Category Archives: canadian politics

The Canadian and American Debates: Ice and Fire?

11 Replies

Watching the debates – both the Canadian and US Veep contest – last night I was struck by how the debates both reflect each country’s political traditions and, in doing so ran counter to some old myths we have about Canadians and Americans.

In the US I thought that Biden easily trumped Palin – who managed to survive without too many big gaffs (although there were some very painful moments). In Canada, I thought May was the most interesting – aggressive, but grounded. Layton was good and Dion was not bad as well. Duceppe seemed relatively disengaged and Harper suffered both from the fact that he was able to rise above the fray and that he was getting attacked on all sides. Killer line of the night – delivered by Layton against Harper – came during an exchange of whether or not the Conservatives had a plan for the economy: “Where’s the platform, under the sweater?

More interesting than who won however, is what the debates say about the United States and Canada. Each of the debate formats seemed to play to the traditions of the office and political system of its participants. In Canada I feel this was a first – we finally got the format right. Rather than try to adopt the US presidential template, this year’s Canadian debate was downright parliamentarian in its style: raucous, aggressive, with lots of back and forth. Personally, I believe this was both more effective and engaging for the audience. Unlike presidents, who often try to stay above the fray, parliamentarians should be in the thick of it – and this debate format allowed these skills and that energy to come to the fore.

In contrast the US veep debate was very controlled, orderly and, well, patrician in comparison. As with the Presidential debate there was virtually no back and forth. Very little sparring and engagement between the principles. Indeed, the participants were almost passive aggressive – a little dig here or there – rather than engaging one another in battle. But then, this also reflects the traditional of the executive branch in the United States, which historically has often been patrician, less partisan and above the fray of congress (and especially the house of representatives). Presidents don’t debate people once in office like a Prime Minister does during Question Period – they lecture and talk, such as during the State of the Union.

I find the difference in debate styles still more interesting since they seem to run counter to the ideas Canadians and Americans have about each other and themselves. Michael Adams, when writing about Canadians and Americans in his 2004 best seller, entitled his work Fire and Ice to highlight that there was a (growing) difference between the two country’s cultures. Watching these two debates doesn’t make me believe the two country’s culture are converging, but it does feel like they are inversed.

The Canadian debate was downright aggressive. Attacks were unrelenting, constant interrupting, candidates raising their hands in despair, shouting one down. Looked at under different circumstances, I’m sure many Canadians would have considered it all to be very… American.

In contrast the American debate appeared all civilized, and yet had a strong under current of passive aggression. Everybody was very polite and on their best behaviour, even as they sought to tear into their counterpart – in a polite way of course. Watching the debate, it struck me as all very… well… Canadian.

It’s like for one evening Canadians and Americans switched personalities. We had an engaging, aggressive, uncompromising format where the issues and the people came out. The Americans candidates were forced to be polite and thus passive aggressive. Or perhaps there was no switch… it really was like hockey versus baseball. One’s a contact sport, the other isn’t. I just never thought I’d say that about our respective politics.

Another foreign policy issue not on the election radar

4 Replies

I have a piece in Embassy Magazine today lamenting the fact that US-Canada relations are likely in for some significant changes over the next few years… and we’re unlikely to do much in the way of planning.

Certainly no one on the campaign trail is going to be talking about it.

Embassy, September 24th, 2008
OPED

Why Canada-U.S. Should Be an Election Issue

By David Eaves

Canada’s relationship with the United States has always experienced ebbs and flows. The question is not how do we prevent this cycle, but how Canadian governments choose to manage it?

And manage it we have not. Not since the Trudeau era has Canada been more marginal to debates in Washington. Even the basic elements that once kept the relationship running smoothly—such as quarterly meetings between senior Canadian and American officials—no longer occur. Consequently, when issues arise that relate directly to Canada—such as on the environment, protectionism, or energy security—our voice is frequently absent.

Today, Canada engages the United States not as a strategic partner, but as yet another country with a laundry list of complaints. Be it the border or softwood lumber, our concerns may be justified, but the tone and message is problematic: we have a concern, and you are the cause.

There are understandable reasons for this state of affairs. Over the past eight years, the United States has pursued policies, from Iraq to Kyoto, that, to understate the problem, made the vast majority of Canadians uncomfortable.

But the Bush era is coming to an end. And with elections taking place on both sides of the border, the political map of North America could look dramatically different by the end of November. A McCain or, more dramatically, an Obama administration could mark the beginning of a number of important policy shifts. Issues critical to Canada, and the Canada-U.S. relationship, will likely be reviewed. More importantly, policies that will shape the future of North America will be decided, with or without our participation.

Among the most important of these issues is energy security, something both presidential candidates have stated they will prioritize. As America’s largest energy supplier, Canada will factor significantly in these plans. In addition, at some point, a North American carbon regime will likely emerge, the environmental implications of the tar sands will need to be confronted, businesses will want to further facilitate the movement of goods and people across the border and, of course, Canadian and Americans will need to co-operate to ensure success in Afghanistan, especially as the United States refocuses its energies there. This is to say nothing of the unpredictable events and issues that will inevitably spring up.

And yet, none of the prime ministerial candidates will talk about renewing our relationship with the United States. The subject is simply too unpopular, and the outcome of the U.S. election too unpredictable. So at the very moment, when a plan and vision is most required from our leaders, when the opportunity for renewal is emerging, Canadians are least likely to receive one.

Perhaps others can begin strategizing and preparing. Canadians should hope so, for such a renewal is not only necessary but possible. In a recent Policy Options piece on renewing the Canada-U.S. relationship, Robin Sears notes: “Imagine the vision, the courage and imagination that it took in the harsh winter of European famine of 1947-48 for two powerless French statesmen to sit in a Paris café and begin to plan for a united Europe!”

Today, despite our differences, Canadians and Americans face not even a fraction of the obstacles that confronted Schuman and Monnet, nor do we want to even contemplate a vision half as grand.

Such planning will, as always, require Canadian leadership. Part of this is because of the asymmetric impact of any resolution. For Canadians the magnitude of the challenges is simply fundamental, but to America they are but a few of many pre-occupations. Their chess board is simply vastly more complex. But for domestic reasons, the Canadian public will demand their government lead, not follow, the Americans.

Somewhere in Ottawa, I hope, there is the Canadian equivalent of Schuman or Monnet, who see the opportunity and are planning a strategy to manage the next generation of Canada-U.S. relations. One thing is for certain, no one on the campaign trail will be.

David Eaves is a frequent speaker, consultant and writer on public policy and negotiation.

Pollster Deathmatch: Who's winning the election?

4 Replies

Anyone notice this? We seem to not only have a battle of political parties, but also a battle of pollsters.

According to Harris/Decima press release of September 21st the Conservatives lead is growing:

Conservatives:39%,
Liberals: 23%
NDP: 17%
Green Party: 11%
BQ: 8%.

However, a press release on the very same day by our friend Nik Nanos (who it is worth remembering predicted the last election within .2%) had the Conservatives lead shrinking:

Conservatives:36%,
Liberals: 31%
NDP: 20%
Green Party 7%
BQ 7%.

Personally, my money is on Nik, but something is going on here. These two polls are in disagreement well outside the margin of error. Liberal support is either at 23% or 31%? A lead of 5% versus 16%? These are huge differences…

When this election is over someone is going to really have egg on their face.

Changed your lightbulbs? Now let's change some laws…

Leave a reply

Just returned Sunday evening from SVI. Interesting times and interesting conversations. One quick action item to share with everyone and anyone.

Tzeporah Berman (featured in our LRC article) has started a new organization called Power Up Canada that seeks to promote the environment as an issue around which people will make their decision at the ballot box.

If you have 30 seconds today, please join (and consider donating money to) Power Up Canada.

left wing tonic for Michael Byers

Leave a reply

Recently I’ve been reading more and more of Policy Options. I’m not a reading every issue (although I’m not trying to) but I am enjoying much of what I do get through.

Going way back to the February issue there was an article by Robin Sears entitled “Canada in North America: From Political Sovereignty to Economic Integration.” The piece was a hard assessment about the limits of Canadian sovereignty and economic independence in light of our geographical position next to the United States. He notes that our position is one where we must work with our American cousins and try to gain as much influence as possible – a bold statement these days – but one that remains true. Perhaps no more so today. When things are at their worst (and I’ll admit, they are) that’s precisely when we need a map for a better path. As Sears points out…:

Imagine the vision, the courage and imagination that it took in the harsh winter of European famine of 1947-48 for two powerless French statesmen to sit in a Paris café and begin to plan for a united Europe! …They reflected grimly on “the success of the victorious Allied powers” in Europe.

The continent was being savaged by Soviet armies in the east and staggered under starvation in the west. The only European unity any rational person could foresee was a shared visceral hatred of Germany and everything it had stood for. The miracle that was the Marshall Plan was still in the future. Germany was a decade away from its economic leap forward. England, torn by its loss of empire, with its special relationship with the United States and its eternal ambivalence about Europe, was unreliable.

The simple fact is, we are stuck on this north american rock with the a powerful neighbor who knows little about us, and cares less and less every day. The only thing that will be worse is when they suddenly do care about us – like our border after 9/11. Sears’ is at pains to find ways to foster political structures to promote cooperation between Canada and the United States and he’s right. We need them. Those who wish to die at the altar of sovereignty, preserving it absolutely at no matter what cost, will find that they have significantly less influence, not only abroad, but at home as well. Worse, sovereignty is usually not what they care about. In perhaps the pieces most biting line, Sears points out:

“Canadian nationalists trying to ring-fence our sovereignty are engaged in an especially ironic struggle, given their citizenship in the nation that invented the modern, more supple form of sovereignty: federalism. Those who are most determined to draw deeper lines in the ongoing crusade against American encroachment on our national sovereignty are often the strongest advocates of Canada’s leadership in the development of global governance through multilateral institutions. The contradiction reveals less about their convictions about sovereignty than about their plain vanilla anti-Americanism.”

Ouch.

The piece is interesting and worth reading on its own merits. But what makes it still more compelling is its author. So who is this man? Excellent question. First, despite the article’s bent, analysis and conclusion, he’s not a Conservative. No, for the uninitiated (like me) Robin Sears was the national campaign director of the NDP during the Broadbent years and served as Bob Rae’s chief of staff when he was premier. He was also Deputy Secretary General of the Socialist International. For those on the left whose only prescription to our geographic conundrum is to seal the border and throw away the key (a proposition that would see no end of pain for the Canadian economy) it is interesting to find those, on the same side of the spectrum, who disagree. I hope we see more of them… frankly the debate needs their perspective.

Which government embraces Facebook? (hint: it's not ours)

2 Replies

A few weeks ago Dave D. kindly sent me this article out of England about how junior public servants are teaching their senior colleagues how to use facebook.

And just in case you think this is an ad hoc thing…

Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson yesterday said Whitehall mandarins had been given new guidelines ‘to encourage civil servants to take the first steps to engage with online social networks’.

I wonder if any Public Servant or Conservative Cabinet minister would be willing to share the same idea with our PM… likely not.

Why does Kinsella support Obama?

8 Replies

So I’ve just finished Kinsella’s new book – The War Room – which I thoroughly enjoyed, but not for the reasons I thought I would (more on that in another post).

I find it interesting that Kinsella is an Obama fan, and that he’s been one since early on (e.g. long before Hillary went off the deep end and her campaign started imploding). After finishing his book I was even more surprised. Here’s why:

First – Kinsella’s fighter:

Kinsella is the ultimate Canadian political fighter (second to Chretien, I’m sure he’d add). As his book testifies, he’s unafraid to pull out the brass knuckles and pummel his opponent. But which Presidential aspirant does that sounds like? Who talks about beating up Republicans, of the dangers of ones political opponents? No one is more partisan, nor more of a scrapper, than Hillary. She’s practically remolded her campaign around the notion that she is a “fighter.”

It doesn’t stop there though. Not only is Kinsella a fighter, he’s also not a believer in any type of “new politics” – such as that advocated by Obama. In his book’s intro he states (page 27):

“So they [politicians] will make soothing noises about the need to “do politics differently” and to avoid “the old politics” (or what has been called “the politics of personal destruction”). They make these disclaimers because they know it is what the voting public wants to hear (even if it isn’t what the voting public necessairly believes, but more on that later). Watching them, you would think such politicos would seldom utter a discouraging word about anyone.
But that is a pile of crap.”

Given that Obama talks regularly of how people are tired of the politics of division, does Kinsella think this is all a clever ruse?  Either way, I’d have put him squarely in the Hillary camp (on a philosophical level at least).

Second – her war room runs like his war room:

To my (untrained and unsophisticated) eye, Obama campaign conducts itself in manner counter to the approaches Kinsella argues for in his book. This is in contrast to the Clinton war room, which hits back hard and fast at any opportunity.

(I’d love to hear Kinsella’s take on the Obama war room – I’m pretty sure my blog will never get on his radar but with luck he’ll blog about the democrates respective war rooms). For example on page 90 Kinsella shares the rule “Leave No Charge Unanswered:”

Any critical statement offered up by a reporter or the other side, no matter how imbecilic or nonsensical it may seem at first blush, must be taken seriously, and pronto. If the charge appears to be getting ready to blast off into the political stratosphere, fight back.

Again, unlike the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign appears to ignore this rule on some occasions. On numerous points through out this campaign the Hillary camp has claimed to have won the popular vote, the states that count, and criticaldemographics. Often, the Obama camp does not seem to hit back, or at least hit back hard. (This strategy frustrated me enormously a few months ago) Indeed, on occasion they’ve been near silent – especially on the charge that Hillary has won the popular vote. There is rarely a counter-quote from the Obama campaign team in articles about Hillary making this claim (especially on CNN).

Finally – Legitimate Policy differences:

While there are few legitimate policy differences between Hillary and Obama, one area where people are concerned there might be differences is over Israel and Middle East policies. In his book Kinsella self-identifies himself as a ZIonist… and if any candidate can be defined as pro-Israel it is Hillary Clinton. Indeed, this one part of the Democratic Party that Obama has been working hard to assuage.

That, and the fact the (like me) Kinsella is a huge fan of Carville and Bill Clinton (and unlike me, Begala) I would have landed Kinsella squarely in the Hillary camp.

In sum:

Obviously, these are only 3 of thousands of reasons why anyone might choose to support one of the nominees. As an Obama supporter I’m pretty pleased that Kinsella is a fan as well. It’s just that his book has left me more puzzled, not less, about why he’s a supporter. I’d be interested to know what Kinsella thinks the Obama campaign has done effectively, and what it has done poorly, and if he thinks Obama is going to redefine politics, or if he’s a just a brilliant new spin on an old theme.

Vision Vancouver – Canada's largest municipal party

4 Replies

I just got news that Vision Vancouver as grown to become (what we believe to be) the largest political party in Canada. This is meteoric growth and confirms my hope that Vancouverites are increasingly looking for a progressive, centrist party to guide the city in the 21st century. I’m pretty excited to be part of this.

Press release:

Thousands of new members join Vision
Race for Vision mayoralty nomination drawing record numbers
May 19, 2008

Vision Vancouver announced today that they have had over 11,000 new members join in the past two months, driven by the excitement of Vision’s mayoralty nomination race. Raymond Louie, Al De Genova, and Gregor Robertson are competing for the Vision nomination.

“Congratulations are in order to Raymond, Al, and Gregor, who have inspired thousands of people to join Vision,” said Vision co-chair Mike Magee. “With over 11,000 people joining in recent weeks, it shows how fed up people are with Sam Sullivan and the NPA, and that they like the alternative they see in Vision Vancouver.”

“People need a government that will work for solutions to end homelessness, make housing affordable for future generations, and protect our environment. These results show that people are hungry for change in this city.”

“It’s amazing that in such a short time, Vision Vancouver could quite possibly now be the largest civic political party in Canada,” Magee added.

Thursday, May 15th was the last possible day to become a Vision member and be eligible to vote at the nomination meeting in June. Preliminary results show that well over 11,000 new members have signed up in the past two months, with a final total to be determined within the next two weeks. The mayoralty nomination meeting takes place on Sunday, June 15th at the Croatian Cultural Centre.

“Our three Mayoral candidates have worked tirelessly to engage people all over Vancouver, and as a result we’re building a winning coalition across the city,” said Magee.

“The sheer size of the Vision membership proves that the people of Vancouver want progressive leadership back in City Hall.

Open Source Legislation

2 Replies

The American Sunlight Foundation – which seeks to reduce corruption by using the power of information technology to enable citizens to monitor Congress and their elected representatives – has recently put its draft legislation online.

In a sense the draft legislation, entitled the Transparency in Government Act 2008 has been open sourced in that it can be read and commented on by anyone. Of course some may disagree since the process is not a wiki – people cannot edit the document directly (which would be much cooler) but it is nonetheless very interesting model. Indeed, the Sunlight Foundation very much views this project as an experiment.

Private members bills are allowed in Canada… one wonders how long before some intrepid MP uses this approach refine his or her proposed legislation and build popular support?