Zach Paikin2013-05-19T22:55:25-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=zach-paikinCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Zach PaikinGood old fashioned elbow grease.Why Canada Should Cozy Up to the Middle Easttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30165902013-04-05T12:02:13-04:002013-04-05T12:09:51-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
The economic rise of the likes of China, India and Brazil has increased the global demand for energy, thus driving up the price of oil. This, in turn, has made it economically viable for companies to find new, innovative ways to produce oil. Yet whereas in the past the result of this search has produced simply new conventional oil reserves, things this time will be quite different.
Shale oil -- an unconventional form of the substance derived form rocks -- exists in such large volumes on the planet that it threatens to upset the world's economic (and thus geopolitical) balance. It is estimated that, thanks to oil shale deposits, that there is more oil in Israel than in Saudi Arabia, the latter of which currently possesses the second largest proven conventional oil reserves in the world. Israel's reserves, in turn, pale significantly in comparison to those of the United States.
It has not yet become technologically and economically possible to produce and export shale oil. Yet some estimates hold that countries such as Israel will be able to do so within a decade. The recent revolts in the Arab world having demonstrated how vulnerable an Arab dictatorship can be, many oil importers may choose to seek oil from stable, reliable liberal democratic countries such as the United States or Israel instead of the likes of Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh and its OPEC friends are in for trouble in any event. For even if their patrons do not switch allegiances, the increased global supply of oil alone could cause the price of a barrel to disinflate. Oil accounts for 90 per cent of Saudi exports and 75 per cent of its government revenues. The result in both scenarios could be catastrophic for oil-reliant OPEC states, leading to their economic collapse, likely followed by the dissolution of these states' respective regimes.
In countries such as Tunisia and Libya, the result of regime change is currently unclear. Riyadh's collapse, however, is certainly not something that anyone would like to see. The result would be the empowerment of Iran's regional revolutionary bloc, the strengthening of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the loss for the United States of its principal Gulf ally that has done much to ensure global geopolitical stability.
Some sort of international fund designed to bail out the economies of these Middle Eastern dictatorships may be in order, although it would involve both long-term planning and political toxicity for the liberal democratic regimes of the global North. What may be more effective is a strategy to help these Arab states diversify their respective economies.
Canada alone cannot accomplish this due to its small size, yet two facts may help Ottawa build a global critical mass with the help of Europe. First, Canada and the European Union are set to complete a free trade agreement, thus providing for a base upon which this diversification project could rely. Second, Canada has earned increased diplomatic clout vis-à-vis NATO states thanks to the leadership roles its military played both in Afghanistan and Libya.
This would represent a strong message that Canada wants a new relationship with the Arab world -- a relationship that has been strained at times in recent years. And if Canada harnesses its internal diversity and implements a national language strategy designed to strengthen its polygot ability, then it could be Canada's economy that reaps the most from the expanded economic dealings that the global North stands to share with Gulf states.
Canada as long been a diplomatic player -- albeit a small one -- in the Middle East. In helping maintain a stable geopolitical order, Canada can become a stronger economic player in this region.]]>Time for More Sober Talk on Israeltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25941912013-02-03T08:32:16-05:002013-04-05T05:12:01-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
A recent interview that federal Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay conducted with the National Post caught my eye for its rather striking title. Why the Post chose to make the headline of a "wide-ranging interview" something to do with a minute element of of Canadian non-domestic policy is beyond me.
What is more important, however, is discussing the content of Hall Findlay's comments as they appear excerpted in the interview summary. Reflecting on these comments will provide us, hopefully, with the ability to discuss Levantine politics in a more sober fashion in the future. (Disclosure: I am supporting Marc Garneau in this leadership race. My opinions here and elsewhere are mine and do not necessarily reflect the view of any leadership campaign.)
First off, Stephen Harper does not provide Israel with "absolute, blind, unilateral support [...] at all costs." What Stephen Harper does do is turn what should be a foreign policy issue into a domestic electoral wedge in order to earn the support of Jewish voters through careful and extensive messaging.
Not even two weeks before Hall Findlay's interview with the Post, Harper's foreign minister John Baird was joining the global chorus of criticism of Israel's decision to plan new settlement construction in the wake of the Palestinian Authority's recent United Nations bid to earn recognition of statehood.
The position of the Harper government is that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. The Obama administration won't go that far -- they'll only call them illegitimate. If we zero in on settlements as Hall Findlay does, then clearly the Obama administration -- reviled in conservative Jewish circles for not being pro-Israel enough -- appears to be more supportive of the Jewish state than Harper. I could go on.
Second, it's time to put an end to the use of the following phrases and terms: "anti-Israel," "pro-Israel," and "to support Israel." Israel is a state. No one ever accuses a head of government of being too "pro-France" or "anti-Spain." Using simplistic adjectives to describe a prime minister isn't conducive to an intelligent conversation about international relations.
So let's go back to basics. The three fundamental tenets of the international relations paradigm known as realism explain quite accurately how the global -- or any regional -- system works.
First, the primary actor in the global system is the state. Second, the primary (and possibly exclusive) function that states perform on the global stage is pursue their interests (raison d'état, as Cardinal Richelieu put it). Finally, international stability is achieved and military conflict is limited when there is a balance of power between states.
In the Levant today, there has been a balance of power between states since 1973. The designation of Israel by the United States under Richard Nixon as the regional hegemon have prevented inter-state war from erupting in the Levant ever since.
Israel's sheer strength made a peace treaty all the more attractive to Egypt, which in turn transformed the slowly-evolving disengagement line between Israel and Syria into the quietest frontier in the region. Without its ally Egypt, tiny Syria wasn't about to start a war with the Jewish state.
So when Western politicians talk about keeping Israel strong and secure, what they're talking about is preventing inter-state war in the Levant (inter-state war being far more destructive than other forms of war) and consequently not allowing another Arab oil embargo with significant global ramifications to take place as it did in 1973. (If you're interested, more on that here.)
That doesn't mean that Ottawa's relationship with Jerusalem isn't and shouldn't be more complex than that. What it does mean is that there's a reason why Israel is a Western ally and that public pronouncements by Western leaders usually reflect that partnership.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- from a Canadian perspective in a multipolar world -- should be treated by politicians and the media according to its stature as a minute element of Canadian foreign policy. When compared with trade policy with Asia, the Americas and Europe or with Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, it becomes clear that this conflict is not in the top tier of Canadian foreign policy priorities.
What Canada needs from its public policy, economic, political and media elite is an adult conversation about Canada's global outlook from a strategic perspective. A little dose of realism -- both in the paradigmatic and in the psychological sense -- would come in handy.
]]>On Our Home Turf CFL Trumps NFL Any Daytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23196002012-12-19T17:42:45-05:002013-02-18T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Canada's formative events are threefold. First, the influx of loyalists to the British Crown north of the 49th parallel following the American Revolution. Second, the geopolitical and military pressure placed on Canada during the American Civil War. And finally, American Manifest Destiny toward the west, rendering Canadians particularly weary of a possible ensuing conquest of the north.
All of these events have rendered Canadians particularly suspicious of the intentions of Americans. It is obvious that there is an element of truth in Lipset's theory: Canadian identity over the years have largely been expressed in opposition to American identity. Canada is everything the U.S. isn't, from foreign to social to fiscal policy, so the narrative goes.
Of course, the theory has its flaws. As Canada becomes more conservative -- becoming readier for combat, placing emphasis on fiscal restraint and enacting tough on crime policies -- the United States has shown an openness to a U.S. president known for stimulus, financial regulation and public health insurance. There is an element of convergence these days between our political cultures.
But as I have written in the past, football is usually a pretty good barometer of our country's sociopolitical attitude. Particularly when it comes to Toronto, many claim that residents of Canada's biggest city think of themselves as being better than the rest of Canada and express this sentiment by watching NFL football instead of the Canadian league.
This proposition, once again, is only half true. Despite much fanfare over PSY's halftime performance and the fact that Rogers Communications -- who brought the team to Toronto -- had an entire year to market a single NFL game, the Buffalo Bills drew a crowd this past Sunday at SkyDome of just 40,770.
The NFL mandates that franchises play in stadia that are at least 65,000 seats in capacity, thus already disqualifying SkyDome, which is 11,000 seats too small. Despite that, this year's annual NFL tilt in Toronto didn't even come close to packing the house.
The numbers get worse for Rogers and the NFL, however, when we take into account the fact that the telecommunications company has been known to hand out thousands of free tickets to these Bills games in order to pad the attendance numbers. Noting as well the number of Bills fans who traveled to Toronto from Buffalo for the game -- this was, after all, officially a Bills home game -- the actual number of southern Ontarians who bought a ticket is closer to 20,000.
In other words, less than the average attendance for the CFL's Toronto Argonauts.
NFL fans counter that ticket prices were higher than usual, prompting the smaller crowd. Yet the average ticket price has decreased from $180 at the beginning of the series to $99 this year. Despite that, the crowds have shrunk. And in any case, one would think that an NFL fan would be prepared to pay a higher price to see the only game of the year in Toronto.
NFL fans would also counter that if a team were to move to Toronto, the residents of the city would develop a kinship with the franchise and thus crowd sizes would boom. The Bills just aren't Toronto's team, they say. If so, kinship would have to work a lot of magic.
Going from just 20,000 regional fans prepared to buy a ticket for a single NFL game -- something any NFL fan should do regardless of what team they cheer for -- to 65,000 fans per game for eight games would require a pretty massive turnaround. And of course, it would require a new stadium. Good luck finding government funding for a stadium that is only going to be used eight times a year.
Here's how the proposition cited earlier is only half-true: Toronto does have NFL fans. Perhaps they don't all cheer for the Bills. But the bigger issue is that they prefer to watch NFL football on a TV screen.
Toronto does have football fans that know how to make noise for a defense, that reliably go to games and that know how to tailgate. They're called CFL fans. CFL fans in Canada know how to do what NFL fans in the U.S. do very well. NFL fans in Toronto don't.
So Lipset's theory again has its strong points and weak points. In this case, its weak point is that Canadian football and American football fans have quite a bit in common. Although we disagree about which game is better, we both enjoy its consumption in similar fashion. There is a similarity between our two cultures in that respect.
However, where Lipset is right -- and the Bills Toronto Series has proven this -- is that at the end of the day, Canadians (including southern Ontarians) prefer our game to the one played south of the border. And after 100 Grey Cup championship games, that isn't about to change.
]]>What the CFL Has to do With Canadian Politicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22051102012-11-28T17:09:15-05:002013-01-28T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
For instance, when Hamilton was actually a steel town in decades past, the Ticats were tough and known for their stingy defense. Today, not so much. The Black and Gold's defense gave up 43 points to the Argonauts' fourth string offense in a meaningless regular season game for Toronto earlier this year that was a must-win for the Tabbies.
Decades ago, even Pierre Trudeau -- the quintessential federalist -- asserted that Canadian football was not the sport of Quebec's francophones. Now that Quebec is more confident of its place in Canada than it has been in decades, it is not uncommon to find former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe attending a Montreal Alouettes game. (He even sat a few rows behind me at Molson Stadium once.)
As Canada completes its celebration of the 100th Grey Cup, it is a particularly timely moment to examine "Canada-Toronto relations." After all, both the victor and the host of the historic game this past weekend were the Toronto Argonauts. (Disclosure: I am a lifelong Argos fan.)
In the wake of the game this past weekend, the Toronto Star's Damien Cox made a fascinating assertion in Monday's paper. According to Cox, part of the reason why Toronto sports teams have struggled in recent years is that they have lost touch with what matters to the rest of Canada (i.e., the CFL).
He might have a point. Since the arrival on the local scene of the Blue Jays, the Raptors and widespread televised NFL games, many big-town Hogtowners have thought themselves to be better than the eight-team Canadian Football League. But that trend, too, is starting to reverse itself. And, perhaps not coincidentally, this is taking place simultaneously with a political phenomenon.
Last year, the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson interestingly put forward the notion that Ontario was becoming a "Pacific province," aligning its interests and values more so with the West than with its historical partner in government, Quebec. This was highlighted by Harper's majority victory, which burst right into the 905 and the 416.
As is well known, one of the last Liberal fortresses in the country -- the Toronto area -- collapsed last election. Suburbanites in the Toronto area -- both inside and outside the 416 -- embraced more strongly than ever a political appeal based on low taxes, balanced budgets and more trade. This took place merely months after Rob Ford took Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough in a rout in the city's mayoral election.
In other words, a large number of Torontonians stopped resisting something upon which much of the West and Ontario had already agreed.
Westerners also love their Canadian football. Do Torontonians? Before the rise of the Jays and televised American football, certainly. But perhaps now once again.
Half of all Toronto area residents tuned in to watch the Grey Cup this past Sunday. Some 50,000 people filled the streets the following Tuesday to celebrate the Argos' big victory. The crowd at SkyDome on Sunday night was huge and deafening, making more noise for the Double Blue's defense than I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Our game of football -- something distinctly Canadian -- acts as an interesting barometer vis-à-vis the state of our country. Our federation today is further from being broken up than in years past, more resourceful than ever, and more confident in its identity since a successful free trade deal with the United States.
And the Canadian Football League -- which nearly went bankrupt around the same time Quebec almost voted to leave Confederation in the 1990s -- is stronger today than it has been in decades.
Even in Toronto.
]]>Thanks Obama, For Buying Canada Timetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20857422012-11-06T23:18:43-05:002013-01-06T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Without question, Canadian long-term international strategic interests are better served with a Democrat in the White House. Republican sabre-rattling with Russia and China would undermine Canadian attempts to reconcile with Moscow over the Northwest Passage in the Arctic as well as Ottawa's policy of increasing oil exports to Asia.
What is seldom considered, however, is how we think about our economy from a strategic perspective. That is to say, how do we want our economy structured in order to increase our influence in the world and, hopefully, become a major global power in the 21st century? Again, the evidence here points very strongly in favour of an Obama presidency for Canada.
The biggest question going forward -- and this is as much a long-term question as it is a short-term one -- is what rate of economic growth should we be comfortable with in Canada? American growth is expected to outpace ours this year, despite the sheer size of the United States' sovereign debt.
The following proposition is one that Canadians should embrace: The key to long-term prosperity is slower growth. This is true for two reasons.
Blog continues below slideshow...
The first is the most obvious: Attempts to maximize short-term growth have the potential for the greatest short-term gains but also the largest short-term losses. Certain states have already implemented a financial transaction tax -- driving out some business but eliminating it altogether in other cases -- in order to reduce short-term market volatility.
It's the long-term outlook, however, that should be of most interest to Canadians. With a Republican president in the White House, the United States' primary focus would be to win the growth race with China for strategic reasons. Barack Obama -- according to certain political commentators -- has less of a problem with unchallenged Chinese growth.
As a major supplier to the American market and a potential large supplier to the Chinese one, economic stability within Canada is a must if Ottawa wishes to maximize its geopolitical and diplomatic influence in Washington and Beijing circles in the years ahead. Such a role as an interlocutor between the two major powers of the coming decades is key to Canada becoming a major world power in the 21st century.
In addition to volatile moves to maximize growth that a Republican president would initiate and that would threaten the stability of the Canadian economy next door, a Republican president is even more likely to do something of extreme concern to the Canadian economy: maximize the development of natural resources.
That means more fracking of natural gas and massive moves to exploit shale oil reserves in the American west and not just the American east (where they could be of benefit to Canada if imported). By consequence, that means fewer Canadian natural gas and oil exports to the United States. It also means further deflation in the price of natural gas and possible disinflation in the price of oil, further harming Canada's revenue stream.
Canada is not near the top of the international power pyramid, hence a race to the top is not worth considering. More important -- if our role as a global interlocutor and influencer is to be developed and maintained -- is to find creative ways to incentivize savings and reduce market volatility while finding new means to keep our finances in order. Economic stability is key, for economic might means geopolitical prowess.
This means two things. First, long-term growth will be more reliable, even though short-term economic growth might be reduced. This is a tough sell to make to the electorate, which means that politicians will have to innovate their messaging in the years ahead.
Second, new ways will have to be determined to keep our revenue stream high, due to the slower growth we should expect and want. That means legalizing and regulating cannabis, increasing consumption taxes (while lowering income taxes) and implementing a carbon tax. It also means tackling the national debt aggressively to compensate for the investment that could be lost through the implementation of a financial transfer tax.
The potential for the projection of Canadian influence and values in world is only set to increase in the years ahead. For many reasons, we are finally exiting the shadow of the United States.
Thanks to Barack Obama's re-election tonight, Canadian political leaders of any stripe have the geopolitical wiggle-room to prepare Canada's economy for the coming decades. Whether they put Canadian interests first or choose to play petty politics instead remains to be seen.
]]>The Policy That Could Keep the Liberal Party Downtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20459032012-10-31T07:00:17-04:002012-12-31T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Even if this narrative is true, Liberals need to remove it from their refrain. Three particular reasons come to mind as to why they should do so.
The first reason is the most obvious yet perhaps the least important -- there are potentially some substantial cracks in the narrative.
Without question, the Conservative government's "tough on crime" agenda is costly. Mandatory minimums and high incarceration rates have proven historical shortcomings, to say the least. Further, the Canadian crime rate is at its lowest point since 1973.
Similarly, the NDP's claim that Canada is suffering from Dutch Disease and requires certain government-heavy medication is not completely rooted in fact. Neither the government nor the official opposition is perfect when it comes to evidence-based policy. Yet the Grits themselves have been selective in the past -- and even in the present -- with what evidence they select to back up their policy.
For instance, the Liberal Party in the last federal election argued in favour of increasing the corporate tax rate to 18 per cent from the 15 per cent it was slated to be reduced to on January 1, 2012. The argument was that increasing the rate would help generate the revenue needed to implement the Family Pack proposed in the Liberal platform. Yet the revenue generated from corporate taxes increased this year by 5.8 per cent despite the lower rate.
Here's another example. The Grits famously campaigned on a carbon tax in the 2008 election under Stéphane Dion. Yet Michael Ignatieff changed the Liberal stance when he became leader to one supporting a cap-and-trade system. See where I'm going with this? Both can't be evidence-based policy at the same time. The Grits have been more than willing to ditch evidence-based policy (i.e. a carbon tax) for political expediency in the past.
And this abuse is not just limited to the past. Liberals continue to defend the indefensible supply management system that does little more than hamper our trade prospects and increase the price of groceries.
The second reason the "evidence-based policy" refrain needs to come to a halt is because, in a sense, it's ironically the opposite of progressiveness. Instead of advancing an original and unique vision for the future of the country, the refrain in question is an implicit admission from the Grits that they're allowing the Tories and the NDP to define the contours of the political debate.
Nothing could be more reactionary. In other words, evidence-based policy is a call for moderation, and perhaps even centrism. Although these qualities are most certainly needed while in government, they are not the skills required to achieve government status.
With the two other parties squeezing the centre of the spectrum more tightly every year, what the Liberals need to find is something radical worth defending. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, official multiculturalism and the creation of the Canadian navy are just a few historical examples of this, representing certain periods of time when the Grits were most electorally successful.
These achievements were in fact evidence-based policies, but what is important to note is that they were not billed as such. Rather, they were sold as major projects of national advancement.
Finally, the constant chest-thumping done by the Liberal Party in stating that it has a monopoly on evidence-based policy represents the one significant quality that led to the party's demise -- arrogance.
By claiming such a monopoly, the Grits are in effect dismissing the narratives of the other two parties as being not simply incorrect, but illegitimate, thus seriously offending the Canadians who voted for the other two parties last election and therefore limiting the Grits' own ability to grow their political tent.
What Liberals need to do instead is identify the major policy goals of the other two parties and succinctly communicate to Canadians that they can beat the other two parties at their own game. That means clearly identifying the Tories' shortcomings on the economic front and offering a stronger, more fiscally-responsible alternative. It also means beating back the NDP on a wide spectrum of social issues.
These two goals -- left and right -- are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to have different but non-contradictory messages for two different segments of the population. For instance, a carbon tax is in itself a vote-getter on the left yet can also be sold to the right if the message is one of reduced income taxes and public debt as an intended goal, to be achieved partly thanks to the introduction of the green policy in question.
We Liberals spend too much time trying to justify our existence -- sometimes even to ourselves -- through use of the "evidence-based policy" catchphrase. Such an attitude in inherently inward-looking. It's time for Liberals -- and leadership candidates in particular -- to say what they specifically intend to do with power, not simply to announce what they claim to be. And the sooner the better.]]>The Tweet I Regret, and the Lesson I've Learnedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20042052012-10-23T13:06:45-04:002012-12-23T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Without thinking, I tweeted that Romney had just been "raped" by Obama. Realizing my mistake, I deleted the tweet seconds later and issued an apology later in the debate. The verb in question is often used freely and colloquially by people in my generation in a synonymous fashion with "owned" or "destroyed," paying no attention to its actual meaning.
And after wrongly using the verb in a tweet, I realized that -- from a moral standpoint -- it should not have that connotation ascribed to it.
I distinctly recall in elementary school the phrase "that's gay" often used by friends to mean "that's bad" or "that's uncool." We have since made numerous advances in gay rights -- same sex marriage being the most famous -- and colloquially ascribing a pejorative meaning to the word "gay" has gone out of style, at least as far as I can tell.
It may have taken an idiotic mistake on my part, but I now appreciate more than before the importance of language in advancing our values. It is not enough to pay tribute to certain laudable rights-related causes every once in a while. We must be serious about the issues in question in every aspect of our lives.
Nowhere is this more true than in the question of women's rights. We have clear indications that show that the level of peacefulness of a society is determined not so much by democratic development, wealth, or cultural or religious homogeneity as it is by the way the society in question treats its women.
Canada is better than most states when it comes to women's rights but by no means are we perfect. In fact, we are imperfect in many different ways. Many aboriginal and other women live in abject poverty and lack basic education skills. Women are underrepresented in Parliament and haven't yet achieved income equality in many professions. Violence against women still exists. And women's reproductive rights are being questioned once again.
Many state that equal rights for all have already been legally achieved, obviating the need to continue to fight for them. This is incorrect. Challenges most certainly remain, and education remains a vital tool in ensuring that our values are passed on from generation to generation. There is no final victory for universal liberty in a society -- it is always a single generation away from being lost.
Bullying against teens -- particularly gay teens -- has produced tragic incidents in recent years. Thankfully, Canadians from across the political spectrum are beginning to tackle this issue in legislative form, notably with the introduction of the right to build gay-straight alliances in all Ontario schools.
Transgender rights also remain an important challenge of the future. Parliament has begun to address the issue of gender identity but has failed so far to move forward on gender expression successfully.
LGBT issues have taken the spotlight in various countries in recent years. As a strong friend and supporter of LGBT causes, I am very glad to see this. Gay and transgender rights are one of the issues I am most passionate about when it comes to social policy. What we need to do now is to use the momentum generated from the advances made on LGBT rights to push a plurality of social causes.
Whether it be defending and assisting all victims of rape and violence, pushing for further LGBT rights recognition, fighting for environmental protection, making sure women's rights remain on the political radar or advocating justice for aboriginals, there is much left to be done. These are fights that will require our entire essence, not just occasional lip service.
My friend and mentor -- Liberal MP Irwin Cotler -- taught me that a society should be judged first and foremost by how it treats its most vulnerable members. At the heart of any society are individuals and the language(s) they speak.
I have hence come to the conclusion that in order to protect the rights of gays, women, minorities and others -- in order for our society to truly demonstrate that its cares about equality and dignity for all -- we must demonstrate the utmost sensitivity when we relate to these issues in any fashion.
We could collectively start by choosing our language more carefully and opposing the use of certain inappropriate words whose meanings have unfortunately become watered down over the years. I know that's where I'll begin. And due to how I now feel about my insensitive tweet, I'll begin this task with a sincere desire to make it the first of many steps toward fighting with renewed intention to achieve greater social justice.
]]>Dalton McGuinty Always Did the Right, Not Easy Thingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19690132012-10-16T12:38:07-04:002012-12-16T05:12:02-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/Dalton McGuinty's time in office. From social to fiscal policy, this remains true of Ontario's 24th premier.
Despite the initial unpopularity of the measure, McGuinty's Liberal government introduced a harmonized sales tax, reducing government bureaucracy and creating thousands of jobs in the process. Unthinkably, Tim Hudak's Progressive Conservatives opposed the measure while refusing to pledge to repeal it if they were to form a government.
The HST did more than generate much-needed additional revenue for a cash-straddled government in the wake of a recession. It also created a more collaborative environment for federal-provincial relations.
Blog continues after slideshow...
Instead of a system of "watertight compartments," Queen's Park and Ottawa are now capable of sitting down and negotiating change when need be. This will be particularly important as a demographic shift is about to take hold, rendering Canada's population collectively older -- a culture of cooperation will be needed if the provinces and the feds are to sit down to reform health care and other services together to make them more affordable for the taxpayer.
The HST killed Gordon Campbell's premiership. But Dalton McGuinty stuck with it. And Ontario has now recovered 134 per cent of the jobs it lost in the recession in additional to competitive corporate tax rates to boot.
It is no secret that the province of Ontario is cash-straddled. Every province will be short on revenue in the coming decades as the cost of health care, in particular, increases. Yet Dalton McGuinty understood one of the key tenets of governance -- short-term pain for long-term gain. A similar philosophy was visible in the Liberal government's difficult choices to balance the federal budget in the 1990s, a move that is largely responsible for the country's strong economic performance today.
In this instance, Premier McGuinty made the strenuous decision to increase taxes in order to make important investments in health care. Ontario now has the lowest surgical wait-times in the country, giving the province much-needed breathing room when it comes to the complicated choices that will need to be made over the coming decade when it comes to health care reform.
Yet it was not merely pragmatic decisions that characterized Premier McGuinty's tenure. Liberal values also defined his government, even after it was reduced to minority status.
Despite the controversy of the measure, Premier McGuinty made it clear that gay-straight alliances must be permitted in all school receiving public funding. McGuinty was prepared to lose political allies in order to do the right thing, something that has also clearly been the case with regards to freezing public sector wages. This is yet another vital quality that only true leaders possess.
Finally, political expediency was abandoned in favour of values-based decisions by McGuinty when it came to national issues as well.
While federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair -- a Quebec MP and the supposed leader of the province's federalist forces -- refused to even state that he'd prefer the victory of a federalist party in Quebec's recent provincial election, Dalton McGuinty openly came out in favour of Jean Charest and Canadian unity.
Brushing aside the political popularity of the Harper government's tough-on-crime positions, McGuinty stated with pride at the federal Liberal Party biennial convention this past January that at a time of decreasing crime and increasing global economic competition, the smart decision made by a government is to invest most heavily in education and not in building prisons.
McGuinty said it himself the night he was elected to a third term as premier: Liberalism is still alive in Canada. Thanks to McGuinty's accomplishments as premier, liberalism over the long term in our country has been given the ability to thrive.
]]>Liberals: Don't Rally Around a Sprinter, We're in a Marathontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19345682012-10-03T08:06:49-04:002012-12-03T05:12:02-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
It is essential, now that the Grit leadership race is getting underway, that Liberals honour this promise. Liberals should select their next leader keeping in mind the following difficult but unavoidable truth: The Liberal Party of Canada will not win the 2015 federal election.
In last year's election, 20.7 percentage points in popular vote separated the Liberals from the Conservatives. Never in the history of federal politics in Canada has a party overcome such a deficit to take power in a single election. And let's not forget to mention that the NDP needs to be taken into the equation as well, seeing as it too is currently ranked ahead of the Grits in popular support.
As a result, the Liberals are likely looking at two to three election cycles -- a full decade worth of rebuilding -- before the process of growing the party is rendered complete. This process begins now, however, and mistakes early on may prove to be irreparable.
Since Liberals must be in it for the long haul if they wish to succeed, the next leader's most important task is coming up with a concrete plan simply to move the yardsticks forward in 2015. Accordingly, anyone serious about becoming leader must answer two questions that relate to how the party will take its first big steps in rebuilding.
First, "What constitutes a Liberal vision for Canada in the 21st century?" The answer to this question must contain two components. First off, it must concretely demonstrate what is unique about the Liberal Party when contrasted with the Tories and Dippers.
It is not enough to say that both parties in the Conservative-NDP debate over the oil sands are wrong and that the Liberals will offer some intermediate position, for this would be to allow the political poles to define the framework for this country's political and economic discussion. Liberals need to reframe this discussion completely.
In addition, this vision must turn the Liberal brand into one of "straight talk." The Grits must become a party that demolishes the myths of the left and right and tells taxpayers what they need to hear, not necessarily what they want to hear. Liberal leadership candidates must back up the claim that they support evidence-based policy with substance.
The second question is, "What is your plan to revitalize the party's operational capabilities?" Candidates best positioned to be leader will be ones that not only will have concrete proposals for engaging riding associations, raising more money and possibly altering the party's structure, but also will demonstrate resilience and a clear ability to stay on message.
There were many reasons the Grits lost last year's election, but one of them was that the party had no overarching, clear message to repeat to voters. The Tories did: "stability (a Conservative majority government) vs. chaos (a 'reckless' coalition of left-wing parties), and the economy in the balance."
The Tories won the election: They had a clear message and the financial and organizational means to repeat it over and over again in multiple venues not only during the writ period, but for years preceding it. A Liberal leadership candidate who demonstrates both a plan for achieving such strength for the party and who shows that he or she is able to communicate effectively is one that must be tested.
Which brings me back to my original point of there being no messiah for the Liberal Party. The worst thing the Grits could do right now is to rally en masse around any one candidate for leader early in the race and not give this candidate a chance to prove his or her worth.
Public criticism emanating from the grassroots as well as between candidates for the leadership must be embraced, for through it the party's next leader will acquire many of the skills needed to succeed on the big stage in future elections.
This criticism isn't material for the Conservatives and NDP to produce attack ads, something that these two parties will find a way get their hands on no matter what. A race devoid of substance and hard-hitting questions will produce the wrong winner and would be a blow to the party's fortunes.
Rebuilding will require working together, but to imagine that it is going to be one big group hug is most certainly disingenuous. There is a substantial difference between infighting and attempting to undermine a party's leader, on one hand, and public discourse related to political and policy issues on the other hand.
Since winning in 2015 should not be the end game -- after all, "go big or go home" could always result in going home, although this time the going home would be for good -- Liberals must try to get as much out of this leadership race as possible.
Better to have Grits unite around a common vision as a result of debate than to unite around a personality hoping for a Hail Mary. As history has demonstrated, coronations have not stopped attempts within the kingdom to undermine the reign of the king.]]>The Infallible Trudeau is a Media-Driven Mythtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19216592012-09-28T12:56:06-04:002012-11-28T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Allow me to quote Postmedia's Michael Den Tandt's comments written on September 27:
"[Justin Trudeau] will win the leadership handily and seek to follow in his father's footsteps. It may be a lively contest; much ink will be spilled; but the outcome is not in doubt. That's because of Trudeau's name, but also his personal popularity, fluency in both official languages, youth, oratorical skills, social media following and looks. Once he's in, it's over."
The only qualifier was that it was possible that Trudeau would "self-immolate." Although this is very much a possibility, I see no reason why the bar for a Trudeau defeat is set so high. Somehow, the media have already decided that the race for the Liberal Party of Canada's leadership is over before it has even started.
One need not look any farther than the following headline offered to lead off an article that immediately followed Bob Rae's decision not to run for leader: "Bob Rae won't run for Liberal leadership as all eyes now turn to Justin Trudeau."
Does anyone remember this one? "Broadbent endorsement means NDP leadership race could be over." This headline was offered by Postmedia's Stephen Maher after NDP leadership candidate Brian Topp launched his campaign with former NDP leader Ed Broadbent's support on day one. It turns out that didn't work out too well for him.
The supposed front runner doesn't always win. Stéphane Dion pulled of the most miraculous of upsets to become federal Liberal leader in 2006. Dalton McGuinty became leader of the Ontario Liberals on the fifth ballot in 1996, despite finishing fourth on both the first and second ballots.
Justin Trudeau -- who is expected to announce his candidacy on October 2 -- has entered the race unbelievably early. It isn't set to begin officially until November and the actual vote takes place in April. That gives him lots of time to lose momentum, whether he succumbs to gaffes or not. Yet for some reason, the Canadian media left, right and centre have decided that the race will be a coronation without even having access to a comprehensive list of declared candidates.
The one issue most often cited by the media as being Trudeau's decisive advantage is his army of Twitter followers. How Twitter followers -- who may or may not support you in any way -- necessarily translate into votes on convention day has yet to be explained.
If one is to have an honest conversation with involved grassroots Liberals, one would find just as much antipathy -- if not more -- than sympathy toward a potential Trudeau leadership campaign. What the media are doing here, however, is priming future and present Liberal supporters -- who are not actively involved in the party -- toward supporting Trudeau.
And why not? A successful Trudeau candidacy is bound to generate headlines, the very business the media are in.
I have noted in the past that talk of merging the Liberal Party with the NDP is overwhelmingly media-driven. The case here is no different.
Let there be no mistake: Important elements within the media -- backed by polls based on a non-realized eventuality -- are attempting to create reality rather than report it. A 2002 poll that claimed that a Paul Martin-led Liberal Party would coast to 63 per cent support in the ensuing election should be enough to entice Liberals and non-partisan analysts alike to exercise caution.
Regardless of the spread before the Super Bowl, they still have to play the game. There's a reason for that.
The Grits need a stimulating, debate-filled, open leadership race. Such a contest would represent another important step on the road to rebuilding. Whether this race is up for grabs or not should be dependent upon the views of Liberals, not the media.]]>Will the PQ Win Light a Fire Under Harper?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18600652012-09-06T08:50:34-04:002012-11-06T05:12:01-05:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/Jean Charest's resignation as leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, any arrangement between the Liberals and François Legault's CAQ to form a government now appears highly unlikely, if it didn't seem so even before Charest stepped down. That means that the PQ is set to govern Quebec at least for the next several months.
The results of last night's election -- the Liberals falling just two riding-level victories away from having the right to take the first crack at forming a government and coming in well under one percentage point behind the PQ in popular vote -- will certainly limit the PQ's ability to advance the "sovereigntist governance" it campaigned on.
Yet with the support of Québec solidaire's two MNAs and just seven of the CAQ's 19 elected officials, Marois has a working majority.
The fact remains that we have much to discover about possible divisions within the CAQ's own caucus on issues such as sovereignty, language laws and decentralization of power within the Canadian federation. Because of this, the Canadian government should proceed with caution and not arrogance in its dealings with the Quebec National Assembly.
The fact that the CAQ failed to elect a single member on the island of Montreal and came at least 10,000 votes behind the Liberal candidate in virtually every riding that went Liberal is an indication that the CAQ's bastion of support cannot be anglophones. This will only increase the likelihood that the CAQ will vote with the PQ on certain issues.
Taking all of this into account, on the federal scene there have been winners and losers. Seeing as the above suggests that controversial measures are likely to emerge at least in some form from the Quebec National Assembly, Thomas Mulcair's NDP are likely to be asked frequently to weigh in on such issues. The NDP holds 58 of Quebec's 75 seats in Parliament.
That's bad news for Mulcair, who has a balancing act of his own to take care of. Much like the CAQ, Mulcair's party -- due to the electoral strategy that he himself championed -- is a coalition of federalists and sovereigntists. The NDP's 30-point rise in Quebec between 2008 and 2011 was half at the expense of the Bloc Québécois and half at the expense of both the federal Grits and Tories.
Current NDP MPs -- including former interim leader Nycole Turmel -- have publicly supported the sovereigntist Québec solidaire. Daniel Breton, an NDP candidate in the 2008 federal election, was just elected as a PQ MNA in these provincial elections. Yet Mulcair leads a nominally federalist party. His stances (or lack thereof) on issues of importance to Quebec could cause the coalition he built to fall apart.
The federal Liberals stand to gain from the provincial result for two reasons. First, the dynamic described above in which the NDP's coalition may break apart will mean that clarity will be sought on the national question by Quebecers fed up with Mulcair's possible treading of a fine line. The Grits -- being the most unambiguously federalist party -- stand to gain the most (along with the Bloc Québécois) from this.
Second, the presence of two simultaneous Liberal leadership races (both federal and provincial) is bound to create renewed interest in the future of how federalism is expressed and envisioned in Quebec. In other words, excitement surrounding these two contests could expedite a possible NDP decline in Quebec.
Finally, the Conservatives now have an opportunity to advance a vision that they have consistently championed since Diefenbaker -- decentralization of power.
Replying a flat-out "no" to the PQ's upcoming demands for more power for Quebec is more likely to provoke a nationalist sentiment in Quebec than not, simply because Harper's winning coalition in the 2011 election didn't include Quebec. In other words, Harper has far less flexibility vis-à-vis separatist governments in Quebec than Trudeau and Chrétien had.
Yet indulging the PQ will cause Harper's party much harm in its conservative political heartland. The Tories' base has no patience for appeasing separatists, particularly given the Harper government's recognition of the Québécois as a nation and its big-spending ways -- analogous moves to those that caused the 1990s-era decline of the PCs in the West in favour of the Reform Party. The only way these actions would be tolerated in suburban Ontario and the West would be through reciprocity.
Put differently, Harper would have to hand out goodies to nearly every province in order to keep both the separatists content until a snap election is forced in Quebec and to maintain his own electoral coalition. The Supreme Court's relatively recent ruling on the unconstitutionality of a national securities regulator could ironically be used as reasonable grounds for further devolution of power in practical terms.
Therefore, paradoxically, the PQ's minority win gives Stephen Harper a small window to advance a new vision for Canadian federalism and therefore unite a polarized Confederation along the lines of a common direction.
A large part of Harper's legacy will depend on whether he is now able to shake his habit of cold calculation, patience and laissez-faire attitude toward the provinces -- a habit that has given him great political success but has resulted in inaction (e.g. failure to address health care reform head on) at the expense of his party's founding values and to the detriment of national unity.]]>The Liberal Party Must Keep Quebec Happy and Canada Togethertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17869482012-08-16T11:20:20-04:002012-10-16T05:12:28-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
And that's a problem.
The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) -- historically at the centre of the political spectrum and nearly always in power -- is represented by a big tent of belief systems spanning from centre-left to centre-right. Debate within the party on social and fiscal issues has often been heated. Yet there has always been one issue that has brought nearly all members of the party together: national unity.
Wilfrid Laurier believed in limited government an a decentralized federation. Pierre Trudeau practiced something close to a state-run economy and fought for a Big Ottawa vision. Yet both dedicated their adult lives to keeping the country together. Those who left the party in the wake of the Meech Lake Accord's defeat brought with them the last of the fickle federalists.
Today, many federal Liberals -- understanding that the party's rebuilding process is likely going to take a considerable amount of time -- have thrown themselves into the provincial fray. Unable to secure a senior position in the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) establishment or feeling little previous attachment to active provincial politics, some have opted to join the CAQ.
Personal friends of mine from the federal Liberal Party have taken on important organizational roles within the CAQ. Former LPC candidates -- and at least one former Liberal MP -- have either expressed public support for the CAQ or have joined its central team. One CAQ candidate in this election was recently defeated in a race for a spot on the Liberal Party of Canada's executive team in Quebec.
I know all of these Grits to be people of tremendous integrity and I most certainly do not call their federalist credentials into question. But let's consider the facts.
François Legault -- leader of the CAQ -- is a former Parti Québécois cabinet minister, a man who has made Quebec sovereignty his life project, and a former potential PQ leadership candidate who just a few short years ago called independence an "urgent priority" for Quebec.
In order to eat into PLQ support, he stated that he would vote No if a referendum were held any time over the next 10 years -- leaving open the possibility that he would pursue sovereignty after that period of time elapses. Even if one is to believe him, that isn't exactly federalism at its best. LPC supporters of the CAQ may be helping bring to power a man who will actively pursue the breakup of the country in the not-too-distant future.
One must remember that there are in reality only two choices for the future of Quebec -- either inside Canada or outside of it. Legault defines his intermediate position as being one that does not lay the groundwork for sovereignty (allegedly) nor one that prepares Quebec to sign the Constitution of Canada.
Yet Jean Charest -- Quebec's most staunchly federalist premier in decades -- has not initiated constitutional negotiations. Being a federalist requires only support for Quebec's continued, indefinite membership in Confederation and attempts to make such an arrangement function practically.
It should be noted that a national unity crisis -- and hence a PLQ defeat in this election or the next -- would be the easiest way to rebuild the federal Liberal Party in Quebec. Indeed, Quebeckers are likely to seek clarity in the event of a referendum and would opt to vote for either the Grits or the Bloc Québécois and not for the mushy federalism of the NDP.
Yet there is something deeper at play here. In addition the problems that divided provincial loyalties would bring to an already polarized federal Liberal Party in Quebec, there remains the challenge of constructing a solid belief system for the LPC as it rebuilds. One of the principle criticisms of federal Liberals following the 2011 election was that they didn't know what they stood for.
The PLQ does in fact have a clear belief system rooted in social progress (e.g., embracing multiculturalism and going soft on language laws) and fiscal responsibility (e.g., next year's balanced budget and the pursuit of the groundbreaking Plan Nord). The CAQ doesn't -- its promises of tax cuts go right alongside spending increases in the range of billions of dollars.
But there's something even more important at play. The LPC is the only party on the federal spectrum that can unequivocally embrace national unity, Quebec nationalism and social progressiveness at the same time. The party needs to increase its cohesiveness on as many issues as possible, and hence cannot afford to succumb to a partisan divide when it comes to the one issue that has united Liberals for generations: national unity.
A non-negligible number of federal Liberals have lent their support to the CAQ. But is their support dependent upon a possible CAQ government not laying the groundwork for another sovereignty project? At least one Liberal-CAQ "dual citizen" refuses to say.
Referendum or no referendum, the Liberal Party of Canada needs strong, committed federalists advancing a clear vision for a united Canada now if it wants to successfully embark on its rebuilding voyage. Politics for politics' sake is what brought the LPC to the brink of destruction. If federal Liberals in Quebec put aside their ideals for petty politics, we'll be making the same mistake.]]>Why I Love Canada: We Are More Free Than Americanstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16363022012-07-01T09:19:01-04:002012-08-31T05:12:07-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Although the American motto of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" explicitly mentions freedom, it is in fact the Canadian incantation that provides for real liberty. The American version has led to the creation of national myths, largely due to the fact that Americans spilled their own blood fighting for their constitution ages ago. This has led to laws constantly being viewed through the lens of "framers' intent," leading in turn to increased polarization in society.
Our constitution, contrary to the American one, was brought home much more recently -- and by a controversial figure at that. Hence, although our Charter contains the language of rights and freedoms, it is not necessarily a unifying document as is the case with the American fundamental law and accompanying declaration of independence.
Therefore, it is in fact due to the will of the people and the values that they imbue in their descendents that Canadians enjoy the freedoms they do -- not due to a piece of paper.
For we in Canada understand that liberty is derived from peace, order and good government. It is only when peace reigns at home that true freedom is afforded to all citizens. The guarantors of this peace -- and hence of this freedom -- are not judges but the Canadian people themselves.
The creation of a diverse yet peaceful society is a cornerstone of Canada's mission. In essence, we are a people with a sense of purpose. And those peoples that understand their purpose in life are demonstrably those that are happiest.
In other words, we managed to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more effectively than the Americans without even making this phrase a national icon. Admittedly, we owe the Americans a great deal for the ideological influences and economic prosperity they have provided us. Yet it appears that we in Canada have lived up more so to Jefferson's ideal than the Americans themselves.
This is a testament to the greatness of the Canadian people -- that moderation and unity can be combined with non-negotiable values to produce a peaceful and free society. And as one of the 21st century's major powers -- as I hope our country will choose to make itself -- we will be able to spread these values to all of humanity.]]>A Former Prime Minister's Advice on Running Canadatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16111352012-06-20T15:30:10-04:002012-08-20T05:12:05-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/
Turner's words come at an important time. He clearly articulated what's wrong with Parliament these days -- forced blind partisanship, omnibus bills and the like -- and went so far as to state that the only whipped votes in Parliament should be a throne speech and a budget.
Turner is right about the need for democratic renewal. It's already difficult enough to convince Canada's brightest minds to leave their family behind and sometimes take a significant pay cut to come to Ottawa. Having a system in which these bright minds -- who would theoretically compose Parliament -- become merely an obstacle to rule by decree only makes matters worse.
The by-product, of course, of the absence of Canada's finest in politics combined with MPs blindly towing the party line is worse legislation. But let us allow for the following question: How does one square democratic renewal -- which would presumably move us toward a political framework in which the prime minister is less powerful in practice than he is now -- with the need for decisive action to tackle Canada's significant challenges of the coming decades?
European states, many plagued by domestic unrest and riddled with debt, are forced to take action to get their finances in order. A reduction in defense expenditures and a general public sentiment to "withdraw from the world" appear to have taken hold. This comes as the eurozone nears collapse, thus weakening not only Europe's military prowess on the global stage, but also its united economic presence.
Canada appears to be headed in the opposite direction. Blessed with abundant natural resources, so far on more solid financial footing than many European states and situated far from any current zone of conflict, Canada has started to put more money toward world policing (e.g. Libya, Kandahar). The Canadian military is also beginning to show more clout in the Arctic region, an area that could become increasingly contested as climate change causes the Northwest passage to thaw.
Having been for quite some time a country economically preoccupied with the United States and Europe exclusively, Canada has now begun to widen its gaze toward Asia and the Americas. Canada has finally received an invitation to join talks set to create a free trade zone that could encompass half of the global economy, and continues to deepen trade ties with China.
Advancing Canadian interests along all these international fronts requires putting forward a strategic vision that could prove to be both controversial and divisive. More importantly, it requires decisive action such as the removal of obstacles to trade, or the continued rebuilding and reorganization of the Canadian military.
And this is just when it comes to national defense and international affairs. We haven't even begun to talk about the need for fiscal restraint and public service reform as our country braces for a significant demographic shift that will render our population collectively older. The associated fiscal and social challenges will be unprecedented.
John Turner has a knack for being simultaneously brief and wise. And at this event, he didn't disappoint. He reminded the crowd of something so elementary, yet unfortunately lacking in so many ways in today's Ottawa -- he told us that politics is about people.
The minute it becomes harder for the prime minister to wield parliamentary power -- whether it be through electoral reform or democratic renewal within the existing electoral system -- the more essential it becomes for him or her to act as a broker and not as a whip. Whether he or she must win over more MPs to pass legislation, or greater segments of the Canadian population at election time, the result is the rallying of Canadians around a particular vision and the advancement of national unity.
In short, unlike the current strategies of Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair, the prime minister in order to win would have to unite and not divide Canadians. In other words, he or she would have to put people before politics. One can exploit natural resources and rebuild all the military all one wants, but these actions are not worth it over the long run if the electorate must be divided regionally on a constant basis in order to achieve them.
Limiting the power of those who have it not only renders us more free -- it also renders us more united. Only when our country is united -- only when every region is on board -- can it truly tackle the challenges it faces.
At this important crossroads in Canada's history -- a time at which a majority government has been formed with the lowest level of support from Quebec since the 1917 conscription crisis -- John Turner is doing us a big favour by reminding us of this fact.]]>Bob Rae: A Class Act Bows Out Gracefullytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15945042012-06-13T16:42:14-04:002012-08-13T05:12:05-04:00Zach Paikinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-paikin/not to throw his hat into the ring as the party approaches its 2013 leadership convention.
I don't have even an ounce of the political experience that Bob Rae has, but I can admit -- having run for a spot on the Liberal Party's national executive -- that it's quite difficult for an individual to suppress the flames of a burning passion to create real change. Politics is a game in which both compliments and insults thrown your way only fan those flames.
But now that Rae is out, what are we to expect from the race for Liberal leader? Here are a few things to take note of:
One. The race will now get underway later rather than sooner.
Had Rae decided to run, other candidates would have likely chosen to declare their intentions not too long thereafter for two reasons. First, any other candidate would have a lot of catching up to do against Bob Rae who would have had the luxury of essentially having campaigned for leader for a year.
Second, any serious candidate would have wanted to attempt to polarize the race between Rae and him or herself before Justin Trudeau makes up his mind on whether or not to run. Trudeau is widely expected to spend the summer peacefully with his family and not to revisit his decision not to run until the fall. Trudeau, now the supposed front-runner, wouldn't want to risk losing momentum over the course of a campaign that could be ten months long if he declared his candidacy too soon.
With Rae out of the race and the heart of the leadership campaign unlikely to get underway until a few months from now, the party now has an opportunity to focus exclusively on rebuilding for a few months.
Much discussion (perhaps too much) -- both within party ranks and in the media -- has been dedicated over the past year to the question of whether or not Rae would seek the leadership of the party. With that short-term question now out of the way, Liberals can now shift gears and take more time to engage in a substantive discussion about the long-term future of the party.
Two. The strategic electoral calculus of the party will decisively shift toward Quebec.
Now that Trudeau is the supposed front-runner, his opponents will attempt to throw anything they can at him if he runs. Expect Trudeau's controversial comments on Quebec separatism made earlier this year to come up during the race.
Anybody taking on Trudeau on that battleground will have to either be from Quebec or co-opt elements of Quebec nationalism into their stance. Failure to satisfy one of these two conditions will allow Trudeau to use the comments to his advantage among Quebecers who choose to sign up for free as a party supporter to vote for leader.
Moreover, expect more potential candidates to throw their hats into the ring now that the race is not going to be as tilted as originally expected. Names being thrown around from Quebec include Trudeau, Montreal MPs Marc Garneau and Denis Coderre, former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon and current Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier in addition to the francophone Dominic LeBlanc from New Brunswick.
More candidates from Quebec means more discussion -- both among the grassroots and between the candidates -- on how the Liberal Party of Canada can rebuild in la belle province. This is essential, seeing as the Liberal Party of Canada since 1896 has not won a majority government without winning at least 72 per cent of the seats in Quebec.
Ad usum, a francophone has taken the helm of the Liberal Party following an anglophone leader. (Michael Ignatieff, an anglophone, was the last leader of the party.) Hence, expect more media coverage of the Quebec question during the leadership race as well, as the francophone candidates in the race will be under particular scrutiny.
Three. The leadership race will now be less polarizing.
The previous sentence is not intended in the sense that a theoretical decision by Rae to run after supposedly having pledged not to to assume the interim leadership would have been polarizing and controversial. What is implied is that a race with Rae in it would have been polarized between centre-left (Rae) and centre-right (likely Garneau), with Trudeau possibly holding ground in the centre.
All leadership contents in the history of the Liberal Party since Pierre Trudeau's retirement have been fought along left-right lines, separating the party into solid camps and creating serious infighting problems. Examples include (with the candidate representing the left coming first): Chrétien vs. Turner in 1984, Chrétien vs. Martin in 1990, Copps vs. Martin in 2003, and Rae vs. Ignatieff in 2006 and 2008.
With no clear chief rival having emerged to face off against Justin Trudeau -- and with much still to be learned by the public about where the latter actually stands on the political spectrum -- we are likely now to see a race focused more on the free exchange of ideas than on character assassination. This is an important development in the early years of the Liberal Party's rebuilding era.
In sum, Bob Rae's decision not to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party has increased the chances that the party will be able to reinvent itself and focus on what counts. A classy move by a classy guy.]]>