Tag Archives: politics

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.

Young, left and voting

6 Replies

As we all know young people don’t vote. That’s why these charts shouldn’t surprise anyone… right?

(These charts are stolen from the New Politics Institute).

But don’t worry, You may soon be able to retreat to the old stereotype of the apathetic young voter since Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to turn this new generation of democrats off of politics all together.

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:

Why Elizabeth May doesn't want to win…

10 Replies

After the mocking this theory generated in some friendly conversations, I wish I’d blogged on this before it became official!

Ever since Elizabeth May said she would run against Peter MacKay I’ve thought something was up. Why would Elizabeth May run against a popular maritimer, in his home riding, in a province (and region) where environmentalism isn’t high on the agenda?

The answer. Elizabeth May is a pragmatist who doesn’t want to win. Not only that, she doesn’t even want the Green Party to do (too) well. Sound strange? Consider these five points:

  1. Elizabeth May is a liberal (former card carrying member) and beyond her frustration with their inactivity on the environment, she is broadly aligned with them ideologically, policy-wise and politically.
  2. Elizabeth May likely believes she can be more effective championing the environmental outside parliament then inside. Being one of 308 MPs, representing a party without official status (and the resources that come with it) all while burdened with constituency work and the need to log significant time in Ottawa would limit her ability to press her cause. She is freer, more powerful and more influential on the outside.
  3. Elizabeth doesn’t want to further split the centre/centre-left vote. However weak the Liberals environmental record she likely believes the greatest threat to the environment is the Conservatives. Creating a viable Green party increases the likelihood of a conservative majority and the negative environmental policies that come with it.
  4. Elizabeth May realizes her party will never be a viable alternative. The Green’s are a coalition of libertarians, red tories, socialists, and environmentalists. On issues other then the environment there is a lot of poor thinking, little coherence, and virtually no agreement on a broader agenda. This lesson must have been ground home during their most recent policy convention. To become a viable party the Green’s will have to be about more then just the environment and drafting a platform will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
  5. In the unlikely even that both Elizabeth May and the Liberals pull off upsets and win the election, she may have secured herself a cabinet position. If she doesn’t win her seat, she can continue to threaten to bleed votes from the Liberals if they don’t act swiftly and decisively enough, on the environment. From an influence perspective she is in a win-win situation.

In short, Elizabeth May doesn’t want to win elections or build a party. She wants to shape the national agenda and redefine the Liberals. That’s why she cut a deal with Dion and that’s why she’s running against the virtually undefeatable Peter MacKay.

Liberal Renewal Commission – Report on Civic Engagement

2 Replies

As I discussed in this earlier post the Liberal Party has not published all the Renewal Commission Reports. Of those not published I had thought you could only download the Aboriginal Task Force Paper and the Environmental Task Force Paper.

Apparently, the paper by the task force on Civic Engagement has also been available for some time via its commissioner’s website. You can download it directly here.

Sadly, none of the above reports have been translated…

[Tags] Politics, Public Policy, Liberal Renewal Commission[/Tags]

Democracy vs. Gender: The Liberal Solution (part II)

Leave a reply

Interestingly, as this 2001-02 Statistics Canada spreadsheet shows, 42% percent of registered undergraduates are male while 58% are female. Moreover, it is my understanding that these stats have gotten even more lopsided since this study was published. Indeed, from some professors I’ve talked to it is not unusual to have classes that are split 70-30 or even 80-20 in favour of female students.

I’m not sure that anyone has really grasped the seachange this will have on our society. For example, I’ve spoken to managing partners at law firms who are trying to “figure out” how to retain female attorney’s. They’d better work harder at cracking this problem – otherwise they’ll will wake up one morning and find there are no attorney’s left to make partner.

Many in management seem to still operate in an accomodation mode, trying to figure out how to alter the workplace on the margins in order to retain female talent. Marginal change will simply not cut it. Among professional firms the demand for greater flexibility to ensure a more effective balance between family and career will probably require significant structural changes to how firms are organized. Making women (or men) choose between the work or family is not going to cut it. In an aging workforce where their skills are in demand they will take their labour elsewhere. But here’s the bigger catch. Many, many men are going to demand this same flexibility as well. Consequently, I suspect this issue will be not framed in terms of a gender, but either as a general HR management challenge or a policy challenge that discriminates between married and single workers.

Politically, the interesting repercussion from all this is that, in 30-40 years, I suspect at least 50% of candidates could be women. Indeed we could end up in a world where the challenge is trying to achieve a candidate field that is at least 33% male. Wouldn’t that be interesting…

[tags]politics, gender, education, public policy[/tags]

Democracy vs. Gender: The Liberal Solution

2 Replies

Dion’s most notable promise of the leadership race was guaranteeing that at least 33% of Liberal Party candidates will be women. This is a laudable goal. Moreover, I suspect the press will follow it closely. If the Liberals fail to reach it Dion’s credibility could be seriously undermined. It is would not be unreasonable to ask: if Dion can’t implement change within a party he controls, how does he intend to affect change if in government?

Some people are – justly – worried about how the goal will be met. Obviously there is a tension between allowing open and democratic nomination contests and ensuring that at least 33% of candidates are women. The easiest option would be to appoint female candidates. This however, carries with it some significant costs. In addition to being bad for morale, disenfranchised riding associations may not donate their time, energy and money to an appointed candidate (male or female) thereby diminishing their chances of winning the actual election.

However, what I have seen in British Columbia (so far) has been an interesting and compelling solution to this quandry. Rather than rig nomination processes (or eliminate them altogether) the party is making two smart plays. First, it is aggresively seeking out highly qualified women in an effort to create a rich pool of candidates. Second, (and this is most compelling part) it is making a direct appeal to members. It is, in effect, saying: when selecting who to support we understand that each of you has a criteria by which you evaluate candidates, we would greatly appreciate it if you made gender a stronger component in this criteria. Interestingly, this appeal could be doubly effective because membership lists may remain closed. Consequently, those campaigning for nomination will probably not be able to sign up new members and with thus have to appeal to the current pool of members (who are more likely to take this messaging to heart).

Best of all, I like what this messaging says about the party. Rather than adopt some centralized top-down way to shape and control the outcome this approach is compelling, appropriate and democratic because it does the exact opposite, it respects and appeals to the intelligence and integrity of party members. Very clever, and very liberal, indeed.

[tags]politics, canadian politics, liberal party of canada [/tags]

shhhh, Did the Fraser Institute Just Say Something Interesting?

2 Replies

The sad fact about most think tanks in Canada is that they are generally quite boring. The most egregious example of this phenomenon is the Fraser Institute. I’ll admit that I rarely read Fraser Institute reports simply because I’ve found I don’t have to… I already know that they are going to say before I pick them up. No matter what the problem, a downside-free, unregulated, free-market option will always be the perfect solution. However, the real problem isn’t that I know what their reports say before I read them, it’s that the Fraser Institute policy wonks knew what it was going to say before they researched it.

That said, it is important to keep one’s eye out for data that contradicts established conclusions (something the Fraser Institute is good at avoiding). So, I was initially curious when I read this piece in the Vancouver Sun on Wednesday the 10th discussing how a Fraser Institute report, Tax Efficiency: Not All Taxes are Created Equal, argues that while income taxes should be lowered, the forgone revenue should be captured by raising the GST to 8 or 9%.

This is indeed a suggestion worth exploring. Raising the GST would encourage saving and investment and dampen consumption (particularly of imported consumer goods that negatively impact our trade surplus). Indeed as long as a basket of core goods – food, rent, educational materials, healthcare and other essential goods and services – remain tax exempt the GST can serve as quite a progressive tax lever. It could become even more progressive if the new taxes were used to elevate the basic exemption – providing tax relief to everyone, but most of all to those who earn the least. These latter suggestions are, of course, not in the Fraser Institute report and humble additions of my own. Hey, I said they got something right – not everything!

Actually, this suggestion is so sensible, it is precisely the same argument the Liberals (quietly) used during the last election to highlight why the Conservative party was foolish to advocate cutting the GST. (BTW: Am I frightened that the Liberals and the Fraser Institute are on the same page, even on only half an issue? Absolutely.)

For those too bored, or too tired, of predictable reports from Canada’s ideological think tanks, the Fraser Institutes’s tax report will only confirm your worst fears. To be clear, their one interesting recommendation is essentially a happy accident of analysis. Moreover, the usual Fraser Institute shenanigans are in play. For example, in assessing Canada’s tax structure the authors use the OECD countries as a benchmark. For those who think that sounds like a reasonable peer group you would be correct, except that in 1990’s the OECD added Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, and Hungary. Guess which group of countries doesn’t like to levy an income tax on its citizens, in large part because they don’t have an income to tax? Better yet, when calculating the OECD average the authors elected to not weight the countries income tax rates. So the income tax rates of Canada (35.1) or the United States (34.7) have the same impact on the OECD average as, oh, let’s say, the Czech (12.7) or Slovak (9.3) Republics. No big deal – IF we put aside the fact that the Czech Republic has a population 1/30th that of the US and 1/3rd that of Canada, that its real GDP is .9% that of the US and 10% of Canada’s and that its economy is, shall we say, structured somewhat differently than our own. But I’m sure that the Fraser Institute chose this methodology for some sound reason and not because it makes the OECD average income tax appear lower so they can argue Canada’s tax burden is comparatively high.

Ah, the Fraser Institute: where research conforms to conclusions.

[tags]Fraser Institute, canadian politics, think tanks, public policy[/tags]

Symptoms of Alienation

Leave a reply

Hi Friends – sorry for the lack of posting over the holidays. I’m back and will be posting full time again.

Every Christmas westerners living out east return home to pass the holidays with friends and families. With the added personal dimension created by this event, the holiday homecoming becomes one of the few times Westerners are willing to get updated on the ‘going ons’ out east. I’m no fan of western alienation but I am curious: why is this pilgrimage virtually the only time Westerners talk about the rest of the country? Why does the west not feel in?

It could be, as my friend John pointed out, that “national” newspapers like the Globe and Mail treat the machinations of Ontario’s budget process as critical reading for all Canadians (sorry if those of us in Vancouver aren’t rushing to grab a copy) while news from out west is an afterthought for most publications – a clumsy attempt at having western content without offering any real meat or analysis.

While it may sound like an old song, living out here one cannot help sense that, at their core, publications like the G&M still believe Central Canada is ‘the country’ whose dynamics must be understood by everybody. Everything and everyone else is as periphery – whose relevance can be correlated to their impact the central Canada’s agenda. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the recent Globe and Mail article “Western Canada Comes of Age.” Let’s put aside the fact that most westerners likely believe ‘the West’ came of age a long time ago. Let’s also put aside the unbelievable condescension of the title (I can’t wait to see when the G&M decides that Aboriginal Bands have “come of age” in national politics). Instead it is the framing of the piece that reveals why Westerns often feel outside any ‘national’ dialogue.

So how does the Globe and Mail define ‘coming of age’? Is the West’s political maturity and relevance defined by its perspective? its unique challenges? or possibly by the ideas, ambitions, or opportunities it brings to the country’s agenda? No. What matters is that Alberta and BC’s combined population now exceeds Quebec. In short, the G&M, believes the West’s maturity and relevance is defined by its capacity to force other actors (read, central Canada) to pay attention to it. And we wonder why we struggle to have national dialogues.

The second element revolved around the West’s raw economic power. However, let us be clear. This is not economic power defined in absolute terms, but economic power measured in relation to the challenges it posses to Central Canada! What does the article cite as the foremost important impact of the West’s boom? Is it the challenges it posses to Western communities? The international opportunities and clout this creates for the country? No. The ‘broad’ and significant impact of this economic surge was to “have helped drive the Canadian dollar higher, causing challenges in Ontario’s manufacturing sector.” Thus, in both instances, the importance of the West is not defined in its own terms but largely by its relationship to central Canada.
Western alienation isn’t about political clout, economic weight or even effective representation. It is about the capacity to participate, and be understood, within national debates. Until we, and more specifically, our newspapers get that right I’m not sure the West will ever feel ‘in’.

[tags]western alienation, canadian politics, public policy[/tags]

Find the oxymoron: NDP strategy, admiting fault, newsmaker of the year

Leave a reply
  1. This article provides a glimpse into the complex and sweeping grand strategy Jack Layton has both masterminded and only begun to reveal. Yes, folks, Jack killed a minority Liberal Government so that he could form a strategic partnership with… the conservatives? We will monitor this, and the NDP’s seat count, closely.
  2. A few weeks ago I wrote about the centralizing of the internet using the disappearance of this Rooster tooth clip as an example. Always pleased to be proved wrong, my man Mike B. has found a copy of the clip on Myspace. Apparently, someone cached and reposted it. Mike also shared some poweruser tips on how to capture videos off webpages, thus helping us all better earn our status as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year (groan).
  3. Speaking of Time’s Person of the Year… I won’t hop on the band wagon and lambaste their choice (no need, enough has been said). However, I will point out that Time has only itself to blame. Specifically, Time mis-set expectations by allowing “Person of the Year” to cease being a title and allowing it to become an award. As my friend Salimah noted, gone are the days when Bin Laden or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could grace the front page as person of the year. In contrast, Time Canada (and I also can’t believe I’m about to say this) gets it right. Its title, earned this year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is the much more neutral “Newsmaker of the Year.” Alas the subtle difference was lost on the ears of the Prime Minister’s Office which was apparently thrilled on discovering their man’s new status. Someone should remind them that being the year’s top newsmaker simply means you made a lot of the news, for better or for worse…

Update: Dr. Kissinger overseeing a rock contest? Friends, just finished watching possible the best Colbert Report to date – clearly they saved the best for the end of the year. Those unable to watch or bitorrent it can read a description here. What a cast!

[tags]canadian politics, public policy[/tags]