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!