Don't blame democracy

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Globe’s condescending take on plebiscitary democracy is misplaced. “HST’s defeat in BC shows danger of ruling by plebiscite”

Just because you disagree with British Columbia voters because they rejected the HST doesn’t mean they voted the wrong way.

In fact, voters usually make the right choice based on the arguments placed before them.

In the case of the BC plebiscite, the pro-HST side simply didn’t present a convincing enough case.

So don’t blame voters for the result and don’t blame democracy

In politics vagueness works

Here’s some free political advice: If you’re running for elected office don’t ever give voters dozens of reasons not to vote for you.

Now you might think that’s stupid advice because, after all, what candidate or party would ever do such a ridiculous thing?

But believe me, it happens all the time.

It happens, for instance, every time a candidate releases a detailed and specific policy platform during or before an election.

These are the platforms candidates will proudly hold up at a news conference and say something like: “Here is an extensive list of my specific promises which I will enact to get the country/province/city moving again.”

Sometimes they even have special names: Contract with America, Red Book, Pledge to America, Changebook.

It’s a nice idea, but also an incredibly risky one.

It’s risky because every specific and detailed policy idea in your contract or book or pledge has the potential to anger or frighten or confuse a voter.

A voter might say to himself, “I really liked this candidate but then I read his 75 Point Platform, and I don’t like point 15, I hate point 56 and I would never vote for a guy who would carry out point 62.”

And there’s another danger of coming out with a detailed plan: It gives your political opponents potential ammunition to use against you.

Indeed, given that most voters don’t follow policy questions all that closely, it’s pretty easy to put a negative spin on any proposal or promise that’s new or untried or in any way controversial.

For instance, during the 2011 federal election the Liberals released a “Red Book” which promised to hike corporate tax rates and to end tax breaks for oil sands development.

This gave Conservatives an opportunity to pounce, which not surprisingly, they did.

Indeed, almost as soon as the Liberal Red Book was released, the Tories were calling it tax and spend politics.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared” “Michael Ignatieff’s election platform will raise taxes, kill jobs and put our economic recovery in jeopardy."

Sounds pretty scary doesn’t it?

Anyway, the point is the Liberals put themselves on the defensive, at a time when they should have been attacking.

This is not to say a candidate shouldn’t have some sort of “plan.”

It’s definitely a good idea to let voters know you have an agenda or vision.

But it’s always advisable to keep your plan as vague as possible, ie “Our plan is to reduce government waste, cut taxes and promote trade.”

Any plan that’s too detailed could do more harm than good.

But what about the Liberal Party’s famous Red Book plan released during the 1993 federal election?

It contained a detailed plan for Canada and conventional political wisdom suggests it played a major role in helping the Liberals win a massive victory.

But did it?

As statisticians like to say, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

In other words, just because a political party wins an election after releasing a detailed policy platform doesn’t mean the platform actually helped it win.

Any number of variables can determine the success or failure of a political campaign.

In the 1993 Canadian election, for instance, the Liberals were running against an extremely unpopular, tired and poorly led Progressive Conservative Party.

Given such a weak opponent, the Liberals would likely have won handily Red Book or no Red Book.

Indeed, I strongly suspect few Canadian voters even bothered to read the Liberal Red Book.

OK, I know all this sounds cynical.

But as someone once said, “cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth”.

Here’s why Senate reform isn’t going to happen

Anyone who thinks Canada’s Senate will be reformed anytime soon should brush up on their ancient Roman history.

The Romans, like us, had a Senate.

And it was a political entity that for hundreds of years was basically powerless.

But it was resilient: In fact, the Roman Senate actually kept meeting for about one hundred years after the Empire had fallen.

The point I’m trying to make is that political institutions, no matter how archaic and ineffective they might be, can sometimes prove extremely durable and resistant to change.

The Canadian Senate is one such institution.

And yes I know Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Senate reform, including having elected Senators, is one of his priorities.

But that doesn’t mean his words or his promises will translate into action.

After all, the Prime Minister is a shrewd political thinker, meaning he probably realizes that taking on the massive job of Senate reform is not really in his interest.

For one thing, convincing the provincial Premiers to go along with reforming the Upper House will require expending an awful lot of energy and an awful lot of valuable political capital on an issue that offers little in the way of positive returns.

Plus, from the Prime Minister’s perspective the Senate probably works just fine as it is.

Why would he rush to have elected Senators when having the power to appoint people to the Senate gives him a great way to reward his loyal supporters?

And let’s face it, would Harper really want elected Conservative Senators, who won’t owe their jobs to his patronage, running around Ottawa?

Such Senators might show an independent streak and (horror of horrors) speak their own minds without regard to Conservative talking points.

Of course, the Prime Minister might still push for Senate reform if there was a public demand for it.

But does anybody really care about changing the Senate?

Certainly, people cared about 25 years ago.

Indeed, back then reforming the Senate was a hot topic in Western Canada, especially in Alberta.

For instance, Albertans were demanding what was called a “Triple –E Senate”, that is a Senate that was elected, effective and equal.

It was an issue the old Reform Party took on with great gusto.

But what generated interest in Senate reform wasn’t simply a desire to reform an outdated institution.

Albertans wanted an elected and equal Senate for one basic reason: protection.

The idea was a Triple-E Senate would provide a much-needed check on the power of the Liberal dominated House of Commons which Albertans increasingly came to view as hostile to their interests.

And they had reason for such suspicion; all too often the Liberals would sacrifice the needs of Alberta or exploit its resources to appease the vote-rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

A classic example of this behaviour was the National Energy Program, an ill-conceived Liberal scheme which devastated Alberta’s economy.

So it’s not surprising that Westerners clamored for a Senate with real legislative power and with equality for all the provinces.

In short, they needed an effective voice in Ottawa.

But things are different now in 2011.

The Liberals have been vanquished and the Prime Minister is not only a Conservative, he’s an Albertan.

That means the central government is no longer viewed as a threat to Alberta’s resources, meaning a reformed Senate is no longer needed.

Hence there exists no organized effort in Alberta or anywhere else for that matter, to push the Harper government on Senate reform.

As a result, the Senate will remain frozen in time.

None of this would surprise the Romans.

Voters tuning out politics

According to a recent StatsCan report, a whopping 7.5 million Canadians didn’t bother to vote in the last federal election.

If you think that sounds bad, hang on; it gets worse.

Canadians, it seems, can’t even come up with good excuses as to why they won’t vote.

StatsCan reports more than a quarter (28%) of the non-voters said they were simply “not interested” in voting; while another 23% said they were just “too busy”.

In short, non-voters are apathetic about their apathy.

But what does this tell us about the state of politics in Canada?

Well, one thing it tells us is that many Canadian voters obviously don’t find the political dramas that make headlines all that riveting.

Political games and partisan battles just don’t interest them.

And it’s not just the non-voters who are tuning out.

Many Canadians who did cast ballots in the last election likely don’t follow political news all that closely.

Indeed, a poll released by the Liberal Party last January indicated only 15% of Canadians pay attention to politics.

Of course, some people do care about politics.

The activists, the partisans, the media, the political junkies – these are people who love politics, in the same way others love sports.

They will read news journals and editorials, follow blogs and online forums, attend conventions and march in rallies.

And these people know the issues backwards and forwards; they will debate experts on radio phone-in programs, they will read every line of a party’s policy platform and they will have well-thought out ideological beliefs and values.

They are informed and enthusiastic voters.

But the fact is, such political aficionados, while often vocal, represent only a tiny portion of the population.

They are, in other words, a small, small minority.

This is a fact media pundits, political consultants and politicians sometimes forget.

Every now and then, they fall into the trap of believing that just because their fellow political junkies are worked up about an issue, that all Canadians must be equally concerned about the same issue and for the same reasons.

Consider, for instance, the issue of government “ethics”, which prior to the May 2^nd federal election was a major concern.

Or at least, it was a major concern for the Opposition parties and for elements of the media.

For weeks the Conservative government took a pounding over issues like the Bev Oda/Kairos affair and the so-called Elections Canada “In-out” scandal and about whether or not the government was actually in contempt of Parliament.

Eventually, the Opposition parties, egged on by their partisan supporters and media allies, came to believe the question of government ethics was a winning political issue.

So in March, the Liberals and NDP toppled the government.

And the voters responded, of course, by giving the supposedly ethically-challenged, Conservatives a majority victory.

So much for ethics being a winning political issue!

The mistake the Liberals and NDP made was in assuming that causal Canadian voters actually cared about the kinds of ethical issues that people cared so much about on Parliament Hill.

Obviously, they didn’t.

In fact, it’s likely a large number of Canadian were only dimly aware of all the ethics controversies plaguing the government. And for many of those who were aware, it was simply not a priority.

This is a lesson all political communicators should take to heart.

Voters may not be into politics, they may not follow the political news, but they do have concerns.

To succeed, find out what truly matters to voters and craft a simple message that resonates.

Otherwise, your potential supporters might too “busy to vote”

Harper takes principled stand on Israel

Few issues have earned Prime Minister Stephen Harper as much praise or scorn as has his strong and consistent support for the state of Israel.

Some have lavishly lauded Harper's pro-Israel stance as courageously standing up for a democratic ally; others have vehemently condemned him as a cynical apologist for Zionist occupiers.

But for me, this issue elicits a some what tamer reaction, something akin to satisfaction.

OK that might sound strange, but let me explain.

To my mind, Harper's strong support for Israel is a welcome sign that he still retains at least some of the principles he once held during the time we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition.

In case, you're not up on your Harper history, let me give a brief backgrounder.

From 1998 to 2001, Harper was president of the NCC, which at the time was Canada's leading conservative advocacy group and I was his vice president.

And during his stint at the NCC's helm, Harper was a principled small "c"conservative who vigorously urged politicians to balance budgets, cut spending and to generally make government smaller.

Since becoming Prime Minister, however, Harper has largely turned his back on the principles of fiscal conservatism he once passionately espoused.

Rather than making government smaller, he has made it bigger; rather than cutting back on spending he has plunged the country into a sea of red ink.

This has seriously disappointed me and many other fiscal conservatives who were hoping Harper would implement a true small government agenda.

But despite my disappointment, a part of me doesn't want to believe my old comrade has completely forsaken his values.

That's why I often find myself striving to find evidence that the Harper I once worked with still exists, that his soul still contains some glimmer of the principled NCC president.

His stance on Israel is just such a glimmer.

Now please understand the NCC under Harper did not take any public stances on Israel. We were concerned mainly with domestic policies and issues.

But he and I had many conversations about Mideast politics and his view was
clear: he believed Canada must remain loyal and true to Israel.

He believed this not out of any religious conviction, but because he said Israel was the only country in the Mideast that shared our democratic traditions and values.

And so he was, as he once put it to me, "extremely pro-Israel".

And today, he is following through on his belief.

Canada is now widely considered Israel's "best friend" because as Harper himself put it, "those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us."

Now don't get me wrong.

I am not naïve enough to believe that there isn't some cynical political calculation that's also involved when it comes to Harper's relationship to Israel.

After all, the Jewish state is no ordinary country.

By standing firmly behind Israel the Conservatives can attract Canadian Jewish votes; they can appease their evangelical Christian base (which is vehemently pro-Israel) and as a bonus, it's also a policy that's likely popular with mainstream voters.

In a world that's teeming with hostile dictators and fanatical enemies, Canadians probably have strong sympathy these days for a fellow democracy that's in the front-line in the battle against terrorism.

This is a case for the Prime Minister, in other words, where good policy, good politics and personal principle intersect.

And principle and personal conviction are traits we need more of in Canadian politics.

Now if only Harper would go back to supporting the principle of smaller government.

The wisest man I ever knew

One of the wisest men I ever knew never graduated from high school.

He was a painter – and I don’t mean one of those artsy guys who get government grants to draw triangles.

I mean he was a tradesman, a man who worked hard his whole life painting homes and schools and factories.

He used colour to make the world a little more beautiful one brush stroke at a time.

And all the painting and scaffold building and climbing that went with the job, also made him strong.

In his older years, he would take great delight in challenging “young punks”, as he called them, to arm wrestling matches.

He won easily every time.

So why do I say he was wise?

Because he taught me a lot about what was important in life.

For one thing, when I was a teenager he taught me about the importance of education. He did this by getting me a summer job in factory that was so dark, so unbearably hot, so noisy and dirty I figured it was built from blueprints provided by Satan.

When I complained about the conditions, he said, “Well if you don’t want to work in a place like this for the rest of your life, stay in school!”

It was good advice.

He also taught me about the importance of loyalty.

A die-hard Detroit Red Wings fan, he stuck by his team even during the long drought of the 60s, 70s and 80s, decades during which the team was about as successful as a Michael Moore diet plan.

Yet, loyalty to his country superseded all else.

When the Red Wings finally won a Stanley Cup in 1997, their first in 42 years, I thought he would be deliriously happy.

But he wasn’t.

When I asked him why he wasn’t celebrating Detroit winning the Cup, he replied with an answer that would have made Don Cherry proud: “The Red Wings have too many God damned Russians on the team.”

Ironically, one thing this wise man never taught me was how to paint.

And that’s just as well because it meant I could always turn to him when I needed some painting done.

Not that I ever had to ask.

Whenever I moved into a new apartment or house, he would always show up on my doorstep, a brush in one hand, a can of paint in the other.

Of course, like any craftsman, he never tolerated amateurs messing up his work.

And so one time when my wife and I picked up brushes to help him paint around our house he looked at our work with a pained expression and declared: “Please don’t ‘help’ me.”

All this is coming to my mind because a few days ago, that wise man passed away.

I will miss his painting skills, his wisdom and his love.

He was my dad.

I figure right now he is standing on a cloud, a brush in one hand, a can of paint in the other, determined to make heaven look just a little more beautiful, one brush stroke at a time.

He is also probably telling God, “Please don’t help me.”

Freedom Forum

In an effort to better promote conservative/libertarian values in Canada I have launched a new website called Freedom Forum.

Check it out.

About that Manning Centre poll

When an advocacy organization releases a poll, it's usually done to promote the group's agenda.

In other words, the group is saying, "Hey look, this poll shows everybody agrees with us, therefore we must be right."

Case in point is a poll released by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

The Manning Centre people tell us this poll indicates "traditional ideological differences across partisan lines, on most big issues, have virtually disappeared.'

Or as Allan Gregg, one of the people behind the poll, declared, “What I think you are seeing here is something almost the equivalent of end-of-ideology epoch There is no major differences left among the electorate in terms of directionally where we should be going.”

Gregg bases this startling claim on the way respondents answered a series of "value" questions.

For instance, the poll found wide support for  notions about government  "learning from the past"; "governments should be concentrating on the problems of today rather than tomorrow” and government should move with “caution rather than boldness.”

The poll also supposedly indicates Canada has evolved its own “unique strain of conservatism", a strain that's different from the American-style Republican/Tea Party version.

Our conservatism apparently combines, "free market principles, moderation, incrementalism and social justice.”

But more than that, the Manning poll indicates this Canadian-style conservatism, “has become mainstream as the ideological ‘centre’ has shifted to a new conservative orthodoxy.”

And this is all due to Prime Minister Stephen Harper who as Gregg put it has “moderated the image of Conservatives to conform more with the kind of conservatism being expressed by the population. 

Gregg also says the country has become less conservative in traditional “American conservative values” over the last year.

Really?

I don't think so. In fact, this whole poll is a bunch of hooey.

Here's why.

The Manning Centre makes the mistake of using a poll to reveal what people say, as opposed to what they really think.

First off, most people in general (Americans or Canadians) are wary about change, they want government to protect them, they want their standard of living secured.

Broadly speaking these are "conservative" values I suppose, but they are also human values.

Does this mean ideological differences don't exist?

No it doesn't.  I suspect some of the respondents to the Manning poll who said government should learn from the past, also give money to the NDP or  they may support new taxes on "the rich", others may want a flat tax or more money to health care.

The only way to tell would be to do a careful analysis of cross-tabs and a lot more questions.

In other words, this poll doesn’t really tell us much about the state of ideology in Canada.

But then again, I suspect that wasn’t the overall point of this poll.

My guess is the Manning Centre wants to justify or legitimize the Harper Conservative Party's, Liberal-lite, wishy-washy brand of conservatism.

Busy media day

Had a lot going on this day.

Have a column in today's Globe and Mail on the question of money and politics. Is money really all that evil?

Also have a column in today's National Post in which I urge conservatives to make sure the Harper Tories don't take their support for granted.

Finally, I have a column in the Ottawa Hill Times on the Conservative Party's "Dirty  Harry" political strategy. (It's behind a subscription wall.)

Additionally, I did a radio interview on the Arlene Bynon Show, (640 AM Radio Toronto) and appeared as a the Power Play "strategist panel."

Whew.

Turning the page

Is former Parliamentary page Brigette DePape a courageous hero or a spoiled brat?

Actually she can be both: It all depends on your point of view.

More specifically it depends on how you expect people to behave.

For instance, we all expect people to follow society's rules. It's part of what makes us human.

Hence, DePape is regarded by many Canadians as nothing but a self-aggrandizing, troublemaker because she disrupted the Throne Speech, clearly breaking the Parliamentary rules.

Yet there are those who are applauding DePape's bit of political theater.

Do these people not believe in rules?

Yes they do, but they would argue DePape was following a rule that transcends Parliamentary protocol, namely that we should stand up for what we believe.

In other words, we are all reading the same book, but sometimes we are on a different page.

Media Alert

I will be on The Weekend Morning News, (CKNW Vancouver) this morning at 10:07 AM ET to talk about civility in Parliament.

Media Alert

Will be on Canada AM, this morning at 7:10 AM ET (!) to talk about the Harper majority.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on The Weekend Morning News, today at 10:05 AM ET to talk politics.

Harper and the Left

Is it possible the Harper majority government could actually be good news for Canada's left?

Yes -- to see why, check out a column I wrote which appears in today's Toronto Star.

Wondering about Rae

"I'd rather eat glass than see Bob Rae elected leader of my  party."

That's what a Liberal partisan said to me back when Rae was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

I assume many Liberals were also of that view.

After all, the guy ending up losing to Stephane Dion, who on paper at least, was an inferior candidate to Rae.

Then, after Dion crashed like the Hindenburg, the Liberals denied Rae the chance to even run against Michael Ingatieff, who was acclaimed leader.

So clearly, he wasn't going to win any popularity contests.

But now the guy's "Interim" Liberal leader.

It all makes me wonder.

I wonder if he holds any bitterness about his past treatment?

I wonder if  that explains his openness to having the Liberals merge with his old comrades in the NDP socialist collective?

I wonder how much damage a "past his prime" leader can do to a party, that's struggling to have a future?

Oh well, at least I don't  have to wonder about the Liberals' leader-picking abilities.

Obviously, they haven't got a clue.

Political subsidies

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will soon eliminate the public "per vote" subsidy for politicians.

It's a good idea, but I just hope he's doing the right thing for the right reasons.

To see what I mean, check out this Ottawa Citizen column I wrote which appears in today's paper.

Also, the Ottawa Hill Times recently interviewed me on the very same topic.

Media Alert

I will be on two radio shows this morning:

First will be on The House, CBC radio to discuss Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Senate -- 9:00 AM ET

Second, will be on The Weekend Morning News, (CKNW Vancouver) to talk about the new cabinet. Sometime after 10:00 AM ET.

Media Alert

Am scheduled to be on The Caldwell Account -- Sun News Network at 2:40 PM ET to talk about the Senate appointments.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be on Madely in the Morning (CFRA radio Ottawa) today at 8:40 AM to talk about those Senate appointments.

New Cabinet

The Prime Minister unveiled his new cabinet today, which is newsworthy because it means journalists will now have to find something else to speculate about.

Also newsworthy about the cabinet is it's size, I mean in terms of population the cabinet is now the fifth largest city in Canada.

In fact, it's so large its meetings will now take place in the Rogers' Centre.

Anyway, here's a partial list of the new cabinet:

Marjory Lebreton, Minister in Charge of coming up with new excuses for not reforming the Senate

Bev Oda, Minister Responsible for Sticking it to all you critics out there!

John Baird, Minister in charge of foreign relations, and if those foreigners better like it or else.

Tony Clement, President of Ensuring Canada's  Fake Lake needs.

Jason Kenney, Commander-in-Chief of government’s Very Ethnic Legions

 Joe Oliver, Minister in charge of Being from Toronto

Julian Fantino, Associate Minister in charge of getting Peter MacKay his coffee

Maxime Bernier, Minister of Actually talking like a conservative

Lynne Yelich, Minister of State for Pork

Gary Goodyear, Minister of (Prime Minister will dream up some important-sounding title later)

Should be a great four years of big government.