle for the meaning of words, Canadians can come to a consensus on some sort of mid-way point; whereas America seems fated to eternally play out a battle-to-the(-never)-end.

Which brings me back to the terms I brought up in the beginning. Can an environmentalist support the Enbridge Northern Gateway project? Can a progressive be a conservative? Is a conservationist just what rich people who appreciate parks are called? Given the common use of these words the answers would likely be “no”, “no”, and “yes?”. This is because the left has largely controlled the discourse surrounding environmentalism and progressivism and the right has all but conceded completely. To the point where many a conservative would answer the same way.

What if one is greatly concerned about the natural world around them? He sees the immense importance in preserving and supporting natural ecosystems, in educating society about the importance of a healthy environment, and in making decisions with a constant concern for society's impact on the Earth, generations from now. And, yet, he also understands the importance of resource development and fossil fuels in driving the economy. He understands the need for development as economies and populations grow.

Today this world-view would likely be described as conservationist, although the word itself has gone out of popular use. It should just as easily describe an environmentalist. However, in the ideological battle for the meaning of words the left has controlled what it means to be an environmentalist and it does not intimate an approval of fossil fuels.

In these battles the right has often missed the mark entirely. Instead of attempting to control the use of the word intellectually, they have sought to de-legitimize it. Instead of controlling the narrative and putting a conservative spin on the terms environmentalism or progressive, they often instead slander the terms; associating them with extremism and giving them negative connotations. Let us allow for the fact that terms like environmentalist and progressive have positive connotations. This is something no amount of discourse can change. Instead of doing battle against the word itself, we need to use the word to help us win the battle.

Of course, in Canada most provinces' main rightist party is the Progressive Conservative Party, so this is not an original concept. It is one that is not often enough adhered to. The effort needs far more intellectual weight thrown behind it. For the sake of success in this ideological landscape we need to refocus our efforts on winnable battles and at the same time extend outwards to a greater audience. Instead of preaching to the choir, reach out to the greater congregation, and attempt to win converts. Our success in these efforts will, in large part, depend on our intellectual ability to control messaging and the usage of words.    

On the Byelections in Brandon-Souris, Provencher, Toronto Centre, and Bourassa

Byelections are often seen as a snoozy affair.  This time around was a bit different.  In Toronto Centre both the Liberals and NDP ran star candidates.  The NDP had strong hopes of winning the riding while the Liberals needed to hold onto a riding that usually supports them, almost without fault.  In Brandon-Souris, Manitoba, recent polling had the Liberals leading by as much as 29% in a riding that had elected Conservatives in all but one election in the past 60 years, with 64% in the last election.  The media seemed intensely interested in the story of a resurgent Liberal party and a troubled Conservative government and so that was the narrative we had been fed in the days leading up to the byelections.  It also seems to be the narrative that continued on the nightly news despite results that do not entirely tell that tale.
The results ended up being, for the most part, more of the same.  The Conservatives were re-elected in two safe Manitoba ridings and the Liberals were re-elected in two safe Liberal ridings.  In Brandon-Souris the Conservative candidate won narrowly over the Liberal candidate.  This, in a riding where the Liberals barely registered with 5% and a fourth place finish in 2011.  This riding should be a cake-walk for the Conservatives.  It should not be on the Liberals' radar.   In Toronto Centre and Bourassa the Liberals won by a comfortable margin.  The NDP came in a respectable second. They did not take the Toronto riding as they had hoped, despite their star candidate and the widely appreciated performance of Thomas Mulcair in the House of Commons.
The byelections alone do not say much more than this.  Considering what else is going on right now, however, the byelections indicate a lot more.  For the NDP it says they really have an uphill battle to remain the second-place party.  With the attention that the media is giving Justin Trudeau and his Liberal party it will be very hard for Mulcair to get any.  The media is now on this resurgent Liberal narrative, combined with the 'scandal-plagued' Conservative narrative it leaves very little room for the NDP.  The results tonight also do little to dispel this narrative.  In both the Manitoba ridings the NDP went from solid second-place party to way back in third.  A bit of a silver lining is that they do seem to have a solid base of support in Montreal and Toronto.
For the Liberals it appears to be nothing but good news.  The media can be relied upon to feed the Liberal narrative to the public.  Liberals vastly increased their support and came close to winning in ridings where they barely registered before.
What  is important to remember is that this is in the midst of the most intensely negative news cycle that the Conservative government has faced.  It has been very difficult for the government to turn the page and important accomplishments have gone unnoticed.  CETA, for instance, is one of the most significant policy developments of the past couple of decades.  CETA deserves, and will eventually get, more attention.  When that happens it will be a good thing for the Conservatives.  That is not to say that coverage of the scandal is unwarranted or unfair; the government brought it on themselves.
Byelections are typically hard on the governing party.  It was a chance for constituents to express distaste for elements of the Conservative record without actually kicking out the government.  It is safe to presume that the results would be vastly different if the voters knew that, in fact, their decision could change the government.  The level of support that the Conservative candidates in all four ridings received is worrisome but only if it resembled a more permanent change in voting preferences and not a temporary snub to a governing party.   If all this hullabaloo has already reached its peak then Conservatives can easily move on, and up, from this low point.
Justin Trudeau remains an underwhelming parliamentarian and an inexperienced politician.  The prospect of such a rookie, whose only two notable attributes are his name and his looks, as Prime Minister is one that is truly suspect.  The Liberal party brand goes no further than the leader and is otherwise no less in shambles than after the election in 2011.  The longer that popular distaste for the Harper Conservatives lasts, however, the more that the Trudeau Liberals become the default choice for an ever-increasing pool of Canadians.  Thomas Mulcair is a calculated, capable, and formidable politician but he also faces a struggle for media attention and the uncertainty surrounding his, and his party's economic positions.  The Conservatives remain the clear choice for voters concerned about economic stability.  Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have a great policy record to stand on.  One that can surely win the next election if only he, and the party, can get ahead of this 'scandal'.  They need to figure out how to do so, and fast.

On the Rob Ford and Senate 'Scandals'

It has been nearly a year since my last blog post.  I am attempting to get back into it and there is certainly a lot to talk about. 

Since my last post the love-in with Trudeau seems to have waned; although you would be hard-pressed to tell with some of the fan-girls in the national media. Trudeau II continues to make blunder after blunder and thanks to the work of bloggers and Sun News, followed by the acquiescence of the mainstream national media, these gaffes are actually getting out there.  Based on this and the fact that Liberal support started to decline and Tory support began recovering until the senate scandal re-reared its head, I would question if most of the increased ‘support’ for Liberals is a temporary phenomenon.  As horrible as the whole Rob Ford ordeal is it may have been a PR blessing for the Conservatives; now the media party has another dead horse to flog.

It sort of saddens me to have my first post back be about things I do not think deserve the attention that they have been getting.  Focusing an entire blog post on a money-scandal or the personal misfortunes of a mayor whose policies I respect seems distasteful, but the urge to write is back and so I digress.

I will say a few words on the senate scandal.  Spending scandals have always and will always occur in democratic nations.  The people doing the misdeed should face justice and, if possible, reforms should be put in place to ensure similar misdeeds do not occur.  Canada, despite what I fear is being portrayed in the coverage of this scandal, holds its elected officials to a high account.  While more could be done, reforms have been instituted by this and previous governments.  I rest assured that we, as a nation, will continue to perfect our system and create ways to hold our politicians to ever-higher account.  That being said, Senators are not elected. They are appointed. The Senate is not transparent; it is shrouded in secrecy.  They are not held to account by the people because they are not of the people; they are apparently for the people, although forgive me missing how exactly.  Perhaps this scandal has woken up more Canadians to the absurdity of how the Senate operates and has created, in earnest, a demand for more accountability of Senators.  As far as the $90,000 cheque, I really could not care less.  A Senator got caught doing what, on some level, I am sure most of them do.  The media party wanted their story and the PMO, or some operatives within it, misguidedly offered Duffy a cheque to make it all go away.  The rest is the stuff of tabloids.  I hope that the RCMP does its job and that whoever needs to be held to account, is.  I had hoped that the reputations of seemingly good people like Duffy, Wallin, and Wright were not to be tarnished.  I hope that those in the PMO responsible for the mucking up of all this learned lessons.  Perhaps, that throwing a friend and ally under the bus is never a decent thing to do.

I feel that ‘scandals’ such as this one and the Rob Ford one say more about the media and the people consuming the news than the people involved.  What it does say, in many ways, is not nice.  Much of the coverage is distasteful, it wreaks of spite, and is completely vacuous.  “Look: It’s a fat mayor smoking crack! Hehehe! Look: He admitted it now. Asshole!”, is the best I can gather from most of the headlines.  That is not to say I haven’t read some thoughtful articles about both.  Indeed, those close to mayor Ford have gone too far with their enabling.  If he had of exited early and sought help he could have come back and been more successful than ever.  His policies are good.  People like him.  He was, in many ways, one of those larger-than-life conservative characters that appears every so often and galvanizes support.  He feeds off the antagonism of his enemies, and since they seem to number so many now, Ford may be around longer than we expect.

It may be safe to assume that the bad taste in my mouth regarding these scandals is largely because they involve ‘my guys’.  But there is more to it.  I do not delight in watching others’ misfortunes played out in the national media.  I think back to the sponsorship scandal (the parallel has been drawn before and I will reiterate here: $90,000 vs. Millions) and while I was happy it was causing more people to look seriously at the alternative, I was not happy to see Paul Martin's reputation destroyed by a mess that, largely, was not his. Thankfully time, I think, has been more generous to him. I also did not care to see it all play out.  I do not appreciate the gotcha-ism of it all and the way that the media does not provide more context, or perhaps that people do not seek out more context, to the stories. These ‘scandals’ are just too scandalous; while a part of me is drawn in, another part of me feels I am above it all. Here is to hoping that once the dust settles and the media circus is over we can reflect and make sound judgements about the people involved, without all the sanctimony, based on all they did, not just one overblown scandal. 

On Justin Trudeau's (Contested) Liberal Leadership

Much of the response, of late, to Justin Trudeau is a testament to the complete lack of complexity in Canadian political discourse. Already we have been subjected to several polls telling us that Trudeau will be Prime Minister in three years. As Rex Murphy pointed out on the National a few weeks back, the absurdity inherent in these polls should be an embarrassment to the firms who conducted them and the media outlets that reported them as “news”. Trudeau has not even become leader of the federal Liberals yet. Nor has he faced any real test of his leadership. Most importantly, the election is three years away. For all we know we could have a new Prime Minister before then. Or a new leader of the opposition. The point is, three years is a long time in politics and to try and gauge how voter's are going to vote three years out is an exercise in futility. The excitement amongst the liberal establishment was palpable upon Trudeau's announcement and the speculation has not ceased since then. Canada's liberal media was nuanced --as it usually is in regards to inherent bias-- in its gaiety. Nonetheless, one senses a level of excitement around Trudeau that certainly has not existed since at least, well, Micheal Ignatieff. There is a strong cult of personality surrounding Trudeau, largely based not on his own personality but that of his deceased father's, that seems familiar ground for federal Liberals and indicates a vast problem within the Liberal party.

Apparently their are corners of this country where the name Trudeau invokes emotions of nostalgia. The name elicits a positive reaction and familiarity amongst younger generations that do not have first hand experience of his leadership; undoubtedly high school teachers have successfully glorified the name. And that is what all the hoopla comes down to. A name. Because there is very little else Canadians have to judge Mr. Trudeau by. The limited amount of time Mr. Trudeau has spent in the political arena has been accompanied by a whole lot of style and very little substance. What's worse is that the moments of substance should be moments of pause for Liberals who wish to bring their party back to prominence. Mr. Trudeau has been extremely gaffe prone. One can be sure, particularly with the strategies that the Conservatives have been employing lately, that there is a bank of ridiculous, divisive statements just waiting for the 'right time' to be released. Trudeau is already known as behaving childishly in the House of Commons, for saying things he later has to clarify or apologize for; he's an amateur. Yet again, however, the Liberal Party have found a poster boy and they're going to run with him. Forget about the rebuilding, the soul-searching that every MP was saying they had to do after the last election. Justin Trudeau, with his pretty face, and his pretty hair, and ... those nice eyes? Is going to single handedly revive the Liberal brand.

We have been witnessing the slow and painful death of the Liberal party for many years now. The question of when it began is a difficult one but warning signs easily appeared in the Chretien days. The Liberal Party is a party built on “big ideas”. When is the last big idea you heard come out of the Liberal Party? The party became so successfully branded that Liberals came to rely on only that brand, neglecting all of the ideas and grass-root supporters behind that brand. Now it's an empty shell of what it once was. Trudeau's dad wrecked the party out west. Now that the west is “in”, the same attitudes that alienated the Liberals from wide swaths of Western and Prairie Canadians also alienates them from even wider swaths in these regions as well as Canadians in Ontario who, rightly, see their interests as aligned with the West. In 2011 the Liberals were elected in only 4 seats west of the GTA. There own leader was given the boot. That is not just terrible it is abysmal. It was their fourth straight federal election where they lost seats. You would think after all this, after becoming increasingly irrelevant to an increasing number of Canadians, the party would be due for some soul-searching. For some big ideas. For some substance. Instead they continue to stress branding over substance. Problem is, guys, you don't really have much of a brand anymore.

Trudeau is not going to save this party. My worry is that he may be the nail in the coffin. Liberals cannot pin all their hopes for their party on this guy. It's not fair and it's not right. They need to be focusing on re-branding themselves, creating a new electoral path to success, crunching numbers, reaching out to new voters, building up new fund-raising apparatus; they need to take a page out of the Conservative handbook circa 2004. If the Liberals can do that then maybe they can revive their brand and for the first time in decades, make real political inroads. Doing the same thing they did with Ignatieff though –placing all their hopes on a one-man strategy-- is a surefire way to increase their irrelevance.

Maybe one day Trudeau could make a great leader –I personally will not hold my breath-- and this leadership contest will surely give him some much needed experience. But for him to get what he needs out of it, for the party to get what it needs out of it, it needs to be a real contest. And, if Liberals really know what is best for them, it should be a contest that he ultimately loses. In another several years then maybe, just maybe, Justin Trudeau might be ready for prime-time.

I hope for the sake of a healthy Canadian democracy, that Liberals make the smart choice. Not the obvious one. Not the easy one. Justin Trudeau is not ready for prime-time and the Liberal Party is not ready for Justin Trudeau as leader. If Liberals really want to fulfill the prophesy of a resurrected Liberal Party with another Trudeau at the helm they need a lot more time and hard-work because otherwise what they're asking for is a miracle.   

On The Re-Election of Barack Obama

I'll start this off by saying that, as they often do, Americans made the best choice on Tuesday. Being that the vast majority of Canadians wanted Barack to win last night, there may not be much of a case to be made here. Barack, according to a variety of polls, was the favourite amongst the populations of the world. Across Europe, Asia and nearly every country where people were asked they resoundingly said they wanted four more years. The one country that bucked this trend was Pakistan. No doubt this was as a result of anger over the Obama administration's use of predator drones (the “giant killing machines” --as the Onion refers to them-- that take the human casualty aspect out of the American side of the equation in Afghanistan). Yet, while it was clear the world wanted Obama, Americans seemed very unsure in the lead-up to the election. Romney even had the momentum, if not the outright lead, for much of the campaign. If the world knew so clearly who America should elect how were the American's so unsure? Canadians, with their pop-culture consumption of American politics, chalked it up to American stupidity. That is simplistic and silly. It is easy to observe, from afar, goings-on that one has very little intimate understanding of. It is easier yet to do so without understanding the differences in place, culture, identity, and politics that result in entirely different contextual frameworks. The experience of an American participating in their own democracy is different from a Canadian participating in theirs and we would do well to observe and take note. Instead of limiting ourselves to a pop-culture consummation of the American election that reflects on the most petty, partisan, and frankly depressing aspects of American politics we would do well to look at the election in an effort to understand and learn from it. Then we would be adding something valuable to the discourse rather than adding to the noise. Here is my attempt.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 by a resounding margin. He came to office on promises of hope and change that reflected America's distaste with the final years of the Bush regime, tiredness of war, apprehension about the economy, and the American need to see the silver lining in it all. The American Dream needed to be reinvigorated and kept alive and Americans needed to feel good about themselves. His victory cut across partisan lines and it felt truly historic in no small measure because of his race. His first term was marked by some significant achievements and failures. In the face of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, America took a big hit and its recovery has been slow, and painful. Budget deficits and the national debt continue to increase astronomically and the bipartisanship that Obama promised seems nowhere to be found. Obama did manage to introduce his plan to universalize health-care insurance. He has ended the war in Iraq and is in the process of doing so in Afghanistan. And, of course, they 'got' Osama Bin Laden.

The election was (despite the attempts of some third-party candidates) a decision between two different men with two different visions for America; to understand one candidate we must view them in context with the other. Mitt Romney was known as the moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. In fact, that plan for the universalization of healthcare that the Obama administration boasts of –but receives very mixed levels of approval by for-- was taken directly from Romney's plan in Massachusetts. During the Republican primaries, however, Romney continually tacked further and further to the right. Some of the positions he was 'forced' into worked but, they certainly gave the impression of a different Mitt. On his own healthcare plan, for example, he took a position acceptable to most Republicans and states-rights proponents: that his plan worked for Massachusetts and that states should all work towards their own localized plan, rather than having the federal government legislate a one-size-fits-all plan. Fair enough. But Romney tacked to the right on abortion and contraception. He pledged no tax increases whatsoever, even if huge budget cuts were agreed to by the Senate and Congress; the economics of the American debt-load requires an unfortunate mixture of expenditure reduction and tax increase if Americans ever hope to adequately address the issue. Romney's march onward and rightward was deemed necessary by many experts who insisted that if he didn't move to the right primary voters would reject him and vote in one of his more radical opponents. Unfortunately it also did damage to Romney amongst the very voters that he had such an opportunity to gain; moderates. Those who self-identified themselves as moderates overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and, eventually, 2012. They were also overwhelmingly disappointed with Obama and very ready to look at an alternative in 2012.

In the Republican primaries Romney never really faced a formidable opponent. He tacked right to ward off what really was a lunatic fringe and in the process tarnished his reputation. Once he won he took a while to move back to the moderate Mitt that politicos were familiar with; the first debate being the main occasion. He began to overtake Obama in the polls and the momentum was with him. Moderate Mitt had a real shot at winning. He only had the problem of his own campaigning over the previous year to stand in his way. When candidates change their positions, particularly over a short period of time, and often, the electorate becomes wary. They may have liked what Romney was saying but now the question became could they believe it? Add to that a few offhanded remarks by some extreme social conservatives regarding God's intention of rape etc., and the doubt surrounding Mitt ruined the parity he had created between him and Obama amongst women.

Obama was by no means a shoe-in. He has been a popular president but he has also been popularly disappointing to a great number of Americans. Midwesterners, blue-collar workers, suburban moms, Hispanics, and young urban professionals (or yuppies, as seems unfashionable to call them now) were groups that largely voted for Obama in 2008 and were ripe for the picking by a moderate opponent; one like the Governor of Massachusetts, saviour of the Salt Lake City Olympics and successful businessman. Many of these voters liked Obama because of the hope and change he promised. They hoped he could work with his opponents to achieve change but Obama never approached Republicans to create bi-partisan plans with him --rather he presented prefabricated plans to Republicans and then insisted they sign on.

Obama won for a variety of reasons, the most important of which are demonstrated by contrasting him with Romney. Obama campaigned on his record of steady, concrete action. He achieved less than Americans had hoped --and on the results they were mixed-- but he had followed through, or attempted to, on his campaign promises and promised more change for the next four years. He did not go back and forth on positions or seem hard to pin down politically. Romney did. Obama did less to adapt his record to a more moderate position, however, the radical elements of the Democratic party are simply not as prominent as they are in the Republican party. This created the impression –or illusion-- that Romney was more extreme and Obama more moderate.

I will admit that Romney was my favourite in the Republican primaries of 2008. In 2012 I was hoping it would be his year. I thought it was time for the Republican party to moderate itself and bring the power within the party back in line with the political compass of America. It seems such a process needs to develop roots and grow over time, rather than the sudden shift I was hoping for. The Republican Party was founded on principles and ideas that are timeless. Republican ideals are at the heart of what it means to be American and that will never change. Despite all the partisan noise and the habit of expressing things in extreme ways, Americans are moderates and are increasingly identifying themselves in this manner.

This being the most important lesson of the election. The Democrats positioned themselves, starting with Bill Clinton, as a party of moderates. They were forced to do so by lacklustre performances at the polls for over a decade and the perception that they were only accessible to those far to the left. Now is the time for the Republicans to do the same. The two-party system in America works only if both parties operate as “big tent” homes to a variety of political attitudes, ideas, groups, and individuals that can unite around central tenants. The smaller that Republicans make their tent, and the larger Democrats make theirs, the more lopsided American democracy becomes. This is unhealthy for all Americans and democracy the world over.

On the Choice Between Mulcair and Harper

Two key events of late in federal politics make clear to me that the trends evident in the last federal election are solidified and have the potential to reshape the Canadian political landscape for a long time to come. The first has to do with the latest add campaign launched by the Conservatives and the second has to do with the election of Thomas Mulcair as leader of the official opposition.

There was a time when the Conservatives and PM Harper were the victims of repeated attack adds. There was the idea that Harper was going to “divide and conquer” the nation by pitting region against region, group against group. This is an accusation that lasts to this day. It went along with the boogeyman narrative that allowed the Liberals to win a minority Government under Paul Martin, and keep the Conservatives to a minority for years. Finally Canadians realized that Harper was not intent on criminalizing homosexuality and abortion or teaching creationism in school and they gave him a majority. The opposition's attempts at painting the Conservatives in the same light as the extreme fringe (although increasingly influential) segment of the Republican party in the US stopped working. They stopped working because Canadians, given several years of Harper governments, realized he was generally center-right. He is generally fiscally conservative and socially moderate to –dare I say it?– liberal; as most Canadians are. The attacks also stopped working because Canadians grew tired of them. They saw Harper presenting his ideas through legislation and saw the opposition doing nothing but criticize on false pretenses. Which lead Canadians to consider the narrative being put forth –is he actually bad?–, the policies being offered by the Conservatives, and the largely absent alternative being offered by the opposition. The result of these considerations is clear in the 2011 election results.

The Conservatives have subjected the Liberal leaders to the same sort of negative definition. It was easy to do as both Dion and Ignattief were intensely weak and flawed candidates. They are now doing the same with Bob Rae whose record as premier of Ontario was, by nearly all accounts, dismal. In fact, it was so dismal that most Liberals thought him a terrible premier. Then he switched from the NDP to the Liberals. Their old enemy, whose policies and government they ardently criticized, they are now forced to defend and embrace as leader. Its a odd situation that justifies being pointed out. It is completely legitimate that the Conservatives remind Ontartians of their past premier's record. The Liberals would do the same if he were still with the NDP. Accompanied by these ads, focusing on the abysmal economic record of Rae, are ads focusing on Stephen Harper's economic record as PM. It highlights the fact that we survived the global meltdown nearly unscathed and that our economy appears to be turning the corner. Tough, sound fiscal management in unsure times: that's the narrative that the Conservatives are focusing on in regards to their record. It's one that appeals to conservatives and Canadians and it's one that is hard to refute, particularly for Liberals who are largely cut from the same economic cloth as Conservatives. Of course the question remains as to weather Bob Rae will even stay on as leader of the Liberals. It's also a question that seems increasingly less relevant.

Of all the candidates for leader of the NDP, Mulcair was the only one who looked and acted like a PM. He was also the only one who was likely to keep the lions share of the gains the NDP enjoyed in the last election (for which he is owed much credit). Ultimately, he was the only potential leader that was capable of maintaining the momentum that he and Jack motivated. Now he is leader of the opposition. In an interview after his first House of Commons debate as leader, Mulcair said something that Jack used to say, he said that the NDP would be proposing not just opposing. I have to say I'm particularly fond of this; it's the perfect soundbite and it has substance because of what is behind it. I think it's also something that is overwhelmingly appealing to Canadians. Thomas Mulcair presents the Conservatives with a formidable political rival. I'd venture to say the most formidable we have faced.

Mulcair, in a lot of ways, is not your typical New Democrat but that is precisely why he is so good for them. He doesn't seem like someone who is content with influencing Government from the outside. He wants to be in control of the policy. He is also moderate and this comes across in the way he presents himself. His ideas surrounding sustainable economic development and his background as a cabinet minister give him a an air of legitimacy and experience that surpasses that of, I think, any recent NDP leader. He is also a political bulldog; not afraid to fight and known for a temper; he won't sit back and allow the Conservatives to define him. He has all of the characteristics that the NDP typically lack and everything required for them to steal the left-center out from underneath the Liberals (or what's left of them).

Which brings me back to his line about proposing and opposing. He will be doing plenty of both; something that all of the Liberal leaders of late neglected to do. It also makes a lot of sense for a Socialist, or Social Democrat (as the party is likely to re-frame itself in the next while) to say when facing a Conservative opponent. This is because the NDP, by its nature, has much more to propose in opposition to the Conservative government than the Liberals do. As stated before, conservative and liberal approaches to the economy are evolved from the same economic fundamentals. There is an immense amount of room for agreement and policy similarities between the two. Which is partly why the Liberals failed to offer up a real alternative to the Conservatives in the last election. It is why the Liberals are in a weaker position to criticize the recent budget which looked remarkably similar to a Paul Martin budget. The NDP are going to have a much easier time framing themselves in opposition to Conservative policy and in offering up real, appealing (albeit likely flawed and impracticable) alternatives.

This is why I think Conservative strategists are going to have to change course. Mulcair is going to take them to task on their record as they have never been before. The Conservative government has a strong record that will need to be explained and defended to the Canadian voting public. An attempt at increased transparency and openness would go a long way in silencing the blows that are bound to come loud and fierce. In regards to governing, we mostly need to stay the course and I think Canadians will reward Stephen Harper for his prudence. The NDP as main opposition, present the Conservatives with the opportunity of stark contrasts between the economically progressive policies of a Conservative government with the economically regressive policies of a Socialist party. Mulcair won't be as easily definable as Dion, Ignatieff, or Rae have been. It is actually quite likely that Conservative strategy will involve continuing to focus attacks on the Liberals in order to continue to win over centrist voters and to create the false impression that the Liberals are the Conservative's chief rivals.

For now the Conservatives need only to continue governing efficiently and effectively. In the meantime they will have a far more fierce, effective, and articulate opposition to hold them to account. If nothing else the NDP under Mulcair will serve as a constant reminder to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives why they must govern as best they can for our country; and nothing bad should come from that. Mulcair presents the Conservatives with the opportunity for better government in the face of strong opposition.

On John van Dongen's Resignation from the BC Liberals

John van Dongen resigns from B.C. Liberal caucus

Great news! With this floor-crossing he indeed demonstrated the "courage of his convictions".  It is high time more conservatives within the BC Liberals come over to the party that truly represents what it is we believe in.  The BC Liberals have become so much of what I dislike in politics.  Their policies, decisions, and actions are purely based on political expediency, special-interests, allegiances to people in power, and cold calculations of public opinion.  Principled decisions based on the good of the province do not matter to this government unless it is calculated to win them votes.

When you lose your principles, when you lose the moral foundations upon which your personal opinions are based, you lose my respect.  This government continues to play its supporters for dumb.  The Liberals bring in big-name staff from the PMs office, appear at photo ops with Conservative ministers and Harper and think that means anything to us.  They do what Liberals do best: confuse style with substance.  But British Columbians are smarter than that and we will not stand for it.  The BC Liberals are wrong if they think that British Columbians are going to stand by while their beliefs and integrity are being taken for granted.

Unfortunately, Rich Coleman has decided what side he wants to be on. The NDP house leader John Horgan's defense of Van Dongen's move was admirable.  Coleman's unfounded and inappropriate response is upsetting and telling.  Instead of respond to a friend's warranted concerns he tried to cast doubt on the coherency of Van Dongen's move.  Instead of debating issues or defending the record of the government that he represents he chose to level an inappropriate personal accusation.

The party that Rich Coleman and Christy Clark stand for is not a party that deserves to govern.  The BC Liberal party is a party of dishonesty and deceit.  The Conservatives have a real shot at forming government in the next election.  It is the only principled, free-market alternative to the NDP.  Of course as things stand now it is a long-shot.  At least Van Dongen, I, and others who have made the switch will feel comfortable in knowing that we followed our hearts, and our heads, in supporting a party that would represent us as free-thinking individuals for the entirety of their mandate, rather than simply a vote to be counted on election day.