Monthly Archives: March 2008

Canada's racial stalemate

The other week – as virtually everybody is now aware – Obama gave his much celebrated speech on the racial stalemate in America.

Here in Canada we have a stalemate as well. It is discussed less frequently (if at all) then the American stalemate Obama spoke of, and it does not fall along clearly delineated racial lines. I am speaking of the stalemate between First Nations and the rest of Canada. On page 157 0f his book “Dances with Dependency: Indigenous Success through Self-Reliance” (if you don’t have a copy I highly recommend picking one up), aboriginal rights activist Calvin Helin writes a paragraph that parallels the sentiment of Obama’s speech.

When chronicling and discussing the very real problem of abuses of power, mismanagement, nepotism and corruption found on some First Nation band councils, Helin notes:

Aboriginal people are reluctant to speak publicly about these issues because they do not wish to provide grist for the political right in Canada who many feel are racist, and have no real interest in actually trying to make the situation better (though often there is a sizable, but silent contingent that supports the publication of such issues in what might be considered right-of-centre publications, because they are regarded as only telling the truth and trying to make things better for the ordinary Aboriginal folks). Generally, non-aboriginal observers have been reluctant to raise this issue as well because, in the current climate of political correctness, they might automatically be labelled as racists. Even the many Chiefs and Councils that are running honest governments in the best interests of their members feel compelled to defend against such reported abuses, because they fear their activities may become tarred with a brush that does not apply in their particular circumstances. Usually when this matter is raised publicly, there are entrenched positions on both sides of the debate and little communications as to how to solve these problems. (my own italics)

While this hardly captures the entire dynamic, it highlights an important dimension of Canada’s racial stalemate. That anger and guilt in both communities – aboriginals and non-aboriginals – can sometime build narratives about the other that reinforce their mutual distrust and preventing us from reaching out and finding a way to address what is our country’s most important challenges.

I suspect this stalemate will not last. A new force could be about to completely alter this debate. A new generation – a demographic tsunami in fact – of smart, educated, and motivated young First Nation is about to crest over this country (While Calvin Helin is an excellent example, he is much older than the cohort I’m thinking of). I’m not sure that non-aboriginal leaders – and, to be frank, current aboriginal leaders – are even aware of what is about to hit them. Gauging from those I have met and befriended, this cohort is frustrated, but motivated, organized and very pragmatic. But perhaps, most importantly, they increasingly urban and, not as tied to the power structures of the reserves or chiefs. In this regard they transcend the discussion, living in, and comfortable in, both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal domain. One way or another they are will redefine this debate.

Clinton can't have it both ways on democracy and delegates

28 Replies

So Hillary Clinton has spent the last 3 months talking about how Michigan and Florida should be seated because”their votes should count.” It is important that these states, and their voters, be represented at the convention in Denver.

Now she’s arguing that pledged delegates – those delegates that were allocated by the outcomes of the caucuses and primaries – are not bound to abide by the election results that earned them their seat at the convention.

“Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose,” Clinton told Time’s Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.

So just to make sure we get this straight: it is important that democracy happen – especially in Florida and Michigan – but it is okay if the elected delegates violate that democratic process by not voting for the candidate they were elected to vote for. And this is democratic because…

…it isn’t.

For Canadians this simple translation is this: Clinton wants to encourage delegates to be like David Emerson. To get elected for supporting one party/candidate and then to switch sides immediately following the election. It is appalling position and undermines the very notion of democracy. While her concern over the Michigan and Florida delegates was never genuine (just look at her remarks back in New Hampshire and Iowa) this only serves to further confirm what many of us fear – Clinton is willing to trade in any principle in order to win. It’s hard to be inspired by that.

Hargrove vs. Layton

8 Replies

According to National Newswatch Buzz Hargrove is ruminating running as a Liberal against Jack Layton.

It is no secret that Hargrove and Layton dislike each other. Indeed, the NDP even revoked Hargrove’s membership during the last electoin after he suggested NDP voters vote strategically (e.g. for Liberals) in some ridings to prevent the Conservatives from gaining power.

The bigger question is why the Liberals would want to be the vehicle for this feud. Taking out Layton will not end the NDP. Indeed, it’s unclear why the Liberals would want to take out Layton at all. He’s has been pretty good for the Liberals… the NDP remains more or less stuck in the polls. Why would the Liberals mess with a good thing?

The downside however, is not insignificant. Taking a run at Layton could galvanize NDP voters as well as give him greater prominance in the election. Layton usually has to fight for media attention. By offering up a high profile challenger the Liberals will draw attention to him that he could never earn on his own. Worse still, a high profile match up would enable Layton to claim the Liberals perceive him as a threat – lending him an air of credibility and respect that again, he has been unable to earn on his own.

All in all, it’s obvious what Hargrove gets out of it, the Liberals… less so.

But then, this is all rumour and speculation…

the battle against technology is ageless…

change congress

7 Replies

Creative commons founder and personal hero, Lawrence Lessig, has founded Change Congress, his first step in what he plans to make a 10 year mission to improve the state of American democracy.

It true Lessig fashion the goal is big and the plan is simple. He’s focusing on four changes:

No money from lobbyists or PACs
Vote to end earmarks
Support publicly-financed campaigns
Support reform to increase Congressional transparency

upon which there is more written about here.

Am I excited about the potential? Absolutely. Something is happening in the United States right now. A progressive backlash is brewing.

My only cause for concern is that, like previous reform efforts, we don’t succumb to the law of unintended consequences. I remember reading how making congress members committee votes public was intended to make congress more “transparent.” It did. By by doing so it empowered lobbyists to ensure the members they gave money to actually voted the way they were paid to – in effect tightening this groups control on congress. While I believe transparency to be a good thing, this outcome could hardly be described as progressive in its impact.

I’m no expert on the machinations of congress, but we should always ask ourselves what will happen to the money once we close off one tap. For example, of the 4 priorities above, the end of earmarks raises some possible concerns. It will probably mean that the US public service will have more control over the specific allocation of monies. This could be good thing. But then perhaps not. The US public service is not as independent as it is say, here in Canada, and so this may simply enable the administration to assert more control on who ends up receiving money. Rather than an end to pork barreling, it will simply shift who controls the pork from congress to presidential appointees…

Dissecting the Quadra By-election

10 Replies

The political Parties have been busy spinning Monday’s by-election outcomes. The one that is most interesting to yours truly are the stories out of Vancouver-Quadra.

The Conservatives have been successfully spinning their narrow loss as a victory in the long standing Liberal riding:

“Whether we win or lose, it’s a huge victory for the Conservatives in Vancouver Quadra,” said Meredith. “We’ve closed the gap. The fact that it’s so tight right now and we can’t say who the winner will be is a huge change from the last few elections.”

According to Elections Canada the finally tally had the Liberals at 36.1% (down 13% from last year), the Conservatives at 35.5 (up 6%), the Greens at 13.5 (up 8.5%) and the NDP at 14.4 (down 2%).

Interestingly, few people are talking about the low voter turn out. Only 27.9% of eligible voter (and 33.9% of registered voters) actually voted. This is less than half the average of the last general election.

Given that Quadra is a fairly Liberal riding a lower voter turn out rate will broadly favour challengers. Why? If the “average” voter is Liberal and opts not to turn out then the outcome will favour those who are more motivated. This tends to be voters who are challenging the incumbent or who have are issue focused. This riding has been Liberal for a while now, so they are most at risk in this situation.

Once this is factored this race takes on less meaning. Take the the Greens for example. Their voters are probably more dedicated than the average voter (to go the poll year after year knowing your candidate isn’t going to get elected takes dedication). Because of the low turn out rate their % of the vote increased dramatically (doubling from 6% to 13.5%) even though the absolute number of people who voted for them rose only marginally.

Most interesting though was that the Conservatives almost got their perfect storm. To win they needed a very low voter turn out rate with strong low-key campaigning from themselves and a good performance out of the Greens and NDP. Indeed, the Conservatives were so intent on this strategy that Harper didn’t even campaign on behalf of the Conservative Candidate – Deborah Meredith – when he was in Vancouver last week. Having the Prime Minister campaigning would have raised the profile of the race thereby increasing voter turn out and hurting the party’s odds. It was one of those moments when having a sitting PM stump on your behalf would actually have done more harm than good.

As a result I’m not sure that anyone can claim any larger meaning out of the race. The Greens impressive % increase is an interesting story, but again, it is likely that many of the same hardcore supporters came out as opposed to many new ones. Interestingly the NDP never really ran in Quadra, but instead had almost a city wide campaign trying to increase their profile in preparation for the general election (my understanding is that they didn’t even do door-to-door canvassing and focused their attention on city-wide media). I hope it worked because the NDP’s numbers are the real disaster story. Its % of the vote shrunk when the low voter turn out should have inflated it. Either their die hard supporters opted not to come out, or they voted Green or Liberal. Either way, that’s not a good sign for a party stuck in the polls.

I've never seen a political speech like this

11 Replies

I was going to post about the Quadra byelection today (I’d even written something so will post tomorrow) but yesterday afternoon I started getting emails from friends in the US asking me if I’d seen “the speech.” I’d locked myself away for much of the day and was trying to avoid the great distraction that is the internet, so… I hadn’t. I finally loaded it up on YouTube and figured I watch a few minutes.

37 minutes later, and now a night’s sleep, and I’m still feeling pretty stunned.

I thought Obama displayed courage when he gave his speech on homophobia within the African American church at MLK’s church on MLK day. This speech takes that courage to a whole new level. What made it work – for me at least – was how he seemed to serve as a conduit, a translator, for African-American and white communities. Breaking down the stalemated debate between them and trying to offer a path out.

Most impressively, he did this while trying to bring complexity and nuance back into political discourse. I don’t know if he’ll succeed but I’m glad someone is finally trying.

Finally, the comparison to Hillary is again, quite stark. When the controversy over Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks spun out of control Hillary threw her under the bus. Did she use the opportunity to talk about the glass ceiling for women? The subtle and pervasive effects of sexism? No. This would not have been politically expedient. And yet, to paraphrase Obama, Ferraro’s frustration and anger was real, legitimate, and powerful. And to simply wish it away and to condemn it without understand its roots only served to widen the chasm along both racial and gender lines.

And yet this is what Hillary did. She wished it away and condemned it, instead of using it as an opportunity to elevate the debate and actually try to address a serious and legitimate problem.

But then that sums up the campaign in a nutshell:

Hillary is playing to win – and her supporters believe she can better manage Washington. Obama is playing to make change – and his supporters believe he can remake Washington like Reagan or FDR did. So today they are reveling, as their candidate has again demonstrated his willingness to take on a dangerous issue – like race – that no other politician can or will touch.

Here’s a youtube clip of the speech:

Negotiation Workshop for NGOs in Vancouver

Negotiating with the Lord's resistance army (redux)

2 Replies

Some of you may remember the post I wrote after doing a workshop with some Ugandans who’ve been negotiating with the Lord’s Resistance Army for the release of kidnapped children.

I forgot to mention that the Canadian Consortium on Human Security published a slightly revamped version as the lead piece in last month’s edition of the Human Security Bulletin.

Active online often means being active offline

4 Replies

Anyone under the age of 30 – skip this post.

From time to time, after I give a talk about technology and public service sector renewal, I end up getting a question from the audience to the effect of, “hey isn’t all this technology just isolating and distracting? Aren’t people who spend time online just sealing themselves off from the world?”

Despite the Web 2.0 explosion, their remain pockets of people for who the “geek” stereotype of internet user remains dominant. Stephen Johnson’s book Everything bad is good for you began to poke some cavernous holes in this stereotype – for example, white collared professionals who play video games are actually more social, more confident and more adept at solving problems than their colleagues. But then, video game geeks and internet users may be different people.

Trolling through some old emails I stumbled up some studies that challenged these stereotypes. A while back Alan Moore shared with us some of the following exciting (and expensive) conclusions of the University of South California’s Digital Future Report:

The Digital Future Project found that involvement in online communities leads to offline actions. More than one-fifth of online community members (20.3 percent) take actions offline at least once a year that are related to their online community. (An “online community” is defined as a group that shares thoughts or ideas, or works on common projects, through electronic communication only.)

So online activities actually lead to offline activity for a fifth (and growing percentage) of people. No surprise here. What surprises me are people who think the internet and the “real” world are some how disconnected things. They aren’t. As David Weinberger has so vigorously and effectively argued – the two are deeply emeshed in, and shaping, the other.

eaves.ca

if writing is a muscle, this is my gym