Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

O'bomber

by Paul Wells on Saturday, December 5, 2009 3:44pm - 128 Comments

Dana Milbank, making himself useful for a change, surveys left-liberal despair over Barack Obama’s Afghanistan strategy. The arguments will be familiar to students of Lawrence Martin, whose Globe column this week carried the unmistakable, and familiar, sound of a romantic falling out of love again. Oh, Barack — we thought you were good, but instead you’re bad.

We’re reminded once again that support for a candidate can be so fervent that supporters devote a lot of energy to blocking out what the candidate says, in plain English, over and over. Milbank is especially good on this point. Remember that one subspecies of the shortlived mania for Stéphane Dion was the ironclad conviction that Dion would represent Pierre Trudeau’s second coming as a federalist, even though Dion had spent his career sharply criticizing elements of Trudeau’s thinking. Similarly, apparently it was possible to think Obama would do nothing in Afghanistan except poke daisies into the barrels of all those rifles. One way to avoid this misperception would have been to listen to Obama.

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon Liberal

    I've noticed this too (i.e. that Obama supporters are ignoring that what he's doing in Afghanistan is consistent with what he campaigned on). Usually simply mentioning this is enough to get them to tone down their criticism. It's like 'oh yeah, I forgot about that part'.

    Your shot at Dion supporters is kind of weird and unecessary though. First of all there was never any "mania" for Dion. Many people in the party respected him and thought chooising him instead of Ignatieff or Rae would be better off for the party, but there was never blind love for him the same way there was for Obama.

    Secondly, I disagree with your assertion that support for Dion was based on the idea that he would "represent Pierre Trudeau’s second coming as a federalist". Certainly people appreciated the good fight he had put up against separatists as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (as well they should), but it seemed to me that his support was also based on his emphasis on balancing environmental and economic priorities, as well as the fact he was a straight shooter who was untainted by the sponsosrship scandal and hadn't been an insurgent in the Chrétien-Martin civil war.

    Thirdly, you were a Dion fan yourself which you always seem to neglect mentioning these days. How odd.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      I did think / hope that Dion was the second coming of Trudeau, though I was aware of his strict constitutional position; because Dion was a francophone Quebecker with the courage to stand up and praise Canada. That was such a breath of fresh air, amid the dank stench of Harper's and Layton's and Martin's and God knows who else's coddling of separatism, that Dion did indeed seem like Trudeau, for about three months. Now we're left with national leaders who are all iffy about the validity of Canada itself.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

        Obama was pretty clear that he thought Iraq was a mitake but said repeatedly that Afghanistan was the conflict that was the right one. Now you can be excused if you thought that maybe that was just a ploy, but he made it the statement so often that what he just did shouldnt be surprising.

  • egghead

    Wells' explanation of the evolution of his own evaluation of Dion is actually addressed quite clearly in this column:

    http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?id=…

  • Anon Liberal

    Ah thanks for that. I actually think that's a good, even-handed and fair analysis. What I didn't like was the retroactive re-writing of history later when Wells tried to argue that Dion shouldn't receive any of the credit for the Clarity Act. That was just petty and it seemed…oddly personal. And he keeps taking shots at him now whenever he gets a chance. I think there's a saying about kicking a man when he's down that would be appropriate to remember.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      I got a letter from Dion this week. His tone didn't sound 'down' in the least. Not sure I'd say that of his wife, of course, but oddly I think that's right and just (and kind of romantic).

  • egghead

    The Martin column really is crazy though. Sample:

    "This continent, with the Obama election, appeared to be heading toward a time when proponents of peace and disarmament would find a voice that could compete with the warrior mentality."

    Disarmament, Larry? Delusional.

    • kcm

      Didn't Obama raise the question of nuclear disarmament?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

        Everyone pays lip service to that until they realize how impossible it is.

      • egghead

        Nuclear disarmament is a separate issue because (1) doesn't relate to an issue like Afghanistan (2) its not unique to Obama – Reagan talked about it as well, for example.

        • Orson Bean

          Anyway, further proof that L. Martin is delusional. That's the important point.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Obama's redeployment seems to be a cutting of the elm among the anti-Bush forces. Those who were simply anti-war are parting ways with those who were simply anti-dumb. The anti-dumb crowd may still disagree as to whether the Afghanistan war is winnable or even justified, but the ideologues to right and left seem to be bailing.

    • Dieter Sprockets

      Jack,

      Your rhetoric sounds impressive but I have corns with your premise-whatever it is. The US initially neutered Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bib laddedn. They didn't;t ask us to join, knowing that at that time, we'd likely get in the way, but Chretien was determined to get us over there even though we didn't have the means to get over there and needed to hitch a ride.

      Once the Taliban was defeated-the Northern Alliance did this with US air support, much evidence was found stemming from al quada training manuals to terrorist training camps along with computer records-on one video os of a large dog dying from nerve gas. And there were plans for a 2nd and 3rd 9/11.

      So why did Canada get involved? In the case of the Liberals, they were concerned about a continuation of being able to sell stuff to the large American market, the same market despised by Linda McQuaig and other like minded lefties.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Wait a sec, Dieter. My memory is not jiving with your account. I may need a history lesson, but I seem to recall Canada being right there from pretty much the start. Our snipers were picking off enemy and saving Canadian and American soldiers from trouble, in the very early days. We lost several soldiers from an anything-but-friendly-fire incident ("Hold fire"… Boom… "Friendlies Kandahar") in April of '02, only seven months after the attacks in the US. So I guess on that last detail, we got "in the way," though I doubt it was in the manner you intended to express.

        And, request for history lesson number two. Why did Canada get involved? Are we not all agreed that Canada got to Afghanistan mainly (only?) because Chretien wanted nothing to do with liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    I think there are two angry groups on left:

    1) idealists like Martin who actually believed Obama's election would stop the tides from rising. Idealism is an odd thing – I think it is normal/acceptable for people under 30/35 to be idealistic but after that you are old enough to know better. Pols behave like pols, always.

    2) some are disgruntled because they were willing to trade increase of troops in Afghan in exchange for Gitmo closing, ending 'don't ask, don't tell' policy … and other progressive policies like that. They are not idealists but expected Obama to tinker more with Fed government agencies that he can change from his desk with exec orders.

    That Afghan speech did not go over well. Right are happy that Obama agreed to troop increase but don't believe president's heart is in the mission while progs think Obama is a neo-con now.

    • Joe Camel

      3) Those of us who saw Obama as a conservative Democrat, but who weren't believed.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

        I think Obama has a conservative demeanour, but I think calling him a conservative democrat would be pushing the bounds of definition.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      the thing I love about confirmation bias is that partisans only believe the "others" have it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    One way to avoid this misperception would have been to listen to Obama.

    The problem though, is that it's impossible to tell when you should listen to a politician. Anyone that listened to Harper for example, must be by this point greatly disappointed for doing so.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

      Wells has carved a bit of a niche for himself by pointing out that Harper has transmitted his direction quite clearly. It usually isnt in the detail of any particular policy, which is where any politician twists and turns.

      But I am sure there would be a debate between Coyne and Wells on this particular point.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      There's a niche market there. Gerry Nicholls seeks to be the spokesman for everyone who thought Harper in power would be like Harper in opposition. To some extent it's genuinely surprising there aren't more like Nicholls, but the reason, of course, is that Harper wins elections and Conservatives like the way that feels. It tends to soothe the pain of ideological inconsistency.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

        "It tends to soothe the pain of ideological inconsistency."

        I knew Harper/Cons would not entirely satisfy their partisans but I did expect better than what Cons have managed to achieve. Harper too consumed with tactics and strategy and not enough focus on conservative policy. Harper/Cons never complete their thoughts: it is all assertions with little explanation and they are doing nothing to advance conservatism as an idea

        I didn't vote Con, so I am not disillusioned, but I did expect better.

        • kcm

          "… I didn't vote Con, so I am not disillusioned"

          Where else is there for a libertarian to go? The rhinos :)
          …actually i'm heading that way myself these days. I like their principle promise to not keep any of their promises and i treasure a good laugh. I'll vote for whichever party or individual promises to not take themselves too seriously…and promptly breaks that pledge of course.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            Where else is there for a libertarian to go? The woods :)

          • kcm

            Or your sailboat…that counts too!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

            "Where else is there for a libertarian to go?"

            I always vote for a fringe party. I attend all candidates meeting during election and Libertarian gets first chance at my vote. If Libertarian candidate seems sensible/normal they get my vote. If Libertarian candidate is a kook my vote is up for grabs – person who sounds least crazy, while making me laugh, gets my vote.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

          I think there is a second part of this story that Harper and Obama share…. the realization that not everything they do has to be overtly, highly publicized… people who have been paying attention to the details realize that some of the strides Harper has made that fit his conservative roots have been enacted quietly with little effort to make them more pronounced. same goes for Obama. while he has many quite prominent policy irons in the fire, most of which were inherited, he and his team have in other cases taken a much more analytic, incremental but effective apporach to getting things done.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        Part of what soothes me is the thought of what we are not getting with the Liberals not in power – no more boondoggles and wasteful social spending. As for what he is delivering, I am not naive, so I did not expect to see a miracle. Also, it's clear that some things (like eliminating the vote subsidy) he's not had the numbers for. Overall, he's delivered what he could. One of the nicest changes he's delivered is the change of direction in foreign policy – no knee-jerk anti-Americanism, support for Israel, strong stances at the UN, and so on. Nicholls does a good job though, of reminding Harper what he stands for.

        • Mulletaur

          " … no more boondoggles and wasteful social spending (less anyway, and no more new giant spending programs)."

          That's the funniest piece of ConSpinCrap ever. I guess you aren't aware of the so called 'stimulus' spending. Can't wait for the Auditor General to have fun with it.

          • kcm

            Presiding over the largest budget and one of the largest deficits with the prospect of structural deficits for the foreseeable future clearly doesn't bother SF…after all it would be so much worse under a liberal regime. The coalition has a lot to answer for…it's given some cons permission to believe that anything this govt pulls out of a hat can ipso facto only have been worse under an opposition govt. It's a perfect storm of wish fulfillment and delusion to form a powerful political narcotic.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            You guys are so full of s**t. The coalition tried to bring down the government because the government would not spend enough. We'd not have the wasteful stimulus at all if it were not for those goofy leftists. And we'd have a stimulus and deficit 10 times larger if that coalition took over. For people who claim to follow the news, you guys have a very selective memory.

          • Anon Liberal

            Oh really? Because he seems to doing an admirable enough job of spending money like crazy now, You point to the mega deficits that obama is running now as an example of the kind of wasteful spending taht would happen under a Liberal govt. Of course, the principle reason that hasn't happened here was because Harper INHERITED years of budget surpluses from the Chrétien/Martin team and a built in contingency bubble in case things went wrong (which Harper idiotically evaporated when he cut the GST by 2% to please the Tim Horton's crowd). Obama of course had the misfortune to come to power after years of Bush Jr's irresponsible neocon supply-side economics.

            Would a deficit have been run under a coalition govt. Of course! Every govt in the world recognized that financial apocalypse was looming unless they injected some Keynsian style stimulus in the economy to stabilize things. Harper was in denial for as long as possible but finally had to give in as well and face reality. Would the deficit have been larger under a coalition govt? Possible. But we would also have a Liberal Fiance Minister in there (either Goodale or McCallum) who understood the importance of fiscal responsibility. There would be a clear plan to get us out of deficits, not this wishful thinking (and under-the-table EI tax hikes) that economic growth alone will get us there.

            And the AG hasn't even begun looking at the stimulus program yet. Given how intensely the govt has tried to hide information about where and how the spending is being done I would be worried if I was a Conservative.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            If anything you wrote had a factual basis or some relation to reality, I'd rebut. But nothing you write makes any logical sense, nor is it even connected to the facts.

            -You are saying the deficit would be bigger and smaller at the same time.

            -You are saying That Obama's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (5000 per capita) was caused by Bush's 455 biliion deficit, while Harper's 50 billion dollar deficit (1500 per capita) was somehow lower because of budgets balanced in the 90s. The deficit in one year from Obama exceeds the combined deficits from 8 years of Bush, yet you are blaming Bush anyway.

            The cognitive dissonance is amazing. You're nuts.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            "You are saying That Obama's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (5000 per capita) was caused by Bush's 455 biliion deficit (1500 per capita)…"

            Here's the Congressional Budget Office projecting a $1.2T deficit for 2009, two weeks *before* Obama took office: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28539403/

            And here's a Canwest article on Harper's *structural* deficit which is unsurprisingly roughly equal to the foregone revenue from Harper's voluntary GST cut: http://www.johnmckaymp.on.ca/newsshow.asp?int_id=…

            These deficit pictures you're painting are not accurate.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            You are such a liar and an idiot. The fiscal year is now over and the deficit was 1.4 trillion.
            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&a…

            And your Harper comment is completely irrelevant.

          • kcm

            And you're wrong yet again. More than one economist has linked the gst cut to a structural deficit…Stephen Gordon for one.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            So aside from your usual name calling, you don't actually address either of my points.

            About what I've come to expect.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Neither did you, twice, which is plainly obvious, hypocrite.

          • Anon Liberal

            The only failure in logic is your inability to understand the following:

            1. We would have been in a stronger fiscal position without the reckless GST cut (i.e. on the order of about 15 billion dollars annually)

            2. There are multiple ways to deliver stimulus and different theories out there about how much needed to be injected into the economy. For example it could have been delivered to municipal govts through the gas tax to fund infrastructure programs already in the pipeline . This would have been the quickest, easiest way to deliver stimulus. And the way least open to abuse, partisanship and giant novelty checks. We could also have temporarily boosted EI benefits. And yes we could and probably should have done this on a larger scale than the Conservatives did or 2009. After all our macroeconomic performance this year wasn't disastrous only in comparison to the US and Britain and an awful lot of Canadiana lost their jobs.

            3. Only one party out there is ideologically bent on reducing the size of the federal govt no matter what and therefore doesn't care about running deficits since that will help it achieve it's long-term strategic goal for the country.

            So yes I am arguing is that might be bigger in the short-term (i.e. this year) but smaller long-term. Can you wrap your brain around that concept? Should I maybe use crayons and drawings the next time I present an argument to you?

            And as long as you're calling people idiots let me call you an idiot for thinking the U.S. deficit situation would be any more under control under W than it would be under Obama. Bush Jr. spent like a drunken sailor while he was in there (with nothing to show for it except a gigantic bubble on Wall St.) and no matter who was President the deficits were going to be enormous this year. It was that or 1929 all over again.

          • Mulletaur

            "You guys are so full of s**t. The coalition tried to bring down the government because the government would not spend enough."

            Wrong. The Coalition tried to bring down the government because 1. the government attacked the very existence of opposition in Canada with its plan to get rid of political party funding abruptly (fair minded people can draw their own conclusions about Stephen Harper's commitment to democracy as a result) and 2. because the Harper Conservative government was planning a deflationary budget of spending cuts when they had already promised the G20 that Canada would carry out stimulus i.e. inflationary spending. Whatever you're smoking, you should stop before it damages you permanently.

          • kcm

            Good job you never mentioned the bit where Harper was already in deficit, even before the meltdown…sf would probably have had a coronary.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            No I wouldn't, I knew that already. As usual, it's irrelevant.

          • Anon Liberal

            No no, it's actually highly relevant.

          • Mulletaur

            Yes, the structural deficit the Harper Conservative government created by implementing GST cuts, which did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy, is actually highly relevant.

          • Orson Bean

            How do we know that the GST cuts did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            We don't – they'll say anything.

          • Orson Bean

            Apparently.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Funny enough, the reality is that the GST cuts were the perfect stimulus. They stimulated demand, and helped the bottom lines of companies that were suffering lower revenues. The second cut was effective January 2008, which is exactly when the recession started (see my comment just below), which is by definition the perfect stimulus, an economic jolt at exactly the right time.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Relevant to what? I've never argued that there would have been no deficit. So how on earth is it relevant that there was a deficit? Every single country in the world went into deficit with this recession, if they were not already in deficit. So on earth is it relevant that Canada had a deficit?

            As for the assertion that it happened before the meltdown, that is completely preposterous.

            You guys will say anything, without regard to whether it has any connection to reality. The Canadian economy contracted in both 1st and 2nd quarter 2008. The first monthly government deficit occurred in March 2008 and the first annual one was for the fiscal year 2009, which started in April 2008. Therefore it is clear that the recession started before any government deficits.

            Lies, lies, lies.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Now you've gone off in a completely irrelevant tangent. The stimulus was demanded by the coalition. Period. Fact.

            And it's impossible to attack the existence of the opposition. What a line.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            "We've had a viable opposition in Canada since 1867, for over 140 years. We've had party subsidies for a few years, since 2004."

            Chretien cut the Liberals and NDP off from corporate and union funding; the per-vote subsidy replaced that. So Harper's measure was going to force all parties to follow the small-contribution model of the CPC. By introducing it abruptly, he was attempting to cripple the Opposition financially. That's just a fact.

          • Anon Liberal

            The stimulus was demanded by the opposition AND THE REST OF THE FREE WORLD. There was a coordinated response by all the large economies to inject stimulus into the economy.

            And in those years prior to the public subsidy most of the money that parties raised came from wealthy individuals, private corportations and unions. That was the trade-off when Chrétien introduced the party financing reforms. Put a stop to that in exchange for a public subsidy based on the number of votes each party gets.

            As has been raised numerous times, if the Conservatives had truly principled position on this issue they would oppose not only the per-vote subsidy but the much more significant tax breaks on party donations. But this is the part of the conversations when Cons always change the subject or suddenly grow quiet.

          • kcm

            We've also only banned corporate and union contributions for the same period of time + Harper did not run on banning the voter subsidy during the election + apparently he's only keen on banning the one subsidy – the one that most hurts the opposition. The larger subsidy oddly enough mostly benefits the cons.
            What were you saying about partisanship and spouting lies?

      • kcm

        "… but the reason, of course, is that Harper wins elections and Conservatives like the way that feels. It tends to soothe the pain of ideological inconsistency"

        So in what way do conservatives differ from liberals as far as lust for power goes? Cognitive dissonance…gotta love it!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

          Either this is a subtle point or I'm really bad at making it, because it's basically all I've had to say about Harper for four years and nobody seems to believe it or understand. Here's another try.

          If a succession of Liberals run the country for 40 years and make a million compromises on their vision and principles, the country will, nonetheless, look really different than if a succession of Conservatives run the country for 40 years and make a million compromises on their vision and principles. That's because, every once in a very long while, you get to make a decision that matches your vision and principles. If you're in charge.

          This is the absolute core of Harper's political strategy. Longevity. Not revolution, not even really evolution. More like erosion. So he only wins minorities? Not ideal, but what in life is ideal. At least he gets to be the guy who decides whether, say, the Vancouver safe-injection site has to fight constantly to survive, or whether it becomes the model for a network of safe-injection sites in every Canadian city over 200,000 population. Incidentally, I would much prefer the latter. But to Harper, that's the point of having Leona Aglukkaq as health minister instead of Ken Dryden. To the Liberals, that's also the point of having Dryden instead of Aglukkaq. Neither is without principle. It's just that the Liberals have been willing, forever, to be extraordinarily flexible in the application of principle, and Harper is trying to teach Conservatives to be the same. Purity without power is for New Democrats.

          All of this is way off the Obama topic, but what the heck.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            This is why you need more Rules. One of the ones you winnowed off was, I believe, #13: "Being Prime Minister is so much better than not being Prime Minister," and I lament the loss. It covers the beauty of incumbency either from an ideological POV or from a personal POV or rather from both at once; it explains so much. I sorry but this calls for a poll.
            [polldaddy 2346955 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2346955/ polldaddy]

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            This is why you need more Rules. One of the ones you winnowed off was, I believe, #13: "Being Prime Minister is so much better than not being Prime Minister," and I lament the loss. It covers the beauty of incumbency either from an ideological POV or from a personal POV or rather from both at once; it explains so much. I sorry but this calls for a poll.
            [polldaddy 2346955 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2346955/ polldaddy]

          • Mike T.

            Y'know why I don't like Coyne vs. Wells?

            Because Wells overmatches almost any other living political commentator, and this is just another example of why.

          • Anon Liberal

            It is weird how hard a time people seem to have grasping this.

            Ah well, back to the NDP-ers and Bloc talking about how the Cons and Liberals are interchangeable.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            You're not bad at making this point, which is on the mark. There are a lot of people here who are bad at wrapping their heads around it. It sinks in for a moment, then a day later they''ve completely forgotten anything they've learned.

          • Greg

            Liberals have lots of principles and if you don't like them, they have more.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

            "Purity without power is for New Democrats."

            You have written about this before Wells and it makes me wonder. Not all Cons are cons but many are and they expect purity and power to go together. I remember reading something you wrote about Con strategists talking about how base has nowhere else to go and they just need an occasional conservative bill to keep them content – I remember it as the 'give your base blue-balls' strategy – but I wonder how long this dynamic can last.

            I think there could be problems if better balance is not found between tactics and policy. For now, cons are content to be in power but eventually base is going to get fed up and found another party again or they are going to have to give up their power and purity go together idealism.

            I am sure Cons will look on Harper fondly in the future for what he's achieved but I think next couple of leaders will feel some pressure to be more ideologically pure.

          • dbk

            And what makes you think that Harper won't respond to that?

            And, never underestimate the joy and celebration that occurs every time Harper kicks the Liberals in the groin. If you took a poll, I suspect that $55 billion would be an acceptable price of admission.

            Derek

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

            The are a lot of hardcore Harper supporters who are not far right ideologues. Harper understands this better than many Liberals.

          • Orson Bean

            Well, this goes to the heart of what's ailing the Liberal party these days. Some of their rhetoric suggests that they actually believe that the only people who support the Conservatives are KKK members, neo-Nazis & apocalyptic evangelicals. The problem is that if you start to believe your own rhetoric like that, you start to lose touch with what the electorate is actually doing and thinking. Chretien had a way better ear for listening to what Main Street Canada was thinking than the current LPC braintrust, though Donolo may turn this around.

          • Andre

            This is not unlike what Sweden does. They actually go as far as having a multi-party government.

          • Tim Smyth

            This is the thing that I can't understand why no one gets especially the Liberals of all people. Put yourself in Peter Mackay's shoes, would you rather spend your political career leading a rag tag parliamentary caucus that barely has double digit membership and catering to the whims and desires of two bit nobodies like David Orchard at damp and dark party conventions or being in a first tier government ministry going to NATO summits and rubbing elbows with the likes of Hillary Clinton all the while effortlessely moving between limousines, five star hotels, and government airplanes.

            The liberals used to understand this for decades but now seem to be more in the mood to fool around with the likes of David Orchard, Garth Turner, and Elizabeth May all the while what's left of the former Chretien Martin cabinet still in parliament slowely falls away

          • Mulletaur

            Peter McKay sold his party, the Progressive Conservatives, very cheaply to the Reformites to the detriment of Canada. He's a wrecker. He is physically unable to tell the truth. Please don't defend him. He would be a complete nobody defending divorce cases in Nova Scotia except for his daddy. Pathetic.

          • Orson Bean

            My my, somebody took their nasty pills . . .

          • Mulletaur

            The truth hurts. That is why McKay is so averse to it.

          • Orson Bean

            I personally couldn't care less whether Peter McKay is a Satan worshipper or pulls the wings off flies or whatever. Maybe he is a bad guy, as you seem to fervently believe. But as for his choice to facilitate the merger of the Alliance and old PC parties, I was all for that decision. I agree that McKay completely went back on his word to David Orchard, but I personally think Orchard is a toxic twit, so it really didn't bother me. The old PC party was headed absolutely nowhere except towards irrelevance. And I say that as someone who was quite active in the party back then. There is no point in fighting elections only to receive 6% of the popular vote (which is what we were getting in B.C. at the time). That was unsustainable, the only thing being accomplished was the guarantee of LPC majorieties into perpetuity. I don't like one-party states. Maybe you do.

          • Mulletaur

            This is a very good analysis. I would go one step further, however: Harper is trying to do what Baroness Thatcher did very successfully in the United Kingdom. He is trying to re-engineer the polity to stack the electoral odds in favour of right of centre parties. Maggie did it by privatizing the state capitalist economy and by taking on the strongest symbol of the moribund Labour regime, the coal miners, led by a Marxist buffoon named Arthur Scargill. Harper is preying on Liberal weakness to the same effect. Erosion is just the right word for it.

          • Tim Smyth

            There have been many occassions in Canadian history for the centre right to have held a majority of seats but most of the time were much more in favor of fighting among themselves. Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives plus the Quebec Social Crediste's(who held many of the same ridings in Quebec Stephen Harper's Conservatives hold today) actually held a majority of seats in 1979 but Clark was more interested in preserving the "purity" of the Progressive Conservatives and just threw sand in the face of the Credistes something Clark would continue to come back to later in his career. To be fair Joe Clark was not the only conservative guilty in the 1960s the Quebec and Ernest Manning led Western Canada wings of Social Credit split apart because many Wester Social Credit supporters were biggoted against Catholics and Francophones

          • kcm

            Yes but look what happened there. Blair modernized the labour party [ many argue sold out all its principles] and seized the ball back again. As i remember it most Brits looked on Thatcher as the old cow who forced you to take the medicine you knew you needed but hated anyway…although much of the hatred stemmed from dislike of her brutal methods as much as natural resentment to change itself.

          • Mulletaur

            "Blair modernized the labour party [ many argue sold out all its principles] and seized the ball back again."

            Blair could only do so by accepting the vast majority of Thatcher's legacy. The polity moved to the right, and Labour could only gain power by reflecting this, both within the Labour Party and by the policies it had on offer to the electorate.

          • kcm

            I get the gist of your arguement although i have to say it's a more natural fit with the liberal party. If you're a conservative and you hold power for 40 years or so with all the necessary compromises can you really hope to pull the country right, or will the inertia of the country so bend you out of shape that you wind up being the liberal party with a blue face not a red one? Unless you're the old PCs who pulled it off quite successfully; but they weren't really concerned with ideaology. I understand how having power is preferable to not having it…i just don't get how you teach a rump of hard core consevatives how erosion is to be preferred to revolution. On the other hand it seems to work in AB where contrary to popular belief the cons would be out on their ear if you say attempted to bring in capital punishment…i know it's not a provincial responsibility so maybe it's moot. But look at how unsucessful Ralph was in trying to change healthcare there.
            .

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

        Peggy Noonan said this in her book about Ronald Reagan (I'm paraphrasing cuz I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote):

        Never fall in love with a politician. They can't help but disappoint. That's just the way they are.

        Words that everyone should remember. If pol does even 20% of what you hoped he would when you voted for him, count yourself very, very lucky.

    • Orson Bean

      Yo Robert McClelland: I listened to Harper a while back, and my face melted right off, just like what happened to those Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark. So you're right. Don't listen to him, you'll be disappointed.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Indeed:

    [youtube bJm0bvvb0Ns&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJm0bvvb0Ns&fe... youtube]

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Oh, sorry, is it not displaying? Here's the direct link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJm0bvvb0Ns

    It's not all that wise, though, it's just Obama taking pretty much the same line in his debate with McCain as he took in his recent speech.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Thanks, Jack (of course its displaying, now). Obama's point is the thing, more than all the others, of why I detested George W. Bush.

  • Anon Liberal

    He's indestructible. I know the standard criticism of Dion is that he lacks self-awareness, but that's not really the case. What he lacks is the ability to understand how others perceive him. He also assumes that other people are as intelligent and honorable as he is.

    Somebody who really knows himself can't truly be hurt by others.

    • Andre

      "He also assumes that other people are as intelligent and honorable as he is"

      That is such a rare thing.

      What really drew me to support was his background. He wasn't a lawyer or businessman. He had no ties to elite societies. He was just an academic who answered the call brilliantly until he became leader of the Liberals. I didn't care if he wasn't much of a leader, and I wasn't worried that it might take him an entire 4 year term to learn the ropes. I knew that all that time he'd spend it serving our country and not his own personal needs.

      Never made a connection with Trudeau though.

  • Anon Liberal

    Heh.

  • kcm

    My own favourite example of political disillusionment was when half the hippy new age vote fell off the Trudeau bandwagon when he invoked the war measures act. So caught up were folks in Trudeaumania that many didn't even see the wall,let alone the writing on it. Every student in this country should learn Lincolns famous dictum by heart. You know how it goes. "You can't please all of the people all of the time…"

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

      To be fair, that happened back before all principles were ironic.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

        Trudeau was also absolutely correct in what he did. He was witnessing his homeland flirt with total anarchy and Marxist revolution. He acted decisively, and crushed it mercilessly. Probably one of the finest demonstrations of leadership – real leadership – this country has ever seen. And I'm not a Trudeau fan by any stretch.

        • Anon Liberal

          Total anarchy? Marxist revolution? You really REALLY have no idea what you are talking about here. The FLQ were an incredibly small number of incompetent nobodies who blew up a few mailboxes and killed one politician in a state of panic.

      • kcm

        I hate it when someone assumes i'm as smart as they are! How and when did all principles become ironic…although i have a shrewd idea what you mean.

  • Mike T.

    In fact Obama is much like Stephen Harper in how he will probably be forced to ignore his base. But Obama's base is the moderates, Harper's is the far right.

    • hosertohoosier

      Obama's base does not include moderates, it is the left. In the primaries those were the folks that got him elected – hipster glasses wearing, war-protesting, misanthropic animal loving lefties. Folks like Nancy Pelosi, moveon.org and a bevy of prominent African Americans made Obama the Democratic nominee (and essentially, president). His approval ratings among independents are actually fairly poor.

      The kind of disappointment Obama has fostered is precisely why the Dems should have nominated Hillary Clinton. People think of Hillary as a shrill partisan bitch, not a world-healing messiah (never mind the reality that Obama's greatest accomplishment was writing an autobiography – which in itself should tell you what the emperor is wearing). Low expectations are a huge asset for any politician. Jean Chretien and Ronald Reagan both used the public's perception of them as lightweights to avoid serious criticism or accusations over corruption. Many Canadians were so convinced Stephen Harper was going to usher in an era of fascism that his approval ratings go up every moment he doesn't (strangely, the left seems to believe Harper HAS brought in fascism, though he governs in the same fashion all PM's do).

      • kcm

        So are African Americans all "- hipster glasses wearing, war-protesting, misanthropic animal loving lefties"?

        "… (strangely, the left seems to believe Harper HAS brought in fascism, though he governs in the same fashion all PM's do"

        Maybe it has something to do with underhand tactics ie., Suing oppositon leaders[ a first] in order to take an issue out of an election, various politcal funding scandals, attempting to fiscally throttle opposition parties and then proroguing parliament when it blows up in your face, picking fights with everyone from elections Canada to the AG, putting out primers on how to disrupt parliament, accusing opposition members and critics of being Taliban sympathizers, excessive secrecy on everything from military inquiries to FIO requests, taking partisanship to new highs or lows [ you pick] Oh yes he's not turned out to be the devil…and accoding to you that just makes him just like every other PM. Yeesh…you do favour low expectations…not to mention low aspirations.

        • Graham

          how do you take two separate points and combine them to create racism like that? it's a neat trick, but only proves your assumptions are in line with the norm. He was simply stating that the two main reasons obama got elected was the ideological leftists who think you can legislate peace and a large groupof influencial people in the black movement who were probably left leaning as well. There are many prominent black people who didn't support Obama, mostly moderates. It is not however, moderates who are the base as was originally claimed. Not saying all the prominent black people who supported him did so because all black people are leftists. Your prejudice created the racism, not his statement. Some people don't support Obama simply because his policies are not proactive ways to create a free society, not because of his skin colour, like every left thinker seems to believe is the only logical explanation for not supporting a black man. That's so racist you might as well throw on a white hood while you're preaching the equality you claim to promote.

          • kcm

            How have i created rascism? Although i do see that i may have incorrectly linked HH comments about hipsters el al., and African Americans. Although i don't like the stereo-typing and his assumptions. As for the rest of your diatribe…i'd say it's your obssession about rascism,not mine.

          • kcm

            "Some people don't support Obama simply because his policies are not proactive ways to create a free society, not because of his skin colour, like every left thinker seems to believe is the only logical explanation for not supporting a black man. That's so racist you might as well throw on a white hood while you're preaching the equality you claim to promote."

            Maybe you should lay of the Steyn for a while…it tends to promote irrational fears for some reason…incidentally i don't happen to think criticism of Obama is inherently rascist. So, can i take off the white hood now?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

        Wow – good thing I'm not playing the Teabagger Talking Points Drinking Game or hosertohoosier's post would have put me in the hospital.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

      Harper's base is much broader than the far right, which, in Canada, is not large enough to get someone elected to the Pembroke City Council.

      • Mike T.

        Your mixing up his base with his current supporters. I think Harper has been successful in going outside of his base (I mean, he's elected), but the crazy die-hard Calgary school that's going to give him the 20% or so to build from is his home.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

          Yes, I do understand the difference between Harper's base and his current supporters.

          Where I disagree is the definition of his base. I think many lefties have convinced themselves that Harper's only base is a group of right wing extremists in a Calgary basement.

          That's where they are wrong. His base extends further. And by adding a broader coalition of supporters to a core conservative vote he has built a very competitive party. I recommend that you read Bob Plamondon's book Blue Thunder which provides good context to the breadth of core supporter for the Conservative Party. It is not limited to the far right.

          • Tim Smyth

            Who exactly are the former Reformers currently in cabinet. I would say the largest group of cabinet members are former Harris era Ontario Progressive Conservatives like Flaherty, Baird, and Clement. Preston Manning has no relationship with the Conservatives even Tom Flanagan hasn't worked for them since 2006. The only prominent minister I can think of who dates back to the Manning era is Diane Ablonczy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

            Exactly. In Ontario at least, the Harper base is probably drawn from the Harris Tories. Most Harris Tories have little or nothing in common with the social conservatives on in the West..

          • Tim Smyth

            Even in Alberta the federal conservatives are at least evenly divided between people like Jim Prentice and Rona Ambrose who come out of the federal and Alberta progressive conservatives and Manning SoCons. Remember there is not a lot of love lost between the Manning family and the Alberta provincial Progressive Conservatives including Ralph Klein who supported a lot of things such as Meech Lake and Charlottetown that Reform and Manning were deeply opposed to. I would say the most social conservative part of Harper's base is in BC and Saskatchewan largely because BC never had a provincial Progressive Conservative party and Saskatchewan's was overthrown do to its support of Meech Lake and general corruption issues leaving behind a much more populist version of conservatism. Right leaning voters in both provinces were willing to blow up established conservative parties in the even if it meant years of dominance by the NDP thus there are the part of Harper's base most willing to stay home in all likelihood on the other hand I can't see any of the EXISTING federal parties having any shot of winning rural BC or Saskatchewan

        • Neil from Calgary

          What is it with Liberals beating up on Calgary and the U of C? I heard Iggy say something along those lines a few months back, during his ironic campaign to inform Canadians that Harper is ruling through division (apparently waging a war against the UofC and Calgary is considered nation-building). Ah, the post-partisan age is upon us, and we can all unite with one vision. Thanks, Liberals.

          Tories attack Toronto. Liberals attack Calgary. Each strategy panders to their respective bases, but the strategy doesn't offer many growth opportunities when you control most of those seats already.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    Man, I wish I knew what words of wisdom were supposed to be in that big blank space.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

    Peggy Noonan said this in her book about Ronald Reagan (I'm paraphrasing cuz I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote):

    Never fall in love with a politician. They can't help but disappoint. That's just the way they are.

    Words that everyone should remember. If a leader does even 20% of what you hoped he would when you voted for him, count yourself very, very lucky. That may happen once or twice in your entire life.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    So your rich fantasy life soothes you.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    …like Trudeau, like Reagan, etc. Isn't that the problem? Weren't certain leaders outstanding in some way because they were unique and not a clone of someone else?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

      I would say uniqueness is a given. To be outstanding, they'd need a lot more than that.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    Hindsight is wonderful, isn't it?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

    Before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, you should learn some history. A good primer is The Informer: Confessions of an Ex-Terrorist, by Carole de Vault and William Johnson. De Vault talks of her own mother's willingness to hide explosives for the FLQ – they were that accepted by the mainstream. Another good read is Last Stop, Paris, though I'm not sure I agree with the author's conclusions that it was an assassination.

    The FLQ murdered 7 people and maimed dozens more during the 1960s and early 70s. They also had the support of thousands of idealist university students, who filled the streets in protest in support of the kidnappers' demands during the October Crisis. During this time, there was also a group of PQ members (including Parizeau) and prominent nationalist citizens who were plotting an "interim government" to take advantage of the chaos. If that sounds like a plan for a coup, it's because it was.

    That the FLQ were a "small number of incompetents" does not in any way ameliorate their potential for creating havoc. All terrorists start out that way. Read about the rebirth of the IRA in the late 60s & early 70s if you have any doubts about what small bands of incompetents can accomplish if they aren't promptly crushed.

    • Anon Liberal

      And the Black Panthers and The Weathermen were on the verge of toppling over the U.S. government and setting up a Marxist state south of the border. You're completely off your meds.

      • kcm

        Oddly enough i think both yourself and RR are both essentially correct. We'll never know how much worse it might have gotten…not without hindsight…so i agree that Trudeau did provide real leadership. One key was the letter that many of Quebec's elites authored [ including Levesque] where they called the people the FLQ wanted released political prisioners…it was at this point Trudeau said he felt compelled to act. I believe he was right! However a good case has been made, with the benefit of hindsight, that the authorities may have been using a hammer to crack a nut [ Tommy Douglas i believe] Interestingly Trudeau all but concedes this in his memoirs [ as much as Trudeau ever conceded anything] when he talks about how astonished he was at the scope of the police list for round-up. Astonishingly he claimed to know some of the names [ and quizzed the police on why they were on the list]…a couple of whom were apparently bums who lived under a bridge somewhere…how the hell could he have known that…well he was famous for long soltary walks around Montreal. The point is Trudeau himself pretty much conceded that the crack down was an overreach but not at all unecessary, on this i think he remained convinced.

        • Mulletaur

          A tree that can fill the span of a man's arms grows from a downy tip.

          • kcm

            ;A terrace nine storeys high rises from handfuls of earth; A journey of a thousand miles starts from beneath one's feet.

          • Mulletaur

            Finally, somebody who understands.

        • kcm

          Should read…even with hindsight.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

          That letter was exactly what I was talking about. The one Anon Liberal has apparently never heard of, nor has any interest in researching. A university prof somewhere told him that the FLQ were just a bunch of misguided kids, and that's what he chooses to believe.

          I really have no idea how things would have turned out. Perhaps the whole FLQ thing would have died on the vine. That's a chance Trudeau wasn't willing to take. We're lucky he was PM when it happened. I doubt anyone else would have had the panache to pull it off.

          • Anon Liberal

            Dude, no university professor had to tell me anything. I've lived in Quebec most of my life. These kind of crackpots still live here (they were the one upset about the Plains of Abraham re-enactment last year). They are the very definition of a fringe movement. The main difference between now and then was that there was a post-colonial guerrilla chic thing going on in the late 60's -early 70's that spooked the easily spookeable like you.

            Go read another book by the last angryphone William Johnson. His exaggerations drove Alliance Quebec into the ground but I see his influence still reaches the gullible and fearful.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

          That letter was exactly what I was talking about. The one Anon Liberal has apparently never heard of, nor has any interest in researching. A university prof somewhere told him that the FLQ were just a bunch of misguided kids, and that's what he chooses to believe.

          I really have no idea how things would have turned out. Perhaps the whole FLQ thing would have died on the vine. That's a chance Trudeau wasn't willing to take. We're lucky he was PM when it happened. I doubt anyone else would have had the panache to pull it off.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

    Since I think that Obama's domestic policies have been catastrophic and his foreign gaffes many, but that his stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been principled and courageous in the face of opposition from his own partisans… well, I'm in a really weird rhetorical place right now.

  • Canuckistanian

    heh, nice headline. my feelings: o'bummer

  • kcm

    Whatever happened to the concept of influencing the direction of this country through vigorous and or principled opposition? Douglas, Broadbent and Reform were successful in this regard without selling out their beliefs…heck it's one of the underpinnings of our parliamentary democracy…n'est pas?
    I still contend this is, and will remain long into the future, a liberal country with strong conservative inclinations [ or the other way around] and it will cause any political ideaology to bend to its will or break…just maybe Harper gets that?

    • Mulletaur

      "Whatever happened to the concept of influencing the direction of this country through vigorous and or principled opposition?"

      Not sure if 'principled opposition' has ever existed independent of political opportunism. Conservative opposition has been effective in setting the agenda to a great extent (free trade, fiscal balance as a virtue) and the socialists have had some successes as well. Liberals find it hard to be in opposition because they think like a governing party and because do not have a core ideology (although they have both a worldview and a set of core values).

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    One way to avoid this misperception would have been to listen to Obama.

    Thanks for the tip. So, then, exactly what should we believe are The One's objectives regarding free trade vs. protectionism with Canada? When we roll the tape of the campaign, we may be forgiven for being a little muddled.

  • eric

    The issue on Afghanistan is not so much a left vs right vs center debate IMO; it is about a president who seeks to understand and solve the problems of a country which has been in deep difficulty and wars for three decades – in which his predecessor has decided to engage America in – and to try and minimize the negative impact that instability there can cause both regionally and internationally. Unfortunately, there is no miracle solution for Afghanistan; the great thing about Obama is that he understands and seeks to understand international issues, and the Muslim world in particular, much better than any of his predecessors. He has a huge advantage: he has lived long enough outside the US (Indonesia, muslim country) to see the world with a non- American eye as well as an "American" eye, and he understands how the world perceives America, and what America does, much better than any former President of the US.
    This President has two foreign "wars" and a huge economic crisis to handle. Yes, he has to be careful in every decision…. accomplishing campaign promises while trying to do what is best globally, handling opinions of an American public that understands almost nothing of what is REALLY going on in central Asia; both from a political and historical standpoint. I'm Cornell graduate and I can tell you that even in the Icy league universities, knowledge fo that part of the world and its complexities is very minimal at best.

  • Eric

    Man, I typed this way too fast. I meant "Ivy League" of course. Don't mind my typos. I'm using an old Mac Keyboard with esoteric layout on a PC.

    • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

      I dunno, I've been to Cornell, and Icy League seems apropos.

From Macleans