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.

On the NDP Leadership Convention This Weekend

This weekend in Toronto the NDP is set to crown Canada's newest leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It has been a long campaign and one overwhelmingly cast as boring by commentators. Being a conservative but a political junkie first and foremost, I've been reading all I can about it but I couldn't bring myself to sit through more than little snippets of the six leadership debates. Through all of the articles I've read and all the news panels and reports I could not help but get an overwhelming sense of certain trends in the consensus media's coverage.

When I say consensus media the term's meaning is twofold. Firstly, I mean to highlight the approaches, ideas, and narratives that the majority of reporters, commentators, and columnists have and, more particularly, what they have in common. Secondly, the term is used to point out the nature of media coverage in the country. The way that there tends to be a consensus amongst the major news organizations (some outlets and journalists more than others) on ideas and narratives concerning politics. This is a common criticism around the world and it comes variously from the right and the left. Most often in Canada this argument is put forth by conservatives. In the past the National Post had a reputation as portraying an image of existing outside this consensus. Today the Sun newspapers (we don't have one in BC as the Vancouver Sun is part of Postmedia) and Sun News Network are aggressively marketed in this way. What is of interest to me today and, frankly, has me annoyed is not how the 'consensus media' is portraying the Conservative Party –as is often the issue amongst bloggers of my sort– but how it's portrayed the NDP leadership race.

I mentioned it before but it bears repeating that coverage of the race has overwhelmingly centered around how boring and long it's been. I find this to be a completely useless observation. First of all I challenge anyone –reminding you that I am obsessed with politics...I sit down with a bowl of popcorn to watch election coverage– to find me when Canada has ever had an exciting leadership race. In my relatively few years observing Canadian politics I've watched one Alliance, one PC, one Conservative, three Liberal, and one other NDP race. None were exciting. None had anything particularly scandalous, headline grabbing, or dramatic like American races often do. They have all been remarkably similar in their blandness to the average Canadian. That does not change the fact that they were all important. They were all integral to the functioning of one of the most advanced democracies in the world. When party members elect their leaders they are making historical decisions; they are effecting who our potential PM's are and sometimes directly who our PM is.

Understandably the media looks for winners and losers. The outlets like to follow dramatic narratives and get people riled up. This often leads them to portray a race as existing between a few front runners or, when it comes to parties, between two key diabolically opposed players. conservatism vs. liberalism fits this narrative perfectly in the US. For most of Canada's history it has served as a convincing framework as well, though less tidily and (mostly) without the diabolical elements. Thus media has tended to focus more attention on the leadership races of the supposed 'front-runners': the Conservatives and the Liberals. This is surely the way Canadian media would prefer to go on covering politics. But history has a habit of forcing change upon unwilling participants. The NDP became the Official Opposition after last election. As the official opposition it is the NDP's responsibility to represent Canadians in opposition to the Conservatives. In other words it is their job to behave as the official critics and to help government to function optimally through presenting the Conservatives with criticisms that can be used productively or as points of ultimate opposition on which voters can decide. The Official Opposition is integral to our democracy functioning as is the Leader of the Opposition.

Clearly the NDP leadership campaign has deserved in depth coverage from the media beyond superfluous observations of its perceived boringness. It has not received this. The NDP is being treated by the consensus media as it has been in the past; on the sidelines. The NDP leadership race has received extremely little attention; robo-calls and Bob Rae's musings on just about anything are presumably of more importance. The consensus media found every opportunity to cover the past two Liberal conventions. I'm quite sure they found these races vastly more exciting. I'll tell you why: most individuals that make up the 'consensus media' are liberals and often Liberals. They fear that the NDP may be replacing the Liberals in the bi-oppositional framework that they themselves perpetuate. Or, at least, may be complicating things by creating a truly three-way battleground.

The fact of the matter is that there are important ideas being debated in this race. Ideas that can, and will, impact the direction of our country. The candidates offer us very different images of what Canadian politics may look like in the years to come. The most prominent of them is Thomas Mulcair. He is likely to move the party more into the center, keep the NDP competitive in Quebec and, ultimately, move the NDP convincingly into traditional Liberal territory. Given that Harper has been doing precisely this from the right this fundamentally threatens the Liberals as a party. As the Leader of the Opposition whoever's crowned on Saturday will play a prominent role in shaping the debate and political direction of this country. He or She will be the primary political figure in opposition to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and in this way will influence the Government's policies as well. Despite the Liberal's and the consensus media's attempts to shape the political landscape it is quite likely that whoever is crowned leader on Saturday will be the primary alternative to Stephen Harper in the next election. This likelihood increases immensely if Mulcair becomes leader.

Obviously the implications of the NDP leadership race that finishes this weekend are far more important than the consensus media would have us believe.   

On the Teacher's Strike: The Same Old Story Regarding Unions

The latest teacher's strike in BC demonstrates a major disconnect in our society that is felt across the country. The government has allowed the strike to go ahead instead of sitting over the weekend and legislating the teachers back to work. This is a calculated move in order to win public support and to allow the inevitable 'anti-union' opinion to coalesce against the teachers' cause. We are all familiar with both sides of the argument and this story has been on repeat as long as I've been alive. What I'm interested in, is not so much who is wrong or who is right but in going beyond the arguments as they have been and as they likely will be, for years. We need to look at why it is that this same process and state of perpetual feud continues to see results that satisfies no one.

Unions developed out of necessity. They were formed to protect vulnerable workers from unscrupulous employers in an age when very little was expected from employers.  Workplace conditions and compensation levels were poor. Unions led the way in creating satisfactory workplaces and the government followed suit by legislating and regulating employers to ensure fairness. Unions served a purpose and motivated governments to make important changes. Most significantly, they motivated the private sector to offer employees more benefits in order to discourage unionization.

Unions function on purely socialistic logic. They demand out of their employees completely equal input (which is simply not possible given human nature) and, in turn, offer equality of compensation (based on seniority, of course). The problem is that these unions operate within a capitalistic reality. In the rest of the economy, individuals are rewarded for their different levels of input. Employers have the freedom to motivate employees through purely financial rewards such as wage increases, bonuses, etc., as well as through benefits, workplace amenities and other advantages. Individuals then have the opportunity to pursue careers that suit their own needs and seek out a relationship of their preference with an employer. Of course this is the system in principle and, indeed, reality isn't so simplistic. The fact remains, however, that a capitalist system's ultimate intention, and result, is to create fluidity and choice in the labour market and the power of the individual to make decisions. Unions work against nearly all of these principles. They co-opt the normal relationship between an employer and employee, allowing for no individual rewards, and create an instant state of confrontation. They negate the power of the individual in preference for the group; socialism defined.

Of course, most of this has been realized and remedied by the private sector. Unions have been on the decline for 40 years now. This decline is the result of the above reasoning and the important factor of private sector pressure to improve compensation in order to discourage unionization. Unions have become largely obsolete in the private sector because government ensures that both the employers' and the employees' needs are being met and that the system operates as our society deems it should. For the most part there is very little labour unrest in the private sector. All of this explains the situation in the private sector but the public sector is a completely different matter.

Unions function as representatives of employees and governments exist to represent the needs of both employees and employers. The public-sector creates a sort of conflict of interest. Here the government goes beyond its role of neutral representative of employer and employed and becomes the employer itself. It's like the defense lawyer being the judge in the same trial. This is part of the reasoning behind minimal government-run enterprise.  This, along with the idea that a government simply need not offer a service that the demand for is easily met through interactions amongst private citizens.  The logic behind a government owning a restaurant would be minimal as individuals are perfectly capable and wanting of opening their own restaurants while the consumer's needs are easily met. With things like health care, education, and the bureaucracy the need for government control and thus public-sector employment is obvious, if not ideal. The awkward relationship between government, as employer and governor, and public sector employees has created a situation of almost universal unionization. Rather than an option, as in the private sector, unions are seen as a necessity in the public sector.

Enter the teachers strike. Same as the teacher's strike before that, and before that, and on and on down the pages of history. Add nurses to that list. And let's not act on our socioeconomic biases...add doctors, police, the bureaucrats. All of these individuals are held hostage to their situation. They need unions to rectify the immense power that the government has over them as their employer and representative in society. They are cut off from the normal operating of a capitalist system; they don't get rewarded or benefit from their own individual effort. The government is encouraged to view them as a collective, rather than individuals, and the unions are a powerful collective. The lines of power distribution are blurred (the government as legislator, executor, and employer is a daunting beast of disproportion) and the unions are seen as a beast of their own. Public opinion, inevitably, gets swept up in the relationship of perpetual conflict and people take sides. Often the debates get reduced to a team-sport. It becomes so natural.

Of key importance is the nature of the public's involvement in these public-sector disputes. In the private sector, individual relationships to employers and employees is dependent on their own individual action; concern with a private-sector labour disupute is largely relegated to whether or not they use the service affected. Of course, if worker's are not being treated fairly we hope that our government takes action. In the public sector our stake is more intimate. The government is, essentially, an extension of us. We vote in order to see to it that our government represents our individual perspective and we pay the taxes that fund its operation. So, by extension, public-sector employees are employed by us. They are employed by us because we see the need for their jobs to exist outside of the private sector. They are valued, important, and indeed, essential. We have individual stakes in them serving our society. As teachers they educate our kids and ensure that future generations can prosper and progress. As nurses they care for our sick.  Both jobs increasingly entail filling in the void left by the unfortunate decline in the family unit.

We elect our governments to make decisions on our behalf. But when they are negotiating compensation and engaging in a relationship as an employer we see a conflict of interest. We become more involved through public opinion and take sides. The yelling match reaches epic proportions and whoever yells loudest wins. Most often it's the government. They won with the paramedics. They'll win it with the teachers. And what was achieved? Teachers feel as though their individual needs and desires are not being heard. The government feels its being vilified for trying serving the interests of the people who elected them. The union feels that the process of collective bargaining is being made a mockery of. Most individuals feel as if a whole lot of time and energy was wasted with no productive result. Everyone has someone to blame, no one looks at themselves as –at leas the partial– cause, and the system goes on perpetuating itself.

The polarization of British Columbia along union and anti-union lines is well known. As soon as the strike began out came the same-old troops lined up to do battle. It was actually an articulate and involved facebook conversation of a friend's, regarding the strike, that inspired me to write this entry. We understand the problems. The current 'solutions' aren't working. Is it not time to try something different? The unique implications involved in having a government operate as an employer requires a unique handling of the relationship. Public-sector employment does not seem to be functioning in a way that is amicable to societies needs. There's a limited scope of change that can be instituted in this regard and it seems clear that the institution that is in most need of reform is the union.

Musings on the Past and Near Future of Canadian Politics

It seems, at first, odd when foreign commentators cite Canada's conservative political culture. The reality is best expressed not in our conception of ideology but rather in the way we approach governance in attitude. As I've noted in a previous post, we are a country founded on the maxim of “peace, order and good governance” and this reverberates through our political culture. We have had, essentially, the same three federalist parties in play since the 50s. For all the rhetoric surrounding change it is hard to discern how Canadians generally approach it (and it is a question I don't have the time or resources to delve into) but it can certainly be said that we expect our governments to be cautious when approaching it. Change in government is inevitable but we want to be assured, or at least minimally unsure, that the results will be positive.

Hence, when a government is working, perhaps not as best it should, but working nonetheless we tend to support it. This is how the Liberals were able to maintain the unwarranted title of Canada's 'natural governing party' for most of our history. It was not through brilliance, or even through design, it was because with Laurier, King, St. Laurent, Pierson, Chrétien, they knew their jobs and did them. They weren't exciting, they weren't exceptional, they simply worked. They showed up for their jobs and they did an alright enough job so that Canadian's didn't feel impelled to fire them. And when they did fire them, they hired a new guy remarkably similar, like Diefenbaker, Clark, or Mulroney. Trudeau, arguably, is the only politician that didn't fit this mould in the least. Love him or hate him he was exciting. The place he hold's in many liberal Canadian's imagination –as the archetype Canadian liberal politician–is largely ahistorical. Not only did he do more to Americanize our country than any Canadian politician before him in a policy sense he was very American in his approach to politics. He was not like the bureaucratic image of a Canadian politician. He fit the mould of an American one perfectly, which is perhaps, precisely why he irritated them so; it is often the characteristic of loud personalities that they can only stand themselves. He was brash, confrontational, cocky, and unapologetic.

After Trudeau things were slightly altered although not as drastically as could have been the case. The inherent blandness of Canadian politics seemed to pick up a bit of American sex appeal. Canadians seemed, at least for a while, to demand more excitement from their leaders. Mulroney's wife Mila was a favourite of the press. The intrigue and political gamesmanship of the Meech Lake and Charlettetown Accords were testaments to the new atmosphere in Ottawa as much as they were to the vaunted efforts of a Prime Minister who was intent on making his mark on Canadian history. The fact remains, however, that Mulroney was a return to the bureaucratic, disciplined, anti-polar image of Canadian PM's.

Which brings us to Harper; he fits the image perfectly, despite what some negligible commentators on the left would have us believe. They would have us believe that Harper is intent on criminalizing abortion and reversing same-sex marriage. They insist that the hidden agenda that won the 2004 election is still going to rear its head. It is what political losers do: point to imaginary problems to score much needed and illusive points. (Conservatives did and still do it when they cry socialism whenever liberal policy is enacted.) It's extremely counterproductive and counterintuitive in that it neither highlights real problems to appose or offers any solutions. The left's insistence on attacking the Conservative's record on false logic will not work with 4 years of government record to the contrary. Nevertheless, people who oppose all too often resort to this strategy. Harper, is in fact, remarkably similar to his predecessors in personality and policy. It is in the essential truth of the latter point that some conservatives, in fact, find themselves adversely affected. They would rather Harper be less like his predecessors. These individuals, myself included, would prefer he be more conservative or more reformist (by this I mean not to allude to the negative social conservative connotation that leftists often impinge on this word in Canada but its universal meaning, also related to his routes in the Reform Party). Most of us, however, will settle on our conservative disposition and re-elect him because he is here and he is unworthy of being fired. It seems likely that Canadians will, over these next three years, become increasingly comfortable with the idea that Harper is much like they have come to expect from their leaders and the Conservative government has behaved much like previous Liberal ones. As Canadians increasingly warm to Harper and come to see him for what he is –a leader that appeals to very Canadian sensibilities about what a leader should be– he will be given more license to make his own, unique, mark on Canadian politics. So, paradoxically, it is in his adherence to the norm of Canadian politics that he will be permitted to be more different.

It is in this paradox that, finally, it becomes apparent that the situation is not so odd as it seems. Harper's adherence to the Canadian norm, to the established idea of a Canadian Prime Minister, the characteristically conservative attitude of Canadian's towards our Government that foreigners so often point to, will allow our Prime Minister to enact more conservative policy. Continuing with the attention to oddities in Canadian politics: of these conservative policies, the ones for which many Conservative's, including myself, are most hopeful are the reform policies. Indeed, reform is not the usual provocative of conservative governments but it seems in Canada we have a habit of turning typical political meanings on their head.

Defender of the House steps down

This article is about a great man, Rob Walsh, who did more for Canadian democracy than most will ever know. He expresses some very important concerns about the direction of our parliamentary democracy.  Read the article, Defender of the House steps down, from the Ottawa Citizen.  I think that all the federal parties and all MPs could do a great deal more to ensure that we don't lose respect for this country's important institutions.

On the Fate of the Province: It's Time for the BC Conservatives

My last post I looked at the likelihood, in Quebec and Alberta, of major political shake-ups, both of which are likely to benefit new conservative parties. In BC, while the case is less clear, it seems there is a real possibility of this too.

I have been severely unimpressed with the performance of the BC Liberals as of late. This was initiated by their handling of the HST which was upsetting in two key ways. Firstly, I felt that they were extremely dishonest in the election about their intentions regarding the HST. Their actions in instituting it without citizen input or a democratic mandate further aggravated me and a great number of British Columbians. Secondly, I feel it was (and continues to be) clearly and undeniably the best economic policy for British Columbia and the country. They absolutely screwed it up. The fact of the matter is that the majority of British Columbians support free-market policy and the HST has broad support from the center-right but because the Liberals were, essentially, undemocratic about instating it we voted it down in the referendum. Now the province is worst of because of this and the fault lies squarely with the Liberals.

After years of ardent support for BC Liberal party I have chosen to give the BC Conservatives my full support. To those of you outside of the province this may seem un-extraordinary or at least to be expected from an ideologically conservative individual but in BC, for the past 20 years, the BC Liberals have been quite a different beast than Liberals federally or in any other province for that matter. The BC Liberals here are an alliance of free-market thinkers, practically of political conservatives and liberals, who allied in order to prevent destructive NDP governments from taking shape. The BC Conservatives, however, have been all but dormant and usually run very few candidates.

Under Gordon Campbell the BC Liberals were, for all intents and purposes, a conservative government that allowed --mainly as an extended olive branch-- a select few federal Liberals to join the ranks of cabinet. This fundamentally changed with Christy Clark as leader of the party and premier. She is a federal Liberal and her liberal policies are evident.

Ultimately, however, British Columbia is polarized along the lines of free-market proponents and command economy proponents (represented by the unions and NDP) and so many are comfortable voting for the BC Liberals so long as they prevent the NDP from gaining power. It allows the BC Liberals to get away with a lot: including purely undemocratic decision making (like with the HST).

The BC Conservatives essentially share my position on the HST, one which I feel the majority of British Columbians share too. The party is also a comfortable fit with the free-market consensus of the center-right in this province. They have a great leader in John Cummins who served as an invaluable Member of Parliament (as a Reformer, Canadian Alliance member, and Conservative) for nearly twenty years. I think it's time British Columbians move forward and institute some reform on our tired political landscape. Let's give the BC Conservatives a chance at governing this province. The bi-polar politics of this province have most of us feeling hostage to the whims of the BC Liberals who are increasingly unrepresentative of our opinions.

Indeed this requires a great deal of faith. The hurdles to overcome are twofold. Firstly the BC Conservatives need to establish themselves as a political force of the center-right that is here to stay. This will cause the BC Liberals to loose support from a large part of their base and cause the unraveling of the surprisingly strong (but increasingly uneasy) alliance that was created over twenty years ago. Secondly, they need to convince the mainstream voter (who doesn't read political blogs or isn't as in tune to their own political character) that they are capable of forming a stable government that will adhere to the consensus of the center-right of the province.

I think the BC Conservatives have huge potential and with huge potential comes the chance for great disappointment. I'm tired of the BC Liberals and I want something different. I hope that the BC Conservatives can replace them because voters who choose to vote for them will be risking a lot in that it may just allow the NDP to win the next election. In fact, many British Columbians likely wont change their allegiance until it becomes very clear that the Conservatives are in the better position to beat the NDP than the Liberals. This will take time. I have enough faith in the BC Conservatives at this point to park my allegiance with them and hope they can form government after the election in 2013...the health of our province depends on it.

Looking Forward to Provincial Politics in 2012, 2013

 In 2011 we saw that Canadians, overwhelmingly, chose to keep governing parties in power. In Yukon, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland conservative parties (ascribing to various names) were resoundingly re-elected. Federally the same was true. In Manitoba it was a very close race, by votes cast, but due to oddities in the first-past the post system the NDP was re-elected with a strong majority. In Ontario voters settled on a re-elected Liberal minority government. That was the 2011 election cycle. It was exciting for me and reassuring. All of the provinces that elected conservative parties seem to be settling on a consensus that free-market policies are undoubtedly the way forward for Canadians. Nationally, one hopes, we are coming towards this consensus as well. Manitoba and Ontario both look ripe for political change in their next round of elections, which is likely to benefit conservative parties and the well-being of the provinces themselves. What of the provinces that are set to vote in the next two years? Here I think things get quite exciting too.

In Quebec the CAQ presents an exciting new alternative to the old sovereignist-federalist battle lines and, perhaps more importantly, is soundly based in free-market, entrepreneurial policy that is sure to benefit the province and our country. We already saw a huge shakeup in Quebec politics with the federal election and witnessed the destruction of the Bloc Québécios. We can only hope the CAQ can deliver a death-blow to soverignty in Quebec by giving the Parti Québécios a terrible showing. The Liberals there have done a respectable job of managing the economy but are elected largely because of the bi-polar nature of Quebec politics (the result of the sovereignty debate). This results in voters feeling forced into voting one of two ways and settling on a party that is increasingly shrouded in controversy and scandal. The Liberals have lost their right to govern but free-market oriented voters as well as federalists, until recently, only had one feasible option. Political observers will be watching this one intently.

In Alberta, it seems, the groundwork is laid for another historic shakeup. Alberta has been governed by four political parties, in succession, since its beginning. First by the Liberals, then by the United Farmers, followed by the Social Credit for 36 years and the Progressive Conservatives (PC) for 41 years. Historically, each party governs with very little opposition until the next 'dynasty' emerges and overtakes the old one. Many observers, including myself, feel Alberta has reached this critical juncture. The PC's have shifted to the left of the political spectrum as Alberta, and Canada, shifts to the right. It has left them more open to attack on the right which is exactly where the Wildrose Party exists. Alberta came to a consensus centered around modern conservatism over seventy years ago and when the dynastic party moves away from it, naturally, another dynasty will come in to fill the void. It seems quite likely that the Wildrose Party will win the Alberta provincial election this year.

In British Columbia we have, perhaps, the most unpredictable set of circumstances. This is primarily because in Alberta and Quebec a great amount of realignment has already occurred while in BC, the realignment I'm both advocating for and predicting hasn't entirely taken shape yet. BC, along with Quebec, is a very bi-polar province politically. The province is largely separated into two camps: free-market advocates and their allies and proponents of command economy models (represented by the unions and the NDP). The province has been characterized by this two-party system since the early 40s when the NDPs emergent popularity made necessary a 'merging' of the political center-right. When the Social Credit party collapsed at the start of the 90s, and without an appropriate party to pick up the center-right banner, the NDP entered into the decade of destruction, during which it was able to turn BC into a have-not province. In a decade of economic prosperity across the western world, BC was brought into a decade of economic stagnation. Roughly half of this province never has and never will vote for the NDP. More than that, presumably, understand the economic record of NDP governments in this province; anytime they've come into power we've gone into a period of stagnation or decline. At the same time the BC Liberals are losing the approval of a great number of those voters who won't vote NDP. The reasons for this are multiple and I plan on blogging on it more in the future.

Enter the BC Conservatives. They are looking increasingly capable of governing this province. Their base is still small; the fear that many British Columbians have of another NDP government is so strong that many feel bound to the BC Liberals. I recently escaped from my self-inflicted captivity in the BC Liberals to join the BC Conservatives. The situation of so many supporters feeling hostage to the increasingly misguided and liberal BC Liberals is not healthy for democracy. My hope is that the BC Conservatives are able to position themselves as filling the increasing void on the center-right left by the drifting and tired BC Liberals.

Canada's 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th largest provinces are set to offer up some major political shake ups. It also seems quite likely that two powerful Liberal parties are likely to face the same fate as their federal counterparts. The cause of which, in all three cases, seems to be the overwhelming sense of entitlement, lack of ethics, and disregard for citizen input on the part of Liberal parties across the country.  I feel trends point to a crisis within Liberal ideology and the Liberal vision for Canada.  The trends also point to a shifting of the political center in the country that clearly benefits conservative parties and governments.

Regarding the Defection of Lise St-Denis Last Week

The defection of elected NDP MP Lise St-Denis to the Liberal caucus has brought the issue of floor-crossing to the fore once again. Defections are not new. They have been part of the Westminster parliamentary system since its beginnings. In Britain former PM Churchill switched party allegiances twice during his career.

In Canadian politics provincial and federal floor-crossings usually mark a shift in the political landscape. Federally, mass defections occurred during the Conscription Crisis of 1917 during which MPs crossed between the Unionist (essentially Conservative) government and Laurier-Liberal opposition according to the parties' re-alignments of policy regarding conscription. Floor-crossings provincially, and federally, often accompany the formation of new parties. This was the case when the Bloc Québécois was formed out of defections from the Progressive Conservative and Liberal, Quebec caucuses. Provincially this situation is playing out in Quebec as members have defected from the Parti Québécois and Action Démocratique du Québec (ADQ) for the newly formed (and hugely popular) Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ). Same is the case in Alberta where the new Wildrose Party has received defections from the governing Progressive Conservatives.

All of this seems justifiable on the part of the defectors; MPs and MLAs are expected to sit with the party that best fits with their political views. In the case of a realignment of the political landscape it is understandable that a sitting member may suddenly find themselves a better fit with another party. If this often happens with voters how could we not expect it to happen with those we elect?

The problem we run into with defections and floor-crossing is that they all to often seem motivated by more sinister motives. Canadians rightfully responded negatively to floor-crossings like that of Belinda Stronach in 2005 and David Emerson in 2007. In both cases the switches seemed a direct affront to democracy. Ms. Stronach, only months after running for the leadership of the Conservative Party chose to switch parties (after an election) to the Liberals so as to receive a Cabinet post. It wreaked of opportunism and clearly their was no shift in the political landscape that motivated her to do so ethically. David Emerson's floor-crossing only two weeks after an election was highly disappointing to many Conservative supporters as it represented the same disrespect for our votes that Ms. Stronach obviously had. He received a key cabinet post as a reward from Stephen Harper for his switch. Both times the issue of ethics was raised. Clearly most Canadians consider such blatant opportunism and disregard for voters as negatively impacting our democracy. Plainly, these switches are unethical.

Now we have the case of Lise St-Denise. Of course here the question of opportunism is far less clear. She left the struggling Official Opposition for the third place party whose outlook is gloomy at best. In answer to why she switched mere months after an election it becomes clear that with some foresight and actual involvement she could have found her political home sooner. She sights differences between her beliefs and NDP policy and, most tellingly, when asked how she thinks Québecers will feel she bluntly stated, “They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead.”. In other words Ms. St-Denis joined the NDP because she knew the leader was popular and thought she'd jump on the bandwagon. She disagreed with most NDP policy and knew (or if she didn't she certainly should have –when running for election one tends to consider such things–) that her political ideas and beliefs were a better fit with the Liberals. Now Jack Layton has passed away and she is crossing the floor to the party she belongs in. In her riding, by the way, the Liberals received 12% of the vote and finished in fourth place. Clearly Ms. St-Denise representing St-Maurice-Champlain is not democratic.

What does all this mean practically? Its key implications are twofold. Firstly, it indicates that the Liberals still lack understanding as to why their political fortunes have been on a continuous downwards trend in the 21^st century; they continue to show utter disregard for the people. They are a party almost intrinsically motivated by top-down management which results in decisions consistently appearing to be made out of a distrust of the average Canadian.

Secondly, it makes clear that the rules regarding defections need to change. The intent of the first half of this posting was to make clear the positive situations in which floor-crossing occurs. In Saskatchewan a law was recently passed that forces defecting MPs to sit as independents for the remainder of their term. This was a remarkably proactive policy put in place by former Premier Gary Doer. Similar legislation should be seriously considered at the federal level. The NDP has proposed that a defection automatically trigger a by-election in the affected riding. I think this is as democratic and fair as the law could be. It allows for the affected MP (or MLA) to make their case to their constituents and for voters to feel as though their vote actually counts for something.

Canadians are all too often made to feel like their vote doesn't count. Legislating a more democratic approach to defections is a remedy to this ill. I think it would be awesome if the Conservatives could work together with the NDP to see that a law on democratic reform (supposedly a passion of both parties) be passed.

Canada vs. the US: On Our Political Cultures

I'll take any opportunity I can to read, hear, talk, or learn about the politics of any country but America's politics has a tendency to aggravate, confound, and disturb me. When I look at politics down there and up here I can't help but feel relieved and grateful that I live in Canada. Indeed, American politics is far more exciting. The Canadian political scene is largely seen as dry and boring. But it is in these natures that I find my preference for our ways.

American politics is largely about entertainment. It's show business. It has a cast of quirky, crazy characters with scripts of deceits, betrayals, epic conflicts and high-drama. And most importantly its funded with billions of dollars. Of course Canadian politics (with our $1,000 donation limits, corporate and union donor bans, PMs like Stephen Harper, and Leaders of the Opposition like Nicole Turmel) seems very un-exciting in comparison.

The battle between Barack Obama and the “do-nothing” Congress is of great interest to many. Obama is characterized by the right as a socialist trying to thrust his agenda of government control of citizens on the American people through scary propositions like universal healthcare coverage. In Canada, this idea is defended wholeheartedly (almost as a right) by all main federal and provincial parties. Disagreements largely revolve around public vs. private involvement in our universal system.

The Republican party is demonized by the left as the party of white millionaires and evangelicals who want to set back woman’s rights and hate gays. While the Republican party, as one of two parties representing the political compass, is home to some with extreme views and great wealth, so is the Democratic Party. Issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage are far too complex to demonize any side of the argument; there are legitimate, real, and important factors involved in people reaching the conclusions that they do regarding these sensitive issues.

With the hyper-partisan, high-drama, slanderous nature of American politics it seems all to easy to simply discount the opposing side and engage in rhetoric with one's own. The result is a system where very little ever gets done and a hell of a lot gets said. It's all talk no action where it counts and loads of Hollywood-style action in the way of sound-bytes and controversies.

Canadian politics may be kind of dry and boring but things get done here. The things that get done don't get noticed as much precisely because most people accept them. Our system operates on a great deal of consensus. While our political parties certainly find enough to disagree on come election time they tend to govern remarkably similar to one another because all parties have coalesced around certain principles (indeed some of them, in action, stray from these principles) such as fiscal responsibility and universal healthcare.

Our constitution legislates “peace, order, and good governance” the US has “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. This is highly appropriate to our political cultures. The American tripartite motto is about the sweeping, dramatic, and philosophical. It is beautiful and meaningful but highly impractical to translate into real-world governance. Ours is bland but practical. Policy is easily constructed around it and its interpretations result in little disagreement.

Our political culture may even be less accessible, hence the lack of understanding. I'll take it any day though. I don't want to live in a country where people hate you as soon as they know your politics. I like living in a country where people can disagree on politics but understand they both have the best interest of their country at heart. Sometimes I fear us moving towards American-style polarization and deadlock but I think it is too built into our political culture to be different. I'm thankful we're boring!

In Choosing A Title

Since I'm just starting out with this whole blogging thing I feel the need to give some insights into who I am politically. What better way to do so than by exploring the name-choice for my blog? It's a good way of immediately addressing certain questions that may arise regarding my own political nature.

In choosing a title for my blog I wished to convey as much as I could about my own political beliefs, as I understand them, with as few words as possible. Language is hugely complicated. A single word can have various meanings, interpretations, and connotations to many people. When choosing loaded terms like the labels Progressive and Conservative one runs the risk of explaining very little and raising a thousand questions. I do feel that the title, A Progressive Conservative View, gets to the heart of who I am politically and how I intend to approach the subjects I discuss.

Please notice my wondrous employment of the brackets to encase my progressive label. I'm not quite sure if it's a bit of shame, my latent and inappropriate latching onto a trend in academic writing, or a caveat for those who shudder when they read the term without brackets. Practically, it's intended to emphasize the conservative part.

I suppose to many I'd be considered partisan. I became politically active at an almost oddly young age and have been fascinated since. This fascination has led me to learn my own politics quickly and thoroughly. It brought me to an understanding that I generally fall somewhere within the top right corner of the political compass. I always support parties of the “center-right” and I am ideologically opposed to the principles of socialism.

The most fundamental aspect to my understanding of myself as a conservative is expressed in the conservative approach to materialism. Conservatives stand for the idea of equality of opportunity. Something I fervently believe in with every fiber of my being. This is presented in opposition to Karl Marx, and socialist thinkera, who advocate for the equality of results. A principle which on its very superficial surface is appealing but in its practical realization is completely wrong. I believe humans in our inherently unique desires, capabilities, and personalities are entitled to equality of opportunity (the right to be all that we wish to be) but to insist that we are all equally entitled to the same results, given all of our differences, is absurd and unfair. It is this principle ideal of socialism that, although its advocates preach equality, is most truly unequal. Socialism, in this way, is practically applied to our society in the institutions of unions and affirmative action. It is also consistently advocated by socialists in the form of fuller income redistribution. I feel that all of these things are inherently unfair.

The progressive part of the title I chose for my blog relates to my idea of progress and the role it should play in society. I believe in equality. I believe that economic and social equality can be most fully achieved by granting people as great a level of freedom as possible. I also feel that our institutions can play a role in bringing about this freedom. In the face of change, sometimes, new institutions may be required or old ones may need to be reshaped in order to fit societies needs. Therefore, I accept the need for a welfare state to operate on some levels. I am proud of universal healthcare. I'm not, however, fearful of private healthcare. I fundamentally believe in the capacity of humanity to continue to progress; to continue to achieve greater things and to become more full in our ability to love and care for one another.

I feel that Christianity, both in an acknowledgment of its historical role in shaping western ideas and this nation as well as an institution today, is important to a Canadian identity.

Together, on the surface, the terms may seem to be in conflict. To me they seem a practical fit for my own beliefs and ideas. Certainly, as a political party's name it is too specific and confusing. I much prefer the title Conservative for a party. It's a big-tent name for a big-tent party. A party of all sorts of hyphenated conservatives. I hope that makes it a bit more clear where I am coming from!