The smart left vs. the flakey left: Canada’s new party challenge

In the wake of Canada’s most unexpectedly tumultuous election in a generation, you’d think the puditocracy would have learned an important lesson about calling games prematurely. But instead, precisely the opposite has occurred, and our newspapers are now filled with all sorts of sweeping, case-closed conclusions about the fundamental, permanent realignment of the Canadian party system that we supposedly witnessed last Monday.

“Welcome to Canada’s two party system,” blared the Globe and Mail‘s Adam Radwanski the night after. A “giant step toward a two-party system” agreed Conrad Black in the National Post. Others, such as the Montreal Gazette preferred to couch their analysis a tad more cautiously, (“is Canada entering a two-party system?“), but even then, the conclusions were stark: the steady rise of both the Conservatives and NDP over the last decade has demonstrably proven that these two parties are the only ones worth betting on from here on out.

Amazingly, even Liberal supporters have been climbing on the bandwagon, wallowing in self-pity that history may have finally passed them by. In a much-quoted blog post, the “Calgary Liberal” opined sadly that the Libs had become a “party for a party’s sake,” lacking any natural base of support. We’ve become, he said, “an accumulation of people interested in being in a party and implementing a party’s vision… rather than implementing a vision brought about by a piece of society.” Continued losses to follow.

The logic of all this speculation rests on a simplistic bipolar view of the political world. There are “left-wing” people and there are “right-wing” people. Right-wing people vote for the Conservatives, and left-wing people vote for the NDP. The Liberals, as the supposedly “centrist” option, are useless in such a context.

I disagree. Though the press enjoys using the “centrist” line to describe Liberals (quite uncritically, I might add, considering that all parties generally consider themselves “centrist”), I think it’s obvious from their actual track record that the Liberals are clearly a party of the left. What distinguishes them from the NDP, however, is that they are the party of the smart left, the pragmatic left, and the mature left. And that’s a base much stronger than the doom and gloomers seem ready to concede. Read the rest of this entry »

The strange return of Anglophilic America

When Michael Huckabee made his muddled and paranoid statements about the President’s supposed homeland last month, he repeated a refrain that is becoming increasingly popular in some right-wing circles. Since Obama “grew up in Kenya,” the former governor stated, his “view of the Brits is very different than the average American.” Yes, Huck continued incredulously, Obama “probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.”

The underlying logic governing Huckabee’s remarks — which he seemed to draw upon in the most blandly matter-of-fact way — was that the properly “American” view of the Brits was sympathy for their colonization policies, and support for their empire. A strikingly incongruous perspective, perhaps, for the obvious historic reasons, yet also a revisionist interpretation that seems to be gaining steam amongst the sorts of people whose votes Mr. Huckabee may soon be needing. Indeed, at a time when the American right routinely slags the President for showing excessive sympathy to foreigners and foreign governments, the one outlier, aside from client state Israel, is always England, to which Obama is never nearly loyal enough.

I like reading American tabloids more than I should probably admit, and their obsession with the affairs of the British royal family is routine and predictable. Yet I’ve found it interesting how much of their recent coverage has managed to find a role for Mr. Obama in this distinctly British soap opera, and it’s usually that of the Empire’s most crass, disappointing child. Read the rest of this entry »

Layton and Iggy: Huh?

Look, I consider myself fairly well-versed in this whole “Canadian politics” thing. I read books and follow the news and all the rest of it. I can usually broadly sympathize with public sentiment, and understand why the polls are saying the things they are.

But I have to admit, dear reader, that I have absolutely no idea why:

a) Jack Layton has slowly risen to become the most popular politician in Canada, and

b) why Michael Ignatieff remains among our most despised.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with partisanship or ideology. I can absolutely understand why vast swatches of the Canadian public might want to vote NDP or be nonplussed with the Liberal brand, but what truly baffles me is why these two men have played such a large role in pushing their respective parties into these fates.

The New Democrats are presently surging in all the polls. My friend Sam over at The Mace predicts it’s quite possible that the NDP will eclipse the Libs as Canada’s second-place party, if trends continue. Almost all of this surge has, in turn, been attributed to the personal popularity of Mr. Layton. Whenever pollsters ask Canadians to name the man they believe best suited to “run the country” or who has the best “leadership” skills, or hell, just who they like better on a personal level, Layton rules. The NDP war room has cynically exploited this fact as far as it will go, and Layton’s name and face now overshadows everything on their posters, ads, fliers, and websites, completely eclipsing any other slogan, brand, or icon previously associated with the party (up to and including the letters “N-D-P”).

Now, in my short life, I’ve had occasion to meet, interview, and observe a number of NDP politicians at close range. At the best of times, these men and women are defined by their genuine passion and commitment to the plight of the less fortunate, and are often well-read, intellectual people. At the worst of times, NDPers are humorlessly shrill and uptight — having no time for the idea that politics is anything but Very Serious Business — and possess an almost messianic vanity and purer-than-Caesar’s-wife self-righteousness, which I guess is the somewhat predictable result of being stuck in opposition for so long.

In any case, I’ve never seen any evidence that Layton represents a practical break from any of these stereotypes, in their positives as well as negatives. I’ll readily concede that he’s a very smart and genuine man who believes in the fundamental rightness of his cause, but it also can’t be denied that he’s quite a stiff and angry fellow whose default state is usually “overbearingly outraged.” I don’t know how, for example, anyone can watch the cavalcade of NDP ads in which Mr. Layton features so prominently, ads in which he tries so hard come off as affable and pleasant, and not recoil at how obviously affected and belaboured the whole act is. Nothing about Layton’s person or character challenges the archetype of what the NDP is all about, and the main reason why we’ve never had an NDP government in this country is exactly because that the general public isn’t too hot on what the NDP is all about.

Again, nothing against the man personally; he’s no better or worse than your average politician. But that’s just the thing: he keeps polling as if he is, in fact, demonstrably superior to your average politician in some immediately noticeable and remarkable way.

So why Layton? Why now? Do you understand his appeal? Please enlighten.

On the opposite end of the coin is Michael Ignatieff, the man whom the polls say we all rank somewhere near having a bandage ripped off a hairy arm in terms of desirability. Though support for the Liberal Party has remained stable (which is to say, low) among the Canadian electorate during the last year or so, Mr. Ignatieff’s numbers have remained disproportionately terrible, even when taking his party’s general low-ebb into account.

Like Layton, I find Ignatieff far too average to be particularly deserving of great amounts of love or hate. He’s a moderate, left-of-center pragmatist who carries himself with an air of condescension and entitlement. In other words, a typical Liberal. Iggy is also, it has to be noted, one of the English-speaking world’s preeminent public intellectuals, so he can’t really be dismissed as an unaccomplished party hack. I don’t necessarily support the idea that he’s some great philosopher king-in-waiting, mind you, just that he’s a guy with some legit smarts and accomplishments to his name. Certainly a country could do worse than have a guy like him as prime minister.

Among his worst crimes, we’re told that Iggy spent too much time living and working outside of Canada (including, gasp, in America), and that his entire political career bears a sick and shameful odor of opportunism. How these quirks, in turn, negatively influence his philosophy of government or political agenda is never made particularly clear, yet in theory there should at least be a light correlation if we’re going to use them as a basis for loathing the leadership prospects of the man.

So in conclusion — help. I find myself utterly baffled by the way these two drab, uninspired, utterly standard-faire politicians have proven themselves so capable of evoking some of the most intense passions Canadian voters have felt in years.

Are you a victim of Layton-mania or Iggy-phobia? If you, hopefully you can help me shed some light on this personal enigma.

More Canadian content

Howdy! Hope everyone is enjoying my endless string of cartoons about an election I have nothing but contempt for!

If you still crave more esoteric Canadiana, however, I have a few other updates of particular interest.

The first is a new section of my increasingly far-too-dormant Guide to Canada. I’ve added a chapter on Canada’s fringe parties, those lovable, wacky groups that continuously prove themselves incapable of even meeting the Green Party’s level of popularity.

I realize the Canada Guide is getting a bit gross-looking and out of date. I plan to revamp it entirely sometime in the near future. If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to let me know.

Item two! You may remember that a while ago I interviewed all the men and women running to lead the Liberal Party of British Columbia, and thus become premier of the province. Well, now BC is having a leadership primary to pick the head of the provincial NDP, too.

You can check out my interviews with the five dudes vying for that job, here, in my NDP interviews section. Even if you’re not from BC or even a Canadian, I think I had some fairly interesting chats with these men about ideology, philosophy, and the Canadian identity that you might appreciate.

Lastly, I continue to provide content for The Mace, an election blog I am running with some of my friends. It’s been getting a lot of support, and I’ve been pleased to see some of you guys have been commenting on the posts.

Also, for everyone interested in the beaver shirts, they’ll be on sale real real soon.

Obama and Harper: more in common than you might think

I’ve noticed that every time some marginally interesting blip of Canadian news — like, say, an impending federal election — briefly enters the international media cycle, it becomes popular for Canadian bloggers to churn out a long, detailed, and somewhat patronizing “Guide to Canadian politics” for curious American readers (the best one I’ve read recently can be found here).

Now, I know my American readers are too smart to require such a pedestrian work of exposition. You guys already know all about the Bloc and NDP and non-confidence voting and governor-generals and all the rest of it (and if you don’t, there’s always my Guide to Canada).

What I think more Canadian-savvy Americans may appreciate, however, is an analysis of the remarkable parallels between the state of the ruling party in this country, and the state of the ruling party in the USA. Though one leader may command a center-right government and the other a center-left one, ideological differences aside, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper are really quite alike, both in terms of the sorts of successes they’ve already achieved, and the challenges that await in the future. As a result, the dominant political “narrative” in both countries — that is, the collection of assumptions and conclusions that forms the average voter’s understanding of What’s Going On In Politics These Days — is eerily similar:

Read the rest of this entry »

Election blog

I know it probably seems like I’m spreading myself all over the place these days, but a couple of friends and I recently decided to make a blog of daily political commentary on the 2011 Canadian election. It’s still a bit ugly at the moment, but if you want to read some shorter blurbs of writing from me, be sure to check it out. My buddies are pretty cool writers, too.

The site is called The Mace, after one of the useless symbolic relics that decorates the House of Commons.

My election predictions: Conservatives ride the incumbent advantage

So Canada’s party leaders, apropo of nothing other than their own strategic calculations, have decided to impose yet another pointless, boring emergency election upon the country. Since I find these multi-million dollar exercises in political brinkmanship exceedingly irritating and tiresome, I’ve been lately busying myself with statistics in an effort to prove precisely how dull and pointless they are.

One set of stats I’ve found quite interesting is the very high rate of incumbent re-election for members of the House of Commons. As I mentioned in my previous article on gerrymandering, in any given election, the success rate for incumbent MPs seeking another term is incredibly high, usually around 80% or so. Likewise, the number of MPs who choose to run for another term is also incredibly high, almost always in the 80s as well.

But both numbers do nevertheless fluctuate a little bit. I was curious if these fluctuations can in any way be used as predictors of election outcomes, especially in emergency elections such as the one Canada is currently experiencing.

The precedent of minority elections

Since 1968, the earliest election for which we have data, Canada has had six minority governments, and (now) six premature elections either caused by a non-confidence vote or a snap prime ministerial decision to unilaterally dissolve parliament. Two of those six minority government elections ended up causing a change in government.

Here’s the complete breakdown: Read the rest of this entry »

T-shirts!

Check it out, I made some Filibuster t-shirts featuring everyone’s favorite mascot of Canada, the Little Beaver Friend.

These silkscreened shirts are lightweight 100% cotton and avaialble in Large, XL, and medium.

Right now I am still figuring out shipping and selling and stuff, so as a result, the sales are still in the trial phase. The first five Canadians and first five Americans who email me at jjmccullough@gmail.com can buy one at the discount price of $15 US, which includes the cost of shipping. Just be sure to have the subject line “shirt order” and tell me your size, and how you want to pay. I’m hoping most of you guys have Pay Pal.

EDIT: Please no orders from the greater Vancouver area at the moment.

EDIT: The offer is now closed. Thanks to everyone who placed orders! Stay tuned for the regular store!

— J.J.

BC premiers and me

Premier Christy Clark

Christy Clark was sworn in as the 35th premier of my home province of British Columbia yesterday afternoon. She’s a strong Liberal, and though politically I can take or leave her, I do nevertheless feel something of a personal connection to her in a way I haven’t experienced with past politicians.

I’ve interviewed the woman twice, once quite recently, and once back in 2004, and both times she came off as an effortlessly friendly and affable woman, with an unguarded bluntness I found quite refreshing. Clark has a sort of sassy, fun, casualness to her personality in the style of a typical suburban, middle-class soccer mom — which I guess she basically is. While I don’t imagine this will change my perception of her views or policies, it is a nevertheless comforting feeling to have some sense of familiarity, on a personal level, with the man or woman leading your government.

Though I often wonder if this is a uniquely BC, thing, or a Canadian thing, or even a Vancouver thing, I always grew up with a keen awareness of provincial-level politics. Not that I necessarily cared on my own — a lot of it was osmosis. From my childhood to teenage years, and then into early adulthood, I’ve always been surrounded by family, teachers, and friends who endlessly discussed provincial issues and gossiped about provincial politicians, usually with a degree of passion and interest far exceeding that shown towards the federal government — or any other level of government, for that matter.

Of course, part of it might originate from the unique era of British Columbian history I happened to be born into. Since my birth in 1984, BC has gone through 11 premiers from three different parties, and witnessed the rapid rise and fall of successive partisan machines and dynasties. In many respects, it was probably difficult to live through the 1990s and early 2000s in BC without gaining a substantial knowledge of the political process, albeit via the often jaded biases of those around me. Read the rest of this entry »

Is the King’s Speech republican?

Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush

Having now seen The King’s Speech a second time, and in the wake of its recent Oscar win, I figured I should say a few words about the movie before it completely passes out of the cultural zeitgeist. Passionate anti-monarchist that I am, I was obviously interested to see how the film chose to portray royalty, and whether the presentation was ultimately favorable or unfavorable to the institution of monarchy itself.

To the extent the film has been analyzed from a political perspective to date, most critics have obsessed over the film’s (rather minor) World War II sub-theme, with some pundits, notably Christopher Hitchens, griping that the movie unjustifiably downplays the Windsor dynasty’s historic ambivalence towards, or outright apologism for, Hitlerian Germany.

Less attention, however, has been devoted to analyzing the way the movie engages with the very idea of monarchy as a system of government, and its interpretation of the the increasingly tense, defensive, anachronistic qualities that came to define 20th century royalty. Which is a shame, since The King’s Speech has quite a lot to say in this regard.

Read the rest of this entry »