Thoughts on the Canadian Political Crisis – Stephen Harper You Need to Resign

Canadians are waking up to the mind boggling possibility that may be going into a worst recession in a generation led by a government comprised of politicians who either want to break-up the country or turn it into a socialist worker’s paradise and led by a prime minster who had not more than weeks ago vowed to resign because his party had gotten trounced in an election no more than 2 months earlier. What the hell is going on at home?

To paraphrase Chris Nolan, I can’t help wondering if Canada is getting the government it deserves as opposed to the one it truly needs. In looking at the possible outcomes, they all seem to be lose-lose.

 

Handicapping the Coalition Government

A coalition government would be inherently unstable and leave the country essentially run by a 3 person committee with a lightweight serving as a figurehead prime minister. I don’t believe it will enact the right economic policies to get through this current economic crisis and leave the country in worst shape.

Worse is the uncertainty of having the separatist Bloc in the government. Despite whatever public commitments to the contrary they may make, it is simply to risky to let the Bloc in a government where they would have every opportunity to undermine the unity and territorial integrity of Canada.

If Stephan Dion were a stronger leader, I might say this ‘team of rivals’ approach could possibly fly by having the separatists in government as a sort of ‘keep your enemies closer’ type of strategy. However as it stands, I don’t have confidence this will work – and the recent debacle of the whole ‘tape incident’ and subsequent back-biting amongst the 3 leaders has done nothing to instill confidence in this government.

 

Assessing Stephen Harper – Good Manager, Bad Politician?

On the other hand, Stephen Harper has not helped his case since breaking his promise and calling an early election in a gamble to secure a majority.  This gamble almost succeeded until an election gaffe related to Quebec funding for the arts.  This cost him votes in Quebec and ultimately the majority in Canada.

And while he has actually been a reasonable manager of the country and its economy he has not been a very good politician – his heavily partisan approach to parliamentary politics has only put off the very people he needs in order to maintain the good standing of his minority government.  Backing the opposition parties into a corner by removing the vote subsidy was final straw.  Rather than dividing his opponents in order support his rule he has rather remarkably united them. That two of the main leaders of this potential liberal-socialist-seperatist coalition (Dion the Federalist and Duceppe the Seperatist) in a previous life were mortal enemies who battled quite literally for the very future of Canada speaks volumes to the degree of animosity Harper has engendered.  They really hate the guy.

From his speech last night, Harper seems intent on fighting to very end, asking for a suspension of Parliament (to avoid a no-confidence vote) and taking his arguments straight to the voters.  Unhelpfully, he has played up the divisive issues of the Separtists in Government and raised the spectre of protests and demonstrations in the street.  Should Harper decide to  go to war on this front, I can only think Canada is going to emerge from this episode with its unity severely frayed.  It would be interesting to see how voters will eventually react to this episode, which parties will be eventually punished at the polls, but in the end the whole country ends up a loser.

 

The Government Canada Needs?

A reasoned approach then would be to have Mr Harper step down for the sake of his country.  This could be positioned to signal to the opposition the end of the Conservative scorched earth partisanship and remove, argueably, the biggest animus for the opposition revolt.  Conservatives could hopefully then get back to the task of fixing the economy.   Economic stimulus, infrastructure building, streamlining regulations which keep the cost of doing business high, diversifying the economy beyond natural resource extraction and not frittering away money in auto bailouts – but instead acting judiciously after seeing what US government does.

This strategy is not without risks and probably a little too far removed from reality.  It assumes that the Conservatives would be able to find a suitable replacement leader which, given the outsized role Harper played in the current Conversative government, may be a cause for concern.  Peter Mackay, the former leader of the PC’s which eventually merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the current Conservative Party might be a viable alternative – but that’s mere speculation on the top of a hypothetical scenario.

Regardless of what happens, here’s hoping the politicians come to their senses and pull back from the brink of this political crisis so they can get to work helping the country pull back from the brink of this current economic one.

 

Thank You America

Dear America,

Thank you for making history.

Thank you for finally turning the page on the last 8 years.

The next 4 years will not be easy but thank you for taking a major step in the right direction to repair the damage of the last 8 years that arguable should never have been.   It has been a long night these past 8 years but tonight we take a step back into the light.

Dear America, thank you for restoring the world’s faith in you.

Sincerely, 

Alvin

 

What’s the Matter with Canada? Thinking about the coming Canadian election

Here’s an intriguing outside-in article decrying the decline of “good government” in Canada from Slate.com and got me thinking about the upcoming Canadian election.

Yes, amazingly a US-media outlet deemed it necessary to comment on the rather fractitous state of Canadian politics especially when they have this oxygen draining Presidential poll still going down Nov 4.  Here’s the best (and most sensationalistic line from the article)

Canada is quietly becoming a political basket case, and this latest election may make things even worse.

The essential thesis is that Stephen Harper and his social conservatives are ruining Canada and that the Liberals, NDP, Greens and everyone else on “the left” helping them to it be being too pre-occupied fighting each other.

Well my folks will probably take issue with the whole ‘Harper is ruining Canada’ thesis – they always had a hate-on for the Liberals – but that was always more grounded in the Liberals’ arrogance, abuse of power and lack of fiscal restraint that came from Liberals’s prolonged bouts in power.  Even the Democratic party in the US suffered from this type malaise leading up to Newt Gingrinch’s Republican Revolution in the 90’s but I digress.

From its social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, Canada has traditionally bounced back and forth between the socially and fiscally liberal Liberals and fiscally and socially conservative Conservatives. 

The Conservatives are betting the snap election will yield them at minimum another minority government and majority as being a not-so-improbably possibility if they play their cards right.

Thus far, I think the minority government has done a relatively good job of keeping social-conservatism of the Conservatives in check.  No where did the Conservatives try for a repealing abortion rights or gutting Canadian health care.  And I give points to the Conservatives for:

• not spending Canada’s new wealth from the current commodities boom like drunken sailors
• paying down the national debt
• defending Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic
• and holding the line in Afghanistan – the real front on the war on terror – while the US went on their adventurist diversion in Iraq.

From afar, though it has been more fractious and turned Canada into a more interesting country, I’m not yet convinced a Conservative majority would be in the best interests of Canada – or for now the Conservatives for that matter. 

The problem is that Canadian’s don’t fully trust the Conservatives to leave them to their own devices.  As evidenced by their website, The Conservatives have sensibly decided to run on tactical issues of sound economic policy, tackling crime and important incremental improvements in better government operation in healthcare (and lip service to global warming.)  I think what is spooking the majority of Canadians is what the Conservatives are not saying and what they would do if granted the unfettered power of a majority government.  Where exactly do they stand on abortion and same-sex rights?  Healthcare funding?  What about the devolution of power to the provinces?  What exactly is the Conservative vision for the future of Canada?  What the Canadians don’t know scares them. 

And here’s the rub – the Conservatives don’t need a majority government to achieve their incremental gains they are proposing to accomplish following this election.   In order to get a mandate of a majority government you have specify what IS the mandate you are looking for.  The Conservatives would be better off doing some soul searching and specifying what a Conservative Canada would and would not look like to give voters some comfort in exactly what they are getting.  This also precludes them of being in the rather interesting position should the ever secure a majority, of leaving them open to the temptation to give into their more base socially conservative instincts.

To sum up, until they can elaborate what exactly they stand for, the Conservatives deserve every minority government they get and are cheating Canadians of any majority government they may eke out.  Here’s to another year of gridlock in Canada?

 

Thank You America

This post was written in the aftermath of the 2006 midterm elections where the Republican Party lost control of Senate and the House of Representatives.

Dear US of A,

Thank you for finally coming back to your senses.  Thank you for realizing that a government that misleads its people to invade a country under false pretenses, that abridges the rights of citizens; that grossly mistreats the captives in its care; that tramples on the rule of law and that destroys the precious moral authority that has made it the beacon of hope throughout the world does not deserve to stand.

Thank you for realizing that a ruling party in the hock of corporate interests, that irresponsibly jeopardizes the fiscal security of its entire population in order to undeservedly enrich the wealthiest 1% of is population and to support a wasteful form of corporate welfare for its patrons, and then intentionally polarizes the population and trade on fear and paranoia in order to cling is ultimately harmful to the society as a whole and needs be excised.

Sure it only took a massive corruption scandal, a sex scandal, a bridge to no where and the completely incompetent mishandling of a natural (not terrorist-initiated) disaster at the hands a inept former equestrian adminstration of a political appointee to helpfully remind you of how dysfunctional your country had become when you woke up on the morning of November 7, 2006. 

Thank you America, for coming back to your senses and taking the first step to putting your house back in order.  The world does not benefit from a weak, divided and fiscally and morally bankrupt US of A.  We are diminished if we live in a world where the ‘American Dream’ no longer meaningfully exists to inspire and give hope to the poor and less fortunate.  Here is to the aspiration that 2006 is not a reprieve from the past 6 years but a significant turning point from it.

A humble observer.

 

The Perils of an Al Gore Presidency

For those of you desperately wished for Al Gore to win in 2000, be grateful for the wonderful lawyers and non-partisan electoral oversight committees that made we sure we would never have to experience that travesty of incompetent administration.

This is the type of America and world you might have gotten instead:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/snl_al_gore_for.html

 

Stephen Colbert’s Roasts the President

…and all of the Washington press in the Annual Washington Correspondent’s Dinner.

You have see this to believe it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

It’s interesting Colbert’s virtuoso performance hasn’t received more coverage in the mainstream press (leaving it up to the Blogsphere to fill up the gaps left over by the press…).

They say comedy is more depressing than tragedy.  When there is no hope remaining all you can do is laugh.  Laugh and despair.  Only another 2.5 years of the W. and cronies to put up with.  (Hopefully the next bunch will give less reason for the cynical laughter.)

Appended – 2006-05-08:

It seems the mainstream media does not want the Colbert’s virtuoso performance to get out as the initial link is broken.  I’ve replaced it with Google Video link.  Thank goodness for Sergei and Larry – they’ll pander to the Chinese communists* and they won’t take shit from the GWBush. 

(*Seriously though, I respect the business decision they made about China – I do think it was right call and by and large, Google, so far has lived up to its motto of ‘Do No Evil’ )

 

Why Negative Campaigning in Un-Canadian.

Canada’s motto has always been "Peace, Order and Good Government" and we have always prided ourselves in being the more collegial, cohesive and commuity-oriented part of North America.  However naive this may sound, to have Good Government, we need strong institutions and an earnest policitical environment where we can debate policies on their merits and not their originators. 

That is why American-style negativist campaigning should not be rewarded in Canada regardless of the short-term electoral outcome.  GW Bush may have won the 2000 and 2004 elections on the backs of divisive campaigning but he did make the country a better place to govern.

Look at the US today as compared to back in 1999: It is a country more divided – economically, socially and obviously politically than every before.  It is a country where its religious heartland is at war with its godless coastal peripheries.

As a Canadian, I have always believed, perhaps naively, that the means by which one achieves power is as important as the actual goal itself and that unlike in American, where the concept of the ‘Permenant Campaign’ the  permeates the political culture, the electoral process in Canada is a means to establish an competent government.

Negative campaigning demeans the political process by appealing to our worse emotions – our unreasoned fears and our prejudices instead of focusing on the issues on hand and qualifications of the candidates.  It polarizes the electorate and poisons the parliamentary environment making it difficult for political parties to collaborate.

From an American perspective, this may seem like an a whiny appeal to play nice.  However ‘playing nice’ IS a central to Canadian values and that is why negative campaigning is Un-Canadian.

 

Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day…and neither, apparently, was China

I had the opportunity to attend a local shindig hosted by local asian (re: Chinese) silicon valley association recently.

The event was well attended  by all sorts folks along the asian spectrum including: Local Asian Sili-valley moguls, local media personalities, Taiwanese business tycoons, Mainlander business tycoons, Mainlander gov’t officials even, VC’s, lawyers, ABC/CBC wannabes such as myself, Taiwanese/Mainlander wannabes such as a few folks I met and the like.  A veritable who’s who of yellow power – local, foreign, private, public or otherwise.

But that’s not what I want to talk about.

The most interesting moment of the night came during the Q&A session following speech of the keynote speaker, who happens to be an accomplished SiliValley entrepreneur and VC with business interests in PRC.  A member of the audience, a caucasian gentleman raised the question of human rights and oppression in Xianjian.

*Sigh* I will spare the usual and cliche commentary on the laudable idealist cast as naive and unwelcome interjectionist.   The question I want to raise is, as the speaker, how would respond in this situation – what would you say and what would you do?  I’ll let  you think a little about this first…….

…..

Done?  Okay – well here’s what actually played out:

The speaker responded first by asking how many times the audience member had visited XianJian region to which the audience reply he had visited Beijing and Shanghai but was unable to get further due to government interference and went back to issue of human rights in China.

At this point, the speaker, ostensibly, lost it  (I’m still trying to figure out whether this was sincere or calculated) and went on (relatively short) rant on the validity of human rights in the US and generally arguing that while the US had the concept of rule of law, it still chose to conveniently ignore it whenever it wants to and citing, in no particular order, the establishment of America that condoned slavery, the internment of Japanese americans during WWII, the pre-1965 immigration act that practiced systemic racism.  The speaker then went on to say that had the audience member visited XianJian in 1965, 1980 and present day he would see marked improvements in each progressive visit and concluded simply with "These things take time," to which the audience responded with enthusiastic applause, ending the discussion.   Score one point for the yellow man over the nosy westerner.

Well that would be tidy conclusion to that story… 

…except for the fact that the whole interaction weighs on me as I find myself rerunning the entire interaction over and over again in my head and asking how I would respond if placed in a similar situation.

Here are a few things that struck me in that interaction:

1) There are mainland officials in the audience and the speaker does have economic interests in China, and afterall,  Even an sanguine response to the audience member would not be met acceptable to the PRC officials which at the least dictated a spirited response. This is a business conference on how to make money in China either topic would itself demand pragmatism.

2) Having said that, this America where, ostensibly, freedom of speech is a legal right so simply throwing the audience member out would be unacceptable not to mention bad form.

3) The speaker’s basic argument is simplistically that "Rome wasn’t built in a day" true but it does sound like a cop out.  If everyone said that, things would never get better.  Too often Politicians and administrators hold that out as a convenient excuse.  Political change often occurs with the fringe butting heads with the powers that be and changing public opinion such that they are no only the fringe but the generally accepted mainstream.  Notable examples in recent memory would be environmentalism, raciscm and now acceptance of homosexuals.

4) It was ironic for the caucausian person to be dissenting minority in a sea of yellow people.  In America, the situation is usually the opposite.

5) It wasn’t explicitly mentioned the recent Yahoo incident where Yahoo released the identity of a Chinese dissident to gov’t officials leading to his arrest.  Yahoo simply said that when operating in local jurisdiction, local laws had to be observed.  Similarly, on several occasions, the speaker also stressed the importance of adhering to local laws.  But what is local laws are unjust and oppressive?

So how would you handle this situation?