<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <title>Preston Manning</title>
  <link href="http://huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=preston-manning"/>
  <updated>2013-05-21T17:07:16-04:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Preston Manning</name>
  </author>
  <id xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=preston-manning</id>
  <rights>Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.</rights>
  <subtitle>HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Preston Manning</subtitle>
  <generator>Good old fashioned elbow grease.</generator>

<entry>
    <title>An Open Letter to Uncle Sam, From Your Northern Neighbour</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/preston-manning/american-political-polorization_b_2146398.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2146398</id>
    <published>2012-11-19T12:12:11-05:00</published>
    <updated>2013-01-19T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[As an old friend who wishes nothing but the best for your country, I am worried about what one election night commentator described as the ongoing "ideological civil war" in America. In the past, after this initial polarization, there is a seeking for common ground and a coming together in order to "get things done." In recent years, however, this has not occurred.

Continued polarization and conflict over the economic crisis is also of great concern to us in Canada, since our economic prosperity is very much tied to that of our largest trading partner.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Preston Manning</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/preston-manning/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/preston-manning/"><![CDATA[To: Uncle Sam, Washington D.C.<br />
From: Your Northern Neighbour*<br />
Re: Ending the Ideological Civil War<br />
 <br />
Dear Uncle Sam: <br />
<br />
As an old friend who wishes nothing but the best for your country, I am worried about what one election night commentator described as the ongoing "ideological civil war" in America.<br />
<br />
Those of us in Canada who visit your country frequently, realize that a strong degree of "polarization" has always been part of the American political culture. When an important issue comes up, your politicians, interest groups, and citizens quickly take sides, go to their corners, and then proceed to "duke it out." In the process, the strengths and weaknesses of alternative positions become much clearer than when proponents of conflicting views, out of feigned politeness or distaste for confrontation, compromise their positions before the debate has scarcely begun.<br />
<br />
But usually, in the past, after this initial polarization, there is a seeking for common ground and a coming together in order to "get things done." In recent years, however, this has not occurred -- with the divisions and conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, religious believers and secularists, whites and non-whites, young and old, becoming ever greater and more vicious. <br />
<br />
The issue on which I know this extreme polarization is most worrisome to you is that of the fiscal and economic crisis predicted for early in the New Year if Congress and the President cannot find the right combination of spending and tax changes required to avert it. Continued polarization and conflict over this issue is also of great concern to us in Canada, since our economic prosperity is very much tied to that of our largest trading partner. <br />
<br />
If the ideological civil war in the United States is to end in an honourable peace and positive reconstruction of the U.S. economy, we were hoping that one or both of the presidential candidates would have started that process on election night. <br />
<br />
We were hoping, for example, that somewhere in Mr. Romney's remarks, bitter as the hour must have been for him and his family, he would have said something like the following: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Notwithstanding the significant ideological and policy differences between myself and the President, I am resolved that there must be a 'coming together' of our two great parties on the serious, unresolved fiscal issues that divide us and the country. <br />
<br />
<br />
In particular there needs to be a coming together of the President and the Congress to resolve the impasse over necessary spending and tax changes required to avert the financial crisis which threatens to harm us all. To that end, I am offering my services to the President, in whatever capacity large or small that he may consider useful, to achieve that coming together and that resolution."</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
Likewise we were hoping that somewhere in the President's acceptance speech, tempting as it must have been for him to ignore or denigrate his opponent in the hour of victory, that he would have said something similar: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Notwithstanding the significant ideological and policy differences between myself and Mr. Romney, I am resolved that there must be a 'coming together' of our two great parties on the serious, unresolved fiscal issues that divide us and the country. <br />
<br />
<br />
In particular there needs to be a coming together of myself and the Congress to resolve the impasse over necessary spending and tax changes required to avert the financial crisis which threatens to harm us all. To that end, I am inviting Governor Romney to join with a prominent Democrat (Bill Clinton?) to head a Reconciliation Task Force to find common ground for action by myself and the Congress on the fiscal issue before January 1, 2013."</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
Of course, regrettably, neither speech contained such an element, and the ideological civil war continues. But for the President and for the Republicans there is still opportunity to assert such leadership. The President, at a time when the ideological civil war needs to end, must begin preparing his Second Inaugural Address -- just as Abraham Lincoln began preparing his Second Inaugural Address as the 19th century Civil War that so nearly destroyed America drew to its close.  <br />
<br />
President Lincoln believed "reconciliation" to be as much a spiritual process as a political process and saw the hand of Providence in both the coming and the passing of the Civil War. Perhaps in this age of skepticism and disbelief in any power greater than ourselves, it may seem pointless to invoke the help of Providence. But since both your presidential candidates ended their election night remarks with "God bless America," I too will close with an invocation.<br />
<br />
Our prayer for America is that its President and his party will make whatever changes in their positions are necessary to resolve the fiscal crisis, and that they will regard those changes, not as compromises, but as those self sacrificial acts without which reconciliation at its most profound level cannot occur.<br />
<br />
Our prayer for America is that the Congress and the leadership of the Republicans will also adopt whatever changes in their positions are necessary to resolve the fiscal crisis, and resist the temptation (as General Robert E. Lee once did) to prolong the current civil war through guerrilla tactics.<br />
<br />
Our prayer for America is that your mass and social media -- for whom controversy and conflict are usually more newsworthy than cooperation -- will rediscover the truth that the word "media" comes from the same root as "mediator" and begin more often to play that role. <br />
<br />
Our prayer for America is that the weeks ahead may mark the beginning of the end of the ideological civil war and the beginning of an honorable and lasting peace. <br />
<br />
To paraphrase one of your own most beloved anthems, "America, America, God shed his grace on thee. And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea." <br />
<br />
With every best wish for the future,<br />
<br />
Your Northern Neighbour*<br />
<em><br />
*Note: The forgoing was composed by Preston Manning, President and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and a former Leader of the Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons.</em><br />
<br />
<HH--236SLIDEEXPAND--227877--HH>]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/663629/thumbs/s-UNCLE-SAM-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Western Premiers: Stop Wasting Energy Fighting</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/preston-manning/alison-redford-energy_b_2018882.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2018882</id>
    <published>2012-10-25T16:09:58-04:00</published>
    <updated>2012-12-25T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Conflict between B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast is not in the long-range interests of either province and needs to be resolved.

In July, Ms. Clark laid down five conditions for considering support of the project, including a provision that B.C. must receive a "fair share" of the fiscal and economic benefits. Ms. Redford's response was immediate and negative and seemed to assume that B.C. was seeking a share of Alberta's oil royalties, even though this was not the case. Since the Alberta Premier has been seeking to take the lead in developing a "national energy strategy," it's in her interests to take the initiative in negotiating a resolution to this dispute with British Columbia.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Preston Manning</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/preston-manning/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/preston-manning/"><![CDATA[Conflict between B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast is not in the long-range interests of either province and needs to be resolved.<br />
<br />
In July, Ms. Clark laid down five conditions for considering support of the project, including a provision that B.C. must receive a "fair share" of the fiscal and economic benefits. Ms. Redford's response was immediate and negative and seemed to assume that B.C. was seeking a share of Alberta's oil royalties, even though this was not the case.<br />
<br />
Since the Alberta Premier has been seeking to take the lead in developing a "national energy strategy," it's in her interests to take the initiative in negotiating a resolution to this dispute with British Columbia. Otherwise, the question rightly arises: "How can you lead the development of a national energy strategy -- which involves finding common ground on the energy front among 10 provincial governments, three territorial governments, the federal government and the private sector -- if you can't find common energy ground with your sister province of B.C.?"<br />
<br />
<a href="#ss1"><h3>SLIDESHOW: Overheard Northern Gateway Pipeline Hearings </h3></a><br />
<br />
In seeking to reconcile the interests of Alberta and B.C. on the energy front, there needs to be a renewed commitment on the part of both provinces to the spirit and the letter of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) negotiated by Alberta's Ralph Klein and B.C.'s Gordon Campbell. Under this agreement, both provinces pledged to reduce and eliminate trade barriers between them rather than to increase them. Under Section 15(2), the two provinces agree to "promote enhanced inter-jurisdictional trade in energy," and Part IV details a formal dispute resolution procedure.<br />
<br />
Since the original negotiation of TILMA in 2006, Saskatchewan has also become a party to this interprovincial free-trade agreement now called the New West Partnership. Since Premier Brad Wall is more experienced in government and energy matters than both Ms. Clark and Ms. Redford, would it not be worthwhile to invite him to play a mediating role?<br />
<br />
Finally, in seeking to find common energy ground between Alberta and B.C., there might be merit in broadening the discussion to consider electricity generation. Electric utility experts have long argued that a greater integration of B.C.'s hydro generation with Alberta's thermal generation could significantly lower the electricity rates in both provinces and further strengthen export possibilities.<br />
<br />
In addition, such a broadening of the energy discussion would require B.C. to take into account Alberta's concerns about the future development of another huge hydro dam proposed by B.C. Hydro for Site C on the Peace River. With respect to the Site C development, the positions of the provinces are somewhat the reverse of what they are with respect to the Gateway project. In the case of Site C, B.C. will benefit economically from the project and Alberta will suffer the negative downstream impact on the environment and aboriginal peoples.<br />
<br />
Would B.C. be willing to grant Alberta a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits from Site C if Alberta would be willing to do likewise with respect to Gateway? Or if in B.C.'s estimation that the negative effects of Gateway on the environment and aboriginals are so serious as to justify not proceeding with the project, would B.C. accept a similar judgment from Alberta with respect to Site C?<br />
<br />
Important considerations deserving of frank and open discussion, negotiation and mediation between two great provinces that stand to benefit much more from the reconciliation of their conflicting interests than they do from their perpetuation.<br />
<br />
<a name="ss1"><h3>Overheard Northern Gateway Pipeline Hearings</h3></a><br />
<HH--236SLIDEEXPAND--248686--HH><br />
<br />
<HH--236SLIDEEXPAND--225958--HH>]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/795315/thumbs/s-CHRISTY-CLARK-ALISON-REDFORD-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>
</feed>