Canadians: Who Are We? Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Greens and the Rest…..

Exploring Past; Experiencing Present; Thinking  Future.

My Canada

It’s is past time now for us Canadians to get real about our political future. There isn’t time or space to go into all the detail here. But suffice to say, the Liberal Party holds the key to the Canadian character. In terms of politics, the Liberal Party has struggled to hold onto the Centre Ground. As the Canadian public has moved gradually to the right…so have the Liberals. There has always been a kind of symbiotic relationship there.

Liberal policy under Chretien/Martin was what I would call one of open conservatism - “conservative” meaning prudent, careful, socially responsible; “open” meaning – up front and communicative.

Liberal policy has come to be defined as policy that  in some sense reflects a “populist” approach to governance.

In recent years, the Liberal Party has moved into territory formerly occupied by the Progressive Conservative Party of Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney.

Right wingers like Preston Manning, B.C.’s Cameron, Stockwell Day, Harper et. al., detected an electoral willingness to move further to the right than any rational Progressive Conservative would have thought appropriate.

However, Peter MacKay and his Dad pushed for a merger with Reform, because because they believed – mistakenly – that Mike Harris of Ontario was a popular guy. The Mackays and Harper and the others were wrong but never got the message that  Harris was disgraced; consequently the New Conservatives have been unable to get past the 33% point in the polls.

P.C.-Reform Party Merger

The Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is what I would call a “Republican Rump”…in that it tends to be somewhat xenophobic, anti-immigrant, militant, biased toward the private sector, hidebound, ignorant etc.

For example, Harper’s Conservatives are tough on crime regardless of whether crime rates are rising or falling; it’s simply a matter of principle. The primary purpose of the justice system under their philosophy is to punish rather than rehabilitate; hence the ill-advised decision to abolish the prison farm system, which was working well and showed great potential as a tool for reducing recidivism.

The true purpose of the justice system is to modify behaviour. But for a Harper Conservative that’s too wimpish. Whereas for a Liberal, it’s a practical goal.  So in that sense we can identify a major difference between Conservatives (a la Harper) and Liberals: Liberals take a pragmatic approach to problems and issues, whereas the Harper-style Conservatives take an ideological, “true believer” approach.

Playing Soldier

Also -the Harper Conservatives are okay with being a “war” Party; there is a certain pleasurable bravado about it, particularly when others are doing the fighting. But they do not want to take responsibility for the by-products of war. That’s evident from the decision – made at the highest levels – to terminate the Veterans’ Ombudsman, who spoke publicly about the Harper government’s short-changing of Veterans – when it came to pensions, medical treatment and so forth.

(Incidentally, in this regard there are a few skeletons in the Liberal closet as well).

There is no “Liberal Ideology”, there is only pragmatic decision-making, based on the national interest, certain humanitarian principles and of course the “reasonable” interests of the business community. (There are skeletons in this closet as well).

Liberals like to promote the the idea of “transparency” in government, which is always a difficult challenge, often involving some contortionist-style behaviour. Do they achieve this “transparency”?  Sometimes, yes… but more often, they do not.

These days Liberals find themselves in exactly the kind of quandary described by Party member Stephane:

Stephane:

Canadians are looking for a clear party line between us and the conservatives.

It’s a quandary precisely because there does not appear to be “a clear party line” – perhaps there never was. Very often Liberal policy decisions have been taken on the basis of private polls. This goes as far back as the Great Debate on Medicare.

Votes: Big-Time

Liberal strategists could see that single-payer healthcare was popular; it was a vote-getter; and after Tommy Douglas showed the way, they grabbed the ball and ran with it. They made national healthcare a key issue, but only after they saw that it had made Douglas a hero. In fact Liberal political strategists were ultimately convinced of the merits of medicare – not just by the public benefit  involved – but because the Canadian business community thought it made good sense.

Even today, Liberal strategists – those professionals who inhabit the nether regions of Ottawa – will not admit that policy is developed by striking a compromise between the grass-roots and the elites. But when they deny…they lie and and they know it.

There is no question whatsoever in my mind, that the time has come for a comprehensive review of Liberalism. What is it? What does it mean? Is it good for this country?

That’s why I think that Mr. Ignatieff ought to issue a clarion call for an open and public Liberal Party policy meeting, to be followed by a Liberal Party Leadership Convention.

Michael Ignatieff

Ignatieff may well become Prime Minister. But whether he does or not, his number one job has to be the modern-day definition of “Canadian Liberal” in this 21st Century. If he can do that, he will go down in the annals of Liberal Party history, along with Laurier, King, Pearson and Trudeau. In a very real way, this is his mission at a time of uncertainty, apprehension and yes…even fear.

First and foremost I am a Canadian, despite the fact that we have been far from perfect. Indeed, we’ve made a ton of mistakes and we are trying to correct them…too slowly perhaps, but trying nonetheless.

I do not want to see this Canada – my Canada – the Canada of my children – destroyed by an opportunist who governs by ideology, rather than by responding to the good sense of the Canadian People. I want a leader who believes that Canada can be better.