Why You Don't Want Margaret Wente as a Teacher

Margaret Wente has a view on what is wrong with universities in Canada. You can find it here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/want-to-know-why-professors-dont-teach/article1293548/

For those who want the Reader's Digest version, her argument is that the problem is research. She has the normal couple of anecdotes and references to an American who no one knows as supportive evidence. We don't actually need to get into her argument. You've heard it before and you'll hear it again. (Frankly, I wish I could get paid for writing under-researched columns that simply repeat staid heard it before arguments, but then ... I'd have to be a columnist for the Globe instead of a professor). Normally, I ignore stuff like this because:

1) there is so much wrong with the argument that correcting it would require a long time and might be boring for you to read.

2) I see no reason to fight yesterday's battles. Since we have heard all this stuff before, why even bother to comment on it?

3) I like to reserve commentary for serious issues. Wente's column is so bad it would register an F in my intro class, not for the points she makes (which can be made in a serious, professional way) but for the absolute horrible quality of supporting evidence, unbalanced treatment of the issue, and simplistic analysis. In other words, it would not matter what she was saying, the way she has gone about saying it is so poor that no one who is not already convinced could support her argument. On the other hand, if you were not convinced, there is nothing in this piece that will provide you with any reason to change your mind.

So why comment on it? This line:

"Of course there's prep time and marking and so on. But it's still not much."

Which is Wente's assessment of a prof's workload.

Let me ask you folks -- if any students happen to read this blog -- how much time do you want faculty to spend on prep and marking? Let's say I teach a standard 2/3 load (six hours one semester/nine the next). Let's do our math with the six hour semester, just to keep things simple and to put Wente's argument in the best possible light. I spend six hours in class per week. How much should I spend prepping up for those six hours? A standard rule of thumb is three to one. There are those who can get things done quicker; there are those who take longer. So now my total work time is 6 + 18 = 24 hours. In addition to that I see students. Sometimes not a lot; sometimes a bunch. I meet three directed reading/honours students for an hour per week each so three more hours plus another nine hours prep = 12 hours. Quickly adding this up, I now have s pent 24 hrs + 12 hrs = 36 hrs, plus 3 hours general consultation (drop in time for undergrads with problems relating to anything in the course they want to discuss or clarify or question, etc.). Add this to the total and I've now worked 39 hours per week, fairly close to the standard (is still standard?) 40 hours work week. And ... this is my easy term.

Now note, I have not attended a meeting, I have not gone to Senate (I have not read the reports I have am supposed to read to effectively represent my programme in Senate). I have not attended any committee meetings or read any material relating to that. (I am, for example, on my university's grad committee, which is not a lot of work but we are in charge of making recommendations on admissions. How much time should I spend on these. I assume -- for students and parents out there who happen to stumble across this blog -- that you might want me to spend a fair amount of time and make a thorough assessment of you or your child. That's an assumption on my part. I'd like to believe it is warranted. Maybe you don't care and want me to decide my recommendation on the basis of odds and evens ... but I don't do that. To continue: I have not gone to Faculty Council. I have not checked with other faculty (I am in charge of my programme) to make sure all is well. I've not looked over class lists or checked with my advisees (all students at my school have an advisor to help them out) to make sure all is well. And ... I have not written a blessed single line on the research that supposedly takes so much of my time away from teaching.

But, more importantly, I have not marked anything yet. Now, I will ask you folks again the same question: how much time do you want me to spend marking your work. Let's say you're in my third year (3000 level) undergraduate class. And, you write a term paper for me. How much time do you want me to spend marking it. I can get them done quick, if you want. The marking won't be very thorough. Your grade will end up being impressionistic and you won't get any constructive criticism, but I can get them done quickly. If you want something more thorough, considered comments that (theoretically at least) can help you improve your work, then that is going to take more time. Most students feel -- and rightly -- that their grade should not ride on one piece of work. There are pedagogical reasons for this but simple fairness is another important consideration. So, we need other assignments, perhaps a mid-term or a presentation, etc. All of this needs to be grade. Even the short reader response assignments that we give the intro classes actually need to be graded. So ... how much time do you want me to spend on your assignment, paper, exam, etc.? My experience is that the vast majority of students want the thorough constructive approach and, folks, that takes time.

The good news in all of this is that these other things -- committee meetings, Senate, grading -- don't usually occur every week. We have a weekly assignment in the intro but that tends to be the exception in the humanities rather than the rule. All told, if one were to average things out, one would find that I am spending more than 40 hours a week on my job and I still have not written a blessed line.

I don't apologize for this and I don't look for pity. I have a good gig. I like my job. Otherwise I would not do it. The school for which I work does not have a graduate programme in my discipline and so I have the summer's relatively free to do what I want in terms of research. Others who work at schools with grad programmes don't have this luxury. My point is not that one should pity profs or raise a banner in our favour. My point is that Wente's argument is empirically inaccurate because she short sells how long it takes to mark and how much time needs to go into preparing for class. And, what is worse, as a supposed defender of education, she seems to not care that she's short selling. As someone defending education, she seem to be saying that we should not mark thoroughly or properly prepare for class. And ... that is a shame.

Economy 101

A great deal of attention has been devoted to Ignatieff and Harper's deal, which preserves -- at least for the summer -- Harper's government and allows the Ignatieff to claim some minor victories and devote more time to party building all the while trying not to look like the Liberals are propping up the Tories. This kind of politics -- who will take the blame for an election no one wants -- is interesting as are the behind the scenes manovering. If one likes this kind of speculative Ottawa-centric political discussion (and, I'll confess that I find it interesting), then this type of national-politics-as-soap-opera is making for good viewing. Is there anything more in it? Should we, as some are doing, debate Ignatieff's sincerity? Should we, as some are doing, try to tar the Liberals with the Tory brush?

I don't know, but there is something important to note in the political manovering that has followed in the wake of economic crisis; that is: the degree to which Harper at least is committed to the very free market, small state policies that created the economic crisis in the first place. Harper, for example, is busy rationalizing the huge public debt his government has run up (as did Mulroney before him) as a short term expediency. Within a year, maybe two, he says, things will return to normal, five years down the line, Canada will again be in the black and governments can resume the policy of cutting taxes and slashing programmes.

Hmmm .... wait, hasn't anything be learnt here? After all, the Canadian debt is remarkably higher then it needs to be because of cuts to the GST that did nothing to increase spending and hence address looming economic problems and -- as I believe I have mentioned before -- how could they? A 2 cent cut on GST does nothing -- and can do nothing -- to alter consumer behavour. This about it like this. Suppose you want to buy a chocolate bar. Does the fact that that chocolate bar is now worth $1.15 instead of $1.17 change your thinking on the purchase? Does the saving of two cents convince you to buy two chocolate bars instead of one? The only thing cuts to the GST did was impoverish the fiscal capacity of the state to address economic problems when these popped up, which is exactly what happened. The cuts to the GST did nothing to help the economy but the loss revenue that the state would have had if all these small two cent purchases had been pooled would have significantly reduced the level of debt Canada is now accuring and hence lessened the amount of time needed to pay it back, perhaps but a year or longer!

Why would Harper and his government make such an elementary mistake? Why would they not want to have the capacity to address problems if they occurred? Why would they not, in other words, want to save for a rainy day, taking a prudent and cautious approach that would create options? After all, they are supposedly conservatives ... should they not love prudence, caution, and saving for a rainy day? The truth is that they don't seem to think of these things. Thus while they are willing to preach them as a recipe to address individual problems, they don't seem to think that it is good policy for the state to plan ahead wearing something other than rose-coloured glasses. What they are telling us is that as soon as they can they will reintroduce the exact same policies that helped make a mess of Canada's national finances in the first place.

Now, this is an important point and my wording here is important. I don't think Harper's government caused the national economic crisis. (Conservative friends of mine who are already saying Dexter's NDP government will hurt the economy ... same thing). The international economic crisis really is an international economic crisis. The issue is not did Harper cause it but ... how did he respond to it? Did his government put any forethought into policies? Did they adopt a cautious approach to finances that allowed the state to maintain capacity to address a problem if one popped up? Problems simply occur. That is the nature of life. The issue is not that they occur but that we learn from that occurence so we don't make the same mistakees again.

Unfortunately, this is where Harper and his government have fallen down. They don't seem to have learnt anything. If I made a set of assumptions that turned out to be wrong and those assumptions cost me a whole pile of money, I'd reconsider my assumptions. Harper and his government have not. And, for that reason alone, they are a dangerous national government. I don't know about you, but I want a government that is not so wedded to ideology that it refuses to consider lessons it can learn along the way.

$50 Billion Deficit but its OK, we've Got Iggy Attack Ads

The combination of Ignatieff attack ads and record setting deficits make for an on juxtaposition. On the one hand, we have a Conservative government that did not predict this recession, let alone its depth and seems ... well ... uncertain about how to proceed. On the other, in fact, it seems that the Conservatives have decided that the best way to proceed on the deficit is to go into permanent election mode and do what political parties seem to believe they are supposed to do: mystify. The new Conservative adverts, if you have not seen them, have very little to do with anything other than attempting to convince some voters that Michael Ignatieff is not a leader but a basely self-interested free rider.

I like to think of myself as not naive and so I know that politics intrudes on the actions of political parties. In that spirit, my aim here is not to criticize these blogs or express outrage about them. Instead, the important question should be: what does this tell us about Canada? What does this tell us about Canadian politics? What does this tell us about the state of Canadian conservatism?

Some time ago (and in different blogs), I wrote that two things had happened to Canadian conservatives: (1) they had lost their ideological way and were no longer conservatives but something else, and that (2) because of this, they were going to have a difficult time winning elections because they lacked an alternative vision of the country. In place of a real national project (as offered by, say, the old Progressive Conservatives or the CCF or even the Communist Party! but most particularly the Liberal Party), Conservative election strategy turned on: (1) an appeal to disparate constituencies on the basis of a thinly disguised self-interest (vote for us and we'll give you money, aka a "tax break") and (2) tearing a page out of the Rove playbook and aping the American Republican electoral strategy.

The merits of this approach is that it certainly got conservatives together (the PCs and CA might not have agreed on principles but they sure agreed they were tired of being on opposition), and in a position that they could move into at least minority status in government when the Liberal Party imploded (I would argue that the Liberals did more to drive themselves from power in then did the Conservatives, but that's a story for another day, my point being: the Conservatives did not win; the Liberals lost). Now there are merits to this, at least from a political point of view. From a policy point of view, what it creates is: (1) permanent election mode, (2) with that mode geared not on building a true national coalition but luring in just enough voters to win (in other words, the idea of establishing a "big tent" as even Mulroney tried to do is just no there), (3) and a dearth of serious policy analysis that allows for implementation -- regardless of what one thinks of them -- of effective public policies.

This is of course the problem that Bush ran into; its the problem that Paul Wells document in his study of Harper and the return of Canadian Conservatives; and its the problem that the Conservatives are running into now with this recession. The issue, to put this in too simple terms, is that the Conservatives run out of ideas. And, they run out of ideas because they are not really interested in ideas and so ... why bother to have them. After all, I'm not interested in broccoli and so I don't have any about. The Conservative response to the recession is a case in point: attack ads that try to convince someone that Ignatieff is really just a snake oil salesman combined with outright robbery of Liberal anti-recession economic policy. In other words: don't vote Liberal because: (1) they can't be trusted, and (2) we stole their ideas anyway.

I continue to lament the lost age of serious Conservatism in Canada. Not because I find attack adverts offensive. Perhaps they are; the task of this blog is to provide a different order of assessment on them. I lament it because -- even while I disagreed -- it offered an alternative vision of the future and in so doing provided Canadians with choices and choices, it seems to me, are necessary for democracy.

Obama, or Will Things Change?

So ... Canadians love US President Obama and who can blame them. I cheered for him on election night. I cheered for him for a number of reasons, including my own sense that the Republican party had become bankrupt of anything approaching a constructive ideal to address both America's domestic and foreign policy problems. And, I'd rather have a healthy and happy US next door to Canada than one strewn with internal conflict and isolated on the world stage. Canadians -- and the rest of the world -- are better off with a US administration that is committed to progressive reform, which open, committed to inclusion, and is concerned about the human dynamics of life then one animated by New American Century realpolitik and a belief that force is a primary and effective means of accomplishing goals.

So ... how will Obama pan out? The short answer is that no one knows. Nine years ago, few people imagined the mess the Bush administration would get itself into. In retrospect, of course, the signs were there and historians will be able to trace the trajectories of thought and policy that led to the US to this point: a refusal to pay attention to the warning signs in financial markets, a commitment to a "New American Century", the increasing marginalization of moderates in the Republican party, a mean/ends Rovesque political rationale, among others. What about Obama and his administration? Can we see similar trajectories in his government?

The good news is no. While one might wonder about the intelligence and scruples of some of Obama's appointees, the discourse they bring to government is markedly different than that Bush brought in. From what I can tell none of Obama's key appointees are tied to realpolitik practices and, from what I can tell, the Democrats have attempted to build a winning political coalition in a way differently then did the Republicans. Instead of trying to get out their core vote, for example, the Democrats have attempted to appeal to those who don't vote. Instead of emphasizing an exlusivist morality supposedly ratified by God, the Democrats have appealed to traditional liberal-democratic values. The real tests will be whether or not the Democrats are willing to break with American tradition and engage the international community in a way that puts global issues first. On the domestic front, the test will be whether or not, or to what degree, they are willing to reign in capitalism and subject it to popular discipline through the state.

Despite Canadians love of Obama and despite the good warning signs, I am, however, skeptical. I think Obama will be a good president. Having someone talk about justice and hopes and dreams and American being better than it is, is not a bad thing. Those who have criticized Obama (mainly Republicans) for not doing enough fast enough to address economic problems are missing the importance of discourse. For the first time in a while, the US is led by a person who is not forever talking about threats from others and is instead talking about putting the domestic house in order. I like all of this. My skepticism relates to none of this. Instead, it relates to the sheer scope of the problems Obama confronts.

Let's take foreign policy as one example. A "surge" in Afghanistan combined with support for an internal move against terrorists in Pakistan might or might not be a good military strategy. By itself, however, it can do nothing to lessen the concern of Muslims about the course of American policy. Instead, the US government needs to bite the bullet and support programmes and policies that address the human concerns of Muslims "on the ground." This means support for democracy in Pakistan regardless of who is elected. Efforts to encourage increased democratization in Arab countries. A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and increased anti-poverty activism in a range of countries. It also means a sincere and deep commitment to anti-racism at home and freedom of religion. I recognize that this is easy to say and hard to do. Hence, my skepticism.

I'm also not convinced that the problems with the US economy admit easy solutions. Even if there are recoveries, the need to find a mechanism that provides effective regulation of capital markets, the need to address income disparities, the need to address basic health care concerns, the need to address skewed economic success rates for ethnic minorities, will all still be there and this is what really needs to be addressed. Capital markets are indeed a serious problem but they become an even more serious problem if poverty rates are already too high, if ordinary people cannot afford basic health care, and if gross income disparities breed contempt and anger.

In my view, the best Obama can do is set the US on the right course to address these problems. He can do this by: developing a real anti-poverty strategy, by introducing socialized medicine, by taking the advise of allies seriously and, potentially, not acting against it, by signing on to international agreements, and by pressuring allies to make democratic reforms at home. I think Obama wants to do these things. I also think that the complexity of the American political system will slow him down and potentially detract from his objectives. And, Obama faces fairly formidable political foes at home. While they increasingly appear as an embattled and shrinking minority, they are also entrenched and well financed. Expect Fox News alone to settle into a long-term on-going campaign that will blame Obama for everything from the problems Bush created to the mis-designation of Pluto as a planet.

What this amounts to is this: the problems of America are so deep and so entrenched that it will take some time to rectify them and there were be a loud chorus continually singing another tune (perhaps even bringing out Bush nostalgia!). Progress will be slow. Let's hope it stays on track.

Canadians and Michael Ignatieff

So ... According to public opinion polls, Canadians are warming to Michael Ignatieff and souring, at lest a bit, on Stephen Harper. In Quebec, the numbers are more stark, but this is supposedly because Quebecers don't know a great deal about Ignatieff. At least this was the interpretation offered in the media over the last couple of weeks.

I think this assessment is likely correct and as proof I offer into evidence that fact that the BQ has now turned its guns back on the Liberal Party. The BQ, like the NDP and much of what counts for a national media in Canada, had, of course, spent a great deal of time going after the Liberal Party even after the collapse of the short-lived Martin government. This might have been because Dion was perceived as an easy target. It might have been -- as I've argued in this blog -- that the Canadian media appeared unable to recognize that Canada no longer had a Liberal government and so kept them in the spotlight, it might have been the disposition of political leaders. And, I think importantly, it was also a generalized opposition to the project of Canadian Liberalism that infuses all political parties. I've said before that I am not a proponent of that project and so do not come to defend it. I mean generalized in the sense of the NDP, BQ, Conservatives, and perhaps sections of the media, are not and never have been enamored with Canadian liberalism, which is why they are in other parties. For each of these parties, however, liberalism -- as carried forward by the Liberal party -- has been their main enemy for the last generation. Conservative political leaders have not just found their way to political power blocked by the Liberal party, they have rejected many of the reforms (charter rights, equality rights, women's control of their bodies, state support for equality of opportunity in the form of regional development, etc.) that have been engineered by liberals (or the big or small L variety). In power, they seek to bring in measures -- such as they can with minority support -- that will strengthen the "traditional family," provide incentives for women to not enter the paid work force, re-allocate budget priorities from non-market based media (the CBC) to the military, and such things.

None of this is surprising. It is what we would expect conservatives (of the big or small C variety) to support. What it means, however, is that Conservatives and Liberals do not see eye to eye and view each other as their main competitors. The same thing, oddly, goes for the NDP and the BQ. There is no reason to go into the details but the Liberal commitment to civic nationalism, individual rights, and an active state that is designed to realize particular social goals necessarily conflicts with the BQ's vision of the future. In Quebec, since 1993 what we have seen in the BQ/PQ and Liberals squaring off against each other (with the odd success for conservatives or socialists). The NDP ... well ... similar type of stuff.

The fact, then, that even after they were driven from power, the Conservatives, NDP, and BQ continued to direct fire at the Liberals is hardly surprising. The realization of their objectives (be is social democracy for the NDP or separatism for the BQ) requires the destruction of l/Liberalism in Canada as a vital force able to hold together and direct the federal union. (The reasons why the Canadian media were so amenable to this is another matter.) For conservatives to re-make Canada in the manner in which they would like -- which, after all, was their goal and not just sitting on the government benches -- they needed not just to win an election but politically and ideologically marginalize liberalism in such a way that they could set themselves up as a new government party able to reformulate the policies and ideals that animate Canada. Winning an election, in other words, was not good enough.

What does all this have to do with Michael Ignatieff and Canadians attitudes toward him. Well ... potentially one could answer: not very much and that might, in fact, be the right answer. The rising popularity of the Liberals might strike someone as odd. After all, they have now had horrible leadership for a good long run, first in the guise of Martin (who, I think, never really understood the appeal of liberalism in Canada) and then Dion (who understood it perhaps too well). Even before Martin's folks toppled Chretien, the infighting between the two camps was casting the party into disarray. Add to that the fact that its campaign structure and institutional apparatus are a generation out of day, it is bankrupt and has no mechanism to raise money, and some of Martin legacy star candidates are more in the way of buffoons then political leaders, the fact that many of its leaders are recent converts (Rae, Ignatieff, Dryden, Dosanjh) with little history in the party, the alienation of the federal party from provincial liberals ... and ... well ... one has to start wondering why this party even exists, let alone is leading -- even if briefly -- the polls as enter May 2009.

My argument, all the way along, has been hat the Liberals win not because they are the craftiest of politicians or because they have the best leaders but because the largest minority of Canadians self-identify with the liberal project of nation, with their view of Canada and how it should operate. In other words, the largest minority of Canadians are liberal in their outlook and this necessarily draws them to the Liberal Party and its platform.

What is interesting about Ignatieff is not just that he has benefitted from this but that he is trying -- from what I can tell -- to reformulate Canadian liberalism from within. Dion tried to bring a new environmental perspective to it. Martin tried to refashion it as a ideology-less brokerage machine. Ignatieff, for good or ill, has tried to graft onto the party a modern party structure, a revised position with regard to Quebec, and changed foreign policy. Will he be successful? I don't know, but I do think that the disposition of most Canadians is to give him a chance because ... well ... they tend to agree with most of the things he says anyway.

Don't Cut Taxes

One of the few good things about this recession is that there has been very little discussion of cutting taxes as a way to stimulate the economy. This might be because the US has tried this and it did not work and so public commentators have seen experience and decided against offering this advise (which would be learning from history, also a positive thing) It might be because we are getting some common sense in public discourse on taxes. I don't know. Whatever reason, the old common sense "cutting taxes is good for the economy" seems to have gone away at least temporarily and in its absence we can have a serious and hopefully accurate discussion of what is good for the eocnomy.

Cutting taxes is actually a truly horrible way to stimulate the economy. Few economists actually think it works. The "cut taxes" argument instead comes from public commentators (pundits) of various sorts and journalists. People who actually study the economy have little faith in it. Why? Because tax cuts have little effect on spending habits and what effects they do have can be odd or even contradictory. I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. Suppose that one wanted to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. By stimulating the economy, here, we mean increasing consumer spending in order to increase the amount of goods purchased so that businesses make more money and hence get more stock from their suppliers who in turn have to hire more workers to produce this stock, thus increasing employment. For those with a more detailed knowledge of economics, I know that is a dramatically simplified explanation but it serves its purpose.

The problem with tax cuts is that it does not do this. Suppose, for instance, that the government wanted to stimulate the economy through a tax cut. And further suppose that there are about 20 million tax paying Canadians. A $100 tax cut for each tax-paying Canada would cost the government $2 billion, a fair piece of change. There seems to be some logic here. I happened to win $100 at a basketball tournament recently (the ever present 50/50 draw, as those who frequent minor basketball tournaments will know). What did I do? I spent it. I took my wife and daughter out to dinner (my son was off with his friends), picked up a couple of extra things for the house, splurged on one of those fancy coffees at the local coffee shop, etc. Three days later my $100 was gone, right into the economy. Should not a $100 per tax payer cut work like this and stimulate the economy but instead of Andrew Nurse spending his windfall, you'd have 20 million other Canadians doing the same thing?

No, because tax cuts don't work like this. Instead of getting $100 on a Saturday evening right before supper, what you do is pay less taxes throughout the year. Most people are paid twice a month so they get 24 pay cheques (or, electronic invoices as we do here at Mount A), So instead of having $100 in my pocket I have an extra $2 and change in my bank account every 15 days. Will that $2 change the way you spend? What will you add to your grocery list for $2? Will you go out and buy your spouse a snazzy new gizmo with that $2? Or, will you get your friend a more generous Christmas present or drop a bigger donation than you otherwise would have in the plate at Church? (Sidenote: I have been trying to create an argument that Churches are good for the economy because they are ruthlessly efficient spenders. Everything that comes in one door goes out the other to support food banks, educational programmes, youth groups, drop-in centres, clothing drives, missions, etc., but I have not gotten that argument worked up yet.)

It is unlikely. My daughter might spend the $2 if she discovered she had it but she's nine and $2 is a fortune to her. My son, who is 15 would not. He'd pocket the change. Most adults would ignore it. It is simply not large enough on an individual tax-payer basis to change consumption -- spending -- patterns.

What about a bigger cut? OK, let's double it, now you have $4 every two weeks going into your bank account and the government is now in the hole $4 billion. What big ticket item would you buy because of this? You might buy an extra coffee at Tims but that won't make any difference because Tims will not need to hire anyone extra to serve you. The server just needs to pour one extra coffee or two or three. How long does it take you to pour three extra cups of coffee in a two week period? You might buy an extra chocolate bar while grocery shopping and if that were done on a mass scale it might have some minor effect, but I suspect most people will keep to their regular grocery list. Certainly, no one is going to take the family out to dinner one extra time because they have an extra $2 week (in our best case scenario). Will you buy a new car or refinance your mortgage for an addition because of this? Will you take an extra vacation to PEI this summer (I love going to PEI) because of this money?

Again, we are in a situation where the tax cut is ineffective and we have cost the government -- which means we taxpayers who will need to pay this back someday -- a lot of money. So .. why do people continue to argue for tax cuts as some supposed holy grail of economic stimulation? Well, as I said, in part they don't. The disastrous record of the Bush administration and the silly GST cutting policies of the Harper government -- in which the state's capacity to respond to economic problems was zapped for purely political reasons -- have thrown some measure of cold war on the idea. In other instances, those continuing to argue for tax cuts do so from the perspective of ignorance. They either don't know their economics or have not done their math or both. Whether because of bad math or bad economics, their advise should be disregarded. I suspect those who continue to argue for tax cuts do so out of an ideological predisposition, which again, is good reason for care in heading their advise. Ideology detached from reality is ... well ... fantasy. And, does anyone want to put something as important as the national economy in the hands of someone who lives in a fantasy world?

The good news, as I said at the beginning, is that we are now getting past the fantasy world. We can now have a serious and hopefully effective discussion about the balance between the state and the market, what each can and should do, what is more effective and efficient. Canadians should welcome a more realistic debate even if it is the unfortunate fallout of failed economic ideas.

A Late Commentary ...

A late commentary on the US elections

If nothing else, the US elections re-established one historical pattern: the Democrats were again widely perceived as the party of progressive change. "Change" was a Democratic mantra, repeated so often and with such vehemence that one might doubt its realities. President Elect Obama has tried to keep up the media momentum with timed releases of various members of his different "teams", big names who will work together with him to solve the nation's problems. Is this change real? We need an assessment that involves something more than "only time will tell." In my view, this "change" discourse is actually already more then discourse. It has served to right a political ship that had been tilting in the wrong direction for some time. This much, I suppose, might already be self-evident to most Canadians. What is important for Canadians to take note of, however, is that they should not be left behind. They should not delude themselves with the type of false promises that have infused American politics since Reagan. This is not hero worship of Barrack Obama. It is an effort to understand how political discourse can go disturbingly awry with truly destructive consequences.

In the last election the Democrats captured the "change" mantra from the Republicans who had, oddly, owned it since Reagan, nearly now a generation ago. Republicans were purveyors of change who rhetorically occupied the ideological space the Democrats had occupied since FDR or perhaps even before. The Republicans were for change. They branded the Democrats as old-fashioned and ideologically bankrupt and the label, by and large, stayed in place. Somehow, essentially conservative policies were taken to be new and indeed radical and in the popular interest. Tax cuts to the wealthy were portrayed as a popular -- as in aimed at helping ordinary people -- policy. An intensely conservative brand of Christianity (bereft, if I could editorialize, of the fruits of the spirit) claimed to be defenders of the family all the while poverty was ignored, education collapsed, health care evaporated. Said differently, all the things that allow the family to actually work and be what is was supposed to be were lost all the while the rhetoric of defending the family moved to the fore. Opposition to environmental regulation was portrayed as sensible. The de-regulation of financial markets was presented as an innovative unleashing of the entrepreneurial spirit.

Conservatives, folks, are conservatives. They are no innovators. They look to the past and mobilize traditionalist rhetoric in defense of their position. To portray it as progressive, innovative, even radical is to give a lie to what it is at its heart and what conservatives seek to accomplish. The goal of conservatives, in short, is to hold back the hands of time, rather than trying to build a new future. Reagan was a master of this odd rhetoric, rhetoric that portrayed progress as backward and backwardness as progress. Bush I less so but still relatively effectively. Bush II, initially at least, better than his father. Despite being in government, Reagan ran against government. Arguing that keeping him in power was a way to change things. Bush I did the same thing. The logic of the proposition was almost outrageous. If you don't like the government, don't elect the opposition, re-elect the government.

McCain and Palin tried to mobilize this rhetoric despite the most unabashedly conservative approach that they could muster. They called themselves "mavericks" all the while trumpeting a future that had not place for anyone who really was a maverick. They ignored the environmental crisis and the disaster that became US foreign policy during the Bush II regime. What happened in the last US election was, of course, many things. But, one thing that happened was that the press of history tore the veil from this odd rhetoric and exposed it for what it was: rhetoric. In the face of wars the US may not be able to win, a financial crisis that exposed the disaster of Bush II capital market policies, mounting problems with health care and education, it was simply impossible for anyone who was serious about the future of the US to take McCain's and Palin's claims to be mavericks -- to offer anything but the "same old, same old" -- seriously. The result is that progressives now again own the term change. They need to keep it by actually delivering on their promises. But, they can take some comfort in that large numbers of Americans seem now, to be on their side. They don't have to pretend to be moderates or even small-c conservatives a la Clinton and Gore. They can advocate fundamental change and there is an audience ready to listen to it.

What does all this have to do with Canada? Again, many things but the object lesson here is that Canadians should not fall for the same oddly misplaced empty rhetoric. Conservatives, folks, are conservatives and they are such for a reason: they don't believe in change. If they did, they would not be conservatives. Think about the last budget ... eh, financial update from the federal government. Even while leading conservative pundits and federal ministers try to brand the opposition as backward, the proof of the pudding ..... Canada's conservative government has attempted to turn back the clock on so many issues it is almost silly: picking a fight with China (as if China cared!) in order to relive the Cold War (oh, and let's build up the military and find a "good fight" in the meantime), a national child care system? Heck, instead of that, let's see if we can find a way to use the tax system to bribe women to not go into the paid labour force (we can call it "choice" if anyone gets upset), tax cuts, love 'em because it reduces the capacity of the state to a pre-WW II level (or, if we can't make that, let's aim for something like the 1950s).

Some people might like conservative politics. Fair enough. I don't but there is nothing illegitimate about conservatism. I think its a big honkin' flop that has destroyed the US economy and ruined the US's international reputation, but ... but if some people want the same thing for Canada, well ... they want the same thing for Canada. But, let's have an honest discussion of this issue. Let conservatives proudly stand up and say "We are backward and we don't believe in building a progressive Canada. Our ideal of a good Canada is that which seemed to pass away a generation or two generations or whatever ago and our goal will be to remake that Canada." Otherwise, all conservatives are actually doing when they cast themselves as agents of change is lie.

The Ghost of Karl Rove

So … Canada has a political crisis of sorts. This is not a “powerplay” and it is not a highjacking of Parliament. There actually are important issues that are worth considering and this crisis gives us the opportunity to think about them. I’ll begin by speculating on “what happened” and, hopefully, get to thinking about what might happen in future blog.

What happened is actually pretty simple. It was not a bunch of “outs” who decided that they were better off together and ganged up on the “ins” who legitimately won an election. What happened as a shift in the way Canadian party politics operated that forced the opposition parties to group together. Let me be clear: they had very little choice. Their options were shrunk to watching their own funerals or finding some way to work together. The occasion for this was not the economic crisis – although I accept the legitimacy and sincerity of all parties’ members concerns about this - -but Conservative efforts to amend the election financing provisions of Canadian law. One might recall that under changes introduced by the Chretien administration and then modified by Harper, large scale corporate donations were eliminated in favour of small scale individual donations. To compensate for lost resource, the government would provide each party with a subsidy on the basis of how many votes they won. The aim was to remove corporate (as in big body, not “business” because this could include unions) influence on the political process through donations. Personally, I think this is a good idea.

What the Conservatives proposed was to do away with the subsidies per vote to parties. They were not doing this out of economic concern because the amount of money that the government of Canada would save is completely insignificant. It would save something on the order of $30 million dollars but the total Canadian budget is over $240 billion. In other words, the best that this measure could save is something on the order of 1/1oth of 1 per cent. My math may be off a nick but you get the point. There is no reasonable way to pretend that this was a cost-saving matter. Instead, it was designed to limit the ability of opposition parties to campaign. We may not like this. I don’t think I do. But elections cost money and parties today need to buy TV time, run databases, etc. That is the nature of modern electioneering. The Conservatives do it and so they can’t actually think that it is bad. What they were doing is eliminating the ability of other parties to do the same thing they do.

Is this a bad thing? I think it is but that might not be the really significant point. I think it is a bad thing because a vibrant democracy requires opposition parties. If there is only a government party that faces no serious opposition then it has a free hand. We’ve been through periods like this in Canada and from what I can tell no one – excepting perhaps for those in government – was particularly satisfied. By undercutting the ability of the opposition to run an effective election campaign, the Conservatives were undercutting Canadian democracy and that, in my view, is not good. Harper and co must have sensed there was some problem with it because they tried to back away from this policy after daring the opposition parties to defeat them on this matter (one is tempted here to say “guess what”?)

The more significant point is that the Conservative policy was designed to build a lasting Conservative government. Now, this is what Conservatives do: try to building lasting Conservative governments. There is nothing wrong with that. That’s their business and it is a legitimate political perspective. What is interesting is that this strategy represented a departure from the ways in which conservatives in Canada – and Liberals for that matter – have tried to build lasting governments.

In Canada, the way one wins elections is to get more votes than other people but attracting people to your party (a simplification I know but follow the logic). Traditionally, this has been done by building coalitions of voters with different but compatible perspectives in which everyone has to sacrifice a bit, everyone has to compromise in order to maintain stable government. For example, in drawing together the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives, each side needed to compromise in order to create a viable alternative government to the Liberals. In the past, this is precisely what Brian Mulroney – the last really successful conservative PM – did. He built a coalition of Quebecois “soft nationalists” (those seeking modifications to federalism as opposed to independence), western Neo-cons, Bay Street financial conservatives, and old-style Red Tories in parts of Ontario and eastern Canada. This coalition, as we all know, did not hold together but that was how the conservatives attempted to “take power”: by winning more votes. In Canada, successful coalitions are build around region, social class, ethnicity, language, etc.

After forging the CA and PC parties into a workable coalition, Harper stopped. After this election and the failure to win a majority by expanding their vote, others in the CPC must have come to the same decision because the Conservatives reversed course. Instead of trying to broaden their base to win some future election, they decided that the best way to win – to build a long-term Conservative government (which, to repeat is not a sin) – was to destroy the opposition. In effect, they took a page from the Karl Rove political primer.

Rove – Bush II’s rainmarker – followed precisely these types of policies: play on people’s fears, slander opponents, destroy their ability to run effective elections, build up huge war chests and run permanent elections. The goal was to not have to broaden the Republican coalition in order to maintain power. Broadening coalitions is not only difficult but it involves compromise. One needs to accept that in order to get part of what one wants – as a government – one will have to give up other things that don’t command as much support. Bush and Rove did not want to do this (despite protesting that they did). Instead, they wanted to forge ahead with their agenda.

This is what Harper’s advisors told him to do. In effect they said “we have had enough water in our wine. It is too weak now. And, we have before us a perfect opportunity to get what we want. We don’t need to get much more of the popular vote than we have now. What we need to do is not broaden our base by compromises any more of our values. If we simply destroy the ability of the Liberals and Bloc to wage an election campaign, we can win virtually by default.”

This is why their move was an affront to democracy. Karl Rove used to talk about the magic 23%. Noting that not all Americans vote, Rove speculated that if one could get 23% of Americans to vote for you, you could establish a near-permanent Republican government. This is what Harper and crew tried to do.

Now there is every reason to think that the Rove strategy was a loser. Bush is discredited. Not even his Republican allies, it turns out, could accept the ideological rigidity of some of his domestic policies and within six years of taking office and within four years of having majorities in both houses of Congress … the Democrats were on their way back. In other words, the Rove strategy – destroy the opposition as opposed to broaden one’s base – had a very short life span. Harper and crew would have been wise to pay attention to this before they attempted the same strategy in Canada.

NAFTA II?

Barack Obama says he wants to renegotiate NAFTA if elected president of the US. Senator McCain says he defends NAFTA. From the Canadian perspective, does it make any difference? Obama's (and other Democrats') objections to NAFTA have gotten a lot of press -- both in Canada and the US -- but they don't seem to have become an important issue for the general population in Canada, in the manner of, say, the original C-USFTA or NAFTA. Journalists, a few politicians, and some business leaders are talking about Obama's stand but not all that much and generally without any clear sense of urgency. Are they making a mistake? Would an Obama administration represent a threat to NAFTA? Should Canadians be concerned? And, because of this concern should they hope McCain wins the presidency?

I don't think so. Instead, I think Canadians should adopt a different approach. Like Obama, I think Canada should be interested in renegotiating NAFTA. In this regard, an Obama electoral victory presents and opportunity; not a threat.

I say this for a number of reasons. The primary one is that the support of McCain and the Republican party for NAFTA is as much political theatre as it is a serious indication of public policy. We need to remember, that the Bush administration consistently refused to play by the rules of the NAFTA game with regard to softwood lumber. So ... even while declaring themselves in support of NAFTA, a Republican administration subverted the deal by refusing to respect it. New American energy regulations -- something that is not "on the radar" for most people -- are another example of this. The new regulations used by the US regulatory agency for energy have nothing to do with NAFTA and subvert its rules. Yet, Republicans have had no trouble in carrying this policy forward. What this means for Canadians is that the issue is not so much what one politician says as the track record of the party to which they are attached. In this regard, there is little to differentiate what the Republicans have done in practice from what Obama says he will do if elected.

I suspect this is the reason ordinary Canadians have not been all that much concerned about Obama, McCain, and the fate of NAFTA. They believe that the US government will make it own policy determinations regardless of who is in power and that these determinations will reflect an assessment of American interests as opposed to the rules of NAFTA. Said differently, Canadian indifference to the American NAFTA debate does not mean that Canadians don't have strong views on NAFTA. It represents what strikes me as an astute assessment of historical course of action followed by US governments. Regardless of who wins, NAFTA will be "on the table" either overtly (Obama) or through regulatory and policy mechanisms that are out of the public eye (the Republican approach).

If this is the real issue Canadians have before them, then, is not is Obama a threat. Indeed, it would be refreshing, open, and potentially democratic and transparent to engage is a serious reconsideration of NAFTA. The real issue is how Canada should respond to the manipulation of NAFTA, in some instances, by one of its signatories? I'll suggest a several pronged approach.

First, Canadians should begin to think about what a post-NAFTA NAFTA might look like. Obama has said that he is particularly concerned with the weaknesses of NAFTA's side agreements on the environment and labour standards. I think Canadians should be, too. If Obama wants to use some sort of NAFTA-esque negotiations (whatever these might end up being called) to strengthen environmental protection policies, reduce private claims on commons and public goods, address water depletion, move the US away from fossil fuel dependence, improve labour rights ... well ... this does not sound too bad. Certainly, it is no reason for refusing to negotiate. I suspect, most Canadians would be in favour of discussions along this line. Rather than opposing what Obama is suggesting, then, I think Canada should indicate its willingness to go back to the table and address these issues.

Second, trade negotiations are often conceptualized as a national zero-sum gain. Certainly, this is the tenor of some of Obama's discourse, which runs something like: the US has to be losing jobs because someone is cheating and not trading fair; we need to be tough with them and get those jobs back here. How should Canadians respond to this discourse? Our position should be that we should not try to turn back the clock -- to get those jobs back -- but need to look forward and take control of the process of integration. In other words, how can it be better directed to public good in the future. For Canadians, to do this, requires accepting the legitimacy of American concerns. We can certainly point out where the evidence does not match perception but I see absolutely nothing wrong with ordinary American being concerned about job loss. We Canadians are concerned about precisely the same thing so ... we have a community of interest on this.

For me, this entails several things. It entails proper capital regulation to ensure that things like the Enron and the sub-prime mortgage crisis don't happen again. In other words, Canada should suggest that better control of capital markets and large scale speculative ventures (say, like those proposed for the energy sector) be control and regulated on a North American wide scale. This will allow us all to address criminal activities faster and reassert public control over economic development. It might, as well, take some of the heat off rising energy prices, part of which seem to be driven by speculation (that is, energy trading which was, of course, Enron's game). Prescription drugs, medical services, patents, are also other areas where the US and Canada and Mexico could collectively benefit by greater control that allows for a downward movement of prices. We may, as well, want to talk about labour mobility.

Third, we should take this case to the US government: we are too economically integrated to abandon NAFTA. If we do that, we'll just have to recreate it. So ... why bother abandoning it? We should work to renew it and improve it.

What I am talking about here, then, is not a matter of international good will (although I think this is important and fair), but a recognition that we need to move beyond NAFTA. Obama is right. We can't just ditch NAFTA because that would be meaningless. Instead, we need to isolate areas where the NAFTA economy is failing citizens and zapping public good. We should take Obama at his word when he says he wants constructive and progressive change. Canadians should support that, not to be nice to the US but because it is what Canada needs and ethically it is the right thing to do. We could use the NAFTA framework to enhance environmental protection, promote better health and safety standards for labour, improve the mobility of labour, reduce health care costs by regulating profits for private enterprise in medicine, and other things. We can, as well, understand the concerns that feed support for Obama's position among ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans have not both benefited and been hurt by NAFTA. Those who have been hurt are looking to their government to build a better society by renegotiating NAFTA. If Obama is serious about this, we should work with him to do so. If he isn't ... well ... that's a story for another blog.

Canada, the US, and Missile Defense

One sore spot between Canada and the US is Canada's reluctance to get involved in the Bush government's North American missile shield programme, which its critics contend involves the "weaponization" of space. How should a Canadian government approach this issue? Traditionally, the left has both resisted and opposed military programmes such as this on a variety of grounds: they amount to an arms race, they won't work and are hence a waste of money, and they will undercut Canadian sovereignty by vesting military control of Canadian territory in the US and with American generals. To date, this argument has held sway and I have no doubt that it reflects general Canadian views (with the normal range of different opinions) on this matter. My evidence is that the Conservatives -- despite their support for a joint missile defense programme with the US while in opposition -- have not wanted to touch this issue while in power. My bet is that they know all opposition parties would vote against it, hence bringing down their government (or, even if not, illustrating its inability to carry forward a major defense initiative thus zapping its international credibility) and they have no desire to fight an election on this issue, gambling that it would cost them votes. But, is the left right? In our consideration of this issue, is there reason to reconsider left-wing opposition to the US missile defense programme? Could there be a left-wing version of it?

There are a number of arguments in favour of supporting this US initiative, some of which are patently silly while others are militaristic. These we can dismiss easily. I'd suggest that, however, that even if our hypothetical left-wing Canadian government decided against joining the US programme, there is still reason for them to reconsider this issue and think through it again.

What are the arguments in favour of joining a US-led missile shield? There is the economic argument: we need to maintain a positive relationship with the US to keep our border open. This is one of the silly argument that has already been disproven by the passage of time. Canada's refusal to join this programme has not closed the border (or, even slowed down traffic across it). Those who would make this argument, then, are making a counter-factual argument that has already been disproven by history. There is "we need to have a more powerful military even if it comes in joint venture with the US so we are taken seriously argument." I dismiss this argument too because it begs questions: taken seriously by whom? And what does "taken seriously" mean anyway? Suppose, for example, that we are currently not "taken seriously" by someone, how has that hurt Canada? Has it limited our ability to help refugees? Has it lowered our standard of living? Has it distorted our children's education? In other words, the "taken seriously" argument seems powerful until you start to push it. Then you discover that it is the IR equivalent of two kids talking trash on the playground. It reduces international reputation to a "might makes right" approach. If this happens to be your measure of "taken seriously", well, you and I are just on different pages. I doubt you will concede my point (that things like ethics, quality of life, humanitarianism, science, religion, etc., are what count) and I'll never concede your's (that these things are not important compared to the size of the stick you carry). I don't want to live in your Canada and I doubt you want to live in mine so we will have to agree to disagree and go our separate ways (luckily, of course, we both get to put our cases before the public and leave the matter to democracy to decide).

Once we get past this non-starter, in my view, arguments, there are other points that merit more consideration. For example, cooperation with the US helps the state fulfill its obligation to protect citizens. One doesn't have to be a big stick playground trash talker to subscribe to this view. I believe that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens. If it does not do that, it loses legitimacy and citizens have a right to reconstitute the government or re-order the state. (I might even offer a very broad assessment of what the word "protect" means to include things like medical care and equality of opportunity but that can be a subject for another day). A missile defense shield, it could be argued, helps the state fulfill this obligation. In addition, one could argue that it continues a tradition of Canadian/American military cooperation. Such cooperation has not hampered Canadian sovereignty (one could argue, although the record is perhaps more mixed than most people realize) and represents an extension of NORAD. With the US moving down this road, we can't maintain NORAD the way it has been in the past. Thus, we have two realistic choices: pick up this tradition and move forward or abandon it and go it alone on North American air defense. Given these chioces, this argument, might continue, we should continue cooperation. It does not threaten sovereignty, it is in keeping with our traditions, and the current status quo is not an option. What about these arguments, do they make sense?

I don't think so. First, the missile defense shield protects Canada against ... what? The answer is bad guys (rouge states or non-state actors) with ballistic missiles. We've already been through the WMD debate with regard to Iraq and it proved false. We should bear this closely in mind before we start assuming other WMD lie in other unnamed terrorists hands. The burden of proof in this regard, I think, lies squarely with those suggesting that Canada embrace the US initiative. I'll be quite clear: I don't think vague and ominous warnings are enough. Credible evidence about real threats needs to be put on the table and no one, to the best of my knowledge, has put this evidence on the table.

What about 9/11? I don't mean any disrespect to those who died, lost loved ones, or the governments that grappled with the realities of the 9/11 attacks. A ballistic missile defense shield would not have stopped those attacks because: (1) they did not use missiles and (2) they were launched from within the US. In other words, if a missile defense shield is intended to have stopped 9/11, it would not have done so. By analogy, it would be like trying to pull out a nail with a saw or cut down a tree with a screw driver. If it worked, it would have been a fluke because those tools are designed to do other things. 9/11 is manifest evidence of terror, it is not evidence of a missile threat and to treat it like that is to miss what the real threat was.

My point is this: the burden of making the case lies not with those who oppose the missile defense shield. The arguments against are already strong (as noted above). In reconsidering it, the burden of proof lies with those who suggest altering course. To date, those people have failed this test. Note: I am not saying that I disagree with them. I think any government needs to hear the evidence. I'm saying they have simply failed to make their case. This is their problem, not the problem of someone who is trying to weigh the evidence. The best thing proponents of Canadian involvement could do is make their case by providing real evidence. Without that, it is difficult to take their arguments seriously.

At this point, in the absence of evidence, the question about Canadian sovereignty is beside the point. Why? Well, it is not that sovereignty is beside the point but that consideration of the sovereignty issue is the next step in the argument. If there was a real threat (and not just some statistically improbable remote possiblity) then Canadian still might opt out of the missile defense shield. They might opt out because of their commitments against the weaponization of space. They might opt out because they view the treat to national sovereignty posed by cooperation as greater than the threat of attack. Unless there is a real threat of attack, however, there is not need to move forward is a discussion because I will assume that the irrationality of so doing is glaringly evidence. Consider an analogy: it would be an irrational waste of taxpayers' money to build a road that no one would use on the remote possibility that someone sometime might use it. In the same way, without a threat, it is a waste of taxpayers' money to build a defense system that will never be used.

(Note: someone might ask "what about deterance?" Good question. A deterance is actually being used. That use is just not in fighting. In other words, it has a use. I personally don't agree with the way in which the deterent argument has been used in defense of nuclear weapons but I would not argue that those weapons had no use. They did. That use was just not blowing things up. This is different than there not being a threat. If there is no threat, what is actually being deterred?)

End of case? Perhaps. There are two further really important points associated with this issue.

Point 1) The fact that there is no threat now does not mean that there might not be one in the future. The future is difficult to see and one should avoid seeing the worst in it. Again, the WMD Iraq is an immanent threat farce should be evidence enough of this. Still, a prudent government -- any government -- would consider future possibilities.

Point 2) Rejection of cooperation on missile defense with the US should not mean doing nothing. NORAD as we know it might be changing: it should. We live in a different world today then we did during the Cold War. If NORAD stayed the same despite these important changes, I'd worry about it. The fact that NORAD will change is not, by itself, reason enough to go down the missile shield route. But it is also not reason for complacency. In my view there are real threats to security out there. And, the Canadian government should move to address these. Plausible threats include: rouge shipping in the Canadian north, environmental destruction, the need for energy security, weapons smuggling, failed and failing states, the AIDS epidemic. Here are specific real or plausible threats that can be addressed. Addressing them requires military infrastructure. It requires other things, too: heavy lift capacity, surface and sub-surface improvements -- including new ships -- for the navy and coast guard, radar systems, and expanded rapid emergency response, medical research, foreign aid, etc. IOW, rejecting missile defense need not -- and should not - -be a rejection of a security agenda. Canada and the US still have a great deal on which they can and should work together. Working together creates win-win-win situations (Canada-US-other countries), allows us to pool resources and technology, and allows us to address common problems.

Let me sum up: the left has good arguments against cooperation with the US on missile defense but it should reconsider this issue. The silly or incorrect arguments in favour of cooperation can be dismissed (because they can be demonstrated to be empirically inaccurate) and the burden of proof for those suggesting a new military trajectory for Canada lies with those suggesting the new course. If they cannot provide evidence for their case, that is not my fault. It simply means their case lacks evidence. Without compelling evidence for a threat there is no pressing need to consider the other issue: national sovereignty (although I suspect the threat to sovereignty of cooperation is not any greater than it has been in the past). Rejecting cooperation does not mean rejecting security (or poo-pooing the concerns an American government may have in this regard). Canadians should invest in a security agenda, including military spending but we should also identify those security threats we need to address (so we spend our money wisely). I'd suggest these include northern sovereignty, the need for improved rapid deployment, and heavy lift. I'd also suggest that there is a need for new armour and un-manned drones but I have not really investigated that. There are non-military spending priorities for a security agenda as well. We should cooperate with the US on these other matters.

Someone might say "well, if we don't participate in the missile shield the US will not work with us on these other issues." That would be too bad. Somethings we should do without the US. We should develop our own heavy lift capacity, for example, and this can then be coordinated later, if need be, with American capacity. The US, however, should work with us on them not to be nice to us but because we have a common interest in addressing them. Rouge northern shipping, for instance, is a threat to the US as well as Canada. It is in their interest to work with us on this and to find ways of addressing this issue. I can't imagine a US government refusing to address a threat to the US just to spite Canada! That would be irrational and I don't think the US government is irrational.

Harper Got This One Right

Stephen Harper used to be a strong advocate of Canadian involvement in the war in Iraq. He did not maintain this position for long but sensibly changed his might and began to advocate a different role for Canada in world affairs. The fact that Harper changed his mind is not a weakness. Indeed, only a mature and sophisticated political leader who is committed to empirical reality can change his mind. I don't view it as "waffling" or "governing by the polls." I am glad to see leaders who will not persist in a particular course of action for ideological reasons or pigheadedness after they discover that their course of action was wrong. In this regard, Harper's arguments in favour of Canadian involvement in the Iraq war were clearly wrong. Why?

Well, they were wrong because the advocates of Canadian military involvement in the Second Gulf War made no sense. They used simplistic arguments ("if your buddy is in a fight in a bar") that were at best misguided and distorted analogies. War, folks, is not a bar fight. And -- rhetorical excess -- if I were you I wouldn't take anyone who couldn't tell the difference out for a beer. Hindsight is 20/20 so in considering this issue, I will -- for now -- avoid the "I told you so" type of argument that focuses on the mess that has followed in the wake of the American occupation of Iraq. I actually don't think hindsight is irrelevant. I'm a historian and so, you might imagine, I think hindsight is of some importance in the sense that I think history does provide lessons for today. I'll avoid the "I told you so" type of argument in order to make a different point: Canada properly avoided entering the war in Iraq for what were at the time very good reasons. What were those reasons?

Let me pick just one reason to focus on. At the time the US was looking for Canadian support, there were those who argued that we needed to support the US by becoming involved in the campaign against the Hussein government because we needed to maintain good relations with the US. Our economic life blood depended on it. We all know the stats: 80% of Canadian trade is with the US and since Canada has an export-driven economy, what goes on in the US is of some importance to Canada. Quite simply, Canada needs to maintain its access to the American market if Canadians want to maintain their standard of living. I'll gamble that they do and this is the very force of one of the argument put forward in favour of military involvement: upsetting the US government risked some sort of retaliation that could produce harmful economic effects on Canada.

This was a horrible argument in favour of entering the war. It borders, in fact, on unethical. This type of argument -- we should enter a war on the side of the US to curry their economic favour -- places Canadian economic self interest above all other considerations. In short, we decide in favour of war (or, against it) on the basis of the "bottom line." If there money is on the line, we go in. Other considerations are relegated to, at best, second place. What about the civilians who will be killed by our military action? Hussein was a horrible dictator. To describe his regime as repressive is a drastic understate of the highest order. Yet, the economic argument in favour of war is not about the Hussein regime or the civilians who would be killed in the conflict. It is about us and the money we can make by winning the favour of the American government. The civilians are irrelevant. Those who will die are irrelevant. And, if you don't believe civilians die in war, well ... you probably also believe that war is akin to a bar fight. Ethically, then, the economic argument in favour of war is premised on an intensely problematic disregard for the lives of people in other countries (in this case in Iraq).

But, it is worse than that. The economic argument in favour of war is also a callous disregard for the lives of Canadian soldiers, their reputations, and the honour of the Canadian military. In effect, it turns soldiers into expendable tools of economic development. They would be in Iraq fighting not to liberate oppressed populations, to aid an ally in its time of need (since the US clearly did not need Canadian military support), or to protect Canadians from an immediate threat, but so that Canadian industries could sell things to the US. In effect, the economic argument in favour of war turns the Canadian military into a mercenary force that is sold to the highest bidder. Is this what we want for our soldiers? Is this what we want to do to our military? Put differently, it is one thing, I think, for a government to order the military to fight a war of liberation or a war of national defense. It is another thing to ask the military to fight a war in a distant land against an enemy who poses no threat to us -- to kill others (including of necessity innocent civilians) and to die -- so that consumer goods can move freely the Canada/US border.

What is most bizarre about these types of arguments is that they are treated seriously. To my mind, the Canadian military has a reputation that is envious. Canada does not fight aggressive wars; it has "punched above its weight" in important international conflicts, it has fought "the good fight" in defense of people under threat, it has promoted peacekeeping. Mistakes have been made with the Canadian military. Lives have been needlessly lost and, in a couple of recent occasions, the military was asked to do jobs that it had not the training or manpower to do. Such qualifications, I think, does not detract from the enviable international reputation of Canada and its military. Yet, what was being proposed by the advocates of the economic rationale for war had nothing to do with this heritage. It devalued the Canadian military and placed it in the service of industry looking to maintain its market.

If we put all of this together, we get what I described above as a horrible argument for war: ignoring the lives of innocent civilians, abrogating a military heritage of high ideals, transforming the military into a mercenary force whose goal is to fight in distant lands so trucks continue to flow across the border, asking Canadians to kill and die for this objective. Such an argument for war devalues the lives of Canadian soldiers and civilians in other countries (in this case Iraq) alike. It is predicated on a rejection of what our military stands for.

What is more, none of this, it turns out, was needed. Despite forecasts of impending doom, the US did not close the border and, aside from some symbolic measures, took no actions against Canada. In other words, the economic rationale for war also mispainted Americans and their government. It portrayed them as vindictive and small minded. It portrayed them as a people -- and a government -- that could not reason (after all, nearly 20% of US exports go to Canada so economically penalizing Canada, say, but limiting economic interaction across the border so hitting economically at Canada would also harm the US) and would not reason. It would instead lash out. It portrayed them as a people, and a government, who had no respect for autonomous decisions reached by what is, for the US, a foreign country. The opponents of the war have been rightly criticized for stereotyping Americans. Yet, it seems to me, that the proponents of the economic argument for war paint at least as bleak a picture of the US.

There were other reasons why some people promoted Canadian involvement in the Iraq war. Those reasons bear consideration. I just don't have time to address them here. The economic argument -- one important argument that was made at the time -- is, however, deeply flawed. Not only does it disregard innocent lives, transform the Canadian military into a mercenary force, and is built of misleading analogies, it also deploys stereotypes of the irrational petty American. These arguments, in my view, just don't amount to good reasons for military engagement. If you care about the military and its history, believe that civilian lives are worth more than free flowing Canada/US border traffic, and think of the US as a complex and mature democracy ... well, I'd guess you think pretty much the same way I do.

The Triumph of Ideology (not a bad thing)

Last week, we are told, the Conservatives had a bad week. There was the Italian troop fiasco and the Bernier issue and its fallout. Was it really all that bad, however, for the Tories? I suspect not and I suspect not for two reasons: the fact that these are not really, really huge issues (at least with the Canadian public) and the commitment of conservatives to the Conservative Party. Of these two mitigating factors, the last is by far the most important for Canadian Studies because it points to an issue I've mentioned before: ideology matters. Politics is not just about vote getting. Ideas count and principles count. And, not just bland principles with which everyone can agree -- like "good government" and "accountability in spending" -- but ideology in the sense of how one envisions the nation. It is, I think, the vision-think -- this perception of what Canada is and where it should go (that is, how it should develop in the future) -- that ties people to specific political parties and keeps them voting for that party despite scandals and mess-ups of the sort we saw last week. Let me say a quick word about each of these points.

First, the minor point: these scandals really weren't that bad. This is a matter of political punditry. Leaving classified papers around is clearly not a good thing. Bernier is not the first minister to do something like this (or, say, to be overhead on an airplane making comments about classified matters). It should not happen but human beings being what they are, it will happen from time to time. Bernier's jig was likely up anyway. The Conservatives didn't want to see this scandal (who would want a scandal no matter how minor) and they certainly didn't want to lose Bernier from the cabinet. But, he was not doing a good job in Foreign Affairs anyway. He's too much of an ideologue to really function well in that post, which requires diplomacy and pragmatism. He was more suited to a domestic economic role. It is doubtful, then, that he would have survived the next cabinet shuffle in Foreign Affairs anyway. So, the Conservative disappointment can be mitigated by this reality. It can also be mitigated by the fact that while people find the whole scandal interesting, it is interesting in more of a rubber neck kind of way. Unless the Conservatives have other similar problems waiting to pop up (in which we case we would have a system problem with security and not a scandal), I suspect most Canadians won't care very much about the issue in another month's time. And, by election time it won't be a matter of concern at all. Is anyone planning to change the way they vote because of Bernier?

The more important point is the answer to the question I just asked. I suspect not. And, I suspect not because of why people vote Conservative in the first place. It has not a great deal to do with any one individual minister. (Although the Liberal's strong team approach bears watching in this regard as a potential counter example.) Instead, those who vote Conservtive do so because they are committed to specific conservative values. I suspect that if you polled Conservatives you'd find a much stronger commitment to such things as: lower taxes, less social welfare, a closer commitment to the US, opposition to equality for gay people (although some euphemism might be used for this), opposition to "feminism", a desire for lower rates of immigration, and opposition to further secularization in Canadian society. I just made that list up so one or two of the things might be a bit off the mark and I'm not saying that there is not, say, opposition to equality for gay Canadians in other parties. I'm just saying it would be a lot more prominent among Conservative voters.

People who vote for a political party are unlikely to desert it over a single scandal or two or even a lot of scandals. The scandals need to be show to be some sort of systematic failure on the part of that party before people committed to voting on values will shift ground. The same thing could be said for Liberals or NDP types. The Liberals endured the worst political scandal in a heck of a long time and yet 1/3rd of Canadians are still committed to them. The NDP suffered through incompetent leadership, an abboragation of its heritage, and no chance of winning, and yet a core of Canadians (say, about 10%) keep voting for them. There is a smaller core of Green Party activists and a core of Bloquistes.

I might be wrong but the upshot of what I am saying is that ideology counts for more than journalists frequently suggest. There is a lot of "spin" in politics, to be sure, but for the average voter, I don't think "spin" is as important as values. What this mean, then, is that we should stop talking about "spin" and "image" and "bad weeks" and start talking about values and ideas. The future of Canadian politics lies there.

In Praise of Internationalism

In At Home in the World, Jennifer Welsh makes a series of arguments about Canada's relationship with the United States and the grounds on which it should be conducted. Welsh is an impressive scholar, whose work might be viewed as a realistic voice of reason. She is neither anti-American nor slavishly pro-American. In this work her interests lie laying out a blueprint for a renewed Canadian foreign policy that can advance Canada's interests. I see no reason why anyone would not take Welsh at her word, at least in terms of the position from which she writes and the good faith she manifests.

Perhaps for this reason, her work serves as a useful point of engagement for considering the character and scope of Canada/US relations, necessarily a key axes in any discussion of Canadian foreign policy. And, that is precisely what I want to do over the next several blogs I will post: consider the character and scope of Canadian/American relations and some key points in this regard. I won't address "everything"; manifestly that is impossible. What I will do is to select a series of key points and address these. As always, comments, criticism, suggestions are welcome.

What prompted me to begin this blog was a specific statement Welsh makes near the end of the first chapter of At Home in the World: "What we [Canada, and potentially Europeans] cannot do is use multilateral forums as tools for reining in the United States." This statement summarizes part of Welsh's argument for what she views as the realistic alternatives facing Canada when controversies over foreign policy erupt between Canada and the US, the key example here is the Second Gulf War (and Canada's refusal to participate in it). Welsh sketches out two options Canada has in such a circumstance: (1) support the US if we feel their actions will enhance international peace and security, or (2) get out of their way if we feel they will not. She views Canadian and European efforts to use the UN -- to follow this particular example -- to stall or stop US actions are both doomed to failure. We need to focus on results, Welsh tells us, and those results will not be advanced by attempting to impose multilateralism on the US because, quite simply, the US will never accept limits on its scope of authority. The reason for this, she suggests, is rooted in history and democracy: as a sovereign state with a revolutionary history of anti-imperialism the US refuses to accept outside direction of American actions.

I don't agree. I don't agree with Welsh's interpretation of history but that is ... well, a matter of interpretation and we can leave it there. We can agree to disagree. What I don't agree with is the idea that Canada should stop using multilateral institutions to "rein in" US policy but instead, get out of the way, if we disagree with it. In other words, the options Welsh give us are: (1) support the US (in this case contribute militarily to the invasion of Iraq), or (2) do nothing so that the US has a nearly completely free hand to do what it wants. By US here, I should note, mean that American government, something different from the American people. Why? Why should we abandon multilateral institutions? Why should internationalism mean nothing to the US government? And, from our perspective, why should we abandon it must because the US government has decided to? Is there no benefit to an international consideration of a particular issue? Is there no benefit to considering multilateral and diplomatic solutions? I find it hard to consign the whole idea of international cooperation and multilateral deliberation (with all its admitted weaknesses) to the garbage can simply because the US government disagrees with it.

Let's remember a few things. First, US governments change. The current government -- the Bush administration -- hardly reflects American writ large thinking. In other words, this is not a Canada v. the US issue. Americans are deeply divided on the issue (on foreign policy and the best way to approach it). It is more than possible that the US government will change and bring to power a government that has a great deal more support than the current government for multilateralism. If this happens -- as seems likely -- Welsh puts Canada in the odd position of ignoring multilateralism to support a US government that itself would be supportive of multilateralism. In At Home in the World Welsh notes that Canadians need to take a longer-term perspective in considering the dynamics of Canada US relations. It is, therefore, odd that she does not and bases her argument for ignoring internationalism on a specific and, in her own words, "extreme" American government. I don't think we should do this.

Second, as it turned out, with regard to Iraq, the international community was right and the Bush administration was wrong. Let's not create hypothetical Utopias. Before the US invasion of Iraq, the country was governed by a brutal dictatorship that itself frequently and in an on-going way defied the international community. The former government of Iraq slaughtered its own people and maintianed a regime that created widespread poverty, imposed crushing censorship, and promoted ethnic and religious animosities. It is the most drastic type of understatement to say "this was not a good government."

We need to remember this because we also need to remember that before the American invasion of Iraq no one believed anything different. No one who opposed the invasion believed that the Hussein regime was a good regime. The question was not "is this a good government?" but what is the best way to modify its policies. The Canadian government argued that a combination of diplomacy, UN supervised weapons inspection, and sanctions of various sorts combined with "oil for food" programmes could be used effectively to change the situation in Iraq. The US government argued it could not. It argued that only military intervention could produce changes in Iraq that promoted peace and security for the international community and the people of Iraq. It argued that Iraq posed an immanent threat and that it maintained supportive connections to terrorist groups, such as those who had attacked the US on 9/11. The international community countered that even a successful military intervention -- in the sense that it displaced the Hussein regime -- would be disastrous. Americans would not be treated as liberators but rather an occupying power (the fact that the Iraq people disliked the Hussein regime did not mean that they liked the US government. To believe that the one follows from the other is a flawed logic), that it could unleash ethno-religious tensions, that it might produce the dismemberment of the country, that it would not necessarily improve the quality of life for Iraqis, that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US, and that it maintained no connections with al-Qaeda.

We don't know how effectively further diplomacy would have been (or, sanctions or other non-military measures) because these were short circuited by the US invasion. I don't think we should speculate about what might have happened because what might have happened is simply that: might have. In the absence of evidence anyone can suggest anything might happen and there is no way to say they are wrong or right. What we do know is that the US government was wrong about its ability to manage a post-war Iraq, it was wrong about the threat Iraq posed to the US, it was wrong about terrorist connections, and it was wrong about its ability to ensure the peace and security of Iraqis. On all these points, there was good evidence before the invasion (hence, the reason some of us opposed the invasion). And, all these matters are now conceded by the US government itself.

What does this have to do with internationalism? Well, it also means that Welsh is wrong. Instead of saying that we should stand out of the US's way because internationalism will not work, we should recognzie that the international consensus (such as it was) with regard to Iraq was in fact right. Rather than telling Canadians to stand out of the way, we should be telling the current American government that they should have listened to what they were being told. In other words, what we needed was more -- not less -- internationalism.

Finally, what kind of standing will Canada have in the world if we treat the international community as a "flag of convenience", as it were? If the only time we support internationalism is it is also supported by the US government, because that government feels internationalism can advance its interests, then what does this say to other countries about Canada? It will tell them that we are not an honest broker (hey, I know this is a myth of Canada but it is an aspiration at which we should aim). It tell other counties that the only time we will be interested in their views is if the US is. It will, in short, zap our credibility and tell other countries that we have no independent foreign policy. We do what the US wants us to do or we get ouf of their way; nothing else. If you were running another country, would you want anything to do with Canada if this is the way Canada behaves. Canadians want international credibility. To get it, we need to create the international community as credit.

Let us be clear: internationalism/multilateralism is not some Utopia. It is strewn with problems, power politics, and perceptions of national self interest. Is it a better course of action that doing what we are told and/or simply keeping our mouths shut? If those are the options, I pick internationalism.

No Way He Said This

I rise in defense of Doug Willms. A recent newspaper articles bills Willms Director of the Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy and quotes him as saying that EFI (early French immersion), like the programme recently cancelled by the NB government, is bad for kids. What is more, the article indicates that Willms says that parents really should not have much of a choice in how their children are educated. Parental choice in the education of their children is "not like choosing Coke or Pepsi" Willms is quoted as saying.

I strongly suspect Willms is being misquoted. I strongly suspect the arguments this media report claims he is putting forward are far more nuanced and sophisticated than the report indicates because ... well ... they just have to be. Otherwise, they make no sense and an academic -- any academic -- would not say the kind of things that Willms is quoted as saying and make the kinds of unsupported statements he is quoted as making. To do so would be to lack all scholarly integrity. Let me give you some examples:

Example number one: Willms is quoted as saying that a universal access system to immersion will raise the level of French-language proficiency among anglophones to 70%. Yet, I am certain Willms knows that the NB government is not proposing a universal access programme but one year of forced immersion. He would not say that with only one year of immersion in grade five high school students (who, after grade five would be required to take only something similar to core French and can drop the language at some point in high school) graduating seven years later have proficiency because this would not be true.

Example number two: the article intimate that Willms believes that eliminating EFI will get rid of de facto streaming of kids by social class (working class kids in English; middle class kids in EFI). Yet, anyone who has studied the history of education and its relationship to social class knows that this is not true. Anyone who has studied this issue knows that social class and the segregation it carries with it will be unaffected by the type of educational system we have because it is based in the material dynamics of society. The education system is only one part of this: income, family connections, social networks, job position, and other things create social class independent of what goes on in the school. Let me ask the question this way: does anyone think that we can create social equality by getting rid of EFI? They have no EFI in Nova Scotia ... does anyone think there is no class division in that province.

Example number three: the article intimates that parents are guided by silly emotionalism and have confused the education of their children with the selection of a soft drink. I know he would have said that. It is so arrogate and condescending, so anti-democratic, so wrong that there is no way any responsible and reasonable academic would have said this. The issue, of course, is the breadth of the generalization.

Example number four: EFI based segregation channels behavioural problems into core English. No responsible academic would make such a bold statement. They would take into account a range of different factors that contributed to a particular process. Moreover, all academics would have considered the ethics of their statements. Let me create a scenario to illustrate my point. No academic that I know would ever argue that we can solve Bob's problem by forcing John to come to live him. Yet, this is the logic that is presented here as self-evidently fair and just. Again, Willms would not have said this. Any academic would have recognized the problematic nature of such a ethical position (in effect, forcing John to clean up Bob's mess) and no academic would allege that parents cannot tell the difference between their children and soft drinks.

There are other example but I take it that my point has been demonstrated. I don't know Doug Willms. I do know academics and what we have here is a case of serious misquoting. We have here a case of bad journalism that is presenting a false message. Doug Willms deserved better.

Censorship: One More Time

CBC’s Cross Country Check Up this Sunday featured a discussion of human rights cases launched against the media. I did not listen to the discussion -- at least not in any great detail -- because so much of it seemed to repeat what struck me as a very unproductive line of consideration. The problem with human rights cases against the media, some argued, is that they amount to a form of censorship and should not be allowed. Such cases should not be allowed is the explicit logic of this argument. Going along with this is a concern about recent government efforts to deny tax credits -- issued to tv and movie production in Canada -- if, in the view of the state, those productions contain something that is objectionable, say graphic sex or gratuitous violence. This, too, is an example of a rising storm of censorship in Canada that, key individuals in the media argue, needs to be resisted and avoided.

There are a number of problems with this argument, not the least of which is that the two issues -- human rights charges brought against specific journals and a post-hoc denial of production tax credits -- are not the same thing. Let’s start with the human rights issue, but first let’s get a couple of things clear. The things we need to get clear are, as I have said before, the whole censorship versus free speech issue is a dead end. It is an interesting academic argument and has a place in intro ethics classes at universities but beyond that, it does not have a great deal to recommend it. It does not have a great deal to recommend it because it is completely detached from reality. No one is for censorship. There is not secret gang of lefties or neo-cons waiting somewhere to impose censorship on Canadians. All legitimate political perspectives (from social democratic to conservative and everything in the middle) recognize that censorship is antithetical to democracy. You can’t have democracy if the state imposes a strict regime of what can be reported, written, acted, etc. Why? Because the media constitute and important aspect of communications. It is not direct communication, to be sure. It is a mediated form of communications in which messages move through third parties: journalists, actors, novelists, photographers, etc. But, it is a form of communication and communication is essential for there to be sustained critique of government policies and governments. Without communications, citizens cannot engage in the type of reasoned and on-going debate about policy matters that is necessary to: (1) impose those policies, and (2) constitute alternatives to government that make elections free and fair. For instance, communications were required to unite the CA and PCs in a new Conservative Party of Canada. To censor those communications would have meant that an alternative to the Liberals -- that is, a viable alternative government -- could not have been created. My blog, by the way, takes advantage of this right of free commentary: it is what I am doing as I write this.

With this in mind, however, it is also true that no one supports a “say what you will without any repercussions” approach. Civil societies support rights, such as the right of free speech, but also recognize that there need to responsibilities for society to “work.” As well. I have the right to medical care at my hospital, for example, by virtue of my citizenship but I have to pay the taxes that maintain that right. Speech is the same way. We have the inherent right to free speech. It is not a privilege given us by someone, but we also have the responsibility to use that privilege in a mature way.

What do I mean? This: Canadian society correctly outlaws the use of free speech for things like criminal activities. If I use my right to free speech to get together with a group of people and plan, say, a murder, I am breaking the law. If I use my right to free speech to encourage a crowd of slightly intoxicated people leaving a bar to fire bomb a building, I am breaking the law. To defend these actions by reference to free speech is actually to pervert the concept and mobilize something that is good in the service of something that is intensely problematic. All societies impose these limits on their members because, to do otherwise, would endanger the lives, homes, businesses, of the people living within our borders. These are reasonable limits to free speech. JS Mill -- I think -- once said made the point that you can’t yell fire in a crowded building if there is no fire as a joke. The rush to the doors would endanger the lives of the people in that building. To do so, even if in jest, is a criminal act because one is not considering the lives and well being of others. Mature people -- responsible adults -- do this: they think about the implications of their actions.

The problem with not letting people bring human rights cases against the media for what they print or show or air falls into this type of category. Do these cases endanger the right to criticize government policy? Do they endanger the right to suggest better policies? Do they endanger the right to organize in opposition to the government and constitute another government? I honestly can’t see how they do. Moreover, to eliminate the right to bring human rights cases against the media is to suggest that the media are above the law. Think about that: if we eliminated the right of individuals to bring cases against the media, we would be saying that anyone who constitutes themselves as a journalist does not have to obey the reasonable limits that the rest of the population must follow. They are above the law and not subject to it. They have rights but not responsibilities. Another important hallmark of democracy is that no one is above the law. Yet, those journalists who defend free speech and a free press often do so in the name of democracy. This creates an irony: in the name of democracy, journalists are saying they are no subject to the laws of society. They do not need to consider the implications of their actions. Something that would be a crime for, say, me; does not become a crime for them. Is this democratic? Is this equal?

Lest anyone think I am arguing for a state run media, let me make it clear that I am not. I am arguing that journalists need to take responsibility for their actions, the same thing I argue that every adult must do. I am arguing that they must obey the law, the same thing that everyone else must do. They have every right to criticize the government (or, me in the performance of my job, as another example), they have every right to organize in opposition to government (federal, provincial, local). They do not have the right to say or print whatever they happen to please just because they call themselves a journalist. Making journalists subject to human rights law is not a special imposition on them. It means only that they must obey the same laws the rest of us must obey and must accept the responsibilities that come from citizenship. They are not a higher power, exempt from the normal operation of the law.

I’d even go further: the media is unusually important to today’s society. Someone needs to watch them to make sure that their power is not abused. Who should watch them? The state. It does already through the CRTC among other things. I think it is democratic, however, if citizens themselves can watch over the media and deploy their rights as citizens to keep the media in line, to ensure that they act responsibly and in keeping with the idea of a democratic society, that they do not abuse their power. What could be more democratic, in fact, then having citizens serve as ‘watch dogs’? Is that not the highest ideal of a democracy? Yet, those who oppose the use of human rights commissions -- in the name of democracy -- argue against this. I urge them to take their commitment to democracy seriously: accept that we are all equal under the law, they are not a higher power immune to the normal operation of the law, and willing to accept that ordinary citizens can and should play a role in guarding the values of their society. Let’s keep the law as it is.

I’ve now written too much. I’ll have to address the other issue in a future post.

Immersion and Bilingualism

Opposition to bilingualism is silly. There have been various efforts to explain it away -- fear, concerns about job security, etc. -- but none of these really hold too much water. Opposition to bilingualism is about as backwards as it comes and the reasons for this have been so thoroughly discussed that I won't even bother to go into them here because anyone who reads can look them up for themselves.

So ... why mention this? If opposition to bilingualism is so backwards as to not merit comment, why even raise the issue. Because I want to talk about something else: immersion education in NB. Recently, French-language immersion is under consideration yet again in New Brunswick and it is possible that early immersion programmes may be eliminated. Apparently, there are concerns that there is a need to have a solid handle on one's mother tongue before one learns another language. I actually doubt the merits of this argument, but I recognize that it is legitimate scholarly argument that has been made by sincere individuals who have studied the matter in some detail. I don't debate, therefore, the seriousness and sincerity of those who would put forward an argument against early immersion on this grounds. I think they are wrong, but that is a matter of debate.

What I worry about is that opposition to bilingualism and bilingual education is being smuggled in under the cover of something else: concern for children. I live in a part of New Brunswick where immersion programmes had to be wrung out of a local schoolboard who opposed them (against the wishes of parents) and where there have been campaigns to end immersion. Recently, a group of parents in my town argued that immersion is unfair to kids whose parents have them in a unilingual English-language educational programme. Let's put this matter to rest. These arguments hold no weight.

First, to oppose immersion education one needs to demonstrate that learning other languages is somehow bad for kids. I teach at Mount Allison University and we see all kinds of students. Over the last ten years, I've taught thousands of students, some good and some bad; some bilingual (French/English) and some not. The ability to speak other languages was never the defining feature of what made for a good or bad student. What made for a good or bad student was that student's ability to commit to the work they needed to put into their programme to succeed. In other words, individual effort has been the defining feature of a good student; not linguistic ability.

Second, if bilingualism in education is so bad ... why are so many countries in the world doing it? Language education is fundamental to the educational programmes of a number of European countries. If the argument that immersion were somehow bad for students held weight countries like Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands and Denmark would be filled with a bunch of people who never succeeded. Yet ... they ain't. Most of the rest of the world is busy trying to learn other language and get their kids to learn them. Why would we, in Canada, believe that they are wrong?

Third, I simply fail to see how knowing other languages is bad for kids. It opens up other literatures and other musics, other poetries and other cultures. How can this be bad. Think of a parent making the converse argument: I have improved my child's life by confining the limits of their knowledge and impeding their ability to understand different thing. Would any parent who was committed to the welfare of their child actually say this: that they intentionally limited their child's knowledge of the world?

Fourth, I can't see how children are helped by limiting their ability to compete in the labour market. Again, can you imagine a parent saying this: I have decided to improve my child's life by reducing the number of jobs for which they will be qualified. What would we think of a parent who did this.

Finally, it is important to note that in NB, immersion is a choice. If you don't like it -- if there are parents who decide it is in their children's best interest to not know French -- then so be it. That is there choice and they have a democratic right to make that choice for their children. I would never argue against that (even if I disagree with it). Unless a parent is mistreating a child, I don't think I (or, anyone else) should be so arrogant as to tell them how they should raise their kids. We might offer advise to friends, ask advise of other friends, but that is something different than urging the state to exercise its authority over parents to limit their choices with regard to the education of their children. And ... that's my point: its a choice. Why would anyone want to eliminate my choices. If I choose to send my kids to immersion, that is a choice my wife and I have made. It has nothing to do with anyone else's child. They are free to make their own choices. Yet, this is precisely what the opponents of immersion want to do. They want to eliminate my ability to make choices in the best interest of my children. They are the one's urging the state to take away choice and to exercise authority over me in ways that limit my children's educational options. In effect, the opponents of immersion are arguing saying "not only will I choose to keep my child out of bilngual educaiton but I claim the right to make that choice for your child as well and I want the state to come in and enforce it with the power of law."

This is what I mean when I say opposition to bilingualism is silly. I don't mean the reasoned and evidence based arguments among educators. I urge them to look at evidence from a range of different locations where there is a strong commitment to language education and talk to those of us who work in higher education to see if there are problems with bilingual education. But, I trust they are acting out of a commitment to evidence and reason. I can work with that and I respect that. Those people who have tried to eliminate immersion for other reasons, however, cause me great pause. They seek to eliminate a form of education that has been used and works in other countries. As countries around the world strive to increase linguistic competence, those who oppose immersion seek to limit that competence here at home. They seek to limit the degree to which our children can access and enjoy other literatures and other cultures, in other words to impede their education. And, they promote a form of education that would make it more difficult for our kids to compete in the labour market. Finally, they ignore democracy and seek to use the state to impose their views on parents who would make other choices.

There will always be debates about the best way to education kids and about the best pedagogical tactics. I actually think its good to have an open and on-going debate about the best way to educate kids. We can all learn from it. Opposition to immersion is not about a constructive debate. Its about something else. Its about one group of people attempting to impose a form of education that limits children's education, making it less then it could have been. Should we let others impose limits on our kids? Should we let others impede our kids ability to learn? I hope not.

Where Did Paul Martin Go Wrong? Or, Lessons for a Progressive Politics

By any measure I can figure out, Paul Martin talked the right talk. He made a serious commitment to address corruption in government (OK, it was his government, more-or-less with whose corruption he was dealing), worked out the best framework Canada has ever had for a national childcare programme, and engineered a conference that reversed the previous administration’s (OK, one in which he played a key role) ridiculous approach to First Peoples and signed an accord which marked a clear and direct step in the right direction in terms of addressing the problems of First Peoples. His government was committed to the Kyoto Accord and established a new framework to re-energize Canada/US relations. By any stretch of the imagination, it is difficult to create a more impressive list of would-be accomplishments for a government that did not last very long at all. And, we could note, this was all done with every forecast possible projecting not just a balanced budget but a reduced national debt as well. So … why didn’t Paul Martin catch on?

The general consensus, in my view, is pretty good on this point. In effect, the general interpretation suggests that the failure of the Martin government was the result of a series of factor that, in effect, over-determined its defeat. Martin got caught in the Sponsorship Scandal and Canadians simply did not believe that he had no idea what was going on. The Liberal Party itself had been in office since 1993 and Canadians were interested in a change anyway, Martin actually offered few particularly new ideas that could light a fire under his supporters who were, at any rate, curiously bad running actual election campaigns. The Liberal Party itself was divided with supporters of former PM Chretien and other Liberal notables (like Sheila Copps) choosing to “sit on their hands” rather than supporting Martin. And, the opposition presented -- for the first time since who knows when truly credible alternatives via a newly united moderate Conservative Party and a re-energized NDP. I’ve also suggested that the NDP unwittingly helped the Conservatives defeat the Liberals (and, in the process, cost the country some pretty good ideas like Kyoto and the Kelowna Accord) through its own campaign against the Liberals and its own efforts to displace the party as the official opposition and that the National media, for its own reasons, decided that it would publish story after story painting the Liberals as buffoons (a process that continued well after the Conservatives had won election).

In retrospect, however, I wonder if there might be other lessons here that are worth considering, particularly for people who like to think of themselves (as I do) as a "progressive" type of person. One lesson that might be taken away from the defeat of the Martin Liberals is this: Canadians simply did not believe Martin, nor did they understand the rationale lying behind the series of centre-left reform measures his government introduced in short order. I am, of course, not trying to provide a rationale for "well, the Liberals didn't do anything when they were in power" Conservative retort for their own lack of action on key issues. What I am trying to say is that the Martin had been part of an administration that had stacked out very clear political ground a wide range of issues. For instance, Martin's supposedly "more friendly" approach to Quebec was nowhere evident government of which he was a part from 1993 to 2003. Indeed, for right or wrong, Chretien's Liberal party stacked out a principled oppositional stance to Quebec independence and via a re-assertion of traditional liberal values: rule of law, individual rights, workable federalism, etc. Martin's implicit "I'll be nicer to Quebec then Chretien was" approach seemed to appear out of nowhere. Nor did there appear to be any serious thinking behind it. What did it entail in terms of a revision of Liberal thought? In terms of the traditional Liberal approach to federalism? In terms of fiscal federalism and the social union?

The same point might be made about the Martin government's commitment to the Kyoto Accord or Aboriginal Rights. What did these actually entail? The Chretien government defined aboriginal rights within the traditional framework of Canadian liberal civic nationalism? I don't actually share the assumptions that underlie this political-philosophical perspective so I won't do a good job defending but ... again, for right or wrong, the Liberal party under Chretien followed a pretty consistent line that dated back, in fact, to the 1970s. You can disagree with this line (I do) but it had a long, established pedigree and Canadians knew basically what to expect from it.

The problem with Martin's conversion to progressive, left-wing policies (support for a national day-care programme, support for the environment, support for First Peoples rights, etc.) was that it appeared to come out of nowhere and so was suspect. It appeared forced, a political manouevre bent on maintaining power as opposed to a sincere and grounded commitment. What is more, exactly what these series of reformist policies were intended to accomplish is not entirely clear. "Help people", "address the problems of First Nations", "deal with environmental degradation." All these things sound good by themselves but put together (along with other issues like support for gay rights and easing off on the federalist offensive against nationalism in Quebec), seem more like a salad with different ingredients thrown together in a haphazard attempt to please a range of different constituencies, as opposed to a recipe for the national future.

This is one of the things that separated Paul Martin's reformist agenda from previous reform-minded governments. To be clear: pragmatic power-oriented concerns intrude on all governments. All political parties compromise with their ideological objectives in order to increase their chances of electoral success. Sometimes those compromises signal shifts in party policy and philosophy; other times they are just compromises accepted for the sake of power. Effective reforming governments, however, build their reform agenda around a coherent vision of the future. One can agree or disagree with this vision but it is coherent with different planks in a reformist agenda tied together into a wider policy objective that is designed to transform the society.

A couple of examples to illustrate my point. Centrist liberal-reform governments (such as those of Mackenzie King and Trudeau) organized their reforming agenda in a broader philosophic imperative: the corporatist, welfare state grounded in a North American context in the case of King; the civic nation in the case of Trudeau. To be sure, these political leaders made ideological compromises, they could be inconsistent, and they certainly were willing to contradict themselves. Canadians, however, were willing to forgive these theoretical disjunctures and aporia because of the relatively coherent national project each administration articulated. To continue just one example: King looked to move Canada away from its connection to British-ness as a defining raison d'etre and to institute a form of corporatist welfare state politics as a form of political-economic democracy. Examples of relatively coherent right-wing governments at the provincial level include Mike Harris' "common sense revolution" in Ontario. The Ontario electorate was able to forgive Harris a great deal because his government seemed to stake out a clear direct and vision of a future society grounded in a coherent ideological framework (neo-conservatism).

The Martin government never managed to stake out a clear ideological vision, a sense of the type of future it was trying to engineer. Martin had spent most of the 1990s staking out what might be viewed as a right-wing liberal ground: pro-business, efficient non-ideological economic management, tacit (if not explicit) support for a federalist hard-line in Quebec, a retrenched welfare state that preserved the rudiments of equality of opportunity. His dramatic shift in 2004-6 was out of character. And, it was justified with a series of slogans (Liberals always support progressive issues, liberals are always reformist, etc.) that did not point to a theoretically-stable political position. Instead, the grab-bag approach to social reform appeared more like the Martin administration trying to be all things to all people. For instance, how did their commitment to the Kyoto Accord mesh with their commitment to improve relations with the US? How did the supposed easier line on Quebec nationalism fit with a commitment to address day care? To be clear about my own point: there may be answers to these questions. Martin and his government just did not make them.

What is the lesson here? The lesson here is reformist politics rarely succeed unless linked to a wider vision of social change. One can like or dislike a particular vision of social change, or how the political community of the nation (or, "society") is imagined by different movements for change. Indeed, the fact that one likes or dislikes particular movements for change is often the fulcrum around which politics actually takes place. The key point, however, is that without this vision animating a series of policies reforms, the reforms themselves appear more like a disconnected political "salad" then a recipe for change or for the future. Canadians, I would suggest, don't respond particular well to the salad approach. Paul Martin's administration had a bunch of problems but they also had an amazing opportunity. With government coffers overflowing, they could have established a re-new liberal politics for Canada. Instead, they tried to be all things to all people, appealing to all matter of different people on all matters of different issues from the character of federalism to relations with the US to social justice issues to the environment to the character of democracy.

What did the Conservatives offer in its place? Well ... remarkably little. There were the standard "family" (read, anti-gay and lesbian) protestations with an implicit promise that nothing would really be done to role back the steps that had been made toward equality in Canada. There were promises of increased military spend, modest tax cuts, and the like. Really, however, the Conservatives went out of their way to say that the last elections were not about ideological issues or divisions. They were about good government. Harper's Conservatives may engineer some sort of conservative revolution in Canada, but that was not what they campaigned on. They campaigned on standard non-conservative issues: solid economic management and anti-corruption. Against this mild campaign, Harper and his team claimed to be fighting for the soul of the nation. It was not Harper's defense ("I'm not interested in the nation's soul") but his own inability to actually explain what that soul meant to him in clear and concise terms. In that absence, reformist policies spewed everywhere and convinced no one because they had not underlying principles (at least that were articulated).

This is an important lesson, I think, for any political movement to learn. You don't need to be an advocate for change to win elections. You don't need to defend the soul of the nation to win elections. Indeed, Canadians will accept a great deal less from there governments. They will accept honesty and good economic management as the basis of good government. (And, there may not be anything wrong with that.) If you are going to turn your politics into the promotion of social change, however, you need to articulate what that change actually means and what your vision of the future actually is ... at least if you want Canadians to take you seriously.

Are these guys for real?

I don't want to sound outlandish and I'm not trying to bait anyone, but c'mon. I learn from a news report that the various candidates for the Republican nomination for President in the US are all touting an economic programme that is ... well, amazing in its ideological rigidity and shocking in its blindness. One candidate -- McCain I believe -- said that there was need to ensure that tax cuts of the Bush Jr era were not rolled back. Others talked about the need to balance the books by cutting government spending.

Tax cuts and spending cuts: is this all we will ever hear from neo-cons by way of economic policy? Reading what these candidates had to say I felt I had been transported back in time to the 1970s and early 1980s because they are saying the same things the Reagan said. Reading over their economic ideas, one would have no idea that the historical context was completely different. For instance: what is going to be cut to balance the books? There is no semblance of welfare state left to cut, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr did away with that. Pork barrel spending? How much will that amount to? (Remember, too, that the Republicans have been in charge of both Congress and the Presidency for most of Bush Jr's admin until about a year ago. That pork is Republican pork and do these candidates for the Republican leadership believe their supporters in Congress will easily do away with it?) The military? That might be an option but how, then, does the US fight in Iraq, something that all Republican candidates save one are committed to.

Let's be clear about this: the US economy is in bad shape. It is, without doubt, the biggest economy and that is the only thing that allows it to keep going. There is a serious debt and deficit problem, there is a balance of trade issue, there are serious weaknesses in the credit system (sub-prime, for example). The US desperately needs to re-invest in its social infrastructure to maintain competitiveness. The public educational and health systems -- key facets of a healthy population and competitive workforce -- are in desperate need of reinvestment. In terms of physical infrastructure: the disaster caused by Katrina is still not repaired.

These economic ideas are old idea. They did not work at the time and they won't work now. (Don't believe me, go back and look up the SNL crisis and compare it to the sub-prime crisis.) George Bush Jr has been trying to get Reagan era economics to work his entire administration. The result has been incompetent administration (such as FEMA, and financial sector regulation) that is driven by ideology instead of results and a mounting government debt that threatens to destroy the American economy. The US desperately needs new economic ideas if it is to save itself. This bunch, however, with their recycled Reaganomics will only continue the downward spiral. There is ideology an then there is stupid ideological blindness. Intelligent people realize when a theory is not working in practice. I do hope some Republican leadership contender has the courage to make this obvious point instead of mouthing platitudes.

Iraq: The Best of Intentions?

The war in Iraq is a key flashpoint of American politics … and it should be. The war is a disaster. The American and British invasion of Iraq was both a massive failure of intelligence operations and, almost certainly, conducted knowingly under false pretenses. It was ill considered and poorly conceived. Moreover, its continuity trivializes the lives of those who are in the line of fire, civilians, “insurgents”, and American and international personnel. Moreover, the current conflict in Iraq can be traced back directly to the ineptness of the current American political leadership, their ideologically-induced blindness, and their callous disregard for even American lives. This war should be an embarrassing affront to any American citizen who honestly believes the ideals and principles upon which the United States was founded and for which most ordinary Americans stand. There is no other options: the United States government must begin an immediate withdraw from Iraq.

Easy to say? It is. I’m safe in Canada, a non-combatant, as it should be. I don’t have to answer to the US public for the utter waste of lives and resources. I don’t have to answer to the Iraqi public for the destruction of their country, the waste of their lives, the covert support for extremists in an effort to buy peace, the corrupt of the occupational administration, the disregard of the international community, and so on. There is a lot that the current administration of the United States has to answer for that it is almost ridiculous. So … yes, it is easy for me to say this because I don’t have to apologize for any of these wrong-headed, silly, corrupt practices that have guided the policy of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. Note, by the way, that I am talking about the Bush administration and the pro-war sympathizers not the American people who don’t seem to want this war any more than anyone else. A supporter of the war might argue, however, that it is easy for me to say the US should leave Iraq because I am callous, because I am not considering the future. After all, the standard line runs now, even if the US was wrong to enter the Iraq, it can’t leave now or problems will get worse. What would happen, pro-war apologists ask grimly, if the US were to leave? Usually no answer is provided and we are left to imagine a worst case scenario.

Let me address this question (what would happen if the US were to leave?) and one other, perhaps more pertinent to this blog: what should Canada do with regard to Iraq. First, what would happen if the US were to leave? Is the US occupation of Iraq actually doing anything to promote peace? Is there any evidence that any Iraqi’s life has been saved by the US military occupation of Iraq? One does not want to count bodies as if ethical decisions could be made on the basis of body counts, but this is, in fact, the issue raised by the question: what would happen if the US were to leave Iraq? The implicit answer is that more people would die and, ergo, the US occupation of Iraq is legitimate because it is saving lives. Is it? Is there any evidence that the US occupation of Iraq has saved lives? If so, how many? I don’t mean a statistical “might happen if” model here, by the way (sort of like the kind used earlier this year to justify capital punishment as a life safer), but real evidence, empirical evidence that can show people whose lives have actually been saved by the occupation. That is: people who are alive today who otherwise would have died but for the occupation. And, after that, what would need to be done is to show that this number is greater than the number that would otherwise have lived if there were no occupation. The whole exercise, I admit, is morally offensive but then I didn’t make up the question -- the pro-war people did - I’m just trying to answer it.

The truth of the matter is this: we have no evidence that the occupation is doing any good. What we have is a belief that if left to their own devices, Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves and so the US must impose a government on them. That is not evidence. It is bias. It is a belief formed around a stereotype and, like any stereotype, it is worth exactly what any stereotype is worth: zilch.

If we ditch he biased imagine the worse case scenario argument and ask the proponents of the war in Iraq to actually provide evidence of their worst case scenario imaginings so we can assess them in light of evidence and reason (as we should do with any serious proposition) then what is, in fact, one of the key argument in favour of maintaining the military occupation of Iraq begins to falter in the face of a complete absence of evidence in support of it.

Second, we often hear from those who support the occupation that those who oppose it have done nothing to suggest alternatives. They are not, we are told, constructive. They are pandering to the enemy. They are suggesting a course of action that will embarrass the US. I disagree. Those who support peace have been -- as I am -- making clear and direct suggestions at to courses of action to follow. They are making suggestions that will improve the situation. They are putting forward argument that for the proponents of occupation to defend their arguments with evidence and reason so that, as a democratic society, the American public can assess them. The argument that the opponents of war and occupation, then, have offered nothing is, in fact, wrong. Those who support the war don’t like what they have to say but they are putting real ideas on the table that will hopefully advance the case of peace, help promote a better Iraq, and save American and Iraqi lives. Any suggestion put forward with these goals -- which, without evidence, I will take to be common self-evidently good objectives -- deserves consideration. To subject it to simplistic attack -- such as pandering to the enemy -- is to dismiss the idea serious debate can occur in a democratic society (like the US) and that what is needed is slogans as opposed to discussion. I, btw, reject this suggestion.

I’ve made two points so far: there is no evidence that the occupation of Iraq is producing constructive results and that those who oppose it have, in fact, put forward positive constructive suggestions that are intended to work in everyone’s interest (improving Iraq and saving Iraqi and American lives). The idea that what I am suggesting -- really re-iterating -- is easier to say then do is true (particularly for a Canadian) but one further point I have been trying to make is that this is not completely true. If we have confidence in American democratic institutions, if we are committed to saving lives, if we want to see a stable and peaceful Iraq, then what I am suggesting is not discourse but the grounds upon which these ideals can become realities.

Two other points are worth noting in closing that might also be subjected to the same accusation. First, peace will require that the US government give up one of its other objectives for Iraq: control over the government. Peace might actually bring an anti-US government to power in Iraq. This is not something one would wish for but it is a possibility. The US government needs to be willing to accept this possibility. It needs to be willing to accept the fact that it could be viewed negatively by a future Iraq government and that its control over that region of the world will be weakened as a result. This may be a price of peace. I will not provide any evidence to sustain my contention here because what I am saying is necessarily speculative but I would argue (if I had more space) that this is a price that the US should be willing to pay. In the short, medium and long run it is a small price that can be recouped.

Second, is there a role for Canada? I don’t know. I don’t think so. It would be easy to pretend that there is a role for Canada in training police forces, providing educational support, establishing humanitarian relief and providing medical support, etc., and there might indeed be a role for Canada in this regard. However, Canadians also need to be acutely aware that their own abilities to provide what Iraq needs are limited. We should take a public international stand for peace and for withdraw. We should endeavour to do what we can to support a future, post-occupation government, to promote stabilization, etc., but we also need to be aware of the fact that a lot of Iraqis may not want us. They may be tired of westerners telling them what to do and telling them that we know what is best for them. Iraqis may want to strike out on their own course. If so, this is something we would need to accept.

The Problem with Politicians

Canadians don't like politicians. We've all heard the standard lines: they're all corrupt, once elected they don't pay attention to constituents, they're sheep who vote the party line. This generalized cynicism about politicians is so common that it is truism. One can say these things -- or things very much like them -- without fear of contradiction. Certainly, some recent events might give Canadians cause for pause with regard to politicians, but generally I think this perspective is completely unfounded. Moreover, it belies other concerns and illustrates, at the very least, serious misunderstandings about the political system. I don't want to say people who look on politics (and politicians) with a cynical eye are wrong. There are, as I hope to explain, good reasons why such ideas circulate in contemporary Canada. These reasons are, however, something different than many people might at first pre-supposed. Let's look at this cynicism and think about the merits of this perspective, before turning to why it has become so pervasive.

Are all politicians corrupt? Is one as bad as the next? Do politicians forget their constituents the minute they are elected and become beholden to a party and Ottawa elite that ignores voters? Perhaps: I don't think anyone assessing this viewpoint should ignore the fact that there is some truth to it. Party disciplines imposes conformity on elected representatives (ask Bill Casey). But, this is not the only thing going on. MPs or MLAs don't "vote the party line" in legislatures and the federal Parliament simply because of some nefarious party machine. The truth of the matter is that with only a limited number of exceptions, most MPs and MLAs (or MNAs, MHAs, MPPs depending on the province), are elected under the banner of a political party. They are a membeer of that party and run as a its representative. This is not a secret but it bears a level of emphasis it does not normally receive in public discourse. If one is a party member, running as a party member, often with a long history of involvement in that particular political party, then the fact that any given MP (or provincial member) votes according to that party's line should not be surprising.

Take my local riding as an example. Federally we are represented by a Liberal, Dominque LeBlanc. The reason Mr. LeBlanc is a Liberal is because he supports the Liberal Party. He agrees with their ideology (say on the role of the state in society or gay marriage or regional economic development) and may even have had a hand in fashioning party policy. If he did not support Liberal policy, he would not be a Liberal. If he were a socialist, for example, he'd run as a member of the NDP. If he were conservative in his views, he'd try to win the Conservative nomination. He didn't. He ran as a Liberal. The fact that he then supports the Liberal Party line on any given issue should not at all surprise us. In fact, if we are to believe that he takes his politics seriously and is sincere in his commitment to specific philosophical and ideological perspectives, we'd expect nothing other from him. The opposite is what would be surprising: if he jumped all over the place, supporting Liberals one day, Conservatives the next, the NDP the day after. In point of fact, I'd find an MP who jumped all over the place cause for concern. It would illustrate that they only thing they cared about is following the polls and trying to be on the winning side of issues X or Y. It would illustrate to me that they were not committed to a particular philosophy of public life or a particular vision for the country. Instead, their political behaviour was purely self-interested. I wonder if this is the kind of representatives most Canadians really want to have? Do we want representatives who take principled stands -- knowing it could cost them votes -- in the sense that they follow a clear and consistent and knowable ideology (and vision of Canada) or do we want someone who will change stripes every time the wind blows in a different direction, who is more interested in keeping their job in Parliament then in presenting options, choices and policies to voters?

Now, someone might say: OK, this is true. I'd prefer principled to self-interested leaders, but surely representatives job is to represent "the people" and if they are just following the party line they can't do that. Following the party line serves only to corrupt democracy. Voters have a right to expect their voices be heard through their representative and if that representative is only following the party, he or she can't do that.

This is a good argument but it is also intensely problematic. Its problematic because we need to ask "which voters?" In any given riding, there are all kinds of different views on any given subject. Some voters support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan; some don't and want to end it; some want it redefined; some want a time-line to leaving with specific objectives that allow (theoretically) Canadians to measure the success of the mission. These different perspectives are not compatible with each other. One can't want to immediately withdraw our forces from Afghanistan and want them to stay there at the same time. How does an elected MP represent both sides? They can't and on most issues there are a lot more than two sides. On many issues, in fact, as I tried to indicate above, there can be a range of views. My point is this: in representing his or her voters (by voting a certain way on a specific bill), the elected representative has to not represent others. The nature of democracy, in this case, will ensure that some voters will be deprived of their voice regardless of what the elected representative does.

OK, this same person might now say, what the MP should do is represent the majority opinion in their riding. This would be democratic. Again, this is a good argument, but one of the odd things about public life, and the reason this becomes complicated, is that most people think their view is the majority. The vast majority of Canadians favour gun control. The numbers, in fact, in support of gun control might even be down a bit from where they were a number of years ago. I mention this because I remember very clearly a party to which I was invited about five years ago. I was the only male at that party in favour of gun control. Every other man opposed it and was absolutely certain that only a small clique of lefties were in favour of it. I offered my polling data n support of my argument but they would have none of it: polls can say anything, they told me. Everyone they knew opposed gun control and so who could support it?

I'm not trying to rehash the gun control debate but to make another point: most of us associate with people whom we get along with. We talk to our friends daily and so convince each other of particular views. I'm a Christian and I spend a lot of my time hanging out with other Christians. The result is that we come to share certain views either through self selection or dialogue. There is nothing wrong with this, by the way, we just need to remember to keep our views in perspective. We need to understand how diverse social, political, and economic perspectives are in Canada. We need to understand that there is not one or two perspectives on any issues but many. In our own circles of friends, it might not seem like that and that is what we need to remember. My point: because we hang out with like-minded people it seems to us that there are majorities "out there" (and, they happen to agree with us), but there really aren't.

Moreover, even if there were majorities and minorities on specific issues, another issue is raised. In a democratic society, can a majority deprive a minority of its voice? If we had elected representatives who only spoke for the majority on any given issue, then this is, in fact, what would happen. Alternatives perspectives would be silenced. I'd be so bold as to say those alternatives perspective not only deserve to heard but need to be heard. Differing views are what drive democracy. Good ideas sometimes emerge from the margins (like environmentalism, equality for women and gays and lesbians, and further back: ending child labour, universal education, and civil rights for Native Canadians, for instances). The basis of a democracy is that a minority can use reasoned dialogue to become a majority (to convince people through argument in reason that there are better ways of doing things). If minorities are silenced this aspect of democracy is lost. Consider the irony: in the name of democracy one of the basic conditions of democracy (the right of minorities to be heard) is abrogated. Is this what we want?

Let me recap my points: (1) people run as Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats, etc., because they are Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats and they ask us to vote for them -- to elect them -- on that basis. The fact that a Conservative ends up being ... well, a Conservative after they are elected should not shock people and, what is more, no one has lied about it. The elected representative, in fact, campaigned on that basis. (2) Having an elected representative change their allegiance on every vote in conformity with what they think the majority of voters in their riding want might not be all its cracked up to be. Rather than being a sign of democracy, it might actually be a sign of a lack of sincerity, of self-interest over principle. I asked what type of people do we want as leaders: those driven by principle or those driven by self-interest? (3) Even if we want representatives to follow the wishes of the majority, we need to pause to ask if there really is a majority "out there." Our own views are coloured not just by our perspectives but by the fact that we usually associated with people who share our own views. This can lead us to believe that there is a majority (that just happens to think like us) but is there? Certainly, the currently fragmented character of federal politics would lead me to suggest that there isn't. (4) Even if there was a majority, it is very important for the health of democracy to ensure that minority views (whatever these might be) are not silenced. If they are -- and they could be if a representative just went with the majority flow -- then something important to the state of democracy would be lost.

Where does this, then, leave us? Is this an argument for the status quo? I hope not. I hope it serves to explain, in part, why we still have an intensely problematic and deeply troubled political system: simple solutions (like "representatives should vote the way their constituents want") are not implemented because they either won't work or will create new and potentially more far-reaching problems then the problems they seem to solve. In the face of solutions that are, then, not really solutions, the status quo is maintained. I also hope it illustrate why at least some measure of the cynicism that currently surrounded politics and politicians is not merited. It results from misunderstandings (of the merits of simple solutions, of the nature of party politics, of a consideration of the different options facing voters, of the nature of Canadian society). If we begin to think concertedly about the nature of the Canadian political system, about principle, about reasonable expectations, and the pre-conditions of democracy, then at least some part of the cynicism that infuses much public discourse begins to dissipate.

This is, of course, not all there is to say on this subject. In my next post, I'll begin to address a couple of other key issues related to public distaste of politicians: the roots of cynicism and solutions to it. I'll try to suggest that blaming politicians, in fact, obscures what is the greater problems and the real root of contemporary political malaise.

"Reasonable Accommodation"

Nik by the Numbers -- the on-line site of SES CEO Nik Nanos -- is often a good source of information. SES is a research company that is frequently involved in public policy and political polling. I like their work. I'm no expert on public opinion surveys, but in my view they are almost certainly the best (most careful, thorough, and considered) polling/research firm out there. Nik by the Numbers is really an on-line forum which invites readers to comment on public issues, with Nanos providing just a brief empirical introduction to the subject based on current polling data. One of these brief introductions caught my eye, not because I think Nanos is mis-representing the issue but because I think he is correctly reporting the data. The issue was diversity and "reasonable accommodation" (a semi-new buzz-phrase that is being kicked about in considerations of diversity in Canada and how it should be approached as a matter of public policy). Nanos summarizes


"By significant majorities in Canada as a whole, and by overwhelming majorities in Quebec, Canadians and Quebecers declare limits to reasonable accommodation.


When asked whether it was reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities, or whether immigrants should fully adapt to culture in Canada, only 18 percent of respondents said reasonable accommodation best reflected their personal views, as opposed to 53 percent who thought immigrants should fully adapt (21 percent who agreed with neither statement)."


Source: Canadians Want Limits ...


I'm not writing to fault Nanos' reporting of this data. He's just trying to open a discussion and, in my view, doing a pretty good job. What I find disturbing in this report is, in fact, the raw data itself. On its surface, it makes Canadians look like a pretty intolerant bunch of people. What we start to push this data a bit, and ask some questions of it, this intolerance does melt away a bit but it also becomes more politically charged and hence more dangerous. The real danger is twofold: (1) there is a real danger that Canada might be becoming a less tolerant place and that would not be a good thing. I'll go on record: I prize democracy, respect of diversity, citizens rights, individual rights, etc. I'll come back to this below because I think it is an important point. (2) This danger is amplified, however, by ill-considered and poorly constructed public debates on diversity issues that lack any historical or comparative perspective. If Canadians really want to consider the boundaries of diversity in their society, they need this perspective. Without it ... they have no framework into which to place their issues. Let me make a number of related points:

First, let's consider the phrase "fully adapt." I meet a lot of people in the course of my ordinary weekly activities who use a language similar to this. Surely if Canadians want immigrants to "fully adapt" to Canada, we should know what fully adapt means. I make this point because, in my view, most immigrants do fully adapt to Canada. I hear people complain about all matter of issues related to immigrants, some of which are simply wrong. Some people complain that immigrants "don't speak English" (or French), yet this is just not true. Canada has among the highest rates of language learning in the world. Other people complain about accents when speaking English or French (and, I say this as a person who has an accent when I speak French), isn't that a bit trivial? Folks, it takes a while to learn a language and learning the nuances of pronunciation can be even more difficult. Ask anyone who has tried to learn another language. If fact, I will be so bold as to say that the only people who have problems with accents are those people who speak only one language and have never really even tried to learn another. Complaints about language, then, as a matter of "fully adapting" completing miss the point, are empirically incorrect, and spring from ignorance.

I'm using language to illustrate a larger point. The demand the immigrants "fully adapt" to Canada seems to be based on the idea that they don't. Yet, this -- the idea that immigrants don't adapt -- is an assumption that doesn't seem to be based on any evidence. Where is the evidence that immigrants don't adapt? Language -- something a lot of people complain about as a sign of a failure to adapt -- actually bears out the other case and is based on trivial issues or ignorance.

Religion -- much in the news of late -- is another matter. Does fully adapting to Canada mean adopting a Canadian approach to religion? If so, again, the evidence seems to point to full adaption on the part of immigrants. Canada, of course, is a country that prides itself on freedom of religion. The whole idea of having freedom of religion, by the way, is for people to exercise this freedom. If no one wanted people to actually use this freedom -- that is maintain, develop, enhance, etc., their spirituality -- we would have this freedom as a right. Freedom of religion does not mean being silent about one's religion but the exact opposite: it means taking one's religion seriously. Let me use myself as an example. I'm Christian. Part of being Christian is ... well ... being Christian. I'm not a knock on your door and evangelize kind of guy but I also don't shy away from talking about the spiritual views, about God, or about Jesus. I exercise my right. That might annoy some people, but then they have the right to ignore me. The same thing, of course, applies to immigrants. If an immigrant is from a minority religion (in Canada) and they exercise their right to practice that religion they are, in fact, fully adapted to Canada. The exercise of that religion might annoy some people, but then they have the right to ignore them.

Again, I'm using an example to illustrate a point and trying to pick examples that are often flash points of public debate (communication and religion) to show that the way a lot of immigrants go about doing things illustrates the opposite of what is implied in the opposition between "fully adapt" and "reasonable accommodation." To repeat, this opposition seems to imply that immigrants are not adapting to Canada, yet ... the evidence points the other way.

Let me take one final point and return to the issue I raised above democracy. Some people have been upset that immigrants wear head scarfs to polling stations or suggest modifications to law. In the past (when I was a fair piece younger), some people were upset that an immigrant who was in the RCMP wanted to wear a turban instead of the regular headgear. I gross violation of tradition, I heard some people say. Well, is it? If someone is a citizen of Canada, folks, they have every right to contribute to public debate and to suggest changes to the way Canada operates. That is the basic nature of democracy: all citizens have the right to contribute to public dialogue and policy formulation. If you don't accept that, you reject democracy. If you start to say "well, I can contribute to public debate but that person over there can't" because their family only came to Canada 15 years ago, we are creating dividing lines between citizens. To say that is to reject the ideal of equality that is at the heart of democracy. It is to create different castes in society. Immigrants who suggest changes to public policy are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They are involved in the exercise of democracy. They have, in other words, fully adapted to Canada.

This is a really important point because it is those people who are saying "they have no right to challenge 'our' traditions" who are, in fact, not adapted to Canada because they are rejected democracy. And, democracy is a fundamental Canadian value. To impose limits on the equality of citizens, to make unreasonable demands for language learning (particularly trivial demands that relate to accents), to reject freedom of religion is, in fact, un-Canadian. Supporting these positions (rejecting equality of religion and citizenship) is, in fact, not a demand for full adaption to Canada but a rejection of full adaption. It is not a demand for "reasonable accommodation" but a rejection of the cherished values for which generations of Canadians fought (and, without wanting to sound melodramatic, died).

Let's not have a false debate on this subject. Let's not polarize "reasonable accommodation" to "full adaption." Let's understand what those terms mean. If we want immigrants to behave and act like Canadians, we have to behave and act like Canadians. We have to take our own values seriously. If we don't ... if we reject our own values, if we behave like a bunch of hypocrites, then how can we expect anyone else to take our values seriously. Said differently: if our own values (democracy, equality, etc.) mean nothing to us, why would anyone fully adapt to them?

Saskatchewan

I am, I know, the last person "on the draw" on this one, but the government of Saskatchewan has announced its intentions to take Prime Minister Harper's government to court over what it sees as a broken election promise to exclude non-renewable natural resources reveneue from the federal equalizataion formula. This decision seems, at least in part, in response to the Prime Minister's goading of recalcitrant premiers who argued that Harper had broken election promises made to at least some "have not" provinces with regard to the way in which federal equalization grants to provinces were to be calculated. In my neck of the woods, most attention has been directed to the "Atlantic Accord" and whether or not the new equalization formula breaks with the letter or the spirit of the accord. Far more interesting, in my view, is Saskatchewan's decision to go to court. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have followed tried and true methods of provincial protest with the federal union: calling in regional government MPs to vote against the budget, use of media, etc. The courts have, of course, been used by provinces in the past (the Clarity Bill, Patriation) and clearly these instances expressed -- in some measure and in combination with other things -- degrees of provincial protest. I could be wrong -- and someone can please correct me if I am -- but to the best of my knowledge Saskatchewan in making an innovative use of the courts. Rather than challenging federal jurisdictional authority (a traditional use of the courts), Saskatchewan is taking the Conservative government to court over what it sees as a broken promise.

ﾠ

There might be some temptation to view Saskatchewan's action as political grandstanding. I have, in fact, little doubt that there is some measure of that in its government's decision. What is interesting about Saskatchewan's court challenge, however, is not the degree to which this is grandstanding, but what it might signify about electoral politics. Partisan politics to one side, one could argue that the Saskatchewan court challenge represents an effort to hold a government accountable for election promises. Canadians frequently complain about broken promises and we know that there is a great deal of popular distrust of "politicians" "out there." What the government of Saskatchewan is, in effect, saying is that a particular political party and leader made a promise in order to win an election. That promise contributed to their win and they are not bound to honour it. The promise has, in effect, the status of a law that that political party imposed on itself (as it were). If this case is successful -- and, I don't expect it to be -- it could help create a very powerful tool to force political parties and leaders to honour commitments they made in the election process. Broken promises could not be subject to legal action.

ﾠ

I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that every single promise is somehow the equivalent of a commandment. There are good reasons why a government might not honour a particular promise. For instance, I would accept a "the cupboard is bare"-type of argument as a reason to delay or revise an election promise. Opposition parties that win elections often discover that the public budget is in a lot worse shape than the former governing party let on. Because I'm no fan of Liberals, I'll use them as an example just to be fair. Dalton McGinty's Liberals in Ontario discovered that the provincial budget was in much worse shape than the former government had let on when they assumed power. In effect, their promises were based on someone else's deception and I don't think a party or a leader can be held accountable for someone else's deception. I know all new governing parties tend to claim the budget is in worse shape than they anticipated but the fact that some leaders might exaggerate this claim does not mean that the basic principle lacks legitimacy.

ﾠ

A political party might also discover upon assuming office that a promise they had made is not longer "on the table" because the context has change. For instance, a promise made to re-make Canadian foreign policy might need to be re-thought if the international situation changed. It seems to me that an effective and honest government would need to take the context of policy into account. A coup in another country, a new war, a natural disaster (requiring higher levels of emergency relief be directed somewhere), could all be legitimate reaons to reconsider promises. And, they are good reasons and there are undoubtedly others.

ﾠ

Finally, a new government or leader might discover that a promise they had made runs against the grain of the public good. In this case -- and while some people might not like it -- keeping the promise for the sake of keeping that promise would be tantamount to putting political good ahead of public good. In that case, the best the new government could do would be to apologize for its error, explain it, describe their new course of action and trust to Canadians as thinking and reasonable people to understand. The Harper government's slow backtrack away from any serious reconsideration of gay equality in Canada is a case in point. It is simply against Canada's national interest to promote inequality for some of its citizens. Harper would not put it in those words but my bet is that if he did, most Canadians would accept what he said.

ﾠ

What is interesting about the Saskatchewan case is that none of these possible reasons to break a promise apply. The federal treasury is not bare. In fact, it has more in it than the Conservatives thought was there. The context has not changed and it would be difficult to argue that honouring this election promise to Saskatchewan was somehow destructive of the public interest. I can understand why Harper's government does not want to honour this promise. They are afraid (as Paul Martin's government discovered) of a provincial run on federal resources: if we meet Saskatchewan's demands ... what about Ontario's? BC's? etc. Yet, this is a "might be" rationale. In effect, this rationale states: we will not keep our promise to you because someone else might ask for something else. It is shaky logic.

ﾠ

The final argument that can be used against legal sanction employed to force governments to keep election promises is the "you can always vote them out" argument. This is the standard government-in-power argument. There is something to recommend this argument but I think it falls short of the mark in a couple of respects. First elections are not fought on single issues. The approach taken by the government of Saskatchewan provides a means to address a single issue. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the "you can always vote them out" argument deploys an after the fact logic. Using the Saskatchewan case as an example, one could argue that Conservatives made a promise and obtained the reward on the basis of a that promise. They won seats because of it (or, at least let's assume this for the sake of argument). Having already obtained their reward on the basis of a particular promise, voting someone out of office several years down the road after they have already benefitted from a broken promise does not seem right. Governments must be accountable. Retrospective accountability can be useful but it also has its drawbacks.

ﾠ

Consider the issue of a contract by way of comparison. If I promised to mow someone's lawn for $10.00 and they pay me the $10.00 and I then refuse to mow their law, I'm in breach of contract. I have already benefitted from my promise. If we follow the "you can vote them out later" argument, the person I have cheated of $10.00 (owing to my broken promise) has only the recourse of not hiring me the next time their lawn needs to be mowed. Legally, they should -- and do! -- have the right to get their $10.00 back if I fail to fulfill my promise. Should voters have any less of an option?

ﾠ

Finally, it is also possible that holding governments legally accountable for promises could restore some measure of faith in "the system." Voters could know that they have recourse other than waiting for the next election which might be fought on other issues. In addition, knowing that they can be held legally accountable could stop some of the wilder promises made by parties during elections and force them to think about and speak to what they can and will actually do.

ﾠ

None of this is to say that such a measure should be flippantly used or implemented. I have tried to argue that there can be good reasons why a particular government might not be able to fulfill a promise made during an election. Public finances, considerations public good, shifting contexts, and perhaps other matters can all make it impossible for a government to fulfill a promise. In that instance, the government should still have to explain why it has not fulfilled its promise. Some form of formal proceeding might make that communication clearer. It does not mean that a government will have to act against the public good or recklessly fulfill a promise that is not longer consistent with the context in which they govern. What it could do is open up a form of dialogue between governments and citizens in which such matters are subjected to reasoned discussed and evidence. I am not, therefore, saying that any old person should launch a law suit for any old reason (such a situation would almost certainly be open, as well, to partisan abuse).

ﾠ

What I am saying is that if different tests are met (public good, financial capacity, context), I see no reason why governments should not be held to account. I am. The legal process may not be the best place to do that but, in a democracy, it is one site where it can be done. We should not dismiss he possibility of holding governments to account through this mechanism out of hand. The Saskatchewan challenge provides an opportunity to debate this issue. Collectively, we should do so.

The Left and Liberal Hypocrisy

ﾠLiberals get blamed for a lot these days, at least in the circles I frequent. Conservatives, of course, have never been fans of l/Liberals. That is why they are c/Conservatives in the first place. We might expect, then, conservative ideologues, thinkers, politicians, etc., to unleash a continual stream of anti-liberal vendictive. This tendency is, of course, magnified by the fact that the Conservative Party has a well-stocked war chest. They can afford to take out anti-Liberal adverts whenever they perceive a slight shift in the polls.

ﾠ

Neither is NDP vindictive particularly surprising either. What is, of course, surprising, at least a little bit is the degree to which the NDP leadership seems to have decided that their best course of action is to be the Official Opposition's self-declared Official Opposition. The NDP leadership seems to spend more time attacking the Liberals than the Conservatives. In fact, at times -- as in the last federal election when the NDP helped to bring down the Liberal government of Paul Martin -- the NDP seemed almost blindly unconcerned with the Conservative policies. An example is seeming NDP shock that a Conservative government has abandoned the federal commitment to aboriginal rights enshrined in the Kelowna Accord, environmentalist commitments indicated by the Kyoto Accord, and the semblance of a national day-care programme worked out by the Liberals. Only a leadership unconcerned with Conservatism could be shocked by what the Conservatives have done. The NDP's lack of concern seems to relate to a political tactic: displace the Liberals as the national alternative to Conservatism. It appears that the NDP perspective is that only by taking down the Liberals will they be able to mobilize opposition to Conservatism "under their banner", as it were, and have a chance of attaining power. I'm not certain this is a good strategy and here is why.

ﾠ

First, in order to fulfill its plan, the NDP has adopted a Conservative anti-Liberal discourse: "by nature Liberals are hypocrites and incompetent." This discourse works well with Conservatives because it is how they see the world. They ascribe to Liberalism a series of moral weaknesses that have opened to the door to such supposedly nasty things as gay rights, de-criminalized pot, strong anti-harassment laws, a commitment to equality of opportunity through national child care, and the like. By contrast, the NDP actually does not see support for child care and gay rights, etc., as signs of moral weakness. On all these policy areas they much closer to the Liberals than the Conservatives. Like the Liberals, the NDP supports equality for gays, national child care, equality of opportunity for women, as well as gun control, regional economic development strategies, and a host of other things. There are -- or there should be -- points of opposition between NDPers (as socialists) and Liberals (as liberals). The NDP needs to spell these out. It hasn't done that. Instead, it has justified and rationalized a Conservative discourse that only ends up strengthening Conservativism in Canada. The first big problem with the NDP's anti-Liberal rhetoric, then, is that it ends up sounding very Conservative and, as such, ends up rationalizing a Conservative perspective.

ﾠ

Going along with this, NDP anti-Liberal discourse also misses the point. Listening to it, or reading it, one would get the feeling that the Liberals were a bunch of thieves and liars, morally decrepit people who can't do anything right. Again, this is the Conservative perspective but it should not be the NDP's perspective. It should not be the NDP's perspective because it fails to engage policy. What the NDP are saying, through their discourse, is, in effect, don't vote for them because they are morally bankrupt. Vote for us because we are honest and upright. Perhaps, but what is missing from this discourse is any reference to policy. In fact, the whole discourse of "vote for us because we are honest" is politically neutral. I'm a socialist politically but I have no illusions that socialists are any more honest then anyone else. Many of my friends are Liberals and Conservatives and they are good, well-meaning, hard-working and honest people. My concerns with Conservativism do not relate to any belief on my part that Stephen Harper is somehow dishonest. I don't think he is. (I do think he is a politician, which is something I will address in a future blog.) By focusing attention, then, on honesty, the NDP's discourse actually misses a chance to differentiate itself from Liberalism on key policy issues.

ﾠ

My point is this: the NDP's on-going war against Liberalism will necessarily fail to accomplish its ends. Its ends seem to be to displace the Liberals as the national official opposition to Conservatism and, from there one assumes, to make a run at becoming a governing party. It can't work because it ends up re-inforcing Conservatism and because it misses opportunities to actually do something that would allow Canadians to understand what voting NDP actually means. By adopting a Conservative rhetoric, what the NDP does is actually help Conservatives maintain power. This is a problem for the NDP -- regardless of what goes on electorally with regard to the Liberals -- because Conservative policies are antithetical to NDP policies. By re-inforcing Conservatism, the NDP actually succeeds in making Canada into precisely the type of country they do not want it to be. Likewise, it casts support for the NDP into the politically neutral realm of honesty that actually has nothing to do with policy or with our visions of what the future might should look like. In this regard, the NDP misses a chance to actually displace the Liberals through policy differentiation.

ﾠ

I'd suggest that the NDP has to follow a different route. It is supposed to be a different type of political party. It needs to take seriously the idea that political education is a fundamental aspect of a political party's work and that education is much more then saying "vote for me." It seems to engage society and articulate a different vision of the future. It cannot content itself with talking about Liberal hypocrisy and incompetence. It has to talk about society, political-economy, and itself. If it doesn't do that ... well ... its future will end up being more of the same old third party status, the very thing the party is now trying to desperately (but in such a misdirected way) to escape.

Privatization

There has been a bit of talk lately about privatization: health care, aspects of post-secondary education. It is worth considering what privatization means, who promotes it, why, and what will likely happen before any decisions are made in this regard. I don't think the issue "privatization" is at all an academic debate. Nor do I think it is about "the best way to deliver services" or "saving money" or "efficiency." I think the whole privatization debate is about the type of country we have. Does that sound a little to grandiose? Does it sound like I am upping the stakes? Many of the proponents of privatization would, in fact, say so. They would say that they are talking about modes of delivery and saving money and not fundamental values. I think they are deluded (in a literal sense of the word). Privatlization ultimately is about values and that is what I want to demonstrate in this blog. In other words, it is not a small issue but a big issue, a issue about our values as society and how we want to organize that society. It is on this ground that I think the little bit of talk, of late, about privatization in health care and education merits attention.



You will notice, btw, that I have not yet said whether I am for or against privatization. In my view, this is, in fact, the first problem with public discourse on privatization. People stake out their ground in advance and then don't move from it. In place of discussion and analysis that might lead to policy conclusions, we get ideology in which the specifics of any given situation are lost amidst a haze of generalization. In other words, when the discussion turns to privatization of education or health, we rarely end up with a discussion of the specific institution or situation: "how will this work in Sackville NB?" Instead, we get odes to the wonders of private enterprise or aspersions cast at the American health-care system. Whatever merit such generalizations may have in terms of argument, they actually don't help us make a decision about the specific situation at hand. In this regard, I think it is at best premature to come out for or against privatization before one has worked through the arguments. Moreover, precisely because this issue is important -- because it will affect Canada and will affect real people's lives -- I think we need to be guided by evidence, not general views. In other words, decisions about privatization need to be made in the cold light of logic with a consideration of evidence; not in the head of ideological conflict.



With this in mind, I can't really talk about health care. I don't know that industry and can't bring anything dramatically new to the discussion, at least until I have done my homework. With this in mind, then, I'll turn to my industry: education. Periodically we hear people talking about the need for a private university in Canada. The implication here is that the university would surrender its government grant and turn to the market to make a go of it. The proponents of privatization suggest that there is nothing to fear in this and much to gain. It would be a more efficient allocation of resources; it will unlease an entrepreneurial spirit on campus; students will pay for what they get; the university will not be held back by the state, and on down the line. In other words, privatization will bring many benefits and few drawbacks. With the dramatic curtailing of government support for post-secondary education over the last fifteen years, these arguments come more and more to the fore. As the government pays less of the tab of public education, state support for education seems less relevant. Is this so? There are a number of points to consider.



First, revenue: the government does not pay as much of the university tab as it used to but it still pays a lot. At my institution, by a conservative estimate, government grants count for something like 35% of the budget, or somewhere around $17.5 million. Now, we need to think about what privatization might mean. One thing it would mean is that my institution would need to find another $17.5 million each year. Tuition would have to increase, to be sure. One could argue that it should because that is the way the mrket works. The taxpayer should not subsidize someone else's education. But, we are talking about a big increase here. Again, I want to be conservative (in other words, my aim is to present a reasonable scenario; not a worst case scenario). The average jump in tuition if we divided the revenue shortfall by total current student body would amount to something like $8 500, but let's round down just to be reasonable and allow for some cost savings. Let's say $8 000. What this means is that tuition at Mount Allison (where I would would go up by $8 000/year would would make it somewhere between $14 000 and $15 000 total, excluding residence, meal service, books, other fees, etc.



What we need to bear in mind with this is product substitution. The problem Mount A would encounter is that other institutions would not privatize. In fact, if Mount A withdrew from state support, there would in fact be more money for other institutions in NB. They'd get our chunk of government support. The likely result would be tuition stability at other institutions. Our product is not all that different from other institutions. We're good. I think we are rightly proud of the job we do, but exact how different is on History, English, Biology, etc., degree from another at the undergraduate level. I have friend who teach at other universities and they are good, too. They are rightly proud of the job they do. One question we need to ask before we privatize is this: is our product that much better than other institutions that students (or, their parents) would be willing to pay over twice the tuition of other institutions to attend Mount A. Some would. How many? And, what students? Would really good students be willing to pay over twice as much to attend Mount A? Or, would we get the student who could gain admission no where else and had to pay our tuition out of a lack of other alternatives? What would that do to our standing as an institution?



Second, one could argue that privatizing would unleash some sort of entrepreneurial spirit and allow the University to work in a more efficient way. How? I work at Mount A and I can tell you how hard people work, how inventive they are. What I can say is that there are some bad apples. No one doubts this. But, most people, by and large, are working as hard as they can. Is the university inefficient? Well, I don't know. You'd need to ask the registrar and the VP administration about that. I don't think they would say that they are inefficient. I think the registrar and the VP admin would, in fact, say that their people are working as hard as they can. But, for the sake of argument, let's say they aren't. Let's say the administrative branch is amazingly inefficient. Why do we need to privatize to gain this efficiency? We pay these people a lot of money to do their job. Why should the structure of the company affect whether or not they do their job right? If they aren't doing it right, they should be fired. It is not state support that keeps them in their jobs. From what I can tell the same bureaucracy will be needed regardless of the funding model. Any post-secondary institution will still need secretaries, mail staff, registrars. comptrollers, etc. If there are cost savings to be had, we need to know where those are and how privatization would realize them and whether or not we need to privatize to attain them.



Third, will privatization allow the university to raise more money from the private sector? I don't know but again we need to look at this in a way that is not ideological. Large companies in Canada already donate a lot of money to universities. Will they donate more to a private institution? What will their incentive to do so be? To believe that privatization will bring in more money from corporate donors, one needs to believe that the people who raise money for a university are not doing as good a job as they could be doing. They are missing sources of revenue. Will privatizing suddenly make them better at this? And, what sources of revenue are they missing?



Finally, there are ethical arguments to think about. I've gone on too long already so I'll keep this short. Will raising tuition via privatization ensure that the taxpayer does not pay for someone else's education. Education is a tax deduction so ... it is likely that the taxpayer will pay just by another means. In other words, to ensure that the taxpayer does not pay for someone else, one would need to change the tax system; not the way universities are financed. If the tax system is not changed, increased tuition could be passed along to taxpayers via tax deductions. If one cares about this -- and I think there are good reasons to discuss it -- privatizing the university is the wrong target. Are there other benefits that would foregone if tuition increased? Asked differently, the question is: are there benefits to a better educated society that are difficult to specify in economic terms? There is no easy answer to this but we need to think about education as a form of training for which there are spin-off benefits to industry. What are those benefits? Would industry end up having to pay more for training and up-grading and how would that affect profits? What about equality of opportunity? How would it be affected? What about political knowledge and the ability of people to be thinking citizens? Political scientists tell us that there is a strong correlation between formal education and political involvement. In a day when we are concerned about declining voter rates, is it in society's best interest to price education higher? What about crime rates? How does higher levels of formal education affect crime?



And, we could go on. I've not really spent most of this blog talking about the issue I raised at the start: the values that privatization would signify for Canada. I've raised these only at the end because I think that skill development, equality of opportunity, safety, are values Canadians hold dear. How would privatization affect the realization of our values? Instead, I've focused on the economic issues involved because that is where the debate is most cloudy. I don't provide answer. I am, however, trying to suggest that the issue is more complex. We need to think about things like the efficiency of existing bureaucracies and ways to make them more efficient. We need to think about product substitution and what that could do to enrolment. We need to think about the possibility of being a "last chance u" for people who have no other alternatives. And, we need evidence. I don't believe in change for the sake of change and ideology is misleading. It substitutes what someone happens to believe for analysis. Before we move toward privatization, we need to do that analysis.

Self-Sufficiency and Development

The New Brunswick Self-Sufficiency Task Force has reported and produced some interesting conclusions and suggestions. There is, however, good room to be concerned about what this Task Force is actually saying. Self-Sufficiency sounds like a good thing. The Task Force's goal (to find ways to transforming New Brunswick from a "have not" to a "have" province) can't be questioned as a good thing. What is of concern, it seems to me, is the way the Task Force has gone about framing its conception of what the future entails and the route to economic development. Three inter-related issues seem to me important to consider in this regard.

First, the discourse of self-sufficiency sounds both good and reasonable. It has old-fashioned connotations of autonomy: an individual who is able to make their own way in the world and who does not rely on others. This is clearly the way in which the Task Force conceptualized their work but self-sufficiency is not really what they mean. I'll be so bold as to venture an argument with little in the way of supporting evidence but is "self-sufficiency" a good thing? Economic development, it seems to me, in this modern (or post-modern) age is not about self-sufficiency. Its about inter-dependence. Economic development occurs through trade networks and exchange. The simple truth of the matter is that New Brunswick is not self-sufficient, nor should it be. Is there a modern economy that is? Take the US as an example. It is hardly self-sufficient but instead relies on trade with a host of nations around the world. Canada is even more trade dependent than the US. The production of wealth, we learn in intro economics, can occur in a variety of ways but one of the key modern ways is through specialization and trade. It is cheaper for me to make X and you to make Y. So instead of us both making X and Y (and entailing extra cost for so doing), I make a lot of X, you make a lot of Y and we trade with each other and we are both further ahead. If we wanted to be self-sufficient we would both make X and Y. We'd be poorer but we'd be self-sufficient. To create more wealth we specialize and trade. That specialization generates more wealth but that trade makes us dependent on each other. A lack of self-sufficiency (and concomitant dependence) actually succeeds in making each of us better off.

In this sense, the whole discourse of self-sufficiency is misplaced. I'll make another bold statement: self-sufficiency for NB, far from being the route to development would actually cause a contraction of the economy. What we are talking about then is wealth creation (development) and not self-sufficiency. Why am I concerned about this? Is it not just semantics? Perhaps but I think there is something else at work here. I think that the name self-sufficiency precisely because it sounds good disguises what is actually at stake and the recommendations the task force is actually making. If we think about some of their recommendations, they actually have nothing to do with self-sufficiency. They may have something to do with economic development but exactly how the task force is proposing to go about developing the NB economy is disguised by this discourse.

Second, at least in the speech I heard one of the chairs make, the recommendations of the task force are shrouded in an aura of inevitability. Changes are going to happen. Changes are going to happen fast. We have to get aboard the train because it is leaving. Those who miss the train (that is: don't accept the changes that are coming) will be left behind. Discourses of inevitability are problematic in themselves because no one knows what the future holds. By definition, the future is unknown, that is what makes it the future. In this sense, the task force's discourse of inevitability is not just misplaced; it is wrong. But, here is the really wild thing. At the same time that the task force promotes a discourse of inevitability, it tells us that we have to do thing to make this inevitable future happen. This is odd. If something is inevitable, it does not matter what you or I do. It will happen anyway. That is, after all, the definition of inevitability. What is inevitable? Mega-project oil refinery development in Saint John for one example. It is inevitable. It is good? The discourse of inevitability makes that question irrelevant but this is the very problem with the discourse: it does not ask the right question. It asks only what will happen; not what do we want to happen. An oil refinery in Saint John might be good. It might not. I don't know. I haven't studied the issue. To be honest, without having looked at the issue, I have qualms about it. I'd rather think about alternatives fuels and eco-friendly development strategies. But, as I said, I really don't know. What is important, however, is that I should know. Rather than telling us what is inevitable, we should be asking what is good? What do we, New Brunswickers, want? My second problem with the task force, then, is that its discourse frames the development issue incorrectly. And, it upholds this incorrect framework through a contradictory discourse that tells us that the inevitable future is coming so we better make it happen (or, otherwise, I suppose, the inevitable future might not happen). Instead of asking questions about what we want our future to look like, we get told what will happen.

Finally, the task force is enamoured with the idea of foreign capital investment, a matter of wider concern in Canada. Recently, of course, there has been a certain degree of concern about the "hollowing out" of corporate head offices as Canadian companies are bought out with their upper management moving to the US (or, elsewhere). A lead story in the Globe recently suggested that there should not be a lot of concern about this. The task force seems to agree. Foreign capital investment will strengthen the economy, the seem to be saying, so what do we care if the company owner lives in the US or Germany or wherever. As long as we have the jobs and the development occurs, as will be well. Will it?

The first thing we need to recognize in addressing this question is this: no one should have any illusions about the benevolence of Canadian capitalists. Canadian capitalists are capitalists. They are no better or worse than American capitalists. They will make decisions in their best business interests. That is, after all, what capitalists do. We should not expect Canadian capitalists to be any more environmentally friendly than foreign capitalists, or any more favourable to gender equality or any more favourable to workers' rights, etc. It would be naive, I think, to believe that nationalism will win out over business interests.

Even with this in mind, we need to take a clear look at what foreign investment will mean for the economy and the society. Sometimes, people who favour foreign investment like to dismiss concerns about it as just so much lefty political shmuck. I don't buy it because casting aside concerns before an analysis has taken place is a sure route to pre-mature decision making. We should not, of course, get caught up in political rhetoric. Little good is served by casting aspersions at "foreigners" just because they are foreigners (like I said, in my view, they are no better than Canadians). If this is the case, why be concerned about foreign investment? Because (1) foreign investment rests control of the economy outside of it. It is the anti-thesis of self-sufficiency and its not mutual dependency. it's a power relationship. Someone, somewhere else, makes decisions about employment, wage rates, political donations, pollution control, etc. Moreover, because they are somewhere else, they have a trump card to force governments in line: do what we say or we will leave. (2) profits are sent outside the country. Business costs/revenues break down into three categories: labour (the price of workers), rent (the price of resources) and profit (the price of capital). If you have foreign investment in control of your economy a portion of the revenue (profits over costs) is sent away. Wages stay in the province because workers live here and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that rent does too because we'll assume our company uses local resources. Profit, however, goes somewhere else. Some portion of money is sent away. If the company were locally owned, that revenue stays here. If not, it goes elsewhere. The effect of foreign ownership then is to take some portion of money out of the local area and send it somewhere else. That might be "inevitable" but it doesn't strike me as the surest and fastest way to promote development.

Overall, then, the task force has made their report and said some interesting things. I have not gone through the whole report. Google it (NB self-sufficiency) and you can have a look at it. From what I can tell, however, there are problems with significant aspects of what they are saying. All of this, of course, suggests that we need to think differently about economic development. It seems to me that one of the telling things about the task force's discourse is that it is old-fashioned. Its discourse of inevitable-ness, the merits of foreign capitalists, and the pull yourself up by your bootstraps seems more at home in the nineteenth century than the twenty first. Our discourse should be about something else. We should not be thinking about the inevitable development of fossil fuel industries but thinking differently about our economic future. Until we do this, I suspect the goal of development -- of becoming a "have" province -- will go unrealized.

Revenge of the Outs

There is an old novel in which named political parties have disappeared. In their place are two broad groups: the ins (who hold office) and the outs (who forever campaign against the ins but never win). In Canada, one could argue that the ins of the twentieth century were the Liberals; the outs, conservatives of various sorts. Only periodically have conservatives been able to displace Liberals. And, they have done this only when they have been able to build a coalition across ideological lines that, in effect, unites a broad section of the outs behind them.

This is what Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s. His coalition was broad, including Bay Street conservative capitalist, western populists, social conservatives dismayed at Liberal support for gender equality, the welfare state, Charter rights, etc., Quebec “soft nationalists”, and Atlantic Canadian Red Tories, among others. Mulroney’s triumph was that he got this coalition to work for nine years despite the fact that these different groups of people don’t have a great deal in common, aside from their status as outs. Red Tories had little love of the Bay Street agenda; social conservatives did not see eye to eye with Quebec nationalists. Neo-cons were almost hyper individualists who maintained an unbounded faith in “the market”; Red Tories and social conservatives distrust the market and look to intervene in it for their own reasons ... and on down the line. Mulroney’s failure was that he could not transform this coalition of outs into a cohesive body. Ultimately, fractures on Quebec nationalism, free trade, social issues (like abortion and capital punishment), the democratic agenda so near to the heart of populists, scuttled the coalition.

Why is this a failure? It is not a failure just because the conservative party lost office. The Liberal party was out of office for nine years and in those nine years their commitment to their ideals did not waver. Intellectually, they responded to Mulroney coalition and its agenda with powerful re-assertions of the philosophical precepts underlying their policy agenda. Impressive bodies of work developed that defended the welfare state, multiculturalism, Charter rights, and a “progressive” conception of Canada. Liberals returned to office armed with a cost-cutting agenda but also armed with an ideology that allowed them to defend federalism, support diversity in society, accept advances in gay rights, and deflect the worst excesses of a waning neo-conservativism. In other words, the Liberals did not just get lucky in 1993. Indeed, their own political activism helped rip apart the Mulroney coalition. They were ready to take office. They had ideas and a vision of Canada that they could take to the Canadian public. You can like these ideas or dislike them (I’m no fan, to declare my bias) but that is what got the Liberals elected.

By contrast, Mulroney and his crew could never wield their coalition of outs into a coherent counter-vision of Canada: an alternative to the Canadian liberal project of nation. What held them in office was power. Disagreements will usually be blunted by the lure of power and one’s hold on it can soften most disagreements. What was the conservatives economic vision? Put Canada on a sound financial basis? If so, they failed miserably. What was their constitutional vision? A modified two nations? If so, they failed miserably. And, we could go on down the line. What is important here is that they did not fail just because they did not get their way. They failed because they did not convince Canadians that the had a vision of a future Canada that was worth accepting. By Mulroney’s second term, discontent was so rife it was ridiculous. The real problem was that Mulroney could not even convince disparate elements of his own coalition that he had a vision into which they should buy. Western populists rejected his efforts to accommodate Quebec distinctiveness and campaigned actively against it. Red Tories rejected his conception of continental integration and fought a civil war within Canadian conservatism -- that ended only recently -- against free trade. Bay Streeters were never willing to buy into the intolerance that seemed to come with the social conservative agenda.

Why write about this? Why tell us this history? Because this is precisely the same issue that Stephen Harper confronts today. Harper has been given an unusual opportunity. The Martin/Chretien civil war within the Liberal party combined with the sponsorship scandal and the intellectual exhaustion of the Quebec independence movement open up a space for the articulation of an alternative conception of Canada. (Personally, I would like the NDP to articulate that vision and I think they will have to, but that is the subject for another blog.) There is some indication that Harper and some conservatives (particularly provincial conservatives in Quebec) are willing to do this. Without some coherent ideal of Canada, some vision into which Canadians can buy, Canadian conservatives will be little more than a collection of outs held together by power. Their different and constituent basis of support of different sectors of his coalition will collapse into hostile factions. It might take a year, it might take three months, it might take four years, but it will happen if Canadian conservatism aspires only to “good government” and a “balanced budget” (to which, of course, all political parties in Canada aspire). This is the task before Stephen Harper, conservative leaders, and conservative intellectuals in Canada: they need to transform the Conservative Party of Canada from a collection of "outs" to a party tied to a social constituency that accepted a defined conservative vision of the country.

Will they do this? I don't know because the forces rending conservatism asunder are particularly strong. Moreover, the conservatives are vulnerable on certain policy areas where they shouldn't be, such as the environment (ideologically oriented conservatives should be able to mobilize the ideal of a collective public good that transcends individualism in support of an environmental policy that does not toady to big business). We have also, already, seen a break with the Newfoundland premier that will almost certainly cost the Conservatives their federal seats in that province in he next election. The real problem, however, is what a conservative vision actually means for Canada. So far, it is not clear but Harper seem to be assembling something akin to a go-easy liberalism and that, combined with the problems the Liberal Party is currently going through might be enough to keep him in power. I doubt, however, it will be enough (in the longer run) to satisfy the members of his own party.

The Sparkle of Weath

Conrad Black is on trial. So what? The sad and bitter truth of the matter is that Black is actually not important. Certainly, he doesn't merit the attention Canadian media heap on him. The only good thing about this trial is that it can tell us something. This trial is, in microcosm, about damage control. What needs to be controlled is not is the widespread perception that the wealthy somehow might not deserve to be vastly richer -- unbelievably vastly richer -- than the rest of us. What needs to be reigned in is the idea that there is something wrong with unbelievably rich people flouting the basic moral conventions of society and good sense in instances of truly shocking self indulgence while others go hungry.

Since the first day of the trial, well, since long before it, Black, his legal team and his wife have tried to portray this trial as being about something that it is not. The legal issue is straight forward: did Black, his friends and colleagues, break the law in the course of amassing their huge fortunes. Did they take money that was legally the property of others. However one spins it, the this is a trial about theft. It is not petty theft because of the amount of money involved, but the same basic legal principles are involved: did Black et al take something that was not their's. If they did, they are thieves. If they did not, they are innocent.

From the beginning -- indeed, long before the beginning -- Black and co (but mostly Black's legal team) have argued that they have done nothing wrong and because of that, this trial must be about something else. It must be a malicious prosecution organized by people who dislike Black, by his enemies, he might even believe. Year's ago, Black's wife said something similar during the prosecution of Martha Stewart. Barbara Amiel -- a sometimes columnist for Macleans -- argued that the prosecution of Stewart was small-minded. It was conducted by little people who were envious of Stewart's wealth. Little people, as it were, were using the legal system to bring down the big people who, in real life, they otherwise could not touch and of whom they were envious. The prosecution had nothing to do, in her view, with the legal issue involved (did Stewart take something that was not her's?), but instead was being conducted for other reasons. Amiel's argument bears striking affinities to Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Those who have read this book know that it is about a number of things but one thing it is about is a discussion of the development of religion. Nietzsche argues that the Judeo-Christian tradition has a number of things wrong with it but one of the things it has wrong with it is its origins. It is a religion, he says, of the weak used to control the strong and powerful who otherwise would dominate society. What Amiel did was substitute legal system for religion.

It was very important early on for Black's legal team to establish this point: being wealthy is not a crime. The judge, in fact, ended up saying so. The discourse went something like jurors should not be blinded by the sparkle of wealth. The legal principle seems solid enough: just a case on the facts. The cultural discourse is something else: be aware that the only reason Black might be before the court is that he is wealthy. I'm not 100% certain but this, I think, is the argument Black and his legal team would want to make. It is the counter-narrative they wish to tell. If Black is not guilty, why is he in court? Because the sparkle of wealthy blinded envious people who used the legal system to work out their own frustrations.

Is Black guilty? I don't know. I don't care. What I care about is the way CBC and other media picked up on this story. What is interesting is that the Canadian media framed this story in exactly this way: criminal or maliciously prosecuted by envious small-minded individuals who are just trying to take down one of the supermen? The problem here is severalfold. Not only is the Canadian media reading a script that could have been written by Black's legal team, but they are reading it uncritically. They are framing this issue in a certain way and in so doing are missing other stories. What might those stories be?

Well, there are a bunch but the key story that could be asked is the legitimacy of vast accumulations of wealth in the first place. Even if it is legal, is it right -- in a moral sense of the world (and, folks, I believe we need moral values to be a civilized society) -- for the already super rich to enjoy perks beyond like birthday parties that cost more than some people's yearly incomes? Let's say Black is completely innocent of the charges before him, one can still ask: does this make his actions right? Is a legal system that allows such gross inequalities of wealth a good legal system or is it so riddled with loop-holes as to be malfunctioning? What happens when large -- indeed massive -- private corporations have little or no effective oversight? Do they function in the public good? Do they function in their investors' good?

There are no easy answers to these types of questions. I don't mean there to be. I've said before, ethics is complex stuff. Societies are complex things. If the answers were simple, we'd all live in Utopia. What concerns me is not the ease of the answer but the fact that such questions are not being asked. The problem is not that one produces this or that answer, the problem is damage control. As long as this issue is framed as a criminal v malicious prosecution by the little people issue, we cannot advance to ask the more important questions and, what is more, we cannot advance to ask the more important questions regardless of how this trial turns out. If Black ends up being guilty, then he is a criminal. If he ends up being innocent, then this is a malicious prosecution. If he ends up being guilty, then the story is that the legal system worked and nabbed a criminal. If he ends up being innocent, then the story is the question: why was he prosecuted in the first place? In either instance, the way this trial is being framed can lead nowhere in terms of critical analysis. It focuses attention on Black and not the important social, cultural, legal, and economic issues that should be addressed. This is a shame because cases like this should/could provide a change to explore inequities in society and to consider our basic ethical principles. The fact that this one won't is a tribute to how effective the damage control surrounding it really is.

Minor Controversies

There has been a minor controversy in some of the local papers about Christianity, homosexuality, and salvation. I promised myself I wouldn't say/write anything about this but it is awfully hard not to. The reason I did not want to say/write anything is that this is an old debate. Anyone who engages in it needs to recognize that, by and large, they are not saying anything new. I appreciate the sincerity with which different people put their arguments forward; the seriousness of heir intent, the faith they express. I'm not about to bring some new insight to this debate and my argument is clear: there is no ground on which the state can enact laws the deny equality to gay and this includes marriage. If gays or lesbians want to marry no society that takes its commitment to equality seriously can stop that. To so do would be rank hypocrisy on a social level. Moreover, I suspect that in 10 or 20 years time no one will really care about this debate. Folks: gay and lesbian marriage will not cause the world to fall apart. Moreover, to use a religious rationale to try to stop gay marriage is to enter the potentially dangerous ground of fashioning the laws of state after a particular religious perspective. We've done this in Canada in the past and the results were not good. Let's not repeat a bad history.

The real point I want to make, however, has little to do with political philosophy. Instead, I want to say something about the opposition of some Christians to gay and lesbian marriage. I'm troubled by this and here is why: I hate to say this but I find the vocal opposition of some Christians to gay and lesbian marriage troubling because it comes very close to singling out gay and lesbian Canadians for special prejudicial treatment. It recycles a discourse of discrimination that I would like to see all Canadians put behind them. What I want to do is address this issue from my own perspective as a Christian. The argument some Christians put forward in opposition to gay and lesbian marriage (and, by extension, equality) is flawed for a number of reasons.

First, those who oppose equality (in the form of marriage) for gay people claim to be Christians. And, as Christians, they are fond of saying that their arguments are based on the word of God and the word of God is eternal and infallible. They imagine that their opponents are people who would modify the word of God by historically contextualizing it, or something of the sort. I'm in this camp and this not the case at all. I think the word of God is true, infallible and eternal. I don't question the word; I question human being ability to understand it. My issue is not with the word, my issue is with the spin some people put on the word. The opponents of gay marriage seem to think that stating that the Bible is the eternally true word of God is some sort of trump card. It ain't: its Christianity 101. It is the beginning point of Christianity spirituality; not its end point.

Second, I dislike the intense selectiveness of people who use the Bible to justify positions against equality for gay people. The Bible has a lot of rules in it. To single out gay and lesbian people for special commentary or to single out the institution of straight marriage as somehow deserving special comment or special protection is to suggest that some rules are more important than others. Some people who argue against gay and lesbian marriage suggest that homosexual relations are sinful. For the sake of argument, let's allow this. Even if we did, however, why would one sin be worse than others? I notice most of those who oppose gay and lesbian marriage fail to mention the Great Commission (Matt 26: 16-20). Those Christians who don't practice the Great Commission are violating one of God's laws -- as directly stated by Jesus -- and so are sinning. Why not focus on this? Yet, virtually no Christian who comments on public issues talks about the Great Commission. Why not; its really cool. Do they feel it unimportant? It is the very fact that some Christians single out gay and lesbian people that causes me pause. Instead of writing editorials about the problems of gay marriage, it seems to me that a better approach would be write editorials about love. Yet ....

Going along with this, it seems to me that singling out gay and lesbian people for special treatment could, in fact, violate the Great Commission. As well: Jesus tells us that the two greatest commandments are love God and love your neighbour. Failure to follow these commandments is, one would then assume, pretty distasteful in the eyes of God. How does singling out specific people express love? And, let's be clear on this: God does not say "love everybody except gay people." God's love is unconditional; it is the basis of salvation. Do those who campaign against equality for gay and lesbian people think they know more than God? Do they think they should define for Him the nature of His love? I wonder this: how can campaigning against equality for gay and lesbian people illustrate love? How can campaigning against equality for gay and lesbian people encourage them to be part of the Church? Will it not, instead, drive people out? I could be wrong. I don't have an easy answer to this and I don't think we are supposed to. It seems to me, however, that we should focus on that which brings people together in the Church as opposed to that which drives people out and can inspire animosity against definable groups of people.

A few other quick points:

* Jesus never mentions anything about gay and lesbian people. He mentions a lot of other stuff. He talks about a lot of other sins and speaks at length about the forms of behaviour Christians should follow. Do the opponents of gay marriage think this is an oversight? If gay and lesbian marriage is so important to warrant special commentary on their part, do they think that Jesus just forgot to mention it (because, as I said, He mentions a bunch of other stuff).
* I find the claims of opponents of gay marriage to following the word of God ring hollow because they are not talking about following the word of God. They choose to ignore huge sections of word. The opponents of gay marriage often quote the Old Testament, yet I notice they always ignore things like (I'll pick one example) the rules for dealing with a rebellious son (Deut 21: 18-21). Why? This shows incredible inconsistency.
* The civil society argument: gay marriage in no way threatens churches or the practice of Christianity. No church can, therefore, be forced to perform a marriage, really to anyone regardless of orientation. To state otherwise -- to claim that recognizing the legitimacy of gay and lesbian marriage will result is churches being forced to perform these marriages -- is just plain wrong. (Any one parishioner might or might not object to decisions individual churches have made on their own but that is a different matter.)


Let me sum up: there is no reason in civil society other than prejudice to justify the differential treatment of gay and lesbian people. And, prejudice is not a legitimate argument. Christians who single out gay and lesbian people or have been public and vocal in their opposition to gay and lesbian equality work with a dangerous discourse that naturalizes prejudice. Eventually, I strongly suspect, this entire issue will disappear (women's equality caused a lot of heated discourse as well and, yet, today is so normal no one would debate it). Christian arguments that assert the Bible as the word of God are not a trump card. Far from this, they are common sense to Christians. Telling a Christian that the Bible is the word of God is the equivalent of teling someone that they have to breath in order to live. IOW, it tells us nothing we don't already know. Jesus did not focus on homosexual relations as a matter of special concern. Opponents of gay equality are selective in their interpretation of the Bible. And, opponents of gay marriage tend to treat some sins (remember, I accepted this only for the sake of argument) as more important than others in that they single them out for special condemnation when there is no Biblical evidence (the word of God, remember) that this is what God wants us to do. And, they tend to ignore the message of love and the Great Commission and follow a social practice that is divisive and, from what I can tell, a threat to the Great Commission.

For all these reasons, I think there is good reason for Christians to approach this particular issue cautiously. We should avoid extreme statements, avoid divisiveness, remember the Sermon on the Mount, and get on with our work.

Quebec is a nation ....

Is Quebec a nation? The answer, according to Prime Minister Harper, is “yes”, within Canada. Others are less sure. Gilles Duceppe, a big fan of the “nation” designation for Quebec, waffled before agreeing to support a proposed resolution in the federal Parliament that would, in effect, say that Parliament recognizes Quebecers as a nation because the words “in a united Canada” were included in the resolution. Michael Ignatieff feels vindicated because he took a lot of hear earlier this year for suggesting something similar. Jack Layton and the NDP will support this resolution because they always have, or so Mr. Layton says. Claire Hoy, on the Michael Coran show (CTS), freaked out. Quebec, he said, is not a nation; its a province. According to Hoy, this resolution is the thin edge of the wedge. Pretty soon, he said, the Supreme Court will get hold of this designation and start doing horrible things. What horrible things? Well ... Hoy didn’t actually say but they will be truly, truly horrible .... So ... is Quebec a nation? Are Quebecois(es) a nation?

Well ... of course Quebec is a nation. The only thing Mr. Hoy demonstrated in rejecting this designation is that he has no idea what a nation actually is (he seems to have confused the term “nation” and “state”). This begs the far more important question: what does being a nation mean? If there is a merit to Mr. Harper’s it allows us to address this issue and understand its importance for Quebecers. This resolution is about how we define Quebec difference from the rest of Canada. What is missing in the discussion so far is three things: (1) an understanding of the importance of self-definition, (2) an understanding of the complex character of Quebec society, and (3) some consideration of the implications of collective definitions. A blog is too short a space to address these points systematically so let me say just a few words on each.

First, a resolution in Parliament that defines Quebec as a nation is about self-definition and having others accept that definition. Defining a group of people as a nation is not be about “making the grade”, as if this collective self-definition implied access to some sort of exclusive international club. The problem with public discourse on the “is Quebec a nation” question is that it proceeds as if we have not had the last generation of scholarship on the meaning of the term nation. It used to be the case -- when I was an undergraduate -- that the term “nation” was deployed in specific circumstances when a group of people met a series of pre-determined an abstract criteria. I can even remember a good part of the definition: a nation is a group of people sharing a coherent geographic territory and marked by a common culture, shared historical experience, and common language and/or religion. Moreover, there was an assumed equivalency between a nation and a state: where the nation existed so to did (or, should) the state.

Contemporary scholarship casts doubts on this static conception of nation. Nations, contemporary scholarship has it, are historical formations. They are “imaginative”, not in the sense that they are fantasy, but in the sense that they exist or do not exist on the basis of belief. A nation is called into being when people believe they are a nation and not because an intellectual or academic or political figure decides a nation exists. What all this means is that the ideal of nation is shifting. Contemporary definitions pay less attention to language as a spoken mode of communication and more attention to language as a shared system of signification. Older definitions of nation were one-shot deals: being a member of nation X meant that one could not be a member of nation Y (for example, one was either a Scot or a Briton; one could not be both). More recent conceptions of nation would lead us to question this zero sum approach to nationality. It is also now clear that the exact connection between nation and state is problematic, as opposed to direct. There are, in all likelihood, thousands of state-less nations in the world and no state contains only a single nation.

Does this mean that the designation “nation” is meaningless? Is it a cultural construction that has no trans-historical reality? Perhaps, but that does not mean it is meaningless. There are a variety of reasons why the designation “nation” is meaningful but, it seems to me, the most pressing is that it can involve a process of self-definition. In the past, denying a people the status of “nation” was held to be the equivalent of denying self-determination. Perhaps, but today the stakes are different. To deny a group of people a name they take on themselves is to reject their right to define themselves. For instance, if Quebecers wanted to be a considered a nation and if English Canadians rejected that, what English Canadians would be rejecting is not an international status, but a group of people’s conception of themselves. English Canadians would, in effect, be claiming the right to define who Quebecers were; to prescribe to Quebecers their sense of collective self. Infringing the right of a people to define themselves would, in my view, be deeply undemocratic. The stakes are not, therefore, meaningless. If Quebecers support this designation -- a nation within Canada -- and I think they clearly do, then recognition of this sense of self on the part of English Canada is a good thing. It shows respect for democracy and the right of self-definition.

This said, I also think it needs to be acknowledged that Quebec is not a monolithic entity. If most Quebecers support this conception of Quebec, then, there is reason, in a democratic society, to consider it seriously and, I believe, support it. Accepting Quebecers self-conception as a nation does not, of course, in a democratic society, mean that the debate is over. I suspect it is not over in Quebec. Folks who oppose this resolution and the idea that stands behind it, in a democracy, retain their right to speak in reason on the issue. Those who support it, in a democratic society, are obligated to listen in respect. Quebec is a diverse province; Quebecois(es) will be a diverse nation. Quebec will be no more monolithic than Canada. Designating Quebec as a nation within Canada will not change that. There will still be issues with First Nations to be addressed; issues of settlement and diversity within Quebec; the problems caused by socio-economic inequality go no where because of this designation. Whatever the exact wording of this resolution, English Canadians have to stop thinking about Quebec as a single entity. The longer they do, the longer they will not understanding Quebecois(es). This should be easy. After all: Canada is a pretty diverse place and its a nation. The same thing can and needs to be said for Quebec.

Finally, what are the implications of this. Is Hoy right? The resolution opens the door for Supreme Court meddling in political affairs that will bring disaster in their wake? Well ... the short answer is we don’t know. I’ve argued that this resolution is meaningful in a cultural and discursive sense and that culture and discourse are important. Is it meaningful in a constitutional sense. I suspect it is, but in ways that actually work with existing divisions of power in Canada and the already established differences (noted in the constitution) between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. In other words, there is a framework that the court will need to consider if it has to rule on anything that involves Quebec’s national status. But, prognostications of disaster are clearly premature and, in fact, irresponsible. The simple fact that Hoy could not tell us what disaster was about to happen is a mark of the fact that he’s just sowing discord. Let’s wait and see. There are implications to this resolution but they are not clear. And, if they are not clear, I see no reason to assume they will bring disaster in their wake. The opposite is just as possible.

American Elections and Alternative Visions

Republicanism fails. At least this is the point I tried to make in my last post. It fails not because it provides some sort of cover for what is really a covert imperialist project (although it might do this, too). It fails because it cannot deliver what it promises. What it promises, it seems to me, or the ideas it claims to support, are not illegitimate. Some of the stuff the lurks beneath the covers of Republicanism might be illegitimate. To be sure: there are bigots, rednecks, intolerant people, anti-gay people, xenophobes, etc., who vote for the Republican party and who like George Bush, Jr. They are not the average American. And, to be honest, they don’t really concern me. I’m never going to convince, say, someone who is vibrantly anti-immigration to change their views. I’m never going to convince a racist that she or he is wrong. What concerns me is the mass of average, ordinary working and middle class Americans who are not like this.

What are those concerns that are so legitimate? If you go through all the different planks in the Republican platform, the basic focus (whether in political, military, international, or cultural or economic, etc., policy) is on security. Republicans believe America is under siege from either internal or external enemies. These enemies make America soft; they question the integrity of its institutions, they question its traditions, they threaten the safety of its citizens. The idea of security is much more than a wall along a border or helicopters patrolling the boundaries of Saskatchewan wheat fields. Security is about knowing your kids can walk to school without problems; that your niece who is travelling Europe after finishing college is OK. Its about knowing your job is going to be there next week or next month or next year. Its about having enough money to pay for groceries. Its about the air we breath and the water we drink. Security, IOW, is about a series of intensely human concerns that are entirely legitimate.

Republicans took this legitimate concern with security and spun it in a negative and defensive way. In addition to being a complete policy failure, the other big problem with the security agenda is its inwardness. And, I think this is another thing that came to the fore in the recent American mid-term elections. At least a section of the American public is expressing increasing concern about the inward-looking conception of security mobilized by Republicans. They are looking for something else. In what is really a two-party system, this means voting Democrat. It is not clear, however, that the Democrats have isolated what the American public is actually looking for, nor that they are the people to develop constructive policies that address public concerns. The lesson of this election and the previous ones is that they should or, very quickly, they will find themselves on the outs again.

This is why. The American public in voting against Republicans voted against a conception of security and vision of the future that was static. What the Republicans look to do is make America secure. And, they aim to do this, by and large, through force of arms, advanced technology, assertions of traditional values, and dissembling the institutions of the welfare state that empowered previously marginalized people. By its very nature, the security agenda seeks to protect what Americans already have. This is precisely its problem. It seeks to preserve and conserve. It does not seek to expand and develop. The great weakness of Republicanism, other than the fact it is a policy flop, is that it offers nothing beyond “security”, even rhetorically. The Republican project for the US is to preserve “our way of life” from threat.

Let me suggest that this is not enough. Historically, the American project of nation stood for so much else. It meant a lot more then keeping what one had. We can all acknowledge that the ideal of America has been compromised in practice, but what it stood for was important both inside and outside the US. The American project of nation was to build a different kind of society. It was not just to preserve what one had but to make something new, something better, something more fair, something based on principle rather than history. The American revolutionary tradition is nothing to sneeze at. Its an important intellectual trajectory that expressed -- in its classic formulation -- some complex and important ideas. The “founding fathers” were looking to see the creation of a new society based on balancing political and economic imperatives, on a commitment to equality, on democracy, on justice that was not arbitrary. They were interested in the transparency of government and its accountability.

Since that time, other ideas have been added to this tradition as other revolutionary thinkers have contributed to the American intellectual tradition: ethnic and racial equality, legal equality of all before the law, state action to help the poor, universal public education, religious pluralism, among others.

In my view, the American intellectual tradition is at its best when it is not defensive. It is at its best when it is expansive, when it is looking to be dynamic, and when it is acting on principle to make something new. This is, I think, the real problem with Republicanism: it can’t do this. It can’t offer Americans anything new. It can only offer them a protected past. A Republican who offers something new -- stem cell research, equality for gay people, socialized medicine, gun control, bilingualism -- won’t be a Republican for very long. They won’t even get past the primary. Republicanism, then, by definition is not about American living up to its highest ideals. Its about a garrison mentality that preserves what one has -- and, to be sure, this is worth preserving -- from a hostile world.

The mid-term election results suggest that the American public is looking for something like the type of alternative vision on which the United States was founded to be again articulated by the Democratic Party. They need to do it. The Democratic Party has, rightly, be shot down by pundits for its failure to have much in the way of policy. Instead, it has tried to “moderate” its liberalism, taking a few planks from the Republican policy platform in order to win government. It should stop this. The mid-term election results did not produce Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress because Democrats took a fine lines from George Bush’s defensive vision of America. It won because people want something else. I believe the Democratic Party should start articulating that something else and it should begin with foreign policy.

What can/should a new American foreign policy entail? A number of things. First, a commitment to military disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means that the US will have to negotiate with the very people it (and, its allies like us in Canada) are trying to hunt down and kill. This is going to be hard. Its going to be painful. Its going to provoke accusations of “treating with terrorists” and “soft on terrorism” from the American right. My advise to the Democrats: tough it out. Trust the American public to understand what you are trying to do: establish real security through peace. Negotiated peace in Afghanistan and Iraq is going to take a long time, but the US needs to indicate to Iraqis and Afghans that it will discuss peace with the people who they support and who represent them. Like it or not, the “insurgents” in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan have a popular base. Talks will need to begin. Second, the US needs to begin one on one talks with North Korea. This will be a PR victory for North Korea but who cares? North Korea is a totalitarian state. Everything is a PR victory for North Korea within that country. Outside of it, no one is tricked by that propaganda. By beginning these talks the US can find out exactly what the North Korean government wants. And, it might be able to address some of its concerns in return for a return to non-proliferation.

Third, the US has to stop building a security wall along the Mexican border. This plays so poorly internationally and comes so close the dystopic sci-fi models of a gated American (see Handmaid’s Tale) that it is not funny. Instead, the US should work with Mexico and other Latin American countries to establish reasonable rates of migration to the US and naturalization processes for those who are already in that country.

Fourth, the US has to stop supporting Israel no matter what it does. It needs to recognize the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority (Hamas) and it needs to stop providing aid and arms to Israel as long as it continues its policy of violent attacks on Palestinian citizens. Republicans in the US periodically ask “why do they hate us?” The one thing that could convince a whole bunch of “them” that the US is not that bad is to have a reasonable two-state policy solution for Palestinians. By recognizing and dealing with Hamas the US will indicate to Arab peoples that it respects democracy, even if democracy produces election results it does not like. Right now the US looks (to Arab peoples) like hypocritical nation. It preaches democracy and supports Israel because it is “democratic” but doesn’t do the same thing for Arabic-speaking peoples.

There is a lot more that could and should be done as well, but this is a good start. All of this can be done under the name of a new foreign policy, let’s call it “the new human security agenda.” Those who are defensive and static minded -- current Republican supporters -- won’t like any of this. To them, it will be the equivalent of supporting terrorism. It is, however, the only way: (1) the US can promote real peace and security, and (2) the only way it can establish its project of nation as a new and powerful democratic ideal.

Homeland Security and Mid-Term US Elections

The Republicans lost the mid-term American elections. What does this mean. Media commentary has focused on what a shift in American political culture and concern about the war in Iraq. I think both of these points are right but I think something else is going on here, too. I think -- or, perhaps, I hope -- Americans are expressing some concerns with the entire Republican "homeland security" agenda. If they are, this is a good thing ... and for a variety of reasons.

There are serious problems with the homeland security agenda and with Republican approaches domestic and foreign policy. The most evident concerns are those expressed clearly by intellectuals like Noam Chomsky: homeland security and the Bush doctrine represent and necessarily failing effort to secure American international hegemony. Chomsky’s argument is that the problem with the Republican agenda is that it cannot promote the vary things it claims to champion (security) and is built upon deception, in particular of the American public. In looking to impose, more exactly, American hegemony on the world it guarantees on-going conflict while ignoring potential solutions to international problems.

This may be true but I see another problem with it. The Bush agenda is entirely defensive. I don’t mean in a military sense of the word. It is designed to maintain the status quo in terms of political-economy. It expresses deep concerns not just about the international environment but about ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity, about social welfare programmes that empower the poor, about women’s right to control their bodies and equality across sexes, about equality for gay and lesbian people, and about a host of other things. None of this should surprise us. Republicans claim to be conservatives and so the fact that they want to conserve things is hardly shocking. It is, I’ll suggest, this attitude more than any specific policy stance that ties together the disparate dynamics of Republicanism in this new century. Those who subscribe to the Republican order look on the world with a mixture of concern and fear. The see threats from “terrorists” everywhere. They see threats to society and to religion and to culture in linguistic diversity and gay equality and ethnic diversity. What unites Republicans is their desire to resist these changes, perhaps even to “turn back the clock” in some instances.

Let us be fair to this perspective. The proponents of “homeland security” in the United States have the moral upper hand, and this is something that the American and Canadian left (or, even liberal voices in Canada and the United States) have been very slow to recognize, if they recognize it at all. Here is the truth: it is very hard to argue against “security”. The proponents of homeland security in the US have the upper hand because, frankly, it is completely legitimate to be concerned about security. It is completely legitimate to want one’s family to be safe; to want to be able to travel to other countries in peace and quiet; to want our kids to be able to walk down the street. In my view, there is nothing wrong with these concerns and these desires. The “homeland security” agenda of the American Republicans works with these legitimate desires. The Democrats in the US and Canadian critics of Republicanism have tended to dismiss these desires and concerns as they were Republican tricks: a way of duping the population. They aren’t. A lot of Americans vote Republican -- and have voted Republican -- not because they are a bunch of hicks and rednecks but because the desire for peace and security is legitimate and the Republicans are the only ones talking about it.

Republicans have also had the upper hand over the last eight years or so because their opponents have not been able to answer the “what if” question. I can say all I want that there are no imminent threats to the US from terrorists or, if their are, there are better ways of dealing with them than building security fences and militarizing the Canadian/American border. But ... what if? What if I am wrong? Is it worth the chance? This is not just a 9/11 issue. This is an issue that seems to go directly to the heart of concerns about security and safety. What if I am wrong? Someone dies. The opponents of Republicanism have, until recently, failed to make their case before the American public because they cannot just reject the security agenda as a so much political smoke and because it makes them look crass. It makes them look like they are playing with people’s lives or, at least, not doing all they can to protect people’s lives.

What those of us who oppose the current American government’s security agenda need to do, then, is several things. First, we need to acknowledge the moral power of the security agenda argument. It is not just political smoke but plays into legitimate concerns about the welfare people’s families, homes, and communities. Second, they also need to acknowledge the power of the “what if” argument and address it. They only way they can do this is by: (1) articulating an alternative vision that addresses these concerns, (2) expose the weaknesses of the security agenda arguments, and (3) put forward a series of specific policy recommendations that can implement that alternative vision. I’ll deal with the international ramifications of an alternative vision in a future post. For now let me comment very briefly on the weakness of the the Republican position and the need for an alternative vision.

There are serious problems with the Republican vision. On some points Chomsky is right. One key problem with the security agenda is that it cannot deliver the goods. The Republicans have had uncontested control of the American federal government (until recently) since the election of Bush (they had control of both Houses of Congress before that). Is the US a safer place today than it was before? I’m not asking for miracles here. I know that good policy takes time to implement and that results take time to show. In fact, I’m going to argue precisely the need for long-term solutions when I address foreign policy in another post. But ... after six years of uncontested control of government we would expect to see some results. Consider the comparator case: Chretien in Canada from 1993 to 1999. This was hardly a perfect government but by 1999 we clearly saw some results: the national deficit had been eliminated; modest repayments on the national debt had started to be made, new policies had been introduced to address the separatist movement in Quebec (whether one likes these policies or not); there had been a massive re-organize of the government bureaucracy; unemployment had modestly declined and inflation was low. This is not an exhaustive list and one can have whatever opinion one wants on these things. The point is not whether or not these were good policies. The point is that by the criteria that they had set for themselves, Chretien’s administration had used its control over government to implement its agenda and results were showing.

The same thing cannot be said for the Bush administration. Its domestic policies have not reduced poverty, they have not made the American streets safer, they have not protected American allies internationally or produced the type of “regime change” the current administration might like to see, or defeated the “axis of evil.” The American economy is no more stable today than it was six years ago; in fact, the massive debt created by Bush’s “war on terror” and “regime change” policies are in the process of creating serious long-run problems. A greater percentage of Americans do not have health care today than was the case six years ago. There have been no improvements is quality of education or standard of living. Ecological problems are, if anything, worse.

None of this is intended as criticism of Bush and his administration. It is intended to point out the weakness of the Republican agenda: it fails to produce effective policies that address the very legitimate concerns and desires that it embraced (security, in particular) in the first place. Said differently: the Bush administration is a policy failure. They may have some of the right issues but they simply don’t have the pragmatic policies that can make a difference. The Republican vision -- however this might actually be defined -- is, for the average American, compromised in practice.

I think that this is one of the messages of the American mid-term elections. These elections were not just a “referendum on Iraq.” They were a referendum on the Republican vision. Americans looked at this vision and did not (if polls can be believed) completely reject it. Instead, they raised concerns about the ability of Republicans do make their world -- and the world -- a better place. This is how I would interpret this election. It is an expression, on the part of a fairly wide section of working and middle class America, that there are problems with Republicanism. These Americans voted to put a break on the current administration. They did not vote for simplistic solutions. I doubt they believe there are any. What they voted for was something different. It is up to the Democratic Party to articulate what that might be and to concrete policies to make their vision a reality.

Is There Nothing Good to Talk About?

The national media (in the plural) want controversy. Coverage of the Liberal leadership campaign is but one example. At different points, journalists have tried to generate this controversy by following Michael Ignatieff around (as best they can) and reporting his quick turns of phrase on this issue or that. At other times, they've become enamoured with Bob Rae's sound bite complaints about George Bush (targeted at Ignatieff). I can understand why journalists seek out controversy. It seems exciting. It seems to make a good story. And, its easy to report. The problem with controversy-based coverage, however, is that it is often superficial and rarely does much to illuminate the issues at hand. Look at Peter MacKay's "dog" comment/gesture. Journalists get caught up in the question "is MacKay lying?" And "did he really say something so crassly inappropriate?" Unfortunately, in that instance, the wider issue relating to gender (cuts to Status of Women) was lost in the crossfire. What's the effect? Well, the effect is that we have a really important issue (government cuts to institutions that are designed to promote equality) lost amid a slew of dog jokes. Unintentionally, the media helped to distract attention from a key issue related to Canadians conception of themselves: our commitment to equality and our willingness to put "our money where our mouths are" by financing programmes that promote and support equal rights.

The controversy surround Ignatieff's equally (ir not more) comments this summer about the bombing of Lebanon and his quick one-liner about war crimes fall into the same category. Was the bombing of Qana a war crime? Who cares what we call it. Making a civilian population suffer because terrorists happen to live among them is wrong. In fact, its more than wrong, it morally bankrupt. And, if anyone does not believe that saturation bombing of civilian residences will not produce civilian deaths ... I've got a bridge to PEI to sell you.

Instead of talking about this issue, however, journalists became interested in the "war crimes" language itself. Ignatieff should not have used this and, if this guy is going to be the leader of a major political party, it is about time he realized that off the cuff comments are dumb. What was lost sight of in this, however, is far more important: what type of foreign policy is the Liberal Party -- potentially soon to return to government -- going to have? Here is stuff that is not being generally discussed in the media but which is pretty darned important.

Let me shift examples lest anyone think I'm just bagging on Ignatieff. What type of foreign policy would Bob Rae promote? For all Rae's quick anti-Americanism and distaste of George Bush there is an important issue to be discussed: Canada's relationship with the US. It is too each for someone to say "we need to stand up to the Americans", "we need to chart our own course", "we need to resist the Bush agenda." Who can't disagree with that? Those catch phrases -- perhaps with a little bit of linguistic modification -- can play in any party. Imagine yourself in a room with a bunch of Conservatives and you happen to say "Canada needs to look after its own interests." Is anyone going to disagree with you? Harper said exactly these same things in debates over the softwood lumber dispute. And, make no bones about it, whatever you think of Harper's solution, he thought and thinks he is acting in the best interests of Canada. The issue, then, is not saying "I will put Canada first". Of course you will, I want to say, back. You'd have no chance of getting elected if you did otherwise. Imagine someone running for election saying "I will put Canada's interests second." What chances do you think they would have?

The issue, of course, is what this means in practice. What does putting Canada first actually mean? What policy options does it entail? Does it involve modifications to trade agreements? Does it involve changing border security? Does it involve sticking to Kyoto commitments? And, if so, how are those commitments going to actually be implemented.

From my point of view, I don't want to hear potential leaders of the country saying "I will put Canada first." I take that as a precondition of running for leadership in Canada. I want to hear what that will actually mean, for Arctic sovereignty, with regard to our levels of foreign aid, with regard to the security of international and jointly managed water supplies, and with regard to a host of other measures. Controversy takes the focus off these kinds of important questions and focuses it, instead, on other, less substantial issues. Peter MacKay referred to Belinda Stronach as a dog. What's more important is his party's cuts to Status of Women. Ignatieff called bombing civilians a "war crime." You might think it is; you might not. The important issue is not his language but what would he do if he were PM. Maybe we could have some reporting on that?

Social Democracy and Foreign Policy

Canadian socialism has been dead for a long time, perhaps since the Winnipeg Declaration. There are still socialists in Canada, to be sure, b but the forefront of leftist politics long ago moved away from socialism to something called social democracy. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Social democracy is in some ways more inclusive than socialism, which was (in practice) economistic in its politics. Social democracy, as now practiced by the New Democratic Party, is more inclusive of a range of different subject positions and more attuned to the differential dynamics of power as these play out in terms of gendered, ethnic, and class, among others things, terms. One area where social democracy falls down, however, lies in its conception of Canadian foreign policy. From what I can tell, the public stands taken by the NDP leadership on foreign policy issues smack of 1960s left nationalism, more than anything else. There was a lot to be said for 1960s style left nationalism. As an historical development, it played an important role in alerting Canadians to the problems of dependent economic development, neo-colonialism, and the problems of the polarized international politics of the Cold War era. We now live in a different era and, because of this, social democrats need to rethink their foreign policy. The question is: in what ways?

Foreign policy is a big issue. Let's not believe that it can be reduced to slogans or flag waving anti-Americanism. What I'll do in this blog is consider the issue of Canadian/American relations and sketch out what I see as a way in which social democrats could approach this issue. Here are some basic considerations.

First, the relationship to the United States is and will continue to be very important to Canada. There is nothing for Canadians or social democrats to gain by riding the anti-American train. Anti-American slogans make good copy. The Bush government is mired in the worst foreign policy disasters since the Viet Nam War and so its also easy. Being anti-American sounds good and puts on one the side of an international consensus (with a few exceptions). Yet, it should be avoided precisely because of this. Good copy and easy slogans don't accomplish very much. One might want the US to rethink the Bush Doctrine. I do. By further criticism of Bush is not going to accomplish this. What Canadians and social democrats need to do is think about the nature of Canadian goals with regard to the US. Canadians and social democrats should abandon anti-American discourse and adopt a new discourse. This should be a discourse of difference and engagement. Instead of responding to US policy initiatives, a social democratic policy platform should take the initiative and try to put items on the agenda for consideration in terms of bi-lateral relations. What should these things be? The list is long but I'd be tempted to focus less on economic issues and more on social issues.

In this regard, a social democratic foreign policy platform should include a plank on constructive engagement with the US in several important areas. (1) Recognition of Canadian same-sex marriages (2) a targeted series of goals with regard to delivering free AIDS/HIV medications to the third world (3) encourage to the United States to "sign on" to the International Court of Criminal Justice.

Second, and following from the first, Canadians and social democrats need to re-assess the Canadian/American border as a point of interchange between our two countries. The policy of the Canadian government has followed with regard to American homeland security doctrines has been to seek exceptions to American policies for Canada and Canadians. It is, in short, an effort to maintain the now long-dead "special relationship" that flourished between Canada and the US in the post WW II era. I'd be so bold as to suggest that the special relationship was right for the time. It no longer is. Canada and the US necessarily have to deal with each other daily. Of necessity we will have a close relationship. This does not mean that we should, of necessity, attempt to find ways to exempt Canadians from US border controls. The US has a right to be concerned about its border. I think their concerns about the Canadian border are way overblown but it is the right of the American government to have those concerns. Instead of attempting to create exemptions, we should work on ways to facilitate Canadian compliance with American standards while implementing our own. Canadians, to be frank, are no threat to Americans, never have been and never will be. Showing that is the best way to demonstrate it. If the US wants Canadians to have passports, let's work on that while considering forms of ID we require. Canadian consulates the foreign affairs bureaucracy can work on ensuring that all Canadians meet these documentation standards.

Third, let's also start to push a wider agenda. That agenda may not be popular with certain sectors of the US population so Canadians and social democrats will need to accept this and allow a long lead time. My bet, however, is that in the longer run Americans will be willing to by into a new cross border and North American agenda. What might this agenda entail. I'll say a whole bunch of things but it should entail common (and high) standards for environmental protection and working conditions as well as gender equality and religious freedom. Right now, Canada and the US along with Mexico have established some sort of system of trading relations through NAFTA. Let's begin the process of establishing similar systems in other areas. Canadians don't like talks of integration with the US because they feel that it will result in downward policy harmonization on things like health care, gender equity, and ecological standards (among other things). It need not. Canada never has to accept any agreement with the US and Mexico but why not see what will actually go on. We can establish (in Canada) certain core principles that will not be "surrendered" in negotiations. These might include socialized medicine and protection for domestic culture. But, I don't see why negotiations need to be thought of in terms of give and take (we'll give you access to our health and culture markets in return for ...). Why not, instead, try to establish minimum standards, say, with regard to workplace safety and social commitments to gender equity. Canada can go above that, if it choses by why not work on this issue and work on a mechanism to enforce it.

Finally, let's bump up our cultural exchanges with the US, particularly in the sphere of education. Let's create meaningful educational exchanges that allow Canadians and Americans to talk to each other. I would not mind teaching in the US for a year. It would provide me with a learning opportunity and a chance to talk to Americans about how Canadians view certain issues. The reverse is true, too. Dialogue is the key to an effective future together.

Now, let me be clear, all of this is not possible right now. Some of it might not be possible in the long run. But, social democrats need to think about the nature of Canada's foreign relations if they ever hope to form a government. And, the first thing to think about is Canada's relationship with the US. Our question here should not be to oppose Bush or Republicans or the US but to enter into a series of constructive relations that expand the realm of freedom and work to promote peace, social justice, and ecological security. One can wonder about my priorities. Fair enough, but I think they do that. My focus on the recognition of Canadian same-sex marriage is intended to do precisely that. Same sex marriage is a social democratic issue because its recognition expands the realm of freedom, promotes equality, and is just. Rather than lamenting US opposition to it, let's start with something practical and concrete. The US recognizes Canadian straight marriages. Let's work toward recognition of same-sex marriages in the same. I'd make the same case for the other points I've noted. One might disagree, but the general policy I think: constructive engagement in defense of social democratic principles is the groundwork upon which a new Canadian foreign policy can be built.

By Implication

Economic sanctions have an odd history that seems to be tied up very closely with political ideology. During the days of the anti-aparthied campaigns, British PM Margaret Thatcher refused to impose sanctions on South Africa because, she said, it would hurt the very people who were struggling to be free. This sentiment, however, was quickly forgotten when it came to the Soviet Bloc. Sanctions of various sorts were OK against states the good be identified clearly as Cold War enemies, regardless of the effect it might have on their populations, the very people struggling to be free. The US government under Bush rejected sanctions against Iraq, even while maintaining them, and opted for more direct military intervention because sanctions, we were told, did not work. Others, however, blamed sanctions for anti-American feeling in Iraq and elsewhere because, they said, sanctions hurt -- indeed killed -- the people while leaving the totalitarian state of Hussein intact.

With this odd set of shifting views of sanctions, therefore, the idea that the United Church of Canada would ask that some form of sanction -- what the General Counsel is calling a boycott -- be imposed against Israel or companies benefiting from the Israeli occupation of west bank, is interesting. More interesting, still, is the reaction of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) to the United Church's call and potential divestment from companies benefitting from the occupation. I listened to CBC this evening as a represented of the CJC said that the United Church's call for a boycott was an attack on Israel, therefore, by implication, an attack on Canadian groups that support Israel, therefore, by implication, an attack on all Jews. Here is my view: (1) I'm glad the United Church is showing some leadership on this issue. International pressure needs to be brought to bear on Israel to end its occupation of Palenstian terrorities and to win its support for a two state solution to the Palenstian problem with which Israel deals. And (2) the CJC's position is absurd, silly and the worst kind of "you're either with us or against us" politics. If this is the best the CJC has to offer in opposition the idea of a boycott -- if you are in favour of international pressure in favour of a Palestinian homeland you hate Canadian jews -- then there is not much of an argument against a boycott.

Let's be clear about a number of points. First, there will be no meaningful peace in the middle east until there is a functional and effective and independent Palestinian state. The alternative is continued terrorism, support for extremist solutions (on both sides), spiraling military budgets and arms trades, and hatred. Only a two state solution can guarantee Israel's security and the security of its population. To oppose actions designed to promote a Palestinian homeland then -- the position the CJC seems to be taking -- is actually (and interestingly) to oppose peace and security for Israel and its people. To oppose steps to promote a two state solution is to condemn Israel to on-going conflict. The fact that the CJC can't seem to see this -- or, at least this is the tenor of the statements made in its name on CBC -- is odd and shows a failure of serious analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

Second, opposition to Israel occupation of the west bank is not an attack on Canadian Jews. It just isn't. Attacks on Canadian Jews are committed against Canadian Jews. Criticism of a foreign state and calls for boycotts of business doing business with foreign states are not attacks on Canadians. Think of a comparable situation. It would have been like saying "if you oppose what the Russian government has done in Chechnyan, you hate Russian Canadians." The fact that the CJC spokesperson required a logic framed by "by implication" illustrates that he understood how tenuous his logic was.

What is even more disturbing, however, was that the CJC's spokesperson ignored the actual resolution that was under consideration. The resolution affirms the Church's support for Israel, its right to exist, and is constructed around the idea of promoting lasting peace and security. In ignoring what the resolution said, the spokesperson made it seem like an anti-Israeli resolution. In his effort, then, to explain how this resolution was somehow anti-Israeli, the spokesman had to ignore what the resolution was actually about.

Third, I don't know whether a boycott is the right or wrong solution but the United Church General Conference is courageous spiritual body. I respect them for trying to work toward a solution that promotes peace in the Middle East, peace, security and justice for Israelis and Palestinians. There are people who question the right of Israel to exist. This resolution -- rightly! -- does not do that. Supporting Israel does not, however, mean being uncritical of its government's policy, particularly policies that can bring so much pain to Israelis and Palestinians. Instead of reacting against a programme for peace -- which might or might not be an effective programme -- the CJC should contribute to it. Telling those of us who believe in peace that believing in peace is, by implication, an assault on Jewish Canadians does not help.

Canada and the Mid-East Crisis

In my last post, I argued that Israel's attack on Lebanon was misguided and counterproductive. Its end result could not be to build the peace that everyone claims to want. Instead, it could only perpetuate the problems that exist. In the very, very short run. The destruction of infrastructure in southern Lebanon -- civilian and Hezbollah -- might succeed in its objectives. It is important to remember, however, that Hezbollah has launched more rockets at northern Israel as a result of this invasion that were launched before it. If one of the objectives of this attack was to stop rockets from falling on northern Israel then this attack is an utter failure because it has had the exact opposite effect. In my view, Canadians should understand what it going on in Lebanon. That is the reason I wrote the blog. They need to understand what is going on so they can make the better decisions about what Canada should do with regard to this conflict. If they begin their analysis from the wrong point. They will not be able to produce the grounds for a positive engagement with the situation.

Canada also has an interest in this conflict for several reasons. First, there is a Canadian reason for Canada to be interested in seeing a resolution to this conflict. There is a large Canadian population in Lebanon. All of it is civilian. And, it is being hurt by this conflict. Because the state exists to product its citizens and realize their aspirations, Canada need to be involved in this conflict because Canadian citizens are -- against their will -- involved in this conflict. Second, Canada needs to be involved in finding a resolution to this conflict for humanitarian reasons. Third, Canada should be involved in this conflict because Canada can contribute to a resolution. Said differently there are domestic, humanitarian, and political reasons why Canada should be involved. I'm not naive. We would all like Canada to be playing a positive role on the world stage in every conflict or problem that occurs. There are, I think, good reasons for Canada not to be involved in some conflicts or problems. Canada should not, for example, have been involved in the second Gulf War the invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example. There were few Canadians involved at all and there was little or nothing Canada could actually have done to improve the situation that was about to unfold in Iraq. Some people, for instance, argued that Canada should have joined the coalition to displace Saddam Hussein. Why? There was nothing that Canada could have contributed to make that coalition more effective, even if Canadians were supportive of it. It is laudable that people want Canada involved everywhere but, in situations where Canadian involvement cannot help -- and might actually hurt as in Somalia -- Canada should decide to stay out. This strikes me as a reasonable argument Canada should be involved in international problems where it has a capacity to help.

What can Canada do in Lebanon. Several things. First, we can get Canadians out of the war zone and as many other people as we can. Some folks have been upset at Canada's efforts to help move people from Lebanon. I've heard friends say "some of these people aren't really Canadian." They might be Canadians on paper, but they have lived outside the country for twenty or thirty years. Or, they are relatives of Canadians. Why, some of my friends have asked, should our tax dollars go to help these people when they are not really Canadians and don't have any loyalty to Canada. The answer is simple because we can. Let's think about this. Do you want to go to bed at night knowing that you decided not to help someone when you could. Canada cannot help everyone, to be sure, but that is not a good reason to help no one. Let us do what we can. Let us help preserve and protect civilians. On this count, the Canadian government is doing the right thing.

Second, Canada can -- and should -- apply whatever diplomatic pressure we can on Israel and Hezbollah to stop the fighting. This includes not simply saying "Israel has a right to protect itself" or "everyone should stop firing at each other." It should involve using diplomatic pressure to suggest solutions to the problem. This means, setting this conflict it t he wider context that gave rise to it. Rather than simply stating that Israel has a right to defend itself, we also need to assert need for a solution to the whole issue of Israeli-Arab relations. This will entail a recognition of an independent Palestinian state; the release of political prisoners; disarming of independent militias; the promotion of cross-national cultural and educational exchanges; support for rebuilding civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and in the occupied territories. In addition, Israel will need to leave the Golan Heights and this territory will need to be returned to Syria. Finally, Canada needs to carry this wider context to international bodies. To keep it on the agenda at the UN, at the Arab League and with our allies in the west, including the US. In response to this conflict, Canada should assert its commitment to seeing a two-state solution work that provides for the peace and security of both Israel and the population of the occupied territories. We also need to work with countries that we don't normally work with. We need to be in contact with Nordic countries, peace movements, African and Asian and Latin American countries to get their active support for this solution.

Now, I recognize that some reading this list might say "your list is just a list of things that Israel should do; you are putting the burden of peace on Israel." I think this would be a fair assessment. I am. Israel is the most powerful state in the region. It is the country that is occupying territories that are not its own. It is the country that has destroyed civilian infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon. No one should take this as a moral statement on my part. Indeed, I think that trying to figure out "who is to blame" is a recipe for continued fighting. What Israel gets back from any "concessions" it makes, in my view, will repay them. By helping develop civilian infrastructure an independent Palestine and to rebuild in Lebanon, Canada will help alleviate one of the reasons for this conflict massive socio-economic disparities. Israel views -- and have viewed -- groups like Hezbollah as terrorists. If this is the case, we need to ask, why do so many ordinary people support them? Ordinary people -- no matter who they are -- don't support terrorism., Why is Hezbollah so popular. Part o f the answer is that it provide infrastructure.

I'll close with a comment on cultural and educational exchanges. This might sound like a wimpy, feel good, throw in, but its not. Canada could offer itself as neutral territory. A place where Palestinians, Lebanese, supporters of Hezbollah, and Israelis can come together to meet each other and work with each other and learn about each other. By doing so, they can begin to bridge generations long antagonism. They can learn about each other's differences and human-ness. And, I think, about their common desires.

There is, then, a lot Canada can do. It has started to do one thing remove civilians from the war zone. It should, now, direct its attention to others. It should begin with a strong statement about an overall solution as something that is needed to everyone involved in this conflict can realize their aims. That solution is a two state solution with an end to military occupation of all occupied territories. In addition, Canada should begin to consider what humanitarian, educational, medical, etc., aid it will provide to the civilian populations affected by this conflict. Our ambassadors should begin to talk about this solution to our allies and those with whom we don't normally work and we should raise it at the UN. Finally, we should develop programmes that bring former combatants together in Canada. This won't solve the problem. But it will be a progressive start and it is something that Canada can do.

Israel and Lebanon Part Two

The on-going conflict between Israel and Hezbollah raises several questions, not the least of which is: what should Canada do? I can't claim to be an expert on the most recent conflict in the Middle East but several points need to be born in mind when considering this issue. I'll write another blog about what Canada could or should do. In this one, I want to make a few points by way of clarifying what is actually going on in Lebanon and some points we should bear in mind as the "internatioal community" looks for solutions to the current conflict.

First, we need to disregard conspiracy theories with regard to the origins of this conflict. The current one -- which I heard on both CBC radio and CTV Newsnet -- is that Iran has actually triggered this conflict, ordering what the talking heads at Think Tanks view as its Hezbollah puppet to attack Israel in order to "get the heat off" Iran itself. The cause of the conflict, then, this argument runs lies not in the conflict in Israel, nor in determinations made by Hezbollah but in Iran which is manipulating international events in order to avoid having to answer for its supposed nuclear weapons development programmes. In my view, the only people who will embrace this theory are those people who already believe there is an international conspiracy of "bad guys" out there. Let me be clear on my view: the people making these statements really do believe there is an international conspiracy against Israel and the United States. They really do believe that the leadership of Iran engineered this crisis so it could carry out its own more nefarious plans and build weapons of mass destruction. The fact that they believe this, in my view, tells us more about their perception of the world than it does about the reality of what is going on in Israel and Lebanon.

Second, in the first day, I believe, of this conflict, the government of Israel said that it would hold the government of Lebanon to account for Hezbollah using Lebanese territory as a base. This is, of course, the same type of logic in which the Palestinian Authority was held to account for the actions of Palestinian terrorists. Its a bogus logic. The objective is to find some government -- some authority -- that can hold the actions of non-state based militias to account and curb their actions. It won't work. Anyone who knows anything about the capacity of either the current Lebanese state or the Palestinian Authority when it was run by Yassr Arafat, knows that neither had the ability to control these militias. What the government of Israel is trying to do is to make a state-based solution work in a situation where key actors are not state based, the existing states (or, political authorities) lack the capacity to impose their will on these groups, and have no moral influence over them. The problem here is not that the demands of the Israeli govenrment are unreasonable. The problem is that their solution won't work because it can't work. The mechanisms required to make it work just are not in place. The same thing applies to the governments of Syria and Iran. Neither of these governments really has the ability to control Hezbollah or other Islamicist groups. The fact that they might be sympathetic to them says nothing about their ability to control the actions of non-Syrians and non-Iranians.

We have an historical example that helps us understand the sheer folly of this position. For a variety of reasons, the Israeli and American governments lost confidence in Yassr Arafat and the Al Fatah faction of the PLO, which had been running the Palestinian Authority. They refused to discuss issues with them, refused to hold the types of serious talks that were needed to end the conflicts in the region, refused to compromise on land issues. Palestian Authority infrastructure was destroyed; civilian lives disrupted. What happened? Did the rejection of Al Fatah and its displaced from its leadership position help the cause of peace? Did the Palestinian Authority embrace the political position of Israel? Or, was the result the election of a government that Israel and the US liked even less?

Third, the government of Israel believes that military action will ensure either peace and the return of kidnapped soldiers, or both. In reality, it will do neither. Let's say Israel gets its soldiers back. What happens next? Has the root cause of the conflict gone away? Has the social inequality and prejudice that drives violence in the region been somehow replaced by the good will and trust needed to build a meaningful peace? Can Hezbollah be cowed by civilian deaths in Lebanon? Will civilian deaths in Lebanon help build Arab confidence in and support for Israel? Let me ask you this: if you were an ordinary Lebanese citizen, and your son or daughter were killed by an Israeli bomb -- "collatoral damage" in an attack on a Hezbollah base -- would you like or dislike the people who ordered that bomb to be dropped? The long range prognosis for the use of force as a diplomatic tool is not good. In my view, the only thing it can succeed in doing is continuing the armed camp that is that region of the world?

We have an historical example here, too, to which we can turn for some help in thinking about these issues. In 1982, the government of Israel -- upset at PLO attacks from Lebanon on northern Israel -- invaded Lebanon and occupied about half the country, ultimately withdrawing to a "security zone" in the south. What was the result? Did it bring peace? Obviously not; the same conflict is going on. A generation later, most people seem to have forgotten the long, hard, and painful occupation of Lebanon; the violence it brought with it and the continual attacks on Israeli soldier patrolling in that region. The Intefada began. Israel soldiers now found themselves facing not the PLO but youths throwing bottles. One might find it necessary to fight and kill a member of a group you consider to be a terrorist organization, but shooting kids heaving rocks in the street is another matter. Israel's international reputation suffered horribly in these years. And, not because of anti-semitism but because ordinary people don't like to see soldiers shoot kids heaving rocks in the street. If history is any guide, then, this incursion will produce the same results. Israel's security will not be enhanced -- particularly that of its civilian population which is the most susceptible to terror attacks -- good will we get in even shorter supply; still more radical leaders (on all sides) will gain a hearing; and ordinary people will die with no prospect of peace on the horizon. History does not provide an optimistic picture of this course of action or the probable results of this conflict.

Finally, it seems to me that finger pointing is a counter-productive exercise. Watching the news tonight on CTV, I listened to US President George W. Bush say that Hezbollah was entirely to blame because its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers provoked this situation. Let me say clearly that I don't think a long, simmering conflict that dates back now at least two generations can be reduced to a one sentence sound bite in terms of causality. There is, in my view, more than enough blame to go around. And, blaming one particular "side" does not solve the problem. In fact, I hazzard a guess that the only thing Mr. Bush's comments did was to ensure in the minds of Palestinians that the US is not supportive of their autonomy. The only thing Mr. Bush's comments likely did was to convince Palestinians and Lebanese that the US government does not care about their civilian deaths, about the arrests of elected governments, about incursions into the territory of sovereign states, about arab poverty, displacement and homelessness. I'm not, btw, blaming the US or Israel for this situation. I'm just saying that blaming others alone while ignoring history is not a sure fire path to a solution.

What we have here, then, is a situation in which the wrong people are being blamed or one side is being singled out, history is being ignored, and the proposed solutions will not work because the basic premises on which they are founded are false. Overall, then, a new approach is needed. The issue for we Canadians is can we help provide that new approach.

Because I can ....

Cartoons cause strife, violent protests, flag burnings, threats. It seems upsetting and unreal, at least to those of us who have little more than a passing familiarity with Islam. A western Canadian journalist -- the conservative cheer leader Ezra Levant -- decided to publish these cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in order, he says, to stand up for free speach and freedom of the press. Should we laud his defense of principle? Should we condemn his insensitivity? I'd really llike to say "I don't think we should do either because I have a different way of explaining this issue that will bring something new to the subject we have not read before." I hope I actually do have something different to say on this subject. But, I can't say "I don't think we should do either" on the question of whether or not we should laud or condemn this man. I think we should condemn Levant's insensitivity and disregard the false and hypocritical defense of freedom of the press behind which he is trying to stand. Let me be blunt: this man is publishing these cartoons because he can; not because there is any great principle at stake. Let me explain this, explain why insenstivity is a problem and not some sort of bugagoo paraded about weak-kneed lefties, and then suggest what we can see in all of this that is good because, for Canadians at least, there is a lot of good that has come out of this cartoon-triggered strife.

Freedom of the press: is freedom of speach be any more secure in Canada after these cartoons are published? If you answer no (and I think anyone who is honest will have to answer no), then publishing the cartoons accomplished nothing to defend freedom of speach. The best this journalist can now claim is that his defense of freedom of speach is a complete and unmitigated failure because he did not succeed in making it any more sound. If he had done nothing -- if Levant had not put one single cartoon in his paper -- we would be in the exact same situation we are now with regard to freedom of the press. And, this is the absolutely best claim he can make on his own behalf. That's it. If he had done nothing, we would be no better or worse off. But, there isa more important question: was freedom of speach in Canada threatened in the first place? Were the rights of journalists to cover public policy, report on leaders' actions, critically discuss the issues before the Canadian public, mock leaders should they so chose, threatened? Seriously. If one is going to argue that they are going to defend freedom of speach they have to believe that it is under some sort of threat. If so, what is that threat? Let's not make things up. Let's look at the track record. Judging from the last election and the lampooning Martin and co took, freedom of the press seams alive and well in Canada. No one tried to stop Levant from publishing those cartoons. In fact, Levant is on my TV set almost every week explain his views so he has not be silenced by any of this. So where does this leave us? Well, what we have is a person rushing to defend a principle that was not under threat and having absolutely no effect any way because that principle that he sought to defend did not need defending.

Ah ... someone might say ... freedom of speach is threatened. Look at what has gone on in Lebanon or Syria. OK, how would publishing these cartoons in Canada help defend freedom of speach in Lebanon or Syria or Denmark for that matter? I can't see how it would. I have read no stories about how Lebanese and Syrians and Danes have been rushing to the local Canadian embassy to thank Canadians for the actions in letting this journalist publish pictures that they considered blasphemous. Maybe free of speach needs defending somewhere else. Maybe it needs defending in Syria or Denmark. Truth be told, I don't really know. But is publishing these cartoons in Canada going to do anything to defend it? Can any reasonable person claim that an expected result of publishing these cartoons in Canada is that it will promote freedom of the press in Syria or Lebanon, say? I'm not joking. This is what Levant would have us believe if he is going to have us believe that he publishing these cartoons to fight the good fight for freedom of the press. He would have us believe that his actions have made freedom of the press in Canada more secure when it was completely secure and under absolutely no threat. Or, he would have us believe that he has stepped into the line and defended freedom of the press in other parts of the world by publishing his cartoons in Canada. The truth of the matter is that he didn't defend freedom of the press in Lebanon or Syria or anywhere else. In fact, his actions did nothing to help freedom of the press anywhere. The only thing he did was show how insensitive he is, how uncaring of other people's religious believes and how arrogant he is to believe his believes are so important that he can most other people's religion and not care. In my view, it is pretty sad when someone does mocks a religion and doesn't care. Sadder still when they try to tell us that they are doing so in the name of a grand principle. Freedom of the press is a vitally important principle for a democratic society. It is upsetting that a guy like Levant can pervert it for his own self gratification.

Let's be frank here. Levant published those cartoons because he could. He chose to publish them in Canada where freedom of the press is so well protected already that he is save and secure. He can take a quick, cheap shot at Islam -- and this is what he did -- dress it up in a principle and nothing will happen to him. If he really believed he were defending freedom of the press he would have gone to some place where freedom of the press actually needed defending and done something to defend it. He didn't. He chose to stay where he was save and take his cheap shot and, folks, that's cowardice. Its not defense of some grand principle. It is the definition of childish grandstanding because, like any grandstanding child, he knows there are no repercussions to his actions. The truth of the matter, then, is that these cartoons were going to be put into print in Canada for no good reason. He published them, because he could and for no other reasons.

Here is where I stand on this issue -- and, folks, write against me if you don't like what I have to say:

1. I respect religion. I don't always agree with what a particular pastor or rabbi, etc., says but I don't think we need to mock religious views and I don't think we need to insult them for no good reason. If we, in Canada, lived in a country where religion was being mobilized to repress the population, OK, we might resort to less civil means of engagement. We don't live in such a country so we can believe polite in our disagreements.

2. I'm not a big fan of cheap shots at someone else's expense. This is what Levant did. He could have defended freedom of speach, for instance, by opening his newspaper to someone like me who would disagree with him. IOW, if he truly wanted to defend speach, he had other means at his disposal.

3. I think we missed an opportunity to promote intercultural understanding. This would have been a great chance for non-muslims to learn about Islam. We'd all walk away a bit more informed, a bit richer in temrs of our understanding of fellow Canadians, and we could have accomplished htat through the educational system. We had a chance to promote national unity, IOW, that we missed. Levant could have promoted this, by the way, too, by running long columns explaining different facets of Islam (or, even points of theological debate within it and then extended this to other spiritual traditions but, again, he chose not to).

There is good news in all this, however. Here it is:

1. Most journalists in Canada chose not to take the same cheap shot. I shoot down The Globe all the time do kudos on this one. The Globe published a number of stories on this issue explaining the news and even explaining in text the cartoons. Those found an ethical way to report on the issue.

2. Islamic Canadians deserve kudos as well. Rather than falling for the Muslim baiting in which journalists like Levant engaged, they behave ... well, like responsible Canadians as we would expect they would because they are responsible Canadians. Islamic Canadians used all the standard channels of liberal democracy to express their concerns, they tried to education non-Muslim Canadians -- IOW, they used the opportunity of these events as a chance for dialogue.

3. Finally, Canadians in general behaved well on this issue.

This type of responsible behaviour (from journalists, religious Canadians and Canadians in general) is the type of stuff that builds national unity and maintains the strength of our democracy. This is the good news in all this.

A Canadian Future

The Globe and Mail is reporting that the new Conservative government is going to cancel the Liberals national day care deal. The Liberals only worked out a national day care deal out of a desparate hope that they might hold on to power. I simply don't believe that Paul Martin who, as Finance Minister, engineered the most grevious cuts ever made to the welfare state, suddenly realized his true self and moved to defend, even expand, it. Sure, there are left wing Liberals. Sure, there is a solid rationale in liberal political theory for supporting a national day care plan. None of this, however, had much play before the Liberal Party found itself in a minority position in the federal legislature. But ... at least we finally had a national day care plan that would pump millions, perhaps even billions into childcare. Canadians could finally say we had put our money where out mouth is, stood up for children, and stood up for families. The Conservatives don't see matters this way. They think the that families with child care givers at home should be subsidized as much as those that need child care outside the home (IOW, need does not matter). At the heart of this cancellation -- if The Globe is right -- is a core conservative value. The traditional family should be supported by the state. The state should do all it can to prevent a redefinition of marriage (reserving the term for straight people only), it should not subsidize day spots because Conservatives (in their heart of hearts don't want people using them), and it should subsidize wherever possible the traditional family.

I make all these points to make anotherone that actually has nothing to do with child care. We can expect the Conservative government of Stephen Harper to act on principle. One might believe that principle was in pretty short supply in the dying days of the Liberal government, and maybe it was. The problem that we will confront is not "will the Conservatives act on principle" but will we Canadians like that principle. I lived in Ontario during the Harris years and, heck, everyone loved his principles ... until they found out what they meant. Tax cuts impoverished the provincial treasury forcing cut backs in health care, education, and shelters for poor and battered people. They simultaneously ensured that the provincial government did not have the cash to deal with the provincial debt and ensured that the federal government did not take their claim to need more money seriously (you cut taxes and ask us to give you more money?). People quickly found out that "back to basics" in education meant that parents had less control over what their kids learned in school. A free market in insurance caused prices to go up. Law and order did not translate into lower crime rates (remember, the Harris government was going to build youth boot camps all over the province) because it does not address the cause of crime and it proceeds from the assumption that the decision to commit a crime is a calculated cost/benefit decision.

None of this was unprincipled. In fact, it was completely in keeping with neo-Conservative principles and I suspect that the neo-Cons who ran Ontario were shocked to discover that tax cuts did not increase provincial revenues. Their ultra capitalist principles said it would. I think they were shocked to discover that there still is crime after they "got tough" because their ideology told them that the reason for crime was social laxness. And ... we could go on, but I will take it that the point has been demonstrated: the issue is not principle, the issue is what the principle is. About half of the people who voted Conservative in the last election said afterward that they did not support Conservative principles, but instead wanted to get rid of the Liberals. Well ... I hate to tell you this: by voting for Conservatives, what you actually get is Conservatives. If you elect a Conservative, that is who goes to Parliament.

For me, a key concern is how the Conservatives will respond to cultural regulation in Canada. Canada's distinct existence as a separate nation in North American -- with vibrant music, tv, and other culture industries -- is ensured by a host of cultural regulations. This includes everything from tax subsidies to movie production companies, to Canadian content legislation, to preserving the National Gallery. It is a lot. What are the Conservatives going to do about this? What does there principle tell them they should do?

Frankly, I don't know. No one talked very much about cultural policy in the last federal election. In fact, no one talked much about anythying other than to tell us over and over again that the Liberals were so corrupt we better vote for someone else regardless of the type of public policies we actually wanted (I find this shocking, by the way: don't vote for what you want in terms of policy vote for what you don't want so you can elect someone with principle who will actually give you want you don't want. This is an odd logic). In the past, conservative thinkers in Canada used to defend the CBC and cultural regulation. It is true: read George Grant if you doubt me. Today, however, they tend to be pro-market, opposed to anything that smacks to them of "special interests" and I suspect that the state regulation of culture will be one of the things that they will go after. I hope not because, frankly, there are good reasons to regulate Canadian culture, not the least of which is to preserve Canada's distinctive national existence in North America. If we don't, the future for Canada is actually pretty bleak. Let's face it folks: if Canadians don't defend Canadian culture, is anyone else going to do it for us? If Canadians don't act in their own interest, do we really expect the US will? Contemporary conservative principle says "the market will protect us" but then, contemporary conservative principles said tax cuts increased provincial revenue, putting bureaucrats in charge of education was "back to the basics" and that cutting health care and safety monitoring was a good risk.

The End of the Civic Nation?

The defeat of the Liberal Party of Canada in the last federal election means a number of things. It might mean, as polls suggest, that a lot of people just wanted a change. This might not be a bad thing although I have never been a fan of change for the sake of change. Let's assume, however, that the election is about something more than change. Let's assume that it is about Canadians' sense of their nation and where they would like to take it in the future. A lot of journalists and some politicians on all side of the campaign will suggest that this election is actuallly not about these things but, put the results together and you get a different picture. What is the key result? It relates not so much to conservativism but to liberalism. This election exposed the weakness of liberalism in Canada, something disguised by the divided oppsition of the 1990s. It is possible that support for the liberal ideal of Canada might be shrinking and this shrinkage seems to be occuring on a number of fronts. Lets add up the balance sheet and see where things stand.

Before doing so, however, let's be clear about what we mean liberalism and the liberal ideal of Canada. The Liberal party of Canada is not just a vote-getting machine. It carries a particular ideology of nation, a particular way of envisioning Canada. Canadian political theorist (and Liberal MP) Michael Ignatieff calls this vision "civic nationalism". We need not go into all the details -- and that would take way too long -- but the key points are this: liberals oppose ethnic nationalism (nationalism based on shared ethnicity, language etc.) not out of a commitment to Canadian unity (although there is that) but because they view ethnic nationalism as inherently problematic, potentially violence, and irrational. A civic nation builds bonds of unity around a commitment to a shared political philosophy that can encompass all citizens regardless of ethnicity. In Canada, the basic commitment has been to liberal virtues (individualism, equality of opportunity, rule of law, etc.). Some people may lament the fact that socialized medicine is one of the key signifiers of Canada but it is perfectly consistent with civic nationalism: the nation is constructed as a particular type of society. Civic nationalism has gone by various names but its key proponet in modern Canada was Pierre Trudeau. The reforms engineered by the Trudeau government were not just a series of things they thought good ideas that they tried implement but a coherent policy that aimed to reorganize the ideal of nation in Canada: defense of the welfare state and regional economic development (promote equality of opportunity), official blingualism and multiculturalism (individualism), the Charter (individualism and rule of law), opposition to the PQ (resistence to ethnic nationalism), and we could go on. To a greater or lesser extent these ideas remained part of the liberal mantra for Canada promoted by the Liberal Party from the late 1960s until today. And, without doubt it enjoyed some popularity among Canadians. The Charter remains wildly popular, as does socialized medicine, majorities support equalization and official bilingualism and multiculturalism have their determined advocates. Etc. This way of looking at Canada never commanded the support of the majority of Canadians because no majority was or is (in my view) ever possible in Canada. But, it did command the support of the largest plurality. Beginning with Trudeau, the Liberal party was in governent from 1968-79; 1980-84; 1993-2006. Thats a good long run.

Yet, one wonders if this ideology might have had its day. First, a good hunk of Quebecers (not the majority but a goodly number) have never signed onto this ideal and continue to support some other ideal of Canada. I'd be so bold as to suggest that despite some measure of success in Quebec in the late 1990s, civic nationalism might be the least popular political view in the province, behind separatism and distinct society (or, dualism). In other parts of the country, more left wing socialistic views have held sway (Halifax, oddly became a bastion of alternative visions of Canada in the 1990s), but the NDP enjoys support in old working class districts like Hamilton and Windsor in Ontario and Winnipeg in Manitoba as well as in the lower mainland of BC. Conservative ideals of Canada have held sway among rural Canadians, particularly in rural southwestern Ontario, Saskatchewan, northern BC and Alberta. The Liberal party has always benefitted from the popular support of the Canadian middle class and it continues to be popular here. It enjoys support in the suburbs of Halifax, in Moncton, Montreal, the GTA, and has actually been increasing its support in Vancouver among other places. Liberalism, then, retains vitality among the Canadian middle class.

Does this vitality disguise weakness. I think it does. I don't think it need be a long-term problem. In a future post I will look at the future of Canadian liberalism. But, what I might suggest is that Paul Martin's more pragmatic brokerage model of liberalism has never done the Liberal party any good. Martin, in fact, abrogated a number of key liberal ideas, demoted key proponents of civic nationalism in his cabient (Stefan Dion comes to mind), turned power over to others whose support for civic nationalism was tenuous (Brison, Lapierre, Stonach) in an effort to broaden the base of his party in the absence of an ideological hook, and played on fear (as opposed to argument) and anti-Americanism to win his points. IOW, Martin was not a fan of civic nationalism and so ditched it from the forefront of the party, much in the manner of John Turner (and, look at what happened to him). Civic natioanlism, then, is not simply challenged by alternative visions (the NDP, for instance, did not really increase its popular vote and the Conservative party could not win a majority despite facing the most corrupt government since John A. Macdonald's Conservatives in the Pacific Scandal era. This is not a ringing endorsement.) but challenged from within by the decay of civic nationalism within the Liberal Party itself.

The result is that Canada, always already fragmented, may be fragmenting further but on an ideological level. Civic nationalism, and important philosophy that has defined Canada, may be in trouble. It provided the centre to the Canadian nation-state and its development for over a generation. Now, it is being pulled asunder by separatism, socialism, conservativsm and then an internal decay. This does not mean Canada will fall apart, of course, and there remain strong proponents of civic nationalism within the Liberal party. It might mean, however, that Canada is a state of ideological transition.

Liberals and Leadership

The Globe and Mail tells us that three of the leading candidates for the Liberal ledership -- Brian Tobin, Frank McKenna, and John Manley -- don't want the job. I don't blame them, but this story is yet more evidence of how bad Canadian journalism is. What makes it even worse is that one might expect a bit better from Canada's "national newspaper." What is wrong with this story? Several things.

First, who appointed these guys leading contenders for the leadership of the Liberal party? Did they answer a job advertisement? So far as I know, the Liberal Party has not even determined when it will hold a leadership convention. The whole idea, then, that these are leading contenders is at the least, a bit pre-mature; at worst, misreporting. No one knows who is a leading contender. It illustrates the arrogance of Canadian journalism, however, that someone who works for The Globe feels they can just annoint a leading contender in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, in the absence of a leadership selection process, in the absence of a date on which a leader will be selected, in the absence of any consideration whatsoever as to what the issues involved in leading the Liberals might be. Or, in the absence of any discussion of what these different men stand for. Process, facts (as in dates), and issues don't seem to count for very much.

Second, what unites these three men -- Tobin, Manley, and McKenna -- is that they are known quantities. Journalists working for the Globe know who they are. There is a certain name brand recognition to them and, if you were just trying to compile sort of list of people who might run, well, these guys names might put up. Who else's name might pop up? Well, there are other names but these guys are the ones who would be there and so not much thought is required to put them down as potential leadership candidates. It can be done without any consideration for issues (its not clear, for example, exactly what issues are near and dear to Mr. Tobin's heart, its not clear where he stands on child care or tax cuts, etc.) or what issues Canadians might find important. For journalists who are decided un-used to talking about (or, reporting on) such things as issues, these candidates have an appeal, then, because you can talk about them without having to talk about issues.

Finally, they are all yesterday's men. And, this is the real reason I suspect we are hearing about them. You can write a story about McKenna or Tobin or Manley without having to actually reseach the story. Anyone with a reasonably accurate memory can pen a brief story about McKenna, Tobin or Manley. None are particularly ideological (Tobin, for example, is more of a rah-rah nationalists than anything else) whose best days are behind them. Consider other potential candidates would require some actual work before the story was put down. For instance, reporting on Martin Cochon, for English-language journalists, might be tough because he is not a known quantity. One would have to call people, read his speakers. The same point can be made for Stephane Dion. We know he was a minister but what does he stand for? Well, the simple fact is that -- like it or no -- he does stand for things so writing about him as a leaership candidate is hard. More research, more interviews, more reading, consideration of tough issues. And, the same thing could be said about Michael Ignatieff.

Why do I mention this bunch -- Cochon, Ignatieff and Dion -- because these are the real contenders (not McKenna, et al). And, all these candidates will stand for something. They don't make an easy story. As a result, the Globe ignores them in favour of three guys about whom you can write a story without having to consider anything new. The real story, then, is not that McKenna et al did not run for the leadership. The real story is that the real story was missed becasue Canadian journalism is so bad.

Conservative Future

What does a Conservative government mean for Canada? Well, if you ask just about anybody, they will say "no much." Stephen Harper has gone out of his way in the last two election campaigns to tell Canadians that a Conservative vote is not a vote for ideological change but a vote for good government. In fact, he stated this point bluntly during the 2004 election when he said something like "this election is not about ideology." The news media does not seem to feel that conservativism in power will bring any fundamental changes either or, if they do, they have not bothered to tell Canadians. I can find stories in the news speculating on who will be a cabinet minister, for example, but nothing about what various trajectories of goverance under the Conservatives. Nor, does the NDP seem to feel that conservatism is anything to be too concerned about. Jack Layton periodically says he thinks that Conservatives are out of step with mainstream Canada but he is also signalling his willingness to work with the Conservatives on a range of issues as he did with the Liberals. Finally, Canadians don't seem to think that electing Conservatives is any big whop. Recent polling numbers suggest that over half of Conservative voters were not motivated by ideology but by the simple desire to throw the Liberal bums out. The votes of over half those who voted Conservative, then, should not be taken as an endorsement of conservativism but as a deisre to change the governing party. So ... no one thinks that electing conservatives signifies a big change. I wonder if they are right.

First, conservatives are conservatives for a reason. No one becomes a C/conservative simply because they dislike the Liberals or the NDP or Green or Bloc (no more than anyone becomes a L/liberal because they dislike the Conservatives, etc.). Conservativism is a political and philosophical position. One can think what one will of that position but its adherents are its adherents for reasons. Some self-defined Christians joined because they have a particular opposition to equality for gay people. Some people join because they have a pro-business agenda. Some people join because they support a free market in medical care and child care (instead of universal access programmes). Some people join because they feel that the Liberals have promoted a fiscal imbalance with the provinces. Should we believe that these feelings amounts to nothing? Should we believe, for example, that someone who runs for the Conservative party in opposition to same-sex marriage will now decide to do nothing about this? Or, that the Conservative commitment to channel billions into the military (billions that can't be spent on education, roads, healthcare, the environment) is ... well ... a lie? This seems bit of a stretch. To suggest that the election of a Conservative government will mean nothing is to suggest that what conservatives say means nothing. I don't believe this. I take them at their word.

Years ago, I lived in Ontario under Mike Harris when the provincial government started closing hospitals and instroducing the series of reforms that eventually lead to horrific events such as Walkerton because they felt there was no need to fund or supervise public health. People in the community in which I lived complained saying "but I didn't vote for this." "Did you vote Conservative?" I asked. "Yes." "Well, you did vote for this. Your vote is one of the reasons this is happening." I wonder if the people of Canada will start to feel the same way in a few years. I wonder if someone, upon discovering that they don't have a place for their child in a certified day care with a properly trained staff will wonder about the merits of their conservative vote. Perhaps they will. Perhaps they will just exclaim that they voted for daycare when, of course, they voted in precisely the opposite direction (the conservative promise to give poeple money for each child evaporates for children over 6, you know).

None of this is a reason not to vote conservative. If you support the corporate agenda, Conservatism is likely more for you than Liberalism and certainly much more for you than voting NDP. If you don't like state supervised day cares with guananteed spots for children but believe people should just fend for themselves in child care, well, then, conservatism is likely for you. Etc. None of these are philosophically indefensible positions. I don't like them but that doesn't make them wrong. What it does suggest to me, however, is that we need to think about the ideology of the government we have much more closely. We need to see that it does matter. It might not matter too too much at first. In fact, I think no one will notice an ideological shift in the Canadian government because: (1) journalists generally don't understand the importance of ideology (and may not understand the complexiites of political philosophy and so don't report on it) and (2) the government will be cautious in its approach t o a minoritiy Parliament and the fact that we have not seen a Conservative government in a long time. Brian Mulroney was very cautious in 1984, you will recall before unleashing the GST, free trade, a (very good) revised Multiculturalism, constitutional reform projects, etc. IOW, Mulroney's conservatism mattered. His government brought in a series of policies re Quebec, taxes, trade, and culture that were fundamentally different from the Liberalism that had preceeded them. Some were good -- I personally like the multiculturalism act they developeed -- and some were devisive (constitutional reform proved to be a minefield of discontent) and some were hated (the GST). In 1984, ideology made a difference to public policy. I wonder if it will again.

But I Made Up the Story ....

Without doubt everyone has read more than enough about the recent federal election. I thought, however, that I would put down my thoughts on it. Feel free to comment.

There are, I think, many things that are notable about this past federal election. In a future post, I'll consider some of the political issues that develop out of it. Right now, however, my concern is with the way this election was covered in the media. On election night, Peter Mansbridge of CBC remarked that the Liberals were doing surprisingly noting the fact that there had been, since the beginning of the campaign, nothing but a string of bad news stories. I found it interesting that one of the people who was in charge of designing the stream of negative media coverage that followed the Liberals should so freely acknowledge that the media had nothing positive about the Liberal party or its leader in the course of the campaign. I can only think of a couple of other examples of such amazingly negative media coverage. Kim Campbell in 1993; John Turner in 1984 are the only ones that come to mind. While press coverage is good some days and bad others, I don't recall Mulroney, Trudeau, Chretien or even Joe Clark being so roundly condemned each and every day, day after day. It never let up. The "income trust scandal" was reported as if it were true (no one bothered to ask the RCMP about their rationale for investigation of policies related to complaints and investigation). Early in the campaign with the Liberals running high in the polls, polling numbers were ignored or distorted. Strategic Council polling data (which proved, as it usually does, wildly inaccurate) was reported as if Alan Greg did not have ties to the Tories. And we could go on. Conservatives were asked no tough questions by the national media, etc., etc.

Is there any necessay reason why the election campaign had to be filled with anti-Liberal stories? Were there no pro liberal stories to be told? Maybe that is not the right question. Perhaps the question is not whether or not the media should have said nice things about the Liberal party but whether or not they should have been more objective. For instance, an objective reporting of the "income trust scandal" would have pointed out that the complaints against Ralph Goodale were lodged by a member of the opposition party (a member of the NDP, which stood to gain a great deal by anothe Liberal scandal). To the best of my knowledge it was noted only once that the RCMP themselves said they had no evidence Goodale was guilty of anything. No one discussed Tory attack ads (one featuring the former head of the Royal Mint, David Dingwall, who was portrayed as guilty despite the fact that he was cleared of all accuastions against him) but focused instead on a Liberal advert that never ran. Yep, that is right. Journalist chose to focus attention on an advert that did not run instead of an attack advert that portrayed an innocent man as guilty. That might not have been worth much in the scheme of an election campaign, but you'd think it would have been worth something.

One could go on but all these examples would only serve to reinforce the same point. Media coverage of this election campaign was, perhaps, the worst I have ever seen. I have to keep pointing out in these posts that I have not been, cannot imagine ever being, and certainly do not vote Liberal. I did not vote Liberal this past election and certainly did not want to see the Liberal Party win. My own political views, however, should not stop us from seeing what is patently evident. This election campaign was marked by horribly biased reporting. It represented a complete failure of journalism in Canada, a complete loss of objectivity, and, in my view, a remarkably unprofessional job. The media's bias was so great, their reporting so poor, their command of the issues so limited (in fact, I can't recall any serious discussion of the issues in reporting on this election) that we can say the Canadian media utterly failed Canadians. I hope they do better in the future, but this election campaign does not bode well.

The Quebec Card in Reverse

Brian Lee Crowley is head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. This is a small think thank that has some reputation among people of a neo-conservative bent. Crowley is, in some ways, an odd conservative in that he is entirely an economic conservative. The social elements of conservative -- at least in his public discourse -- don't seem to be front and centre in his thinking. I was surprised, therefore, when Crowley in the latest AIMS newsletter played "the Quebec card" only in reverse. Instead of claiming intolerance to francophones, he argued that federal politics has been dominated by a "bidding war" between the federal and provincial government for the hearts and minds of Quebecers -- a bribe, if you will, to win the allegiance of Quebecers to either stay in Canada or adopt a provincialist identity. This bidding war, he contended, was detracting the feds attention from Atlantic Canada and, in the process, economically hurting the region.

This is an odd position. Crowley provides no evidence that it is true. One might not expect a lot of evidence, because this was a short essay (an op-ed in the Toronto Star), but a little bit might have been nice. In the face of a lack of evidence -- zero, zip, none provided at all, just Crowley's contention that this is the case -- one might be tempted to dismiss the piece completely. Certainly, any student submitting this kind of piece to one of my classes would have received an F. But, let's have a loot at the argument and see how it plays out because there is an important point to be made here. How so? Several points merit consideration.

First, Crowley's lack of evidence is interesting because it seems to suggest that he feels no evidence is needed to illustrate his point: Quebec has a favoured position in the eyes of the federal government and the rest of us -- not living in Quebec -- suffer because of it. One needs to ask: is this so? Crowley's article suggests that Quebec is getting more than its fair share from the feds. Again, this goes unexplained. Fair share of what? What is a fair share? Does he mean federal transfer payments? Does he mean federal direct spending? Does he mean per capita spending? Does he mean total federal spending? He doesn't tell us. The idea of a bidding war makes it seem that money is being showered on Quebec. Perhaps it is. But what money? By whom? For what? What is a fair share? None of these questions are answered. So, in addition to a complete lack of evidence, Crowley leaves virtually every key question that he needs to answer to actually make his case unanswered. Let's be clear: the federal government does not "bid"; no bidding for Quebecers has ever taken place. None. Find me one example of a bidding war. Crowley's examples are federal policies that affect Quebec and other provinces. Crowley does not mention federal direct spending in Ontario. He does not mention the per capita rates of federal transfers to Atlantic Canada. He does not mention support for Saskatchewan and Manitaba or agricultural spending or spending in the north. He does not mention the Atlantic Accord. He does not mention the recent health and day care accords. One is bound to ask "why"? I strongly suspect that the reason he does not mention any of this or answer any of the key questions raised by his piece or provide any evidence is that if he did, it would contract his basic premise.

One might ask "is not the sponsorship scandal a bidding war?" Fair question: the answer is no. No Quebecers aside from a few Liberal bag men and some corrupt ad execs made any money off the programme. The average Quebecer saw not a dime and they are rightly outraged by it. So ... if this is a bidding war, well, the bids offered the average Quebecer are not simply low but, well, zero. Crowley's other examples of the bidding war: employment insurance (only Quebecers I guess use it, no one in Atlantic Canada has ever been on EI), regional economic development (hmmm, I guess no regional economic funds went to any other part of the country), equalization (again, we are left to assume not a cent in equalization ever went to another province), and marketing boards (hmmm ... I thought there was something about a wheat pool out west but I guess that can't be true because the west is not being bid over and the only reason one might have a marketing board is to bribe someone).

Second, let's say that the feds have spent more money than they should have in Quebeec in the interest of national unity. Let's leave aside what "should have means" in order to accept at least part of what Crowley says on faith. OK, is not national unity in our interest? For some reason Crowley thinks it isn't. As a committed federalist and a proud Canadian, I find this argument disturbing. How can national unity not be in the interest of Atlantic Canada? How can it not be in the interest of Canada? Crowley doesn't explain. In fact, like the other key questions he fails to address, he ignores it. National unity -- the integrity of the federal union -- seems to be a matter of scant concern to him. It is not to me and I can't figure out how the collapse of Canada would be in the interest of the people living in Atlantic Canada. It would have been nice if Crowley explained the logic of his argument, rather than ignoring it.

Finally, Crowley makes the classic mistake of those people who take cheap shots at Quebec: he assumes that there are no political parties in Quebec and that one premier because they are a Quebecer is interchangeable with any other because one Quebecers is ,well, basically like the next. He didn't say? Well, sure he did, he just didn't use the words. Every Quebec provincial government "bids" for its population's alliance. The PQ or the Liberals, doesn't matter. I think it does. I think that the fact that we have a federalist premier in Quebec -- and man whose bid was for Canada -- is important. I'm not wiling to say, as Crowley's arugment implies, that separatism -- the destruction of Canada -- is the same as federalism -- the maintenance of Canadian unity. Quebec politics are not about bidding for Quebecers support. They are about schools and budgets and jobs and the environment, just like politics elsewhere. Federalists want to maintain Canadian unity and I support them. Separatists do not, and I argue against them and in favour of Canada. Crowley says "they are all the same."

What is most important about Crowley's piece is that it shows us what is required to bash Quebec: to play the anti-Quebec card, as it were. What is required. To sustain his argument Crowley must: (1) ignore evidence (or, at best don't discuss it), ignore key questions and obfuscate issues (is direct spending as important as transfers, for instance), (3) believe that there is not difference between separatism in Quebec and federalism, and (4) believe that national unity is not in the interests of Canadians. You can see why I would fail this piece if it were a student essay. It is not that Crowley's argument is wrong. I can think a point of view staked out by a student is wrong and still accord an A to a paper that deserves it. This essay would fail because it provides no evidence, ignores key questions, skips over important issues and tells us that black and white are the same colour. If you believe that ... well, I've got a bridge for sale.

Canadian and American Relations

The American Ambassador to Canada took a shot at PM Martin yesterday, perhaps warranted. The problem with the shot -- whether deserved or undeserved -- is that it occurred during an election campaign. As a result, the impact will be politicized and, in large measure, lost. The Liberal Party will don the mantel of defenders of Canadian sovereignty and play off the vaguely anti-American sentiments most centrist and left wing Canadians. Conservatives will use the opportunity to illustrate that this is another example of the Liberals bumbling Canada's most important foreign relation. The popular base of each party will walk away feeling morally superior with their views of each other (American toadies, incompetent fools) confirmed. This is a shame because these comments actually present and important opportunity to evaluate the shifting parameters of Canada's relationship with the US. Let me address this issue but let me first address the issue of the comments themselves.

I want to say that the comments by the American Ambassador were, well, intemperate. He read from a text and did not do a good job reading. However, they were understandable. Canadians might not think so but put this in context. The Canadian PM had just publicly criticized the American government at an international conference and before the world community. In one set of comments, PM Martin singled out the US for its failure to agree to the Kyoto Accord, ignoring the fact that other countries have not signed on to the Accord and neglecting to discuss what the US is actually doing with regard to the ecology. (To be sure, I think the US's record here is not good at all but I think this point could be made with a balanced assessment rather than a Kyoto or nothing approach.) In addition to this Mr. Martin appeared on stage with former President Bill Clinton, viewed by Republicans as an arch enemy. Imagine the reverse? How would we expect Canada to react if the US President publicly attacked Canada, do so without context, before the world community and in the presence of someone the government of Canada regarded as their arch enemy, say Brian Mulrony or Stephen Harper? You get my point: the reaction of the American Ambassador was over the top, but it is understandable.

What might be more important than this, however, is the reaction itself. Conservatives like to believe that they can establish a better relationship with the US than can Liberals and this is the one of the reasons, they say, that they should be elected. This might be true but I suspect it would be true at the expense of making independent decisions in terms of international and economic affairs. For instance, I have no doubt that Canadian/American relations would be in much better shape today had Canada participated -- as the Conservatives wanted to -- in the invasion of Iraq (something Conservative leader Stephen Harper now feels would have been a mistake as he stated that a Conservative government would not send military forces to Iraq). However, would this have been the right decision? Likewise, Conservatives say they will solve the softwood lumber dispute. How? The US government has clearly said it wants a "negotiated" settlement that is set outside the rule of international trade established by the international community and the trade agreements Canada has signed. Canada's position is now and always has been: we want to stick to the international agreements we signed as the basis of settlement. To settle this issue, then, the Conservatives would need to abandon trade agreements and accept something less than ideal -- likely some sort of import restriction -- as the price of resolution. Is this a good idea?

There are other problems, as well. The US and Canada don't see eye to eye on the nature of international threats. The US government, at least, seems to have serious reservations about changes to the Canadian marriage law and about proposed changes to the laws governing the use of marijuana. There are lingering problems over sovereignty in Arctic waters, river diversion projects in the US, etc., the role of the UN, among other things.

Let us be clear: Canada has been a good ally of the US. Anyone who doubts this doesn't know their recent history. But, the series of disputes between Canada and the US point to something else; they point to an increasing divergence of interests between the countries. Canadian-American relations since WW II were, I suspect, not easy but were made easier than they otherwise might have been by the fact that Canadians and Americans saw eye to eye on most significant issues: the Cold War, the development of the welfare state, the nature of the good middle class life, etc. Today, that is not the case. Canadians and Americans are not shockingly different from each other, but their similarities are no longer so pronounced. And, there is the perception (at least) that their international interests are no longer the same.

Is this something to be lamented. I honestly don't know. Personally, I think it would be good to have a community of interest between Canada and the US, but if we can't well, that is the price of independence and that is a price I am willing to pay. But ... and this is the important point: discussion of this issue involves more than proclaiming that one is in favour of Canadian sovereignty. Anyone can do that. Heck, all political leaders in Canada state that on a regular basis. The issue is what type of relationship Canada should establish with the United States as it involves itself in the process of re-affirming a separate and distinct national project in North America. This is a question that is harder to address, particularly for the Canadian left, which means, right now, the NDP.

While I acknowledge that the NDP has little chance of forming a government at the federal level, its lack of policy design viz the US is disturbing. In effect, the NDP reacts to American developments and stacks out ground in opposition to what it sees as American governmental support for capitalism and imperialism. Fair enough but, again, that's easy to do. Who isn't opposed to imperialism? (I'll leave off a discussion of capitalism for another day.) The NDP - and the Canadian left in general -- needs to work out its policies in this area. It needs to figure out, for example, how -- if it were elected -- a socialist Canada would interact with a capitalist US. How will we manage our increasing divergences on social issues (gun control, environmentalism, women's right to control their own bodies, multiculturalism, the role of religion in the schools). One might find the views of Republican Americans odd in this regard (or, I suppose one might not), but finding them odd, backward, out-of-step with the modern age, or whatever does not solve the problem and does not clarify relations. What the NDP needs is its own think tank which can begin by addressing precisely this issue. The American Ambassador and Paul Martin have, I think unintentionally, afforded Canadians an opportunity to consider the character and scope of our relations with the US. The Canadian left should not miss this opportunity.

Mr. Lord's Marriage Law

The Provincial government of New Brunswick believes it has found a way around equality for gay people. Its new provisions with regard to civil marriages will allow public officials to refuse to marry gay couples by simply stating that their religious believes do not support gay marriage. The justice minister explained that they were taking this tact because one right -- the right of all Canadians to equality -- cannot trump another right -- freedom of religion. What a smoke screen. The justice minister well knows that freedom of religion is already protected under the Canadian constitution and that ministers, rabbis, etc., cannot be compelled to marry people if their religious views oppose this. Moreover, no civil servants freedom of religion is threatened by equality. The civil officials who would perform marriage remain free to practice whatever faith they believe, attend whatever religious institution they wish, advocate whatever spiritual views they so desire. In other words, this proposed new law is not about treating freedom of religion seriously since that is already done in Canada. It is about letting one person impose their religious views on others. It is about allowing state officials -- public officials whose positions are paid for by our tax dollars -- make decisions about whether or not to provide a public service to person or X or Y on the basis of what they happen to think at that moment in time. This is a horrible legal principle that threatens the equality of all New Brunswickers and allows state officials to treat citizens in arbitrary and discriminatory ways. Let me explain.

First, has the Lord government thought of the implications of this law? OK, so a lot of conservative voters -- and perhaps Bernard Lord himself, I don't know -- are prejudiced against gay people. But ... the principle that a public official can refuse service on the basis of their religious beliefs has been established. What if a public official happens to dislike Christians? What if being straight happens to be against his or her religious views? Can you imagine this? A gay public official who is responsible for marrying people can now say "I have the right to refuse to marry a straight couple on the basis of my religious beliefs and my religious beliefs lead me to the conclusion that being straight is a sin, ergo a refuse to participate in sin because my immortal soul will be in danger if I do." This sounds bizarre but this is the right the Hon Mr. Lord is according this individual. But, it doesn't stop there. Racists can now refuse to marriage people who are, white, black, Native, whatever colour against which they happen to discriminate. Protestants can refuse to marry Catholics, Jews, Christians or vice versa or whathaveyou. The principle Mr. Lord will establish is dangerous one in which public officials are now at liberty to refuse to marry people on the basis of their own views and not on the basis of public principle.

Moreover, it has to be this way. Mr. Lord's government cannot pass an act that says "you can't discriminate in the performance of marriage against Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc., only gay people" because that contravenes the Charter. In other words, in Canada -- thank God! -- it is unconstitutional for the state to single out groups of people against which it will allow discrimination. So, Mr. Lord's government cannot confine the right of public officials -- again, on the basis of their private views -- to refuse marriage to someone only on the grounds of sexual orientation. They have to make it a general rule because otherwise it will be struck down -- rightly -- by the courts (and, folks, this one won't even get to the Supreme Court). To single out one group and say "we will allow discrimination against this one group of people only". Well, that will be struck down by the lowest order of court going because it is so blatant is its prejudice. What this means is that whether he likes it or not, in an effort to preserve some measure of discrimination against gay people, Mr. Lord is about to make it legal for New Brunswick officials to refuse marriage to anyone they feel like on the basis of their private opinions.

Now, someone might say, this is not the case. Its not a private opinion; its a religious view. Again, Mr. Lord can't specify the religions he will accept as legitimate. I can create a church -- the Church of Andrew -- in which I feel that heterosexuality is a sin. Mr. Lord can't now say "we won't accept that" because he is already on record as saying that what he is doing is designed to protect freedom of religion. So ... if he tries to deny me my freedom of religion (however bizarre my religion might seem to him or someone else), he's just a hypocrite. He can't therefore reject the right a person from one religion group to deny marriage to straights, Jews, blacks, Protestants, whathaveyou, if he is claiming that he has introduced this law to protect the right of people to discriminate! We may not like them but there are a lot of odd churches and religions out there. Mr. Lord, in coming to the defense of prejudice by empowering public officials to use their personal religious beliefs as grounds for discrimination in public affairs, is unleashing these odd and extreme groups on the public. This is an ill-considered step.

Second, the implications of this action extend further. What I discussed above is the law. Its inescapable. Mr. Lord can dance around it if he wants but sooner or later any law abiding citizen -- and Mr. Lord is a law abiding citizen -- will recognize that the law is the law. The principle that Mr. Lord is establishing is even more troubling. If we move beyond the case of marriage, what we have here is a principle that says public officials -- whose salaries are paid by our tax dollars -- can refuse services to the public on the basis of personal beliefs. The principle, if established, will not stay only in the realm of marriage because it can't: it will become a principle of government in general in New Brunswick. Mr. Lord can hardly say "I defend the right of freedom of religion in marriage but not education or health care or justice" can he? Again, to do so would be hypocritical. So ... we are, in New Brunswick, about to establish the principle that it is OK for any public official to refuse service to any citizen on the basis of that public officials private spiritual beliefs. A teacher who doesn't Islam can now -- under the terms of the principles established by Mr. Lord's proposed laws -- can now refuse to teach Muslim children.

I wish I were making this up. I wish the premier would take a leadership role and promote equality. Mr. Lord was once thought of as a potential national leader. I wish he would be. I wish he would stand up, say "enough of this I believe in the equality of citizens" but he hasn't. Instead, in what will almost certainly be a vain effort to preserve state supported bigotry against gay citizens, Mr. Lord will unleash a monster on the public.

Why Polls Suck

This morning The Globe and Mail, "Canada's national newspaper" released polling results apropos the up-coming federal general election. The story reported to show how the Conservative Party is in trouble in key "battlegrounds" but really what is shows is how even as well-respected a newspaper like The Globe can completely mess up reporting on polls.

Let me be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions raised by the piece. They are more in the way of common sense than effective reporting and so don't really provide much with which anyone might disagree. The fact that the Liberals are running fairly well in Ontario should surprise no one who follows Canadian politics. The Liberals have dominated Ontario since 1993 and, really, established a solid base of support in opposition to Mulroney during the free trade election in 1988. In fact, the Liberals never ran particularly poorly in Ontario even as far back as Trudeau and Pearson. So ... having a poll that tells us the Liberals are running well in Ontario is like telling us that the sky is blue. To me, it hardly merits a front page discussion.

Likewise, those who follow Canadian politics have noted the declining popularity of the Conservatives in BC for some time. Not everyone one the east coast of Canada -- where I am located -- follows BC politics closely. The last provincial election, however, produced a resurgence of support for the NDP; the Liberals polling numbers have been good in BC for a while (in fact, the Liberals are running ahead of both the NDP and Conservatives right now) and the Green Party has a strong base in that province as well. All of this indicates that BC people have been far from united in their support of Conservatism. Again, to anyone who follows politics: no surprise here.

So ... why write a blog about an inoffensive political puff piece? Aren't there better things, someone might be saying now, that you can do with your time? The reason is the way the reporting addressed polling. The authors viewed polling as if it could be tracked over night, telling us how the Liberals were down -- overnight -- in Quebec; the Tories down -- overnight -- in Ontario; the Tories up -- overnight -- on the prairies. If a student submitted a paper to one of my courses with this type of analysis, he or she would be failed. The fact that a journalist does it for one of Canada's leading newspapers is just plain discouraging. How do I convince my students to develop good analytic techniques when, all about them, they have counter examples of what is, frankly, very poor analysis in Canada's leading journalistic organs?

Here is the deal: polling is just not that precise; nor do patterns of voter preference change that dramatically overnight. The journalists failed, for instance, to discuss how the margin of error in the poll might have affected the results. Margins of error tell us the normal ratio of error for a particular poll. So, if a poll says that the margin of error is "+/- 3% 19 times out of 20", what this means is that there is a normal three percent error ratio that comes with the poll. This can seemingly wide swings in popular support that are not, wide swings at all, but simply normal error rates manifesting themselves in the polls. So for example, the poll suggest that the Liberal party had dropped significant -- by 4% -- over night. Well, no. The poll didn't say that an no serious student of political behaviour would say that it did. If you consider the margin of error, then it is possible that Liberal support dropped by on 1%. This is not much of a news story, but it is far more accurate.

When the polling people say 19 times of 20, what they mean is that 95% of the time they are accurate to within 3% one way or the other (potentially, in an unusual scenario this could mean a swing range of 6% on any given number if we consider both the plus and minus). And, 5% of the time, they are wrong by even more than that. Professional pollsters and political behaviouralists know this. They are careful in the presentation of their data; they explain error rates and what they might mean. They tell us, for instance, that a 35% support for Party X does not mean 35%, but somewhere about there, perhaps as high as 38%; perhaps as lows as 32% (all other things being equal). And, they also note that they have a 5% chance of being just plain wrong.

Finally, the reporting told us virtually nothing about the demographics of the poll's sample group. Where was it done? Among decided voters? What was the rural/urban split of respondants? The gender and age splits? The class split? IOW, the reporting gave the readers virtually none of the information readers needed to help make sense of the poll. This is not bias in reporting -- I'll likely write about that later -- this is just bad analysis. The report on this poll is so flawed as to make the story useless to anyone who is seriously interested in the election. And, that's a shame because good, front page story real estate could have been used for real reporting.

Conservatism and Nihilism

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a series of conferences hosted in Edmonton by the Association for Canadian Studies. The conference, and my trip to Edmonton are part of the reasons I'm writing this entry. I wanted to say very clearly, however, at the beginning of this entry that my comments are about conservatism. They are not about regionalism, the west, Alberta or Edmontonians. Instead, it is a question about the ideological character of Canadian conservatism today. At one of the conferences I attended, the Alberta Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance made a speech during lunch hour. In her speech, she engaged in a fictional dialogue designed to address the question "why has Alberta been successful?" There are many grounds on which one could claim Alberta as a success , but the Minister was clearly talking about provincial finances and the large surplus Alberta runs. This surplus — as we all know — allows Alberta to maintain the lowest taxes in Canada, to not have a provincial sales tax, and to not have a provincial debt. Why? What makes Alberta so successful.

Most of us would immediately say "oil" (which would be, btw, a drastic simplification) but the Minister did not. In fact, she rarely mentioned oil. She did note it briefly near the very end of the speech, but clealry wanted to marginalize natural resources as a factor. I found this interesting but it became more interesting when other conservatives discussed this same issue in exactly the same way. Quebec, another conservative (an anglophone from Montreal, just to make the point again that I am talking about conservatives and not Albertans), has the same potential for natural resource development so natural resources alone can't be the reason for Alberta's wealth. So ... what is the reason?

According to two conservatives I heard speak, the reason is the Alberta mentality. The Minister called in a "maverick" attitude. I forget the exact term the other conservative used but it was basically the same. Albertans, the Minister said, trace their history back to pioneers who rolled up their sleeves and did their work. Alberta's success is a matter of will. It is a matter of thinking differently and working hard to accomplish goals. Anyone, the Minister said, who brings this view is welcome in Alberta and will succeed. You will recall that Stephen Harper took a lot of heat — and rightly so — for suggesting that the Maritimes needed a change of attitude.

This is an interesting discourse. Other examples might be piled on but they would illustrate only the same thing. All of these conservatives presented financial success — in one way or another — as a matter of will. It was a matter having the right attitude, of not accepting no, of hard and determined work. Success could be willed. Now, obviously this type of explanatio nof regional economic success or failure is so simplistic as to be silly, but whether this view is right or wrong is beside my point. What fascinates me about it is that it has nothing to do with conservatism. It represents, instead, an form of nihilism. It is philosophy that portrays individual will as the basis of, in this case, economic success but I suppose it could be used in any other situation or for any other policy. What is required is determination, commitment and effort commensurate with those. It is an intensely individualistic perspective - those who have the necessary will power succeed; those who don't are simply weak and will, ergo, fail. And, we should not make any apologies for this. What was equally interesting was the number of times the Minister said something like "I make no apologies for X." Apologizing is not part of nihilism. To apologize is to lower standards. It is to pander to the weak. If we think about other elements of conservative discourse, we can find in it what I see as disturbing elements of a dark-sided nihilism. The most evident example is conservative support for military spending and frequent concern about Canada's weakness on the international stage. Increased military spending, of course, is not necessarily conservative. In fact, neo-cons with their focus on a balanced budget might be disturbed by spending on the military (in the US, of course, military spending has thrown the national budget into disarray). Yet, Canadian conservatives talk endlessly about military spending and not just increasing spending but dramatically increasing and expanding the military. The concern is that to make Canada stornger. Why? To what end? What role will Canada's military serve? For nihilists (and many Canadian conservatives) these questions don't need to be asked let alone answered because the answer — strength — is so self-evidently good that the idea of discussing or explaining a matter of public policy is not even considered to be needed.

One can think of this what one will. It has never been a particularly strong influence on Canadian politics. I'd go so far as to say that it has been of almost no political importance whatsoever and of a very limited cultural importance. Nihilism is, of course, not conservatism. This is what is surprising to me. Canada has a long tradition of conservative thought. Conservative philosophy was embedded into the original confederation agree that created Canada. It underscored John A Macdonald's national policy. It formed the basis of George Grant's thinking. Why would Canadian conservatives abandon their own intellectual traditions and embrace nihilism, an intensely problematic philosophy support of which will actually do more to keep the conservatives out of power at the federal level than any new policies the Liberals can come up with.

There may be other reasons that the Alberta Finance Minister prefers to talk about will as the key to success (as opposed to oil). Perhaps it might make her feel good. The Albertans I met at these conferences who were not conservatives laughed at this. They should because its simply silly. No one is poor because they lack will. No region of Canada is less wealthy than Alberta because its resident are weak. And, problems can't be solved by will. Environmental problems, child poverty, homelessness, crime will not be solved by will. They will be solved by policy. The United States — if it ever does win its war on terror — will win this war by military strength; not by will. Among conservatives this type of argument might be accepted but, what is clear, is that the vast majority of Canadians don't believe.

ODF and Microsoft

Microsoft makes some products that I use regularly. I'm a long time mac user who has recently decided to shift over to Linux. In the process of doing so, I've come across debates about ODF (Open Document Format) and the decision of the state of Massachusettes in the US to makde ODF the state-standard, as it were, for electronic distribution of documents. I think this is a big step in the right direction. While I use Microsoft products — powerpoint, excel, MS Word — regularly, I've never been happy with them. This might be a matter of taste, it might be lingering bugs in the programmes, it might be the cost of the programmes, it might be all kinds of things. My point is this: there is nothing wrong with MS products, they are just not what I want to use. My use of them came largely as a result of the fact that "everyone else" was using them. It made it easier for me to exchange files with students, open essays sent me over e-mail, distribute "overheads" (remember those? as powerpoints). I don't regret using MS products. MS Word, for example, has a pretty steep learning curve if you want to make use of more than a tiny percentage of its features. Having been through that learning curve, I find that using MS Word is both easier and more to my liking.

MS products have also become default file formats, a proprietary common denomenator, if you will, for the distribution of documents (xls, ppt, .doc). Virtually all other word processors, for example (at least the ones available for Mac and Linux — Open Office, Abiword, Appleworks, Nisus) import .doc format. ODF challenges MS Word's position as the default standard file format and, at the same time, could make the default standard file format non-proprietary. I think this is a good thing. Why?

First, despite the degree to which other word processes, spread sheets, presentation programmes import or export MS Word file formats, they don't do it perfectly. If you use a Mac, for example, you know that Appleworks does a pretty good job with straight text but if that texts gets complicated (say, you add endnotes, or changes in style), then you start to have problems. Open Office is pretty good but has troubles with embedded macros. Because ODF is open any word processor can encorporate it into its programme. Open Office has already made it, its default format. Abiword is jumping on ship and this morning I read that Wordperfect will adopt it, likely as an export option as opposed to a default format. What this will do is make it possible for people to use any word processor they like, save their file as ODT (open doc text) and any other word processor can open it. This expands choice for people in word processing. One will not need to keep a copy of MS Word around just to open the odd sticky file.

Second, ODF will be available for software developers to use for free. Once implements, this means that anyone can use one of the office packages out there. Microsoft has made a lot of offers lowering the costs of their programmes for students, faculty, etc. But, MS Office is still an expensive programme if you need to buy it. And, its also pretty darned expensive to upgrade once you haveit installed. I'm not going to say that Open Office is the best office suit under the sun, but it is good — my bet is that it will easily handle most people's needs — and its available for windows and Linux users. Star Office is available for those using Solaris, Linux, and windows, for free if you are using it for home use or for education. Abiword is multiplatform (runs on just about everything include QNX, Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and older versions even on BeOS). NeoOffice is a Mac OS X native version of Open Office. If ODF becomes transparent and integrated into all of these programmes, the need for MS products is lowered. A student working on a Windows machine in a computer lab can send her essay to me, using Linux, in my office. Or, I can read it at home on the Mac box my kids use. ODF stands to make a range of low or no cost produycts available for everyday use.

Finally, I like the idea that it will be transparent. A file made on one programme will be native in another. This will just have to improve communication.

I'm not trying to shoot down MS products. I've used them for years and I will concede that, at one point in time in the not-too-distant past MS made the best products out there for Macs (powerpoint was the best presentation programme and may still be for Mac, Outlook Express was the best e-mail client, IE was the best web browser). Rather than being anti-MS, there are other reasons we should all like to see the development and implmentation of ODF. I've used text processing as an example, but the same thing will go for spread sheets, presentations. The development of ODF is a step in the right direction.

Gordon Campbell and the Rule of Law

BC, Strikes and the Rule of Law

The teachers' union in BC is on strike and it certainly does not seem to be going well for the union. The government of the day passed legislation, imposing a settlement (0% increase) on the teachers and making labour action on their part illegal. When the teachers defined this ban, the government imposed further penalties, had union assets frozen, and went to the courts in an effort to force the teachers back to work. BC Premier Gordon Campbell says he will negotiate with the teachers but only after they return to work. He tells them that they must obey the law and that, in a society based on the rule of law, they cannot pick and chose which laws they will obey. I want to maintain an objective demeanour here, but ... Premier Cambell has no idea what the rule of law means and his statements are a perversion of an important value. Quite simply he is twisting the whole idea of the rule of law for his own partisan purposes. I find it disturbing, almost enranging. I expect political figures to lie, cheat, and steal. Not all of them. In fact, only a small minority. I respect most political figures in Canada. Let me be clear: most of them are well-meaning, hard-working individuals who are committed to performing an important public service. They don't deserve the cynicism that greats them almost daily in the press. Yet, when an important individual like Premier Campbell manipulates the such an important ideal as the rule of law to accomplish his own political aims, well, one can begin to understand where at lesat some of the cynicism comes from.

Let's start by setting the record straight. The ideal of the rule of law is not about obeying whatever law a government decides to impose. Stalin's communists had laws that sent people to gulags. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge had laws. Hittler's Nazis had laws. According to the logic of Premier Campbell's argument, we would have no choice. If we believed in the rule of law, we would have to obey these laws. Is there anyone other than Premier Campbell who believes that blind acceptance of whatever the government says is the principle standing behind the rule of law? I hope not.

The idea of the rule of law is that government operates by principles and not the whims of leaders or whomever happens to be in power. The idea of the rule of law is that government must obey its own rules. The idea of the rule of law is that leaders cannot set themselves above the law, engaging in actions that for ordinary citizens would be illegal. The idea of the rule of law is that the higher principle of our society are respect by those in power. The idea of the rule of law is that those accused of a crime have the opportunity to defend themselves before they are considered to be guilty and that the alleged crimes for which they are charged do not contravene higher principles established by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other foundational documents of the Canadian political community.

I ask this: have the teachers done anything that contravenes these ideals? They have exercised their right to freedom of assembly, free association, right of free speech. The BC government has attacked this principle by freezing the assets of their union. In so doing, it has challenged the the right of free association. By making a particular association of Canadians unable to use their own resources — the unions funds are those of the union members, they raised them and they can do with them as they please. In defense of the rule of law, Premier Campbell's government has then attacked the rule of law and a principle — the right of association — that is as old at the Magna Carta. The government made this strike illegal. It was not illegal to begin with. It required that the government pass a special law. The teachers had the right to strike but, at the last minute, the government removed it and then when the teachers tried to exercise a right they had right up until the government introduced special legislation — let me say this again, the BC government had to introduce a special law that previously did not exist to make the labour action by the teachers illegal — they are called criminals.

This strikes me as very odd. I'd be happy if, in defense of the rule of law, the government of BC stopped passing special laws which make freedom of association illegal. I'd be happy if they would stop passing special laws that make it illegal for people to use their own resources that they themselves have raised. I would suggest that Premier Campbell has it wrong. The right to dissent is fundamental to democracy, the right to consistent legal treatment is too. Special arbitrary laws, attacks on private resources, attacks on freedom of assembly and association are not the stuff of the rule of law. If Premier Campbell tried to defend his conception of the rule of law in my intro Canadian Studies course, he'd fail because he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

It is not Harper's Fault

Conservative public commentators and some academics have started to notice what should have been evident some time ago: the serious problems encountered by the Liberal part do not necessarily translate into support for Conservatives. The 2004 federal election might serve as another case in point that should have triggered consern among Conservative strategists and politians. Instead, attention was directed to Paul Martin's so-called "scare tactics", supposedly driving nervous voters back to the Liberals by generating fear of a Conservative secret agenda. We now have good evidence (National Election Survey) that Martin's "scare tactics" were not an appreciable factor in the late campaign surge in Liberal support. A year after the election, the Liberals are running at about the same level of support, the NDP is up slightly, and the Conservatives have dropped slightly. Why is this? Why cannot the Conservatives make headway against one of the most distrusted governments in Canadian history? Why cannot they make headway against a Prime Minister whom the media targets as "Mr. Dithers"? The answer Conservatives seemed to have focused on is: leadership. It is all Harper's fault.

Let me be clear about this from the state. I am no fan of Stephen Harper. I think he would make a truly horrible Prime Minister and I have no intention of voting Conservative in the next election. But ... to blame Harper for the problem of the Conservative's lack of popularity is to miss the point. Right now, it is simply damn hard for Conservatives to win federal elections in Canada. It doesn't matter who leads the party. It does not matter how united the right is. It does not matter how the media responds to Conservative politicians. The truth of the matter is that Canadians -- right now, at least -- don't vote the Conservatives into office because they don't like what the Conservatives stand for. The problem is ideological. Dressing Harper up and having him serve burgers all summer is a PR exercise. Its part of the political game and Harper has to play it along with every other leader. But, it ain't gonna chance the way Canadians vote in the next federal election.

Right now someone might be saying: Why don't Canadians like the Conservatives? How can they not like what Conservatives stand for? Do Canadians not want clean and honest government? Sure they do. But, the NDP, the Green Party, and in Quebec, the BQ are promising the same thing. As are, btw, the Liberal Party (see my next blog about this particular issue). On this point -- clean government -- the Conservatives don't win any points because they cannot differentiate themselves from other voters. If we strip away clean government as an element of Conservative ideology, what are we left with? We are left with a bunch of policies Canadians don't want. The Conservative Party opposes the Kyoto Accord. This plays well in the Conservative heartland and with committed Conservative voters, but few other Canadians. The Conservatives have opposed equality for gay Canadians. Again, this works well among Conservative core voters, but not with other Canadians. What about the abortion issue. Harper says its not an issue, but other Conservatives say it is. Again, on this issue, the Conservatives are out of step with middle-class Canada (Conservatives oppose abortion; Canadians are pro-choice, by and large).

We could do this all afternoon: gun control, public spending, and expansion of the free market economy, tax cuts, support for the US war in Iraq. On virtually every key issue, the Conservatives are out of step with ordinary Canadians. Canada is a democracy. The Conservative Party is a democracy institution. That is, in fact, why it has these particular policies: core Conservative voters support these issues and they (rightly) influence their party to maintain a platform and an ideological perspective they like. But, the fact that core Conservative voteres oppose abortion and equality for gay people, support the US war in Iraq and reject the Kyoto Accord, etc., does not mean that this is where ordinary Canadians stand. The polls suggest that Conservative Party support is running somewhere between 25% and 30% of decided voters. My bet is that this is the core Conservative vote, the percentage of Canadians who share Conservative values. Importantly, these people are not voting for Harper because he flips a good burger. They vote for him because they are thinking human beings who listen to what Harper has to say (and other Conservatives) and like what they hear. The 70-75% of Canadians who vote other ways (include the 50%+ who vote centre-left Liberal-NDP) are exactly the same. It does not matter how many picnics Harper attends this summer. These people have listened to him and don't like what he (or, other Conservatives) have to say. This is the problem Harper confronts. The problem is not that he's unpopular. The problem is that his popularity has nothing to do with Conservative election fortunes.

National Sovereignty and Missile Defense

Mr. Paul Cellucci, the American ambassador to Canada, is a well-meaning and thoughtful man. He thinks that Canada should participate in the missile defense shield, promoted by US President George W. Bush. The issue, according to Mr. Cellucci, is national sovereignty. Canada can either willingly participate or the US will call the shots. He made these comments expressing his disappointment after the Liberal government of Paul Martin decided not to participate in the missile defense shield.

The problem with what Mr. Cellucci says is that he is actually illustrated the limited degee to which the current US administration takes Canadian sovereignty into account. Put bluntly: Mr. Cellucci offers the Canadian government the following choices: either willingly sign on to what we have decided to do viz national defense or we will make decisions for you. I have to admit I don’t see the sovereignty that is supposedly at stake here. From my perspective, it seems to me that Mr. Cellucci is saying to the Canadian government “willingly do what we want or we will make decisions for you.” So … the Canadian government has the following choices: do what the US government wants of its own accord or have the US government do what it wants re Canada anyway.

For a country to be truly sovereign it must be able to control its own destiny. Mr. Cellucci is saying to the Canadian government “you have no choices re the missile defense shield. Your only choice is whether you willingly participate or not.” For Mr. Cellucci to make a statement about Canadian sovereignty, he should have said something very different. He should have said “Canada is, of course, an independent country. The US government is disappointed with this decision and we plan to continue dialogue on this issue in an effort to convince Canadians to change their views.” Alas … he didn’t say this.

The Rhetoric of Choice

The Rhetoric of Choice

The Fraser Institute recently issued a report condemning the proposed national day care system. The arguments, at least as reported on the news, are interesting because they illustrate the ways in which rhetoric is mobilized to accomplish political aims. In particular, the Fraser spokesperson claimed the government restrictions were onerous, that government should subsidize private, for profit day care facilities, and that if it did not parents would be robbed of “choice.” This argument is politically astute – what parent doesn’t want choice in the care of their children? – by bizarre.

I’ll quickly declare my bias: my daughter gets after school care from a private, for profit day care. They provide wonderful care for the children under their supervision. The staff are kind, helpful, and loved by the kids. It would be difficult for me to ask for more. Would I like my day care facilities to be subsidized? You bet. I like these people; they run on a very tight budget and anything that can help them out would be good. The issue, as I see it, is not “would I like” but “should private businesses be subsidized by the state”? I hate to say it, but I don’t think so. Why?

First, child care is already subsidized. My wife or I can deduct child care expenses from our taxes and do. In other words, Canadian tax payers are already helping to pay for my children’s after school care. Should those same tax payers now be on the hook for even more? Perhaps. I don’t think the answer is a straight “no.” In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that most Canadians feel the state should subsidize child care generally (because it is good for kids and for society) and should, in particular, help out those people who are less fortunate. I’m less certain and I think Canadians are less certain that they should pay much more for the child care of middle class kids, like my own. The truth of the matter is I can afford it and because I can, should I not pay for it? Subsidizing a private child care enterprise amounts to precisely this: it is a way to give me an even further subsidy on my kids care. To be clear: I think this should be done for poorer kids. Child care facilities (private or public) can really help out poor kids. I’m not convinced that middle class people like me should benefit from something that they don’t actually need.

It would work like this. Child care centre gets government subsidy, ergo they can lower the rate I pay or not increase it. Ergo, I get extra money. Everyone wants extra money, but is this the best use of public funds? If I were being honest, I can think of a whole bunch of better ways to spend money than giving it to me (hospitals, new roads, farm subsidies, the armed forces).

Second, is choice hampered by not subsidizing for profit businesses? I don’t actually see how. Those businesses will exist or they won’t exist depending on the market. If people want them and will pay for them, they will be there. If they don’t, well, should they be there? I was surprised to see the Fraser Institute, a right wing think tank, making such an uncapitalist argument. Personally, I’m not a fan of capitalism, but I do think there is some role for consumer choice. The Fraser Institute’s argument actually defies choice in that the subsidies support businesses that are not profitable, meaning that consumers don’t want them. Is this a good thing? Perhaps, but I don’t think it is a slam dunk.

Finally, let me rant: what regulations is the Fraser Institute talking about? The law isn’t in place. To complain about a law that is not yet drafted as onerous, hmmm …. I’d at least wait until I saw the law before I complained about it. The fact that the Fraser Institute is willing to condemn a law it hasn’t seen on the basis of no evidence does not speak well for it. In fact, it is a good reason to stop listening to their press releases.

Regulating Media

Regulating Culture (or, Censorship Part II)

In my last posting I offered my views on whether or not censorship could be legitimate. I argued that currernt debates about censorship, which present the issue in a “yes”/”no” light are academic. They fail to grapple with both the need for censorship (say, in making a criminal conspiracy illegal) or with the important issue of an appeals mechanism. Moreover, they often neglect the right of private institutions to control their own space. In this blog I want to extend this discussion to look at cultural regulation in the Canadian context.

As anyone who has studied Canada culture knows, it is regulated by the government. People who, for philosophic reasons, oppose government regulation, often paint regulation as a bad thing: too much red-tape, censorship, limiting consumer choice, etc. Again, I think this discourse misses the point. A great deal of the regulatory matrix of culture is needed for its smooth functioning. Someone, for instance, has to decide which radio station uses which frequency so a bunch of stations don’t try to broadcast on the same wavelength. This just makes sense and before anyone gets to strung out over regulation, they should know that a lot of the stuff regulators do is ordinary, day to day, stuff like this.

The real question is this: should the federal government regulate content of media? The instant answer might seem to be “no.” After all, who wants the government determining what they can watch or what they can listen to or see in the theatre? Certainly, not me. Thankfully, in Canada, content regulation does not work like this. The government does not determine what is broadcast on radio or show on TV or played in the theatres, except in a very general sense. And, I’d be willing to argue that in this very general sense, the system of regulation we have in Canada works very well.

How does it work? For anyone who doesn’t know, federal regulations exist to ensure that a certain percentage of music played on the ratio and programming on television is Canada and there is a formula to determine what counts as “Canadian.” (The merits of this formula can be a matter of debate. I’m interested in establishing the principle right now that regulation can be good.) Is this censorship? Is it the govvernment telling Canadians what they have to watch and listen to? Is it a bad thing?

I’d argue no because the effect of content regulations such as the ones Canada has is to broaden “consumer choice”; not to limit it? How so, well the fact that, say, a radio station has to play Canadian music does not mean that it has to play any particular Canadian artists. If you wanted to play, say, Bare Naked Ladies and not Celine Dion, go ahead, or vice versa. If you wanted to play Melanie Doan all day no ... oh, gee, Irish Descendants, that would be fine. The regulations say merely that it has to be Canadian. They don’t say which artists and they don’t limit any form of political expression on the radio. (I might write a blog on the CHOI case because the problems that station ran into had nothing to do with Canadian content; in fact the supposedly offensive individual was a Canadian!) Moreover, playing American or French or German or British music is not prohibited. A radio station can play any foreign music it wants. Say, you want to spend a day interspersing Green Day with Great Big Sea, you’ll run into no problems in terms of Canada content regulations. The issue for content regulations is the amount of Canadian versus foreign music played: no foreign music is denied airwaves in Canada. In this way, the government is actually not telling radio stations what to play at all. It leaves this decision (correctly, in my view) up to radio stations (in my last blog, you’ll recall I defended the right of private institutions to make their own determinations about the forms of expression they accept).

Why approach content regulation in this way? Precisely because it avoids the serious pitfalls that come from the excessive regulation of culture. Under the current system of cultural regulation maintained in Canada, the Canadian government ensures that private interests (or, an arms-length CBC) make content decisions. It does not eliminate, say, American music, which you can hear any day if you turn on the radio. It does not interfer with new reporting. All it does is ensure that Canadians get a certain amount of air time in their own country. What it ensures, in other words, is that Canadians can listen to Canadian music, should they so desire. In this way, I would argue, that Canadian content regulations actually broaden consumer choice in terms of music. Without these regulations, radio stations could ignore Canadian music and, hence, some choices would be not be available to consumers. Far from challenging consumer choice and forcing stuff “down consumers’ throats”, content regulations serve to broaden choice, promote the ability of Canadians to hear their own music, and they do so without government control of radio (or, television) so that freedom of the press is preserved.

Canada and the US

Bush Bullying Canada?

By now I suspect most people have read the news reports stating that American President George W. Bush tried to bully Canadian PM Martin into accepting the missile defense shield. I would not be too quick to believe verbatim what has been reported in the press. This is one of those "unnamed" sources. In other words, no one, anywhere, is officially on record that Bush actually said the things he is reported as having said. With this in mind, let me address the key issues raised by the press reporting because it is an issue with domestic implicaations and leave off any discussion of anything President Bush might or might not have said.

The key issue here is the statement that if Canada does not participate, the US might, in the future, stop protecting Canada. This issue is important not because President Bush might have said this but because some Canadians have said this. Some Canadians have argued that Canada should participate more fully and forcefully in American policy toward the middle east (specifically in Iraq) becauase the US is our friend and we need them. We should support our friends, this argument runs, and, even if we don't like what the US government is doing, we should put our qualms on hold because we need the US. By helping out the US when called, we will earn their support and they will help us out when we need it. After all, have not the US always been there for us, Don Cherry asked.

Well, let's flip this issue around a bit. First, sometimes the best way to help a friend is to tell them that they are making a mistake. This is not easy to do, but say your friend wants to rob a beer store. Do you help them or tell them not to? The US government is not robbing a beer store in Iraq, but the principle is the same. A good friend doesn't blindly fall in line. Good friends consider action and sometimes take the tougher road of saying "no, this is a mistake."

Second, Canada has helped out the US over and over and over again. Let's look at Canada's record in international affairs and the delpoyment of military forces. It is pretty impressive: Somalia, Rwanda, Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, the first Gulf War. In other words, the idea that Canada is somehow missing in action is simply empirically wrong. Whether one agrees with it or not, Canada has an impressive record of international military deployment. Canadian missions were not always a success -- Rwanda and Somalia were abject failures -- but some were. Canadian action in the Krajina and Afghanistan as well as the first Gulf War were effective. To this we could add naval deployment in Operation Appolo and the impressive civilian effort during the 9/11 crisis. Canada is not missing in action in terms of international affairs. The Canadian government disagreed with the US government over the Second Gulf War. To the best of my count that is one time there has been a serious disagreement. You could run this number to two if you wanted to count the Cuba issue. Is not an independent country entitled to that?

Three, the US has always been there when we have needed them. Give me an example to illustrate this point. When has the US come to the defense of Canada? When have Canadians called on the US to help out. I can think of examples. Prime Ministers of Canada have called on American leaders to support federalism (and this they have done). The US sent a great deal of aid during the Halifax explosion. The US is a good country, Americans are good people. I'm not slagging the country or the people, but the way some Canadians tell this story, you'd think Canada was forever asking the US for help and the US was dutifully running up to give it. Perhaps this is true, but I can't think of more than a couple of examples myself.

Four, when does it end? Does Canada always have to do what the US wants? If so, why don't we just surrender our independence right now. For those people who say Canada should help the US out when it calls, I ask this question: does this mean always? Do Canadians ever get to make their own decisions about international affairs or do we just send our soldiers when a foreign power asks?

Fifth: the US will not protect Canada any longer. From whom? Seriously, from whom is the US protecting Canada?

This is not a critique of George Bush or the American government. Personally, I doubt he said the things he is reported as saying. This is a critique of what I might call Canadian toadyism. Canada needs to maintain good relations with the US, to be sure, and we should. A good relationship, I'd like to think, helps both Canada and the US, but c'mon guys, let's not turn Canada into Toady-land.

Censorship and Culture

Censorship: Is it a Bad Thing

Is censorhip a bad thing? Most people answer this question quickly and easily with a resounding “yes.” This is a good thing. Censorship is a problem for democracy and the fact that the vast majority of Canadians (in my view) see censorship in precisely that light is a good thing. I’m likely about to make myself unpopular to those reading this blog, however, because I want to argue that some limits on cultural expression can be a good thing and that the regular of media can, in fact, serve to increase the range of voices in the public sphere. This argument runs counter to common sense, but let me put it “out there;” if you disagree with me, feel free to say so.

First, all civil societies have restricted (usually to a very limited degree) what people can say. For example, Canada imposes what are in my view necessary and legitimate limits on freedom of expression and communication because these serve the public good and maintain the security of individuals. In Canada, we don’t allow people to communicate with each other for the purposes of commiting, say, a murder. This is a clear limit (a restriction) on freedom of speach, but in my view it is completely understandable and justifiable. The freedom of speach so necessary for a democracy is not intended to protect criminal activities or endanger the lives of citizens. To argue that it does is, in my view, to pervert the ideal of democracy. A democracy is not about allowing people to conspire to commit crimes or harm others. One needed and legitimate limit on freedom of speach, then, is on criminal activities, particularly those that threaten the lives and health of citizens.

Second, I’d argue that the state can legitimately restrict access to some cultural materials to people who are a certain age. We do this, of course, in Canada already. Making it illegal to distribute some things to children, for instance, is a completely legitimate form of cultural regulation because children do not have the ability to separate right from wrong, to understand the implications of, say, some forms of advertisement or pornography or some particularly violent scenes. Limiting access to, say, pornography to those who are legally adults, then, strikes me as another legitimate limit to freedom of speach and expression and one that I doubt few people would seriously debate. A contemporary form of this type of regulation are provisions that make it illegal to show certain TV shows on TV before a certain hour of the night. (I might add here that media industries willingly support this type of regulation and, in fact, impose restrictions on themselves because the logic of this point is self-evident to them.)

After these two points, I concede that things get a bit more tricky. We can all agree that one should not be able to scream “fire in a crowded building” if there isn’t a fire because this could reckless endanger some people’s lives. Other examples -- where, for instance, someone might want to censor a particular speaker because they find what they are saying “offensive” -- are other cases and cannot be dealt with as easily. I don’t have easy answers for more complicated situations, but there are three points I think that should be born in mind in considering potential examples of censorship (or, other forms of cultural regulation).

First, I’m likely willing to give broader scope to censors than most people are but it seems to me that a discussion of the scope of censorship needs to also include a discussion of appeals mechanisms. Even in situations where censorship seems warranted, I think that the person being censored needs to have recourse -- in perpetuity -- to appeal. I recognize that this might seem like a heavy burden but decisions with regard to censoring person X or form of expression Y are made by human beings and human beings can be wrong. Rather than tying the courts up with all kinds of cases, establishing some regularized appeal mechanism strikes me as necessary. This allows the censored person to raise there case for as long as th