Starting to write again is more difficult than I imagined...

I was going to write a review of "Young Trudeau" by Max and Monique Nemni, which I read on the train while heading home and back on Thanksgiving, and have it lead into a discussion of the dangers of conventional wisdom and argue that given that it seemed in the final chapter so easy for the man to reject corporatism and the quasi-racism of his youth when he encountered Smith, Locke and Rousseau while preparing for Harvard that the book was a cautionary tale imploring us to always "look outside the cave", but it didn't really turn out.

Then, I was going to write about the provincial election in general, and Randy Hillier in particular, and say that while it is disappointing that a great Liberal candidate in his riding didn't win, that it may be a strategic boon to have him in Toronto. But I decided that that was both to hackish and obvious.

As well, I was going to write that I voted No to MMP, wait until an intelligent person called me an idiot, and then argue that both as substantive reform and as a measure that could be sold to the populous, STV is a better choice. But it too is still in my drafts folder.

Finally, I was going to talk about Al Gore, and why the hell someone who was born to be President is ignoring every sign that if he ran, he'd probably win, and win big enough that the Supreme Court couldn't stop him this time. But I didn't.

So, in conclusion, I had forgotten just how difficult it is to write these things, but hopefully that will turn around soon enough. And in the process, I think I turned out a pretty good post. So there, blogger's block!

I think that it is about time for this little site to make a comeback.

Hopefully I'll be able to channel the first few months of this site rather than the last few, because part of the reason I stopped posting was because it sucked.

Why did it suck? Because we all stopped being ideological partisans and became Partisan Ideologues. At the end of the day, we turned what should have been a democratizing medium into a forum for those who hoped to use it as a launching pad for their own place in the "consensus". But that's a story for another day.

The main point is that I'm going to start posting again. And believe me, it will suck. But that's okay.

Two issues with this post over here that I feel the need to address.

First, and this is more of a subjective judgment, if Obama doesn't run, and win, the nomination I will eat my shoe.

Second, if the race is McCain-Giuliani, then TDH is reading it all wrong. Rudy's the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Rockefeller Republican, McCain is socially the opposite. He pissed off his party with his reform positions and his personal life (which Rudy did on the second count too), and he got a bad rap in South Carolina in 2000, but on a substantive level he's a social conservative and really the more conservative candidate in almost every measure. The age thing, that'll be a factor. But if the race is between the two of them (I doubt it will be), Rudy'll have to tack to the right to secure the nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

In the field of headlines that got me excited today, we have: Liberals Aim to Mount Battle in Every Riding

Perfect, exactly what I've been advocating for on this site. But then we have the DLC-style "insiders" quoted in the story as saying:

But in Canada, a strategy that aims at all 308 ridings makes some Liberals nervous, because political parties have limited money and organizational resources during election campaigns.

Several senior Liberals, including some of Mr. Dion's advisers, don't think it is a tactic for a five-week Canadian campaign.

Who needs Paul Begala and James Carville? We have our own naysayers up here already that haven't quite realized that the times, well, they are a changin'. Contest every riding, use the leadership candidates that have built up national profiles as Dion surrogates throughout the country, help riding-level campaigns become self-sufficient and for the love of god, don't go in the national press saying that "we can win a majority without Alberta or Quebec."

I haven't posted in a couple weeks, so I figured that since I have a little time right now I'd go into a cliched, long winded, "end of the year" post. Forgive the hyperbole and rhetoric that is to follow.

Ahh yes, 2006. What a year. We watched a new government take over, or sorry "Canada's New Government" take over. You know, the Conservative Party of Canada, the party "of the people." I've long advocated on this site for a stronger Conservative Party, because the game of politics just isn't fun when you're the only grown-up at the arena, but this government has spent the last 10 months proving that it isn't a party of government. It has trashed human rights, run roughshod over the files that Canadians believe are most important, and has continued to prove that "accountability" was nothing but election rhetoric. The party that was going to "clean up government" couldn't even be bothered declaring its own convention fees in Elections Canada documents.

Their tax cuts did little to nothing to help people who need it, instead promoting the rich. Look at the GST cut. Unless you're making a massive purchase, like say a luxury car, you're really not coming out ahead. The GST was an effective tax BECAUSE it taxed those that spent more money on non-staple items, those with higher levels of disposable income. The more of your pay check is spent on essential goods, the less you save. It's as simple as that, good election politics but horrific public policy. The Party of tax relief gave it to people who didn't really need it.

The party of democracy has also, in government, declared that government is infallible. One of the great successes of the Charter of Rights-period was the creation of things like the Court Challenges Program. Programs like this said that protection from the government was no longer the purview solely of the super-rich and the well connected, but instead that every Canadian with a valid objection had not just the RIGHT to contest the opinion of the government but also had the OPPORTUNITY. The Party of democracy has said that those who disagree with its marginal plurality of a mandate are not as important as the Bay Street/Calgary crowd who do agree.

The year wasn't a total loss. Our friends to the South replaced the politics of division with the politics of unity and hope. It looks like they're going to field an excellent candidate at the top of the ticket in 2008. The Bush Dynasty is going out like an injured lamb.

And we had an excellent leadership contest as well. We left Montreal with an great leader who I bet will continue to grow into his role over the two months. We had candidates who were never really in the race, like Martha Hall Finlay, come out of the race as political stars on the ascent. And those who came so close, like Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, left Montreal with their own stock soaring, with newfound respect from all corners, and seemingly with a stronger commitment to the party and to the country. The race brought the party back together, and the next election will be a different story from the last.

To steal from the greatest political speech of the last 30 years:

And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith.

May it be said of the Liberal Party in 2006 that we found our faith again.

And that was 2006.

Um, wow.

I hate dropping into cliche, but seriously guys, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

To flesh out the previous post, I've become agnostic on the outcome of the Convention. I think either of the remaining candidates will make an excellent Prime Minister soon enoungh, but I'd probably be drifting to Ignatieff if I had a vote to cast.

But anyway, Dion/Ignatieff, either way, our party comes out of this convention a lot stronger than it was when this race started. We've become the party of ideas and debate, we've solidified our place as the big tent of the centre-left. We got through that 'nation' stupidity to have a convention that focused on "low politics". This is all good.

To conclude: Dion or Ignatieff, the party leaves Montreal strong, and the real battle begins tomorrow.

I don't know what the call would be right now. Allan Gregg seems to be convinced Rae will pick up enough to move into second on the next ballot. I wouldn't say it's unlikely to happen, but it's far from a sure thing.

I would bet Iggy bleeds a little bit to Rae on this ballot too, so it'll be a good finish here. Iggy seems cooked, but I don't know.

You have to wonder if Rae and Dion could both move past Ignatieff.

Loads of fun.

Edit: Prediction
Ignatieff 1450-ish
Rae 1510-ish
Dion 1570-ish

Let's see how that goes.

Rae still looks good.

Regardless of whether Kennedy sticks around, he'll be bleeding support to Dion on the next ballot. Dion's got a good shot now.

Ignatieff, in my opinion, isn't going up significantly.

If there is an Iggy/Rae deal, I can't see how it could go down without Ignatieff dropping off to Rae.

Dion-Kennedy? Kennedy-Dion? What's going on here?

"The Conscience of the Liberal Party", Ken Dryden, looking to move to Rae.

Ignatieff under 30%! That's somewhat shocking, not many ex-officio's in that number.

More shocking, Dion's passed Kennedy by 2 votes...

It's a ballgame folks.

The funny thing about this observation by Jason over here is that I would have said exactly the same thing about the Kennedy speech. To me, Kennedy gave the speech that would've been better suited to about 7:30 tomorrow night, he gave an acceptance speech.

It was by no means a horrible speech, although I will say that I didn't think it was particularly great either. But it struck me as an acceptance, more so than Ignatieff's.

Rae, on the other hand, gave the kind of speech that I think the situation called for. It was certainly weak early on, I mentioned that earlier. However, the off-the-cuff kind of style seemed suited for the pre-voting bring-the-troops-over vibe of the night.

The podium speeches should've been stuck in the pocket until tomorrow.

The startling thing to me right now is how professional the videos of Rae and Ignatieff have looked in comparison to Kennedy's.

Kennedy's looked just a little too much like a Powerpoint presentation.

"And he said 'The vegetables will have steak too!'"

Go Bob Go!

I was weary of Rae's choice to leave the notes behind, and he got off to a rough start.

But he's hit his stride now.

On the preceeding speech, I let myself get excited about Gerard Kennedy. The last couple days I thought Kennedy might just win the whole thing, but I just don't think he lived up to expectations.

And the delegates throw their support behind the former Governor of Vermont!

But seriously, Howard threw down out there tonight. That is the blueprint to the next majority government, not this "well, there's four ridings in Quebec, one in Calgary, and two in Vancover we can pick up. GO GO GO!" that we all too often see.

I'll write more about this tomorrow morning.

And Howard just called for our own "308 riding strategy" and the evolution to small donors... I hope everyone's listening.

Ah, CPAC coverage...

Shawn Graham's an impressive speaker, the best of the night thus far if you ask me.

How long until we can talk about bringing him to Ottawa?

Wow, now isn't this something.

I look at this past week's debate, I read this tonight and I ask one question:

Young Justin of Montreal is going to destroy Canada? Frankly guys, it won't be a problem, because once your big cheese gets done with his brief trip to Ottawa there doesn't look like there'll be much of a Canada left.

Was the "nation" to cloud the waters for this? The other way around? Or do they go naturally together, divide the country semantically and then devolve the federation constitutionally.

Let's take a look at some of the justifications for the "nation" resolution over the last couple days:

1) On CBC Radio, a University of Montreal professor referred to the fact that Canada is a "multinational democracy" and this is simply just the recognition of that fact.

OK. What are the other nations involved? If we have a "multinational democracy", by my understanding, that means that the federal government must operate as a coalition of nations joined together as a central entity to increase international power. If we're a multinational democracy, therefore, who are the constituent units? Do the provinces cease to exist? Why does one nation get to speak with one voice, whereas one of the other nations (or really, both of the other nations) get diluted as the aggregation of multiple units that, if we're accepting nation logic, no longer have any meaning. Who, then, represents the other nations? I guess there is an elected leader of the First Nations. Does Stephen Harper assume the role of leader of my nation? Does the "Council of the Federation"?

2) This represents the "Quebecois", not Quebec.

OK. Then who speaks for the Quebecois? You can bet that Charest will claim that he does, which is all right for now. What about if/when the PQ wins an election? Moreover, the separatist leaders, while out of government, will soon enough recognize that those in the general definition of the Quebecois probably are the ones sending their parties to Ottawa and Quebec City. Do they represent the Quebecois? Who speaks for this nation? Are we not just further marginalizing a minority?

3) This is nation in the sociological sense, not the "political science" sense.

They are largely the same in both disciplines. In both, they mean a group of people with shared history, culture, language, etc. In neither do they constitute, on their own, a "state". However, being a "nation" can be considered de facto justification for a state, especially when it starts being recognized by G-8 governments. You can bet that the B/PQ are ready to play that one.

4) By making this declaration, we're meeting a demand of all Quebecers, federalist and separatist.

The most recent polling data I've seen showed that a plurality of Quebecers claim to be a member of the Canadian nation when given such a choice. It is a boon for the separatist forces, those federalists who believed that they belonged to a nation understood that nations need only to self-identify to exist, especially if the goal of such a definition is to remain in Canada.

5) This was a strategic, tri-partisan win for the federalist parties.

Not quite. What actually happened was the beginning of the devolution of the Canadian state. What I mean is that with this motion, even if it doesn't carry constitution weight, Canada begins to drift away from the idea of a country to the idea of an administrative construct. Slowly, the central government ceases to serve a unity function, and instead it begins to serve simply as the bureaucracy where constituent units come together. Where communications between "nations" take place. Where the goal is to maintain the autonomy of the units, rather than the cohesiveness of the state.

I called it the EU without the cool architecture. Andrew Coyne calls it "Belgiumhood":

Somewhere along the way, the political class in this country lost the will to live. For a time it suited them to believe they still believed, to pretend that Canada was still the country the Fathers of Confederation created, to pay lip service to the vision of prime ministers from Macdonald through Trudeau: that Canada was a great nation, capable of great things, called -- indeed, obliged -- by history and immense good fortune to greatness.

Read the whole piece. It's quite the exercise in being, you know, exactly right.

It seems that Paul Wells is ready to "stand up for Canada" and, you know, reasoned sanity.

Good for him.

Ah, time for a little pessimism.

For the most part, I think this is just simply part of the long and winding road towards the devolution of what it means to be Canadian. People could argue about "what it means to be Canadian" forever, and political scientists and sociologists do. But when you start the whole nation thing, the point becomes moot. Canada becomes nothing more than an administrative construct, a little bit like the EU without the cool architecture, the good wine, and the communists, and we just live out our days pretending that Canada matters at all.

I'd like to be proven wrong. I'd like someone to convince me that I'm wrong. I don't think that I am.

Absolutely Disgusting.

I honestly don't know how people like that can sleep at night.

I was going to say that it must be difficult for Conservative cabinet ministers to get work done knowing that the big guy was using said minister's own operatives to evaluate him daily.
But then I remembered, cabinet ministers in this government don't actually do anything or make their own decisions, so what's the point?

Frankly, the announcement that Dean was coming was about the only time I wished I'd be making the trip to Montreal. Aside from almost going from governor of twenty people and a ski resort to President of the United States, Dean has proven himself to be a visionary and, I say this because I think it's true, the best pure political mind since the circa-1992 Clinton. He changed the gameboard in the US in one election cycle. The Democratic Party is positioned to have a bad campaign and still have enough states in play to win the Presidency. He took a centrist Party and turned it into a genuine progressive majority in which centre-right to socialists feel welcome.

Seriously, if we're looking to win more than a Paul Martin minority in the near future we need to look into our own 50-state strategy, and there's nothing wrong with listening to a smart guy who knows Canada (while Governor, Dean appeared frequently on Canadian TV; a call-in, round table type deal on an English-language regional station in Quebec in particular; and is well informed about the political process here) tell us about his revolution.

If the Ignatieff 'nation' proposal succeeds, Canada as a country becomes nothing more than a management construct and we might just as well promote someone from the civil service to run it. We could buy them a new attache case too.

Discuss.