Search This Blog

CCE in brief

My photo
Recovering backpacker, Cornwallite at heart, political enthusiast, catalyst, writer, husband, father, community volunteer, unabashedly proud Canadian. Every hyperlink connects to something related directly or thematically to that which is highlighted.
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

Canadian Liberalism and The Successful Society

It's not hard to see why I love this Bob Rae post (reproduced in full below).
 
The values he expresses are the same ones I believe in.  They are not the exclusive property of any one Party; they are a common expression of society shared by most Canadians and open to all.  The Liberal Party, at its best, doesn't see itself as the only legitimate voice for this shared worldview; instead it strives to be a prism for the voices of everyone.
 
Without question, the Liberal Party lost its way for a while; to paraphrase Gerry Butts, it wasn't that Canadians had lost faith in liberalism so much as the Liberal Party seemed to have.  It might just be finding its way again.
 
I tend not to get hung up branding; it's the concept, not the wording, that matters.  Having said that, I understand the need for terminology to communicate concepts; I liked the nuance of The Conscious Society, but if Bob Rae's The Successful Society sticks I'm good with that, too.  It's the shared destination that matters; no matter where we come from we all end up in the same place.  We all gain from the journey when we travel together.
 
Of the Political Parties in Canada, it's the Liberal one that is seen as the least rigid, the most inclusive and yes, the most resilient.  When liberals hold true to what they believe in, Liberals are empowered to do what they do best - listen to Canadians, communicate with our partners and create shared solutions that move everyone forward.



What follows in the first in a three-part series by Liberal leader Bob Rae on the resilience of liberalism.
 
I am a Liberal because I believe in the dignity and equality of every human being and I believe in a democracy where we care about what happens to each other.

I believe that the pursuit of prosperity, social justice and sustainability can best be achieved together, and that bringing them together is the job of an accountable and democratic government.

I want the policies to achieve these goals to be based on evidence, on what works, and not on ideology.

I am a Liberal because I believe that love is better than hate, because I believe in celebrating success and never resenting it, and because I do not mock failure.

I believe in enough government to help us all achieve success, but not too much government to stifle initiative and creativity. I understand that markets are the best way to create prosperity, that a progressive tax system is necessary to pay for programmes, and that all of us -- individuals, families, businesses and governments -- have to live within our means.

I want every child to have the love, support and education they need, and everyone to have a job that reinforces dignity and security. I want those who are less able, to receive the support they need, and to allow those who are older to continue to live in dignity.

I believe that access to good health care, education and housing are fundamental attributes of a good society, and well within our means as a successful society. I believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the independence of judges. I believe that punishment should fit the crime, that public security needs to be protected, and that a good and strong society will encourage rehabilitation and change. I would rather build a school than a prison, and believe that it is important to be as tough on the conditions that give rise to crime as we are on crime itself.

I am a Liberal in Canada because I want us to build a better world based on the rule of law, where we celebrate and share our values.
I believe that while charity and justice begin at home, their pursuit does not end there. The reduction of violence, the protection of rights, the closing of the gap between rich and poor, the greening of the planet are all best achieved with an approach that starts at home but embraces the world.

I am a Liberal and a proud Canadian. I am proud to be a member of a party that has consistently supported an ever expanding sense of citizenship based on our inherent rights as free women and men, of our two official languages, French and English, a distinct Canadian flag. This is a federalism that celebrates the unique identities and rights of Canadian provinces and territories, and understands the need for a deeper reconciliation between aboriginal Canadians and all those who have, through the centuries chosen to make Canada home. I am proud of a country that celebrates free expression, diversity and pluralism, and the right of everyone to be themselves without fear of discrimination.

We came here in many boats. We're in the same boat now.

The resilience of the liberal idea gives us hope and strength. Our task is to keep building a country and a party worthy of the idea itself.


Liberalism: A resilient idea, a resilient movement

It all starts with an idea and a feeling -- about individual conscience, freedom, and dignity. All else flows from that.

The idea of liberalism in history is connected with powerful changes -- from economies and societies based on hierarchy and conformity to those based on people demanding to be heard, insisting that authority be made accountable and transparent.

It is an idea whose power is felt today -- in societies around the world that fail to respect the rule of law, that disregard diversity, that insist that the power of the party or class or privilege is more important than the primacy of freedom.

Liberalism's journey has been about understanding the key role of economic freedom, and government's role in ensuring a strong capacity for regulation and the rule of law, to make sure that someone's freedom does not become a licence to abuse power.

Liberalism understands that for each person to achieve their freedom, society needs to help break down the barriers to human potential. Liberalism understands the dilemma that it is not enough to say that the rich and poor are equally able to sleep under bridges.

In the great movement for democracy that has marked the last 200 years, liberals have been at the forefront of expanding the franchise and expanding rights -- to go beyond a world determined by wealth and colour to a world determined by equal rights and a sense that a good country is one where people care about what happens to one another.

In the last half century we've become more aware that the great British liberal Edmund Burke was right when he talked about society being a contract with those yet unborn, or to borrow a phrase from our aboriginal tradition, that we borrow the Earth from our children and our responsibilities have to last as long as the wind blows and the rivers run.

Samuel de Champlain came to Canada in the early 17th century formed by the experiences of a Europe literally torn apart by religious and ethnic conflict. The "great and good place" he saw in Canada was to be marked by a spirit of reconciliation and a recognition of the rights and traditions of all -- Catholics, Protestants, non-believers, and the aboriginal people he encountered as he travelled eastern and central Canada.

The people and institutions he left behind did not always live up to his hopes and expectations. Violent conflict, death by disease and neglect, conflict between English and French -- our early history was not often marked by civility.

But as the refugees flowed north from the United States after the revolutionary war, and immigration continued from Europe, liberal ideas began to take hold in the provinces of British North America. While the supporters of the Family Compact wanted a government that would insist more on order than on liberty, the irresistible arguments for freedom and for responsible government began to win out. Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia, followed by Baldwin and Lafontaine in "United Canada" -- we can trace the organized origins of the liberal movement in Canada (and indeed the modern Liberal Party) to elections where those fighting for responsibility, accountability, the separation of church and state and a universal right to public education won out over those who simply preferred the status quo, or worse, who rioted against policies of social progress and change. The Reform government of 1848 took office at a time of great democratic turbulence in the world.

Liberals should take great pride in these governments, and in the remarkable fact that Lafontaine sought election in York and Baldwin in Rimouski -- a symbol of partnership that would carry on through strong Liberal Cabinets that through three centuries have emphasized how liberalism transcends the ties of religion and race.

Liberals -- prominent names like Brown, Mowat and Taché -- became proud partners in the governments that led to Confederation, but except for the Alexander Mackenzie administration in the 1870s, with its important contributions including the secret ballot, did not take national office until Laurier's great win in 1896.

Laurier had won pre-eminence as a Liberal in the 1880s, when as a young parliamentarian he stirred the deepest emotions in his speeches on the crisis created at the heart of the federation by John A.Macdonald's decision to hang Louis Riel for his role in the Red River rebellion and the death of Thomas Scott, "executed" by the Riel government. Laurier eloquently eviscerated the Macdonald government for its mishandling of affairs in the Northwest and the national ramifications it had wrought saying of his fellow French Canadians, "We do not want any more privileges, we are strong enough, but what we want is justice for all."

It became clear that Laurier would in fact be the man to replace Macdonald when as Opposition Leader he eulogized Sir John A. in the House of Commons with greater eloquence than any of his fellow Conservatives, saying that the old chieftain was "endowed with those inner, subtle indefinable graces of the soul which win and keep the hearts of men."
 
Laurier would become one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers. Possessed of great charm, wit, and eloquence, his "sunny ways" endeared him to Canadians. The first French speaking Quebecker to take office as Prime Minister, he will long be remembered for building strong bridges between French and English, his determination to give Canada its place on the world stage, and opening up the country to widespread immigration to Western Canada from many parts of Europe. He resisted calls for imperial union, and was a determined proponent of a "new nationality" that would allow Canada to stand stronger on its own.

Laurier's belief in more open markets, and a strong desire among Western farmers to be able to get cheaper manufactured goods from the United States led to the free trade election of 1911, which Laurier lost to Borden, the Conservative.

Sir Wilfrid stayed on as Opposition leader until his death in 1919. The First World War produced a crisis for Canada and for the Liberal Party, as, following the British example, Borden offered Laurier and his fellow Liberals seats in a coalition government. Laurier resisted the appeal, arguing that Quebeckers needed to be understood and listened to in their resistance to conscription. But many other Liberals felt it was their patriotic duty to join the government in a moment of non-partisanship.

Laurier's decision, born of deep conviction, left him alone and isolated, and the Party was devastated in the election of 1917. Many then predicted the demise of Liberalism, as a new mood of radicalism took hold in the West and a nascent labour movement seemed ready to join with farmers to take the country in a different direction. Even Laurier himself in an uncharacteristic moment of despair, bemoaned the growing political polarization saying, "I have lived too long. I have outlived Liberalism."
 
Laurier's death in 1919 could have marked the end of the Liberal party, but the party's choice of Mackenzie King as its leader proved wiser than many pundits realised at the time. Certainly there was none of the charisma, the charm, or the deep good humour of Laurier. But King was astute, savvy, and a masterful politician. He formed a minority government in 1921 with the support of the Progressives, and outmanoeuvred Arthur Meighen in the "King-Byng" crisis of 1925-26. He brought in Old Age Pensions with the support of the Ginger Group led by J.S. Woodsworth in 1927, and after being defeated by R.B. Bennett in 1930 came back to lead the Liberals with a majority in 1935, a position the Liberals held until 1957.
 
TOMORROW:From Mackenzie King to Chrétien

Tuesday, 2 April 2013

Stephen Harper's Big Red Brush



It may be that the party’s own research suggests Canadians are fed up with negative ads and have decided to pull their punches as a result.


There are a growing number of female leaders in Ontario.  These leaders are being more transparent, more communicative with stakeholders, media and Opposition Parties.  They're relying on candour and charm to build their brand and grow the public's attachment to them.

In short - the trend in Canadian politics is moving away from everything that has defined Stephen Harper as a Reform/Conservative politician.

Thomas Mulcair doesn't present an existential threat to Harper and his iteration of the Conservatives.  While it's clear Justin Trudeau will give Harper a run for his money in terms of popularity, it's yet to be demonstrated the substance of what Trudeau offers will be what Canadians care about.

At the same time, it almost doesn't matter - Team Harper may have perfected the top-down, tightly-controlled "war room" politics of the last quarter-century, but there's a growing appetite for something else.  There's no small irony that the welfare state has probably made Canadians less comfortable with constant exposure to the anger button the Conservatives have favoured. 

Instead of getting angry and looking for "tough" leaders to fight off threats, the sea of troubles narrative has us looking to bridge-building leaders like Kathleen Wynne.  You'd be surprised how much middle-class voters in tough economic times "don't care" about deficits and debts but do want to know government cares about them and can account for the big picture.

The Conservatives are left with a bit of a dilemma; what do you do when the tried and true ceases to function?  Team Harper is in the unenviable position of trying to innovate new issues and new solutions, but doing so within their standard narrative of decentralization, reduction and tough-on-everything.  It's like insisting every problem is a nail, but successfully using tools other than a hammer to get the job done.

To their credit, Team Harper has started to address important issues like the need for a national mental health strategy, developing centralized supports for the workplace and creating a national, single-entry system for online public service access.  In short, they are talking like Reformers but implementing very pro-social, individually-supportive and strong-central-government types of policies.

But that's the kind of hopey-changey, move-forward-together stuff that Trudeau breathes every time he speaks.  Talk about cognitive dissonance - rhetoric aside, Harper has been forced to behaviour like a Liberal to gain his majority, essentially brand-building for his main opponent who is the embodiment of Canadian liberalism.  Trudeau doesn't need to delve into details; Harper's already demonstrated how liberal approaches can work. 

Worse; as the divides in his caucus are starting to show, the greatest threat to Harper's legacy will not be Liberal opponents, but potential successors who will try to undermine his key positions to appeal to their Reform voter base.

Harper can try to do what he did to Stephane Dion; focus on internal divisions that came out of the leadership race to divide and conquer the Liberals.  On the surface, it looks like Marc Garneau handed him the perfect line to use for this: Canadians need a leader with “qualities forged in the fire of life’s experiences.”  That, he could say, isn't Trudeau.

Apart from a dwindling appetite for political vitriol, the problem with this approach is that Harper isn't a forged-in-fire leader, either.  Forget his lack of real-world experience as an economist (or anything other than a lobbyist); Harper's been Prime Minister for long enough to mitigate his lack-lustre pre-government record. 

It's his in-government record that really proves Harper is fire-adverse.

Harper didn't like the gun registry, so he did away with it.  He didn't like CIDA, so he did away with it.  If a bureaucrat disagrees with him, they are fired or muzzled.  Reporters aren't even given the opportunity to challenge him.  What about when someone does challenge him, like Obama on Keystone? Harper takes his toys out of the oil sand-box and goes to China.  Harper pointedly doesn't engage with Canada's First Ministers, certainly not together.  Harper avoids the UN like the plague; instead of showing leadership by squaring off against the international community to find shared solutions on issues like African drought (and related humanitarian/terrorism issues) he simply chooses not to participate.

Harper picks his opponents and only personally takes on those he feels comfortable he can beat.  Any situation that involves compromise or debate on an equal playing field he avoids like the plague.  This is why he heavily favours scripted events and never wanders into the crowd - he's afraid of what could happen in situations where he doesn't have control.  I don't think our PM needs to be handcuffed by these insecurities, but apparently he does.

Meanwhile, Harper's tendency towards avoidance and putting economic and foreign interest eggs into single baskets is starting to show some cracks.  Harper might have a point in suggesting Canadians don't care about the ire he's received from domestic stakeholders ranging from media to scientists to human rights groups - so long as he's got control of the domestic agenda.  The problem is, Harper's team have tried to employ the same tactics with an international audience who doesn't back down so easily.  Canada has been slapped not just for neglecting our international community obligations, but for trying to muzzle foreign scientists as well.
 
There's a growing sentiment on the global stage that Canada is slipping, making us either an unreliable partner or worse, a mark to be milked.  The impact of this image erosion is slowly beginning to show in our international dealings - which in turn impacts our global brand, our big-picture economic opportunities and the folks back home who want to know our reputation is in good hands.
 
That's something we do care about.
 
It's a much-denied certainty that the political wheel is always turning; no Party leaves a dynasty and over the long-run, the progress of social evolution is a natural law.
 
There's still plenty of opportunity for Harper to keep his Party in power for another election and build a personal legacy that will see history recognize him as a a great Prime Minister.  The problem is that the only path that leads to legacy is a liberal one.

People do love stories that come full circle.  And we love hockey.  At least Harper still has that narrative firmly under wraps.
 

Friday, 22 February 2013

Andrea Horwath and The Expanding Centre




 
 

Me thinks Ms. Horwath has a problem.
 
Sure, the Ontario NDP Leader was employing some political hyperbole; in partisan fashion, she wants to stigmatize opposing tribes as evil and unworthy of trust, under any circumstances. 
 
On the activity scale, politics weighs in more heavily on demonizing the other than it does strengthening one's own brand.  The Liberals in Ontario do the same thing when they refer to the Harris-Hudak Tories.  Tim Hudak is not Mike Harris - in fact, he's further to the right in his approach than his former boss and deserves to be judged on his own positions.
 
The system-wide reliance on broad-brush partisanship for partisan gain at the expense of real communication and shared solution development is why people tune out of politics in the first place.  It also distracts from the broader trend that's happening outside of the nation's legislatures.  Society is becoming increasingly inclusive, collaborative and desirous of change - not regression to some fictitious, glorious libertarian past, but adaptation to the evolving world around us.
 
Newly-minted Premier Kathleen Wynne embodies this trend in multiple ways - she's a new demographic as far as provincial leadership goes, but she also brings a whole different approach to politics - empathy, collaboration and strategic, long-term planning.  Her approach has led her to victory after victory for a reason.
 
There's a bit of a branding problem, obviously - liberalism is synonymous with progress.  The fact that more people see themselves as progressive doesn't mean they buy in to tribal Liberalism, nor should it.  The same reality applies to all political Parties - when they look to reinforce tribal allegiances, they neglect the big-picture thinking that is ultimately what endears their brand to voters.  All political Parties, even Stephen Harper's, do better when they move to the middle of the political spectrum. 
 
Tim Hudak is a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy; inflexible, confident past reason and fixated on a static view of the world that has never been reflected in reality.  He won't work with others, because he can't - he sees success as an individual thing, only.  One doesn't need to imagine how that approach would impact society - just look at his White Papers to see how he would attempt to deconstruct our social infrastructure.  Keep in mind, though, the PC website only lets you in if you're willing to add yourself to their mailing list.
 
Hudak has already removed himself from the political conversation, marginalizing his Party's ability to effect change once again.  Alas, when the only tool in your box is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
 
Horwath, though, has a unique opportunity to capitalize on Ontario's desire for a collaborative, progressive, liberal approach to politics - she just needs to walk the walk, as she has successfully done before.  If she is able to truly lead by example and get past the tired staples of partisan politics, she might even stand a chance of stealing a bit of the progress market share.
 
The way to do this isn't to take Hudak's approach, but to out-liberal the Premier on the leadership front - collaborate with the other Parties, focus on solutions and spend a bit less time on the partisan cut-and-thrust.
 
How she performs will be the truest indication of whether she believes progress is possible or not.  She best keep in mind, though, that society will keep moving in the same direction regardless.