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.
I’m beginning to wonder when the McCain-Palin version of this is going to be created.
Do sites like this change elections? Probably not, but they must be gaining influence.
Several months ago the Literary Review of Canada put out a request for articles about the rise of Obama and what it means for politics in general and Canada specifically. Mine and Taylor’s proposal won out and is the lead essay in this month’s edition of the LRC. Needless to say we are pretty excited.
The essay explores how the Left has been killing progressive politics. Those on the right have always been clear about their disdain for progressivism and their desire to rollback its success. On the left however, an equally strong conservatism has emerged. Fearful that any debate, or worse reform, will threaten successes of the past century many progressives have become anti-change. It is a more subtle conservatism, but it has helped foster a political environment within the left and centre-left that is defined by silence and stagnation.
But change is afoot. A new generation is challenging old assumptions. It is these same people – the neo-progressives – that helped propel Obama to the top of the democratic party. This new generation of progressives could similarly reshape Canadian politics.
You can read the article here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Late Friday afternoon (PST) Health Canada tried to quietly release the Final report of the Expert Advisory Committee on Supervised Injection Site Research. (Since government reports are public domain I’ve created a downloadable, easier to read, PDF version that can be found here).
Why quietly release such an upbeat report? Because the Health Minister is ideologically committed to closing Insite. Unfortunately for him, the report confirms what researchers and scientists have been telling us all along: that Insite works.
Consequently, for what must be the first time in Health Canada’s history the department is trying to bury a study that highlights how one of its programs improves healthcare outcomes to Canada’s most marginalized citizens.
Ah, the irony.
Well, one can’t blame him. The Minister simple doesn’t want anyone to know that his own hand picked experts have robbed him of any scientific basis for ending the program.
Below are some of the report’s highlights about how INSITE benefits the public:
These benefits are significant. However, the Conservatives spin machine is already hard at work. Specifically, it is trying to use this line – out of context – to support its claim that INSITE is ineffective:
“The injections at INSITE account for less than 5% of injections in the Downtown Eastside. This limits the likelihood of significant direct impact from INSITE in the Downtown Eastside.”
However, since the report also points out (contrary to what James Moore has misleadingly telling his constituents) that:
“An average of more than 600 visits a day shows that INSITE operates near capacity.”
The report isn’t arguing that INSITE is ineffective, it’s simply pointing out that it isn’t large enough to meet the demand. This is akin to claiming that a hospital should be declared “ineffective” and shut down because the people it didn’t have the capacity to serve were still dying of heart attacks.
The Conservatives now have two months before the June deadline they created to decide: are they going to shut down a program that reduces drug addiction and saves the public money?
The sale of RADARSAT-2 is one that has been bubbling below the surface and is finally starting to get some media attention. There is a real and valid concern that the sale of B.C.-based MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates (MDA) to Alliant Techsystems of Minnesota will result in the loss of domestic capacity to monitor ice and traffic in the North – capacity that Canadian taxpayers paid to develop and deploy.
For those who are also concerned about this issue – or who simply want to learn more – the Liu Institute and the Rideau Institute will be holding a joint event this Wednesday, April 7th 16th at the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre in Vancouver.
RADARSAT-2: ARE WE SELLING OUR EYES?
A Public Forum on the Proposed Sale of MacDonald Dettwiler’s space division
Wednesday, April 16, 7:00 PM
H.R. MacMillan Space Centre, Vanier Park, Vancouver
Speakers include:
Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, UBC
Paul Cottle, former employee, MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates
Wade Huntley, Director, Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research, UBC
Steve Staples, President, Rideau Institute on International AffairsSponsored by the Liu Institute for Global Issues, UBC & Rideau Institute on International Affairs
ALL WELCOME
eaves.ca 