How I'll Choose

Since I have put my name forward to stand as a delegate in my home riding of Trinity-Spadina, it is now time to do what so many other bloggers have been doing since June, which is lay out how I will make my decision (if I am chosen). I will start by describing the three elements I see as being determinative in this leadership race: renewal, ideas, and action. I will then assess the leading candidates on these elements. Since I conveniently already know the result, while you are just reading it for the first time, I will put the candidates in order of preference (starting with Gerard Kennedy, who I have committed to support and who I continue to support).

The Principles

Renewal: if there is one thing this convention must stand for, it is the renewal of the party. Jean Chretien's election as leader in 1990 was the last time our party had a real leadership contest. Paul Martin (the only other contender in that contest) waited 15 years for his chance, and was essentially coronated. As everyone knows, he got trounced in the ensuing general election, leading to the sad condition we see today. Now, Paul Martin was a good man with a fair amount of personal popularity; he had done lots of good work as Finance Minister in particular, and he was able to dish out money like crazy in his brief time in office. He was a far better speaker (in both languages) than was Stephen Harper. Canada did not reject Paul Martin. Canada rejected the Liberal Party. The party was a bureaucracy, dedicated to maintaining its own power as all bureaucracies are. It was powerful and, with power, became corrupt.

Nonetheless, most Canadians support Liberal values and reject Conservative values. Our defeat in the last election was not a rejection of what the Party stood for, it was a rejection of what the party had become. Nothing demonstrates that more than the manner of our loss which, while shocking, must be put in perspective: the current government rules with the smallest minority of any government in our history, and only remains standing because of the political calculations of the other parties (largely the Bloc, with whom the conservatives share the smallest iota of common ground) who do not wish to face an early election.

Now, unlike some candidates I will not say this race isn't about ideas - it is. But I think all but one of the leading contenders in the race stand for Liberal values, and are leaders whose ideas I could support. To choose among those leaders, I will look for the candidate that unequivocally represents a break for the old tradition, the back-room politics, the power plays, and the long knives.

Ideas: I don't believe leaders should figure out where people are going, and then get in front of them. I don't believe in the Rule of Pollsters. The masses have rarely risen up in revolution without a leader willing to be first in the firing line, and committees have seldom produced real innovation. I want to elect a leader who has a positive vision of Canada, both in terms of what we can achieve at home and how we can relate with the rest of the world.

At home, we have plenty of problems. I expect our government to exert its utmost good faith in resolving ancient disputes with the first nations, and ameliorating the poverty in which so many of them live. This is a disgrace to us all. The same must be said for women and immigrants, groups which also face deeply systemic barriers to success. I cannot tolerate a leader who is comfortable with the language of 'us' and 'them'.

While we are prosperous, we can both achieve greater wealth and distribute it more justly. Therefore we require a leader who, on the one hand, has a vision of an economically productive Canada and, on the other, is sympathetic to those who have not enjoyed the benefits of our production. This former proposition requires genuine strategic thinking. We cannot put our faith in those industries that have been successful in the past; we must build the successful industries of the future. The coal mines, the railroads, the automobile assembly lines - each in turn fades, and we can fade with them or break with them. The choice is ours.

Similarly, we must recognize that Canada is a significant actor on the world economic stage, but not a star. Economic success will require us to develop our competitive advantages (and these go beyond a wealth of resources) and to engage in global trade that can maximize those advantages. One of those advantages is a skilled workforce, and so among other things our next leader must have a real vision for education.

The global economy is also increasingly a global polity. The next Liberal leader must have a vision for Canada's place in the world that reflects our unique outlook and abilities. It must be a vision that recognizes the importance of our Southern neighbour without placing its interests and objectives on par with our own. While I expect any leader to ensure our armed forces are ready both to defend at home and respond to threats and disasters abroad, the vision must not be aggressive. Nations that are strong and confident have no need for aggression.

Finally, the environment presents genuine concern for most Canadians - concerns I share. We need to lead by example at home, and work with the international community abroad, to slow the degradation that is currently taking place.

Action: SWe cannot let a platform of good ideas distracts us from what can actually be accomplished. The best ideas aren't worth the hot air it takes to pronounce them if they will not be put into practice, and if in practice they will not generate results. Since none of the candidates has been Prime Minister, this is also the hardest factor to determine in advance, but I'll take a good crack.

The Candidates

Gerard Kennedy is my first choice candidate. Only Ignatieff rivals him with respect to his obvious distance from the politics of the past that Canadians so obviously rejected. He has among the best, if not the best, of the policy platforms: he led the debate on Afghanistan; he has a genuine education policy; he has a strategy for improving the economic status of women and immigrants; he is planning for an industrious and economically successful Canada. And he's more than nice words: the results he obtained at the Food bank speak of more than a purely ideological commitment to social justice, as does his success as Ontario's education minister. I'd like to see more highly developed policy in some areas, for example aboriginal issues, but quite frankly Kennedy has shown the sort of guts and integrity that lead me to have faith that he will face these problems head on. He also has the sort of optimism that I think is contagious and will lead Canadians to do better, rather than bribing or coercing them as has so often been the case. He has more experience and better French than Stephen Harper did when he won office, in spite of the fact that these two elements are considered Kennedy's weakest. He also comes from Alberta, and that's just gotta help in a race against the Harper Tories. I wrote somewhat more extensively on Kennedy here.

Stephane Dion runs a tight second with Scott Brison. M. Dion has the most robust environmental policy, but has been a bit light in the foreign affairs department in spite of holding the Ministry in a previous government. To me, this is inexplicable, especially considering the wide gulf between Liberal and conservative values on those issues. Also, he had a crack at doing at least some of the good work he talks about when he was in cabinet, and has relatively little to show for the experience. That does not give me faith that he will be able to effectively implement his ideas. It also means, of course, that he does not represent a clear and obvious break from the past, and I think failure on that count will be absolutely fatal to forming the next government. Nonetheless, I think he has electoral cachet in Quebec (which would have seemed shocking only a couple of years ago) and this will nudge him ahead of Scott.

Scott Brison is a good maritimer and therefore close to my heart. He placed last in his run for the Tory leadership back in 2003, which is not surprising and also not that long ago. It is perhaps unfortunate for him that he did not realize earlier that conservatives don't like gays. In any event, he does represent a clean break from the old traditions, and has quite a robust platform (which one of his supporters does a good job of outlining here). It unfortunately includes some Tory elements, like support for the war, that drop him way down the list. And because I don't think it will be a blue liberal that will wrest power from Stephen Harper, I just don't think Scott is the man for the job.

Ken Dryden- who doesn't like Ken Dryden? No one, that's who, and that's clearly Dryden's biggest advantage. Enough to win the leadership and the next election? I doubt it. Firstly, like Dion, he had the opportunity to make his presence felt in cabinet and did not seem to do so. But secondly, and more importantly, I really believe that we need a leader who will strike a positive and courageous new direction. I don't believe Canadians will go to the polls to put someone in the PMO just because they're generally more likeable than the alternatives (and if they will, then we don't need to look far). Dryden still has the opportunity to impress me, and right now I would absolutely vote for him long before the next two guys, but I hope I don't find myself in that position.

Michael Ignatieff- Iggy shares the 'clean break' leadership with Kennedy, but after that he falls off the wagon completely. Normally I try to be nice to all the candidates, and I could just say (as I said with Brison) that I don't think a blue liberal is the right way to go for the party. But on this occasion I will go farther. To be honest, I can't understand how anyone who supports an aggressive war can possibly be described as a human rights scholar, period. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and someone as educated as Iggy should realize that: no amount of good words about the status of women can make up for the fact that thousands of innocents have been killed in Afghanistan (not to mention those rotting in jail); it's back up to 90% share of world opium production; girls still can't go to school because those schools get bombed (and their supporters assassinated) when our soldiers turn their backs. I also can't understand how someone who has been absent for 30 years can presume to return to lead the country. I think that reopening the constitutional question at this time is a sucker's game. Iggy has lots of support, but I believe it's game theory support. I only hope that someone I have already discussed gathers the momentum and support to make it to the last ballot, because I would hold my nose and vote for Iggy instead of...

Bob Rae. If you had told me three months ago I would say that I would have laughed in your face. And hey, there's two months left, so it might not have been the last laugh anyway. But although I admire many of his principles, Bob has managed to become the leading candidate of the old guard. Between Chretien and Power Corp support and the odd manner in which the drop-outs have come to support him, I have been forced to conclude that although I like him and think he's an intelligent man, Bob has basically sold out. Until I stop believing that I can't trust a thing he says, and therefore I won't even bother analyzing his policy. I should add, however, that every time something good happens to Bob's campaign, every Tory I know and every Tory blog on the web crows with glee. Long story short: Bob is the surest way to a Harper majority government. And that's why I would vote even for Iggy over Bob.

Thanks for reading, and thanks even more for commenting. If you are a member of Trinity-Spadina, then I hope I've earned firstly your respect and secondly your support - even if you don't support Kennedy. Good luck to all of us.

Iggy's Game

I was perusing Cerberus' endorsements page, as I sometimes do, and I read (for the nth time) about how much support Michael Ignatieff has among the caucus, etc. Ted was of course quite pleased about this, because he supports Iggy, and he quite reasonably concluded that this support is crucial because it means those who have the most vested in the outcome have determined that Iggy is the man to win; Iggy is the man to work for and with.

It seems to me, however, that this misses an important element in this kind of race. Economists will hopefully forgive me if I describe this as being the game theory element. The leadership is a game, and the MPs in particular have a great deal vested in its outcome, but that does not mean that they will pick the right person. Actually, because they have so much vested in the outcome, they are probably among the least likely to select the best decision, just as the jailed thief can be expected to turn state's when faced with the Prisoner's Dilemma. Why?

MPs not only participate as interested ex officio leadership delegates. Their jobs are also on the line. This has at least two aspects:

1) they may lose their job as MP if they elect a poor candidate that drags them to defeat
2) they may gain a prestigious job if they support the winning candidate

So, they want to avoid bad and seek good, what's the problem? The first proposition requires them to avoid choosing losers. Go figure why so many support Rae (but it's still far less than support my candidate, Gerard Kennedy). Avoiding losers is not the same as picking winners. The second proposition relies on their preferred candidate winning the leadership and giving them a sweet job. For this to work, you not only have to pick the winner, but you have to do it in an demonstrable way so that you, of all supporters, are one who is picked for a plum position.

It will not seem surprising, then, that many MP's will look at the race early, pick the candidate they think is most likely to win at that time, declare for that candidate early, and work hard for them to secure their advantage. This is not an advantage for the country or for the party, this is an advantage for them personally, as opposed to other MPs - including those MPs who support the same candidate. If you consider that the number of MPs already supporting Iggy exceeds the largest cabinet in the country's history, you'll see what I mean about cementing your place. Of course, any candidate will have to take at least some star MP's from other camps, including other contenders that drop out and support them.

It's been a very long time since the party had anything even vaguely resembling competitive leadership race, and I think there's only a couple of MP's that would remember it. So if you were an MP, and you thought in March that it was obvious the elite wanted to crown Iggy the new king, you would have been an idiot not to jump on the bandwagon. You would do it quickly, and loudly. So, I think the fact that about 2/3 of the caucus didn't do that says a lot more than the fact that 1/3 did. I think - and this is complete speculation - I think that a lot of that caucus support is very soft, and is comprised of people who decided to support Iggy loud and clear for their own personal advantage, and not because they thought he was the best candidate.

That's a little slice of Game Theory, and if there's any substance to it at all it must mean that Iggy's support is far, far softer than it seems. Every MP who made a gamer's choice will face a tough decision on the floor at the convention, when they have the chance to publicly jump to another ship, and perhaps earn themselves that plum job in addition to a leader they think can win.

As always, I remain optimistic ;o)

Gerard Kennedy Momentum

Great news for the Kennedy campaign - over the last few days Gerard has received a number of endorsements, including:

From BC, MP Raymond Chan, former Vancouver Mayor and Senator Larry Campbell, nine of BC's riding presidents and a majority of the LPCBC executive; from Nova Scotia, a Senator and past provincial party leader, and another Senator from Ontario.

All of these people have great reasons to support Gerard, as I think we all do, and I'm happy to see continued momentum leading into Super Weekend. Good luck to all aspiring delegates!

A one track government

In spite of finding themselves with a surplus of $18 Billion (and I'm somehow doubting that Paul Martin will be getting a letter of thanks any time soon) our Conservative government is pushing ahead with $1Bn in spending cuts. See, that's what they said they'd do. And no change of circumstances could possibly justify changing your position.

So, they saved the whole billion by cutting the gun registry, right? Not at all. According to the Toronto Star, "Women's organizations were spared this year but human rights lawyers, high-tech researchers, museum-goers, students and the tourist industry will feel the impact of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's efforts to save money and reduce support for the government's low-priority programs."

Lord knows the tourist industry doesn't need our help, although visits to Toronto were down 15% last year, and we can let the Americans do all our high-tech research for us now and pay them real money for it later. And students? No worries: the average graduating debt for an Ontario undergrad is well over $20,000, so what's a few extra thousand?

No, my real concern is as a lawyer. And believe me I don't say that often. But the article notes that "the government saved $5.6 million over two years by eliminating the Court Challenges Program, which has funded legal actions by gays and human rights advocates. Also gone is the Law Commission of Canada, a respected federal law reform agency. The Conservatives have often complained that the courts have usurped the role of Parliament in establishing society's standards."

This theory of Courts usurping the power of the legislature is total crap. That's a technical term. Firstly, the legislature can always simply re-legislate any issue on which it has substantial disagreement with the court. This can even take the form of directly overturning a court decision and implementing a law which the court has found unconstitutional. This process is referred to as using the 'notwithstanding' clause, and it constitutionally anchors absolute supremacy in the legislature. All they have to do is agree to use it, and revisit their choice at least once every five years.

I'll also point out that power in our government is incredibly concentrated in the hands of the PM, who leads both the executive and the legislative branch - contrast that with the American system where Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. So basically Conservatives are complaining that the inherent and largely unchecked power of the PM combined with the constitutional guarantee of legislative supremacy over the Courts is somehow insufficient. Which, to get technical, is total crap.

What's really up? Conservatives aren't upset about Court power, they're upset about how the Court uses that power. How does the Court use its power? Consistently with the Constitution. Albertans are still pissed off that the Supreme Court 'interpreted' their human rights legislation to include protection for homosexuals (I'm serious - they had specifically excluded them, and fought for their right to legally discriminate against homosexuals all the way to the SCC). But if most Albertans really thought that was wrong, King Ralph could have invoked the notwithstanding clause. He didn't do that because the voting public would not stand for it. Which is to say that the SCC has not been abusing its power, but rather exercising it in a way that most Canadians agree with, but most Conservatives do not.

Which is really all to say that Steve doesn't like fags, and he's going to spend your tax dollars accordingly.

Go Joe!

No really, go. Permanently. I mean, I guess I can sort of respect a guy for sticking it out, even in the face of some very serious allegations of memberhsip fraud. But the point is that Joe Volpe has about as much chance as winning the leadership of the Liberal party as I do (and I refer only to this race, of course, since my chances will keep getting better while his will keep getting worse!). It's an embarrassment, quite frankly, and I don't even really see him playing kingmaker because I don't see his delegates herding sheep-like to whichever campaign he decides to support when he drops out. And frankly his reputation is such that many of the contenders might prefer him not to support them.

So Kudos, Joe, for your sticktuitiveness. Now go!!

Gerard Kennedy profiled in Globe and Mail

Well today's Globe and Mail profile on Gerard Kennedy calls him the "dark horse" and says he's "the one to watch." I hope a lot of people read it because, if there's one thing that recent polls indicate, it's that name recognition is still a problem for all but a few of the candidates. I think the number of candidates and their relative support mean that this will be a long leadership convention with many rounds of voting, and I there is a real possibility that momentum will carry one candidate on the final ballot. I'd like Gerard Kennedy to be that candidate, and so I'd like average people and not just politics know-it-alls to know who he is and be comfortable with what he stands for.

The work he did at the food bank shows real guts and commitment to ideals. The article noted that Kennedy saw the food bank not as an end but as a temporary measure that would help serve as a catalyst for discussing the roots of poverty. Not just an idealist, he got shit done, vastly exceeding everyone's expectations.

He got into politics by beating (now mayor) David Miller for his provincial seat, and that was no small feat. Later he ran for the leadership of the provincial party but lost on the final ballot to a guy named Dalton McGuinty. Of course he went back and served in his cabinet as Minister of Education, so there's no in my mind that he will run and serve in the house no matter what the result of this race (and it's sad in a way that I can't say the same for all the candidates).

As Minister of Education he actually bought 4 years of labour peace, which is pretty amazing if you know about Ontario and the article acknowledges that when he first floated the idea he was laughed at.

Now I think some people are laughing at his chances of winning the top job, but I'm not one of them. He doesn't have as much experience as Bob, say, but the difference is that Kennedy's time in Ontario's cabinet was a successful one, both for him personally in Education and also as an important part of a mostly successful and popular government. Bob Rae can't say the same. Besides, Gerard Kennedy has way more political experience than our dear 'perceived frontrunner' Michael Ignatieff, and also far more than Harper did when he became Conservative leader and then Prime Minister. And Harper's French isn't that great either.

I think there is more than one candidate that could beat Harper in the next election but Kennedy is surely one of them. He even says that when he was asked to run for the leadership, he decided to do so because he was "concerned that the federal party was adrift and that, without a renaissance, would hand the federal Tories a second term almost by default, just as Ontario Liberals had done for Mike Harris in 1999." I think that's bang on, and I don't see us getting that renaissance with the other candidates. We'll get some kind of renaissance with Iggy, but I think a largely rightward shifting one. I think Bob would govern well enough, but no renaissance, and his candidacy has way too much risk (in Ontario) to trade for mere good management. Dion doesn't have the youth or charisma (at least in English), and besides I agree with a strong environmental policy but I still don't think it should be elevated to the third (of three!) pillar for governing our country.

In any event, at some point on the leadership road supporters of almost every candidate are going to have to make some tough decisions, and that's why I put so much on momentum on the convention floor. So even though you may be committed to your first choice, give some consideration to Gerard Kennedy. He's a great candidate, one with the energy and optimism to really bring a renewal to this party, but also with the proven success and experience to beat Harper and win back the government in the immediate future. He's a team player that will incorporate the best of the other candidates (at least those still planning on serving if they lose) into a strong cabinet and government. And I think it will be a government that pursues the kinder social policy most Canadians say they want with the effectiveness that most Canadians demand, and that therefore it will stick around for a long time.

The Education Nexus

Canadians consistently recognize a number of issues as being most important for their governments to resolve, and while the newsworthiness of particular items shifts the list around from time to time, we can always expect people to be concerned about the economy, health care, the environment, immigration. I think the most important of these (even though it isn't often mentioned) is education. That's one of the reasons why I thank Gerard Kennedy - formerly Ontario's education minister and presently running for Liberal Leadership - would make a great PM. He's promoting a policy on a national direction in education, and I think he really gets that underlying all the other problems, there's education.

Now the link between education and employment may be obvious. But take health care. Firstly, it might surprise you to know that the presence of primary education is a better indicator of overall health care outcomes (like infant mortality and life expectancy) than is per capita health spending. Basic first aid training would reduce emergency room visits; teaching everyone to swim would save hundreds of drowning deaths and teaching everyone CPR could save a thousand heart attack victims each year in Toronto. Much of health is healthy eating, which can be both taught and reinforced at school; part of it is also regular exercise, and the Ontario Liberal government has recently announced mandatory daily physical education. I'm especially happy about this last one as it obviously stems from policy led by Gerard Kennedy before he left to run for the leadership.

Education and health care also interface at the medical school. Universities are creatures of statute and heavily dependent on government funding, so as long as politicians can produce the funds, why not invest in increased enrollment? Doctors are still normal people who will respond to economic pressures, and if there were simply more of them, it would be correspondingly easier to find one willing to work in rural towns and other places they are in short supply. Ultimately increased supply will also reduce pressure on prices, and so an increased investment in training doctors could ultimately prove a long run cost-saver. I've known lots of very capable people who have failed to get into med school and I have no doubt that we could double the enrollment without a noticeable decline in the quality of the students. We might even return to a state where the human element was once again valued alongside incredibly high undergrad scores.

Another place to find doctors is driving cabs, and there the education nexus shifts to immigration This could include systems for assessing and, where possible, accommodating foreign educational qualifications (not just in medicine). Of course, it also requires ESL training, which is presently done on a pretty ad hoc (and private) basis.

There's no reason that should be true. A huge portion of 'learning disabilities' among elementary students arises from the language difficulties of students who do not speak English at home. A strategy that recognizes that language training as an underlying barrier in a range of activities is required to build a multicutural Canada that can work and play together. The same goes for French, incidentally, and as someone who is paying too much now for the French sins of my past I can honestly say that I think education in both of Canada's language should be available to all as of right, period. If someone decides to undertake that struggle at any age they should get all the help we can give them. We should have as an ultimate goal a population that is almost universally bilingual (although I would expect many of these to speak only one official language).

At the youngest end of the education spectrum, universal child care should be preceded by universal nursery school. Now here again I'm biased because I went to a montessori nursery school, and I think it was awesome. Firstly, we (the kids) went for a half-day, which enabled my mom to go back to work part-time much earlier than she would have otherwise. The money was nice I'm sure but also my mom likes her job, and I think that ensuring nursery school is available would be a godsend for women like her. Second, kids are sponges when they're young, and some parents don't have the time or energy or skills to do as good a job of teaching their kids as they would be able to do if they had the help of a professional teacher and a fully outfitted educational play area 5 days a week.

Rising from the infantile to the global economic level, education will play a key role in enhancing our position globally. Establishing the expertise in clean technologies that is required for us to meet our environmental obligations will also establish our international competitiveness in those same fields. In technology and business much advantage often derives to the first-mover, and so setting national priorities and matching them with the research support required is actually quite urgent, in the sense that it is time sensitive and delay will cause us to lose most of the benefits. I also think that in most cases low-impact means low-input, and so these technologies will be just as valuable to our poorest neighbours as it will be to those with who we will compete as producers (although I think we might depart from a strict economic view and allow for the former to pay a rather more manageable price than the latter).

Education might even pervade our foreign policy at its most heavily armed level. Why would we not be trainers of the police and armed services in places like Afghanistan? I think we're uniquely qualified, in terms of being tolerable to most parties, and it seems like the sort of job that's a growth industry. It's also the sort of job that will allow us to contribute in a way that we can seriously believe (or at least seriously pretend) is immediately and exclusively directing it's efforts at impoving the security and well-being of the local people and thereby preparing for its own departure.

Those are a few examples that, to me, illustrate why education underlies many of our most serious policy concerns. I'm fond of saying that if there were one thing and only one thing a government could accomplish, it should be to reconceive our education system. At the very least we owe it to ourselves to teach the next generation enough to help them obtain a better government for themselves than the one we currently have!

Generation Kennedy

Just wanted to let everyone know that the Generation Kennedy forums are back up. The format is that Gerard's policies are laid out as the beginning of the various threads, and so you can see his positions and then comment on them if you want. Whether you're a supporter or just curious what he has to say, it's worth stopping by!

Sometimes you need a little finesse

The Pentagon has announced a massive overhaul to the US Army's counter-insurgency doctrine. After being reminded that Iraq II has lasted longer than WWII, with no end in sight, some Pentagon guy got up, made an odd reference to not being in a jungle anymore, and let us in on some of the new materiel. Material.

I saw a PowerPoint style depiction of 'new way' vs 'old way'. I couldn't figure out what the little graphics meant but the words were pretty clear: 'Old Way' is 'Lecture-based' and teaches 'what to think'; 'New Way' is 'Seminar based' and teaches 'how to think'. I'm not going to make any jokes about that, you go ahead and think of a good one and then pretend I wrote it.

We were also told about some of the 'paradoxes' in counter-insurgency:

The more you try to secure your force, the less secure you will be.
The more firepower you use, less effective you will be.
The more successful you are, the less force you will have to use, and the more risk you will have to accept (which is like the second one, except with a third clause that renders it non-paradoxical).

Aside from the fact that the third one is pretty much the same as the second only with an extra clause that makes it non-paradoxical, I like these. I think they do a pretty good job of capturing some of the problems their forces are having over there (and ours as well). I think it's cute that they do it in a vaguely eastern-philosophical sort of way, and that's not just the sound of one hand clapping. And the commentator (Loud Dobbs, I think) summarized brilliantly:what they're looking for in Iraq is all about finesse. But now that the Pentagon has reached this great enlightenment, they need to push the analysis further.

If finesse is what you need, why the hell would you send an army??

When you're Canadian, you're always pine fresh.

So said Stephen Colbert, in a conversation with Ken Jennings on the subject of Alex Trebek.

Yes Stephen - never Steve! - pine fresh, with maple syrup... and even a hint of beaver...?

The Constitution is for Suckers

...or at least, re-opening it is. Nonetheless it's the talk of the town after Stephen Harper announced his plans to push through Senate reform (apparently without constitutional change) and Michael Ignatieff stated at QC that under his leadership we should take on that challenge.

Well, we shouldn't. There's a million reasons, but here are a few:

It will fail

It is unlikely in the extreme that any proposed changes will be acceptable to enough Canadians to pass the constitutional formula. If you actually think this isn't true, then please comment. But to be honest I take it a a given that such an attempt will fail, and if there is no reasonable prospect of success then we should stop wasting our time talking about it. The rest of my comments describe either why it will fail or why success will be a pyrrhic victory.

It won't help us in the sovereignty debate

The only advantage I have heard proposed to re-opening the issue is that it will somehow help bring Quebec into the Federation. Well Quebec is already in the Federation, and we need to worry about it leaving. Sovereigntists are not stupid. Adding warm and fuzzy language to the Constitution will only give them another legal and political tool with which to drive a wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It will boost sovereign pride in Quebec and mistrust of Quebec in other (particularly western) provinces. Stirring up this issue will surely lead us to another referendum, just like it did the last time.

It won't help us with any other nations

Can you imagine recognizing a distinct 'nation' of Quebec without putting something in the constitution that's a little more robust than section 35? Forget the French-Canadians, it will be civil war with first nations if we don't take real steps on that front. The thing is we have no idea how to do that, and so any opening of the constitution will drag us into a debate we are ill-prepared for and that can only be divisive. I know slippery slope is not a rational argument, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that opening up this highly emotional issue means we can expect some irrationality. Not just from francophones, or anglophones, or Quebecois, or westerners, but Cree and Inuit and Metis and Acadian and Newfoundlander. If you've ever been to Cape Breton you'll know that 'distinct society' is a phrase that can be applied liberally (no pun intended) to our nation's communities.

It won't help us renew our democracy

Putting aside Iggy's comments for a moment, Harper is trying to do something to our democracy by encouraging senate reform. I don't know what, exactly, but I know that he's going about it wrong. The Senate has relatively little influence and therefore tinkering with Senate reform will have relatively little impact. Major senate reform will require constitutional amendment...

On the other hand, much could be done to improve our democracy without constitutional reform, or senate reform for that matter. Some form of PR would be the most obvious, but there are others. Without discussing in detail, I will say that I am convinced there are methods of improving the Federation that will be both easier and more effective.

The way to the heart of Quebec

Now maybe I don't know the first thing about this subject. But you'll forgive me for imagining that the Quebecois are pretty much like people all over the world. They want their government to reflect their ideals and desires. They want it to be effective in providing the services thy expect. They want it to be efficient enough that it doesn't drain their resources. All this is to say that the best way to keep Quebec in Canada is good leadership. Quebec has long been a hotbed of great social programs, many of which the ROC is belatedly recognizing and adopting (childcare, now sadly on the back burner, and a fully-funded pensions scheme, as examples). A strong and socially progressive Canada is one that most Canadians, and most Quebeckers, would be proud to support. So let's worry about making our country a great place, instead of haggling over the contractual terms of our union for a year. We can do better.

The 5th anniversary of the Misappropriation of September 11th

Title blatantly stolen from Jon Stewart, who used it to introduce his September 12th show. Frankly I didn't bother posting on Monday (and even yesterday) because I couldn't bring myself to write something positive about the events, and couldn't bear to say anything that wasn't positive on what ws surely an emotional moment for many people.

Now I'm back from my 48 hour vacation from thinking, and ready to say some not-so-nice things.

The world hasn't changed.

It's probably true that September 11th was the most deadly and spectacular terrorist attack ever. But that's just a matter of degree, like the biggest Christmas tree or the juiciest orange. Or maybe more like comparing the works of various serial killers. The point is that this wasn't the first or the last. Actually I think it's important to recall that up until the WTC attacks, the deadliest terrorist attack in American history was the Oklahoma City bombings, which killed over 300, and which were carried out by Americans.

I think it's also worthwhile comparing the horrific events of September 11th to some other unpleasant experiences. Every month Americans kill a September 11th worth of other Americans with guns. Every month. That means that since the actual September 11, about sixty times as many Americans have been killed by Americans as were killed by terrorists. Close to half a million people die annually of preventable cardio-vascular disease. That's one September 11th every two-and-a-half days. As many children have died in backyard pool accidents in the time since as died that day in the towers. There is no war on non-swimmers, $2 billion a day has yet to be allocated to fighting heart disease, and gun control is virtually a non-starter.

That's why I was profoundly disturbed when I heard GWB repeat this phrase in his September 11th address. If you've read Huntington's book, you will appreciate why. GWB has now acknowledged that he is fighting exactly the war the terrorists were looking for. And I don't say that like he does where he says 'they're evil and hate freedom.' I mean it on a very practical level, which is that a small band of criminals can never hope to seriously damage a superpower, but that an entire mass of nations, backed into a corner, can slow, stop, and finally drag down a superpower. The USA has invaded two nations since the attacks and the plans for the third are way beyond the drawing board stage. But more importantly, the president has now confirmed what many Arabs and Muslims believed was true - that the so-called "war on Terror" is actually a crusade against Arabs and Muslims; yet another in a series of historical attacks and occupations by the west.

The world has changed.

Of course you would be entirely correct if you called me a loonie for saying nothing had changed. But the real damage wasn't on the ground, it was psychological. What has changed is the way Americans see themselves (vulnerable) and their place in the world (besieged). The fact that these perceptions are utterly false seems to be irrelevant, since they are politically useful to the ruling class. Where vulnerable, people are willing to take extreme steps to increase their perceived safety, and since September 11th America has largely played the role of sleeping giant who was awakened by a poke in the eye. Only the closest inspection would reveal the physical damage, but for five years the giant has been bellowing and flailing, causing far more destruction in waking than he ever sustained while sleeping.

In Iraq, there have been ten September 11ths since the invasion, more or less. We should therefore expect the Iraqi people to harbour a deep-seated and absolutely understandable hatred of their American 'liberators', just as Americans have developed a powerful and irrational hatred of 'terrorists.' This situation gets worse by the day, and there is no prospect - none whatsoever - of reversing this decline.

The only solution is for America to return home and declare war on its domestic problems, rather than its foreign ones. George McGovern co-authored an extremely interesting and detailed blueprint for this withdrawal in the most recent Harper's Magazine and I commend it to everyone. Since America will clearly not take the steps outlined, I suggest we plagiarize heavily in order to resolve our own dirty war in Afghanistan.

Louise Arbour reads my blog!

So, a mere two days after my post on secret CIA prisons, Louise Arbour has come out to say that the system of secret CIA jails should be abolished. She also notes that the CIA interrogation practice policy is secret and so there is no way to tell if it conforms to the revisions made to the Army Field Manual that explicitly outlawed certain techniques. It's always nice to have some support at the highest levels of world government! ;o)

Lost in Afghanistan

So, we are getting ready to send more troops to Afghanistan. In otherwise unrelated news, I was at my friend Adam Zita's wedding this weekend, where I got to catch up with my buddy Norm who serves with the forces and has spent two or three tours in Afghanistan. I asked him frankly what the sense was on the ground there, and he said that no one knows why they are there or what they are doing.

Of course it's not really the job of the average grunt to know what great purpose is being served by their being there. But not knowing and not having any idea are completely different. I think they have no idea why they are there because we have no idea why they are there. Originally, we were helping root out the Taliban who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden who attacked our ally the United States. Well, that sounds like a great idea, and the Taliban weren't a nice bunch of guys and I'm not sad that they're gone. But I have to point out that 'regime change' is just Bush-Speak for a coup. What was arranged in Afghanistan was a coup, no more and no less. The coalition removed a government that they did not approve of, and arranged for the installation of a friendly government.

Now coups seem to me to have only two outcomes. The first is where the leaders of the coup have the support of the people, as for example Fidel Castro did when Batista was overthrown. There, the coup leaders immediately set up shop as the new government, enjoy their honeymoon, and face their fate when the people have had enough time to decide whether or not they're better than the old lot (which of course they sometimes are not). The other alternative is where the coup is not backed by the people, in which case the foreign powers that (invariably) launched it must remain to protect the new government from the people it is allegedly serving. This path can pretty much lead to only two things - the failure of the coup (e.g. the American back Chavez coup of several years ago), or a long and brutally oppressive foreign occupation (with the foreign troops ostensibly there to 'assist' the government).

Which kind of coup is this? That's not hard to see. Are things getting better in Afghanistan? It doesn't look like it. Yes, their parliament has more women than Canada's, but their parliament doesn't actually run the country. It's like pretending gwe are on the vanguard of sex relations because our head of state is a female. It's technically true, but she is an unelected one without actual authority. Similarly I hear more girls are getting educated, but Rick Hillier says that if you build a school, the next day the Taliban will tear it down and behead the teachers if they were teaching girls. So, I have to take these claims with a grain of salt.

News reports note that we have been attacked or have successfully dispatched Taliban fighters, as the case may be, but this also must be taken with a grain of salt - Afghans have a long history of resisting invaders that has nothing at all to do with the Taliban movement, and while I have no doubt the old executive wields some authority among religious fighters and its old adherents, I equally have no doubt that many of the fighters are not Taliban, but simple patriots who recognize that they have a duty to rid themselves of foreign occupiers, no matter how well-intentioned their propaganda leaflets claim they are. Finally, as Gerard Kennedy emphasizes, opium production is back to an all-time high. Hahaha, I said high.

One question is what we do about this right now. That's a tough one, because we don't want to let our Afghani friends down. The thing is, we don't have that many Afghani friends. The other thing is that we are letting them down right now, even while we're there and fighting. So staying or leaving is not a question of fulfilling our promises or cutting and running, but more a question of whether we keep banging our heads against a wall in the name of a promise we have no prayer of fulfilling, or whether we admit our abject failure and reconsider our options. Put another way, given the expectations we tried to create we are absolutely certain to let our Afghani friends down, so the real question is how we will let them down, and not if.

Answering this first question requires us to sit down with our NATO allies, figure out what we can accomplish and what we can't, figure out which of those things we have the ability to the accomplish we actually have the resolve to accomplish, and then set about doing them. This is, I think, the position that Gerard Kennedy is taking and it's one with which I am in whole-hearted agreement. We cannot 'stay the course' because the course we are on is not defined and has no end. Trying to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban is like trying to rid my cottage of mosquitoes. Real fighting forces have commanders that can surrender. These guys just have a land, and they have no reason to stop fighting no matter how many die or how bleak their prospects. They also know that, ultimately, they will win, because we will go home. It matters little whether that happens in five months or five years - we will go home, like the French from Algeria or the British from Palestine or the Americans from Vietnam. But we also cannot simply 'cut-and-run', as Jack Layton suggests. We are not the only foreign force in Afghanistan and this situation that we have helped create will persist after our departure, the main difference being that we will have lost any leverage and credibility we presently have to effect positive change. Anyway, I do have some ideas about the kind of strategic changes we need to effect but I'm an expert in common sense, not tactics, so I will not say more on the subject right now.

The second and larger question is how we intend to use our military going forward. Stephen Harper apparently intends to use it to cement our partnership with GWB and the Americans. In this, he is clearly out of touch with what the average Canadian believes, and I hope cheap tricks like cutting checks to everyone with children under six does not make people forget how and why Canadians are killing and dying overseas. There is also the "muscular diplomacy" proposed by Michael Ignatieff, who thinks that Pearsonian peace-keeping is dead. Once again, he is out of touch with the vast majority of Canadians, who believe in and are proud of our peacekeeping tradition. Even if he is correct, however, and traditional peace-keeping is dead, that does not mean we should simply step into a new roles as peace-makers. Such a venture is of very dubious moral quality, and in any event we are presently very poorly equipped (as a military and as a society) for that kind of change in posture.

Anyway, I think it would be a disaster for us and for our troops if Iggy were to win the liberal leadership - the foreign policy debate between Harper and him would be vapid and largely pointless. Of course I am rooting for Gerard Kennedy - but I hope we see some robust policies put on the table by the other candidates. It seems we can't have a coherent debate in parliament, so let's have a great debate in the Liberal Party and then we can make some real changes once Canadians cast Harper and his flunkies back to the opposition benches where they belong.

Democratic renewal?

So, Harper wants Senate reform as the key element of democratic renewal. Wouldn't adopting some sort of PR system for the lower house be both more effective at making our parliament more democratic, and also be possible without opening up the can of worms that is constitutional reform?

Women Warriors

I just read this article, which states that India has put together a team of elite female police officers that will be the first women-only UN Peacekeeping unit. They will be deployed to Liberia, where they hope that they will be more appproachable, but just as tough, and where they may be a more welcome intervention force to women, who always have a tough time of things during war. It wasn't that long ago that women were though to be unfit for combat, period. You've come a long way, baby!

Perceived Frontrunner

So finally we have some actual polling data that says the leadership race is much closer than expected. So I just wanted to thank the nation's media outlets in advance for an immediate end to the practice of tagging 'perceived frontrunner' in front of a certain candidate's name.

And I suppose I should also congratulate Bob, who turns out to not only be doing better than I thought, but better than I thought in Ontario. Whoodathunkit?

The Rules

Well, Jason Cherniak (with whom, incidentally, I went to school and who I think is a pretty nice guy) really brought the $h1t storm down with his post this morning: Cherniak on Politics: I'm sick of the insults

Firstly, I want to say that any forum where anyone can comment is bound to have idiots in it. Before I started this blog I regularly surfed the Globe and Mail's comments pages, and I was constantly shocked and saddened by the level of debate - probably less than one in ten comments contained anything worth reading. I think the discourse is of a much higher level on most of the liblogs (and tory blogs, for that matter). Anyway, whatever else you might want to say about Jason, you have to respect that he's willing to put his real name up there and stand by his opinions, flamers be damned.

A lot of the discussion that follows the post indicate that he should just get a thicker skin, which is probably true but also more than a little trite. I myself have decided to figure out how to assign categories to my posts; once that's done I will maintain a little blacklist of people whose opinions I just don't care about. Right now I am envisioning a two tier system:

1) people who post hate propaganda - those comments will be removed and the poster blacklisted immediately.

2) people who post personal attacks, people who knowingly post false information as true, or people whose contributions are just too inane or stupid to handle. I figure those people will get one strike before I can them.

Does this seem too harsh? Being able to post comments here is not much of a privilege, so it doesn't seem too harsh to me, and besides anyone is welcome to contact me and justify themselves -- I'm not a patient man, but I am a reasonable one.

George Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons

It's not that often something happens that's no surprise and yet totally surprises me. It's no surprise that the CIA is in fact operating clandestine prisons in foreign jurisdictions, but I was pretty taken aback to hear him admit it like that.

The strangest thing to me is that he can admit it without admitting it's wrong. I mean, you can only imagine that what's going on in these places must be worse than in Guantanamo and in Abu Ghraib, because those are guys that, while threats to security, you can at least admit you have, and keep in a place you can admit to having control over. It's a lot of work to go to - disappearing someone is pretty drastic, and to do it somewhere else suggests you're going to disappear them and then still be freaked out about the possibility that their disappearance and detention would be happening in a place for which you can be held responsible. Even whatever's left of Jimmy Hoffa is almost certainly somewhere in the USA.

What goes on in a secret CIA prison?

So this is all pretty cloak and dagger, and I'm not even a soldier or policeman much less a trained spy. What can a normal person hope to fathom about this kind of skulduggery?

First, you know you have to love Scottish words like skulduggery. Second, you can know that it's pretty tough to let people go after that sort of treatment. They might turn up in Albania and embarrass you in front of your allies, which is exactly the sort of thing you are trying to avoid by disappearing the captive into a foreign land in the first place.

Perhaps even more importantly, if these were dangerous people before, how dangerous are they going to be after your through doing whatever it is you do to people in a secret CIA prison? Jack Napier fell in acid and he came back with an army of toys to destroy Gotham. I'm not saying these guys would do that, I'm just saying they'd probably be about as dangerous as The Joker, just in a different way. Maybe more suicide-y.

So we don't really know what the CIA does to people in these secret places yet, but we can be pretty confident that when they're finished doing it, they dispose of the evidence.

Lots of "Alternatives"

Bush said the Central Intelligence Agency employed "alternative" procedures to extract information from the suspects. The president insisted those techniques complied with U.S. laws, the constitution and international treaty obligations

And hey, maybe torture complies with the constitution - once you get the right opinion, all you have to do is make sure it never gets to court, and bob's your uncle: waterboarding, mock executions, releasing the hounds: legal the whole time!

"It has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held in secret, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts." -GWB

Well, that's a load of bull. These guys are so dangerous just saying you had captured them would be a security threat. How long could it take to learn what they know and prosecute them if you wanted to? You've got experts, for crying out loud, and you've had these guys in some cases five years or more. They're never being prosecuted - it's just not an "appropriate" alternative.

Extraordinary.

Oh, but how low must we sink to ensure they are never prosecuted? Kidnappings? Abductions? Disappearances? No friends, this is a new kind of war, and it requires new kinds of abuse of language. In a post 9/11 world, it's "extraordinary rendition". And that, apparently, is something the President of the United States can admit to doing without resigning. Or, y'know, without batting an eyelash. Same-same.

Who is setting Canada's Foreign Policy?

Peter Mansbridge hosted Jack Layton and Peter MacKay for a quick debate on Afghanistan on tonight's The National. I guess Gerard Kennedy was busy - he's the guy who should be debating it because he's been setting the agenda for the foreign policy debate since August 29th. That was when Gerard Kennedy announced his Afghanistan policy. He noted that Afghanistan has an opium crisis and a development crisis in addition to a security crisis, and said that "use of force should be balanced with extensive, visible and effective development efforts." While Kennedy called for short- and long-term solutions and a "mandate for real success," tonight Layton was on The National with two Peters calling for a withdrawal.

In all fairness, Layton has made statements previously about his being concerned about our drift into war (like this one, from December 2005, or this one from January 2006). These comments show Layton was concerned about operational, and perhaps political, drift. I think the calls for a pullout only started on August 31st, where Layton mentioned the lack of balance, specifically in humanitarian and reconstruction. It's consistent with his previous position that he would call for an end to our involvement when this drift manifests itself, both operationally(in terms of a shift in operations to the south) and a politically (mostly in phrases like 'support the troops' and 'stay the course,' but aided and abetted by a gradual acclimatization to news of war dead). Nonetheless, both the timing and the underlying policy seem Kennedy inspired.

Layton wouldn't just plagiarize from Gerard Kennedy; he takes it a step further and states outright that we should withdraw by February. In that I think he goes too far. Kennedy's comments indicate that we are to use our status as significant contributors to engage our allies (and I imagine this includes both those currently participating and those not) in setting a new direction for our forces. Failing that we should pull out, but if we unilaterally pull out we will have lost the leverage to bring our allies to the table. If we want to effect any positive change there at all, we have to use what influence we have to do it.

Ultimately I though Jack seemed a bit uncomfortable with the new line - maybe that will pass in time. Peter MacKay had no trouble staying on message, but I took two particular things from his comments.

Firstly, he suggested that Layton was being 'disingenuous' for saying that we can support the troops but not the mission. That's ridiculous, and it's the sort of crap that phrases like 'support the troops' encourage. Any real support for the troops has to acknowledge that they're the ones who do the dying part of this bargain, and so we at least owe it to them to constantly assess whether we should be asking them to do it. I can't help but feel that if we did otherwise, it would be because we had just become accustomed to lives being lost, and that the lives lost while we were distracted had some how been gradually reduced until the marginal loss of life was just not worth weighing.

Secondly, he stuck to message on not talking with the Taliban. Incidentally, Kennedy also takes this position. But MacKay rhetorically asked if we would "sit down for tea with Osama bin Laden." Now, some candidates have trouble with hypotheticals, but given recent events in this leadership contest I wonder if this isn't a useful one. Wouldn't it be an interesting discussion? Wouldn't obtaining Osama's co-operation be a remarkable accomplishment to weigh against the supposed costs? Ultimately, isn't the only fate for an enemy with whom you cannot negotiate utter annihilation? Is that really where most people are at on this issue? I sure hope not - sounds awfully extreme to me.

Tiger Leaping Gorge

So a couple of years ago I stopped in China on my way to Australia. I wound up in the ancient city of Lijiang in Yunan province, and I hiked in the Jade Dragon Snow Mountains, where this picture was taken, not far from Tiger Leaping Gorge.

All of this is mostly just so I can get a photo in the corner of my blog, something that's me but not me with friends or me or playing guitar or me doing something stupid. Just me, maybe a bit anonymous since no one is reading this now but one day, who knows? Maybe perverts. I'm just saying.

A first note

This is the part where I explain why I decided to start this blog, and warn you about some of my biases. If you don't care about the first and already know about the second, then I wouldn't worry about it.

About two weeks ago I started reviewing and reporting on blog commentary for Gerard Kennedy's Liberal leadership campaign. This is not because I have any particularly suitable skill set, but just because it's not that great a job so they'll take whoever they can get. There's a sizeable community of consistent bloggers, so I miss a bunch but hopefully get at least enough to know which way the wind is blowing. The reason it's not that great a job is not that it's uninteresting, but more that there is a real question as to whether what happens in the blogosphere actually counts for anything.

It seems that I should not venture too much of an opinion on that subject until I have tested the waters, even if only by dropping a few pebbles in. So, the first two biases are already on the table: I have an interest in seeing what ripples these pebbles generate, and I have an interest in Gerard Kennedy's bid for the Liberal leadership. Hopefully, having been honest about both, I can avoid being too egocentric about the first and too partisan about the second. I'll try to be even-handed, but please remember that I picked Gerard Kennedy's campaign for what seemed at the time to be good reasons, so if my comments are positive it may only reflect that those reasons are being confirmed. Time will tell.

As for the title (if it's still the same) it's a reference to a text written by Professor Hugh Kindred of Dalhousie Law School. It was (and presumably still is) called "International Law - chiefly as interpreted and applied in Canada" I thought it was pretty cool to admit up front that it's not really an international law text for eveyone, internationally - we're concerned about how we define, interpret, and apply "International Law", and how our partners do, and how we should modify those positions. So this will be about politics generally, and not only Gerard Kennedy's campaign. The leadership race is one of the interesting things that's happening in politics the here and now. And this blog will be about politics, chiefly as seen from right here, right now.