Jen, though I suspect we’re on different parts of the political spectrum this was excellent and helpful to my personal perspective.
PS I am a paid subscriber as I think what you and Matt (writing for NP notwithstanding 😉) are doing is smart, well written and mostly balanced despite honestly held differences with my worldview.
The Line has done important work this week, publishing several articles highlighting apparent incompetence and inefficiency in our public service bureaucracy. Our response to the Afghanistan emergency was late, lacked urgency, and the comms (to the public and those in need) were incoherent.
That Jen's article ties this response to the competence of the PM points out the risk of centralizing core government operations in the PMO. No one in the senior public service dares make a decision of any consequence without clearance from the top - so when those folks are distracted (with, say, electioneering), no decisions are made.
Keep pressing on this issue, it's clear our Federal public service is badly in need of review and reform. For so long as political considerations take primacy over the health and safety of Canadians (and others), disasters like the Afghanistan response will happen over and over and over again.
The scab Jen Gerson refers to of our not living up to our ideals is one we've had for centuries. The Fathers of Confederation had all these great ideas about federalism, tolerance and political nationalities, but they only ever applied them to other white people. (And I say that as someone who admires the Fathers).
Jen also talks about the decaying Laurentian Consensus, but what's supposed to replace it? The 'Big Shift' John Ibbitson was crowing about that was supposed to involve a permanent shift of political power to Western Canada, led by an oil-rich Alberta? Given the problems we're having actually selling a lot of our resources, I can't see it happening.
Hell, I'd say that the 'Market Consensus' of deregulation, tax cuts and trade deals isn't looking too great these days either. Donald Trump got elected partly on his condemning that neoliberal model and claiming that he'd bring the outsourced jobs back to America. Too bad questioning it seems to be one of those subjects that is simply not done in most Canadian political circles, just like any idea of opening up the Constitution to deal with a lot of the problems that're still festering.
We need to have some serious discussions about a lot of these bigger issues, and the changes that would come with them. It's too bad things seem too polarized right now-if those discussions actually led to some of the necessary larger-scale changes (e.g. restoring Indigenous land bases, languages and governance) we might finally start shedding the scab Jen mentioned. There'd probably a lot less backlash against celebrations of Canada too-which would go a long way to cutting the alt-right off at the knees.
That scab you are referring to is our 2nd rate Canadian establishment. The ones who got laughed at last week by the public when they referred to Canada's health care system as "one of the best in the world."
Canada's biggest problem after how we treat our First Nations people is our mediocre establishment, be it political, media, business, etc. The world is out competing us, and our chronic risk aversion and pathological avoidance of confrontation on make it worse.
Agree with your portrayal of the Libs campaign as shocked they actually have to campaign rather than simply be anointed, but I started going the other way when you quipped the standard line that the Cons & Dippers both want to see the elimination of the Libs. No doubt true of the party partisans. However, voters strike me as more ambivalent.
Unless I misunderstand, you appear to embrace the vested interest of the Cons & Dippers being a "truly competitive democracy" that is "closer to a two-party system". Can't quite tell if you are simply describing their vested interests or affirming it as the more logical and effective political system.
My reaction is Canuck voters have the system they continue to create (founding fathers & framing institutions notwithstanding). In other words, Canucks create the multi-party system because they like the strategic options it makes possible. Compare the bizarro binary gong show currently bedevilling the U.S. by contrast. Where being killed by Covid becomes a valiant death on a glorious battlefield with the Flight of the Valkyries singing you off, stage-right! And vaccines are hoaxes perpetrated by limp-wristed commies!
I suspect partisans are inherently binary-brained folks. Many, if not most voters, not so much.
The fact an option opens up of a CPC-NDP strategic alliance, if O'Toole moves to the centre, is also possible because Canuck voters' political culture makes it possible. After all, Cons put the word Progressive in their name long ago to keep such options open. And Dippers put the word New in their name because, ah, they wanted folks to think they were selling a brand new box of soap invented by modern lab coats to clean up the political system and forget those muddy WWI trenches & those trench-coated Bolsheviks lurking in dark corners. Well, something like that.
Anyhoo, two-party systems make for clear, simple, binary oppositions. But do they make for better political outcomes? And more to the point, do they force voters into binary choices voters really don't want to have forced upon them.
So the fact that the binaries breakdown and mix and match at different times is really only confounding to the binary-brained partisans. The average voter is not seeking logical perfection, just a safe, comfortable life. Not too scary, not too risky, just about right for now. The Goldilocks option, for the moment. Maybe Trudeau in 2015. Maybe O'Toole in 2021. Or singing along with Singh in...ah, may be later, but not now.
Jen, though I suspect we’re on different parts of the political spectrum this was excellent and helpful to my personal perspective.
PS I am a paid subscriber as I think what you and Matt (writing for NP notwithstanding 😉) are doing is smart, well written and mostly balanced despite honestly held differences with my worldview.
The Line has done important work this week, publishing several articles highlighting apparent incompetence and inefficiency in our public service bureaucracy. Our response to the Afghanistan emergency was late, lacked urgency, and the comms (to the public and those in need) were incoherent.
That Jen's article ties this response to the competence of the PM points out the risk of centralizing core government operations in the PMO. No one in the senior public service dares make a decision of any consequence without clearance from the top - so when those folks are distracted (with, say, electioneering), no decisions are made.
Keep pressing on this issue, it's clear our Federal public service is badly in need of review and reform. For so long as political considerations take primacy over the health and safety of Canadians (and others), disasters like the Afghanistan response will happen over and over and over again.
The scab Jen Gerson refers to of our not living up to our ideals is one we've had for centuries. The Fathers of Confederation had all these great ideas about federalism, tolerance and political nationalities, but they only ever applied them to other white people. (And I say that as someone who admires the Fathers).
Jen also talks about the decaying Laurentian Consensus, but what's supposed to replace it? The 'Big Shift' John Ibbitson was crowing about that was supposed to involve a permanent shift of political power to Western Canada, led by an oil-rich Alberta? Given the problems we're having actually selling a lot of our resources, I can't see it happening.
Hell, I'd say that the 'Market Consensus' of deregulation, tax cuts and trade deals isn't looking too great these days either. Donald Trump got elected partly on his condemning that neoliberal model and claiming that he'd bring the outsourced jobs back to America. Too bad questioning it seems to be one of those subjects that is simply not done in most Canadian political circles, just like any idea of opening up the Constitution to deal with a lot of the problems that're still festering.
We need to have some serious discussions about a lot of these bigger issues, and the changes that would come with them. It's too bad things seem too polarized right now-if those discussions actually led to some of the necessary larger-scale changes (e.g. restoring Indigenous land bases, languages and governance) we might finally start shedding the scab Jen mentioned. There'd probably a lot less backlash against celebrations of Canada too-which would go a long way to cutting the alt-right off at the knees.
That scab you are referring to is our 2nd rate Canadian establishment. The ones who got laughed at last week by the public when they referred to Canada's health care system as "one of the best in the world."
Canada's biggest problem after how we treat our First Nations people is our mediocre establishment, be it political, media, business, etc. The world is out competing us, and our chronic risk aversion and pathological avoidance of confrontation on make it worse.
I don't think the narrative of Harper's office turning down the Kurdi family's asylum application is true:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3214517
It fit the widespread perception of Harper's alleged heartless persona, so the public suspended disbelief.
Nice read as usual. A couple of thoughts.
Agree with your portrayal of the Libs campaign as shocked they actually have to campaign rather than simply be anointed, but I started going the other way when you quipped the standard line that the Cons & Dippers both want to see the elimination of the Libs. No doubt true of the party partisans. However, voters strike me as more ambivalent.
Unless I misunderstand, you appear to embrace the vested interest of the Cons & Dippers being a "truly competitive democracy" that is "closer to a two-party system". Can't quite tell if you are simply describing their vested interests or affirming it as the more logical and effective political system.
My reaction is Canuck voters have the system they continue to create (founding fathers & framing institutions notwithstanding). In other words, Canucks create the multi-party system because they like the strategic options it makes possible. Compare the bizarro binary gong show currently bedevilling the U.S. by contrast. Where being killed by Covid becomes a valiant death on a glorious battlefield with the Flight of the Valkyries singing you off, stage-right! And vaccines are hoaxes perpetrated by limp-wristed commies!
I suspect partisans are inherently binary-brained folks. Many, if not most voters, not so much.
The fact an option opens up of a CPC-NDP strategic alliance, if O'Toole moves to the centre, is also possible because Canuck voters' political culture makes it possible. After all, Cons put the word Progressive in their name long ago to keep such options open. And Dippers put the word New in their name because, ah, they wanted folks to think they were selling a brand new box of soap invented by modern lab coats to clean up the political system and forget those muddy WWI trenches & those trench-coated Bolsheviks lurking in dark corners. Well, something like that.
Anyhoo, two-party systems make for clear, simple, binary oppositions. But do they make for better political outcomes? And more to the point, do they force voters into binary choices voters really don't want to have forced upon them.
So the fact that the binaries breakdown and mix and match at different times is really only confounding to the binary-brained partisans. The average voter is not seeking logical perfection, just a safe, comfortable life. Not too scary, not too risky, just about right for now. The Goldilocks option, for the moment. Maybe Trudeau in 2015. Maybe O'Toole in 2021. Or singing along with Singh in...ah, may be later, but not now.