Playing Electoral Hardball

This appeal to Democrats, published in The New Republic, holds an invaluable lesson for liberals everywhere:

One of America’s quadrennial rituals is liberal shock. Again the Democrats are surprised by the brutality of the Republicans. They are lying. Yes, they are. They want very much to win. So should we lie, too? “We” already have. (John McCain did not say that America should stay in Iraq for a hundred years.) The Democrats believe that, by running roughly, “we” become like “them. ” More grandly, the objection is that the moral character of a campaign is a premonition of the moral character of an administration. I do not see the correlation. The “missile gap” made possible the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The “Daisy Girl” was an indirect cause of the Voting Rights Act. And if, as a consequence of exaggerated or erroneous statements about John McCain, universal health care will be established by the next administration, well, the omelette will have been made. And “we” will not have become like “them,” because “they” would not deliver this right and this relief to America. I apologize, of course, for my chilliness. I am not unmindful of the relationship of means to ends. I took Kant. But an election is not a seminar; and to worry the means so much more than the ends is also to distort the relationship. The air of ethical exquisiteness in which Barack Obama wraps himself has psychologically hobbled his party. It finds itself elevated and stunned. Yet there is nothing in the history of our democracy that warrants the belief that electoral politics should be elevating: in this regard, we have no height from which to fall. And there is the touchy question of whether the hope for consensus is not also the fear of conflict. Conflict is not–to use Obama’s condescending language for whatever gets in his way–always “silly” and “a distraction.” As the polls are again demonstrating, this is a divided country, and some of its divisions are honorable, matters of first principle, the effects of worldviews. Conviction is a hardening influence, a partisan thing. All the current talk about political syncretism obscures the fact that there is philosophical gridlock. That is why the “independents” will determine the outcome. Liberals must not perceive the world in the image of their pacific desire.

http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=eda292db-2a6a-4b29-9459-683dc17b3604

 

The Battle of Kabul, Ottawa

Well it looks like our Furious Leader has found an issue he’s prepared to hang an election on – Afghanistan. Word has it he’s going to toss out a confidence motion calling for an extension of Canada’s Afghan mission beyond 2009.

Sounds to me like Stephane Dion had better pull his thumb out and find a clear position he can explain to the Canadian public, a position they can support. I’m betting that’s what Harpo believes Dion can’t do and he plans to make the election a referendum on the Liberal leader. The way everything else is going for Lardo this is probably his best bet.

The first thing Dion needs to do is to ensure that his policy is viable. As Hillier has said we can’t stay in Kandahar and not fight. It’s bandit country and, unless Dion can get the Taliban to go away, they’ll take over if we don’t fight to defend our turf. Can’t be any simpler.

Reconstruction? Sure, just as soon as we establish an adequate level of security. Oops, there we go again, fighting.

No, I think this is a “take it or leave it” question and the Libs are going to have to support the Cons or fall into line with the Dippers. I’m pretty sure that’s what Harpo’s thinking too.

Maybe it’s time to reassess the whole business. Let’s not get snowed by the Manley panel report. It’s simply not reality based. An extra thousand soldiers and a few helicopters isn’t going to secure Kandahar province, not even close. That’s a political sop, nothing more, and Manley ought to be ashamed for playing Harper’s stooge.

We could begin by asking what “success” in Afghanistan would look like and then contrast that with conditions on the ground to see what needs to be done to get there if that’s even possible. What do we want out of this? What’s our bottom line?

If our goal is simply to be a dutiful member of NATO, success or failure against the Taliban is irrelevant, the corrupt and chaotic central government is irrelevant, the Afghan security services that alienate the people in the countryside are irrelevant, the looming unrest and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan are irrelevant. Just by staying there, we succeed. Afghanistan may utterly fail but that doesn’t matter.

If the Canadian people want a “goal oriented” approach then our participation in the NATO/ISAF mission becomes less significant and all the irrelevant considerations above suddenly become very meaningful. Suddenly it becomes relevant that we’re not winning against the Taliban. It becomes relevant that the central government is corrupt and unviable. It becomes relevant that the Afghan security services are actually undermining our best efforts to build support among the Afghan people for their central government. The descent into violence and destabilizing religious extremism across the border in Pakistan becomes relevant.

So what we need is to engage the voting public on these issues, to make them see the fundamental flaws in the Afghan mission. The Canadian people have been kept in the dark about this little war and that’s understandable – the less they know the better it is for Lardo. The same goes for Hillier. Then there’s John Manley. Manley has done Harpo an enormous favour, a shield that Stevie can hide behind and a club he can use to bludgeon Dion.

Working around Harpo, Hillier and Manley will be tough. It’ll require a clear message and solid communication with the voting public and I’m not sure the Libs can manage either challenge. Their message is muddled and indecisive and, as for a communicator, well it’s Stephane Dion.

 

The Coherence Vacuum

These days the leaders of Canada’s two top parties – and no, that doesn’t include the NDP – are eager to avoid having to set actual policy. With their support wobbling like jello in the low to mid-30’s, it’s as though each sees the way forward as something of a minefield where one mistep could be fatal.

Harper has done almost nothing of consequence this past session of parliament save to lower the GST by one point. He doesn’t dare bring out his social conservative agenda for fear he might hand the Liberals a solid majority by default. He talks about global warming and greenhouse gas curbs but ducks and weaves his way around any concrete action. He even dodges Afghanistan, the one issue where his opinions are fixed.

Then there’s Stephane Dion, the man most responsible for Harper maintaining even a slim lead in the polls. He says he’s green but won’t say what that means in terms of the Athabasca Tar Sands and its pending expansion. He says he wants Canada out of its combat role in Afghanistan but wants NATO to somehow kick ass inside Pakistan. He too seems to have less to offer by the day.

Nobody has a coherent policy save, perhaps, for Smilin’ Jack, the guy whose greatest ambition is to advance out of the political cellar. Safe from the prospect of ever having to govern, Layton is the very image of clarity and decisiveness. Policies are wonderful things when you’ll never have to enact any of them. Wind and noise, that’s all there is to Jack Layton.

Mr. Layton’s posturing, however insincere and opportunistic, lets neither Dion nor Harper off the hook for failing to express coherent, effective and acceptable policies of their own.

My guess is that Harper truly doesn’t want to act. He certainly doesn’t want to betray his ideological fellows by being responsible for withdrawal of the Canadian contingent in Kandahar. That may account for the deft way in which he backed Canada into a “too late to leave” corner. It may be duplicitous, manipulative, even despicable but it’s been done and, for the far right, it is at least a temporary victory.

On global warming and carbon emission reductions, I suspect that Harper only feigns his conversion to belief. He probably still sees the potential advantages of also backing Canada into a deadlock where economic growth is only notionally balanced against emissions. After all, when it comes to carbon curbs, it’s a charlatan’s paradise. That’s not to say he won’t set some emission reduction targets. He will. Yet they’ll likely be little more than “intensity based” tomfoolery, mere window dressing.

In these things, Harper will be aided and abetted by Stephane Dion. The well-intentioned but timid Mr. Dion has shown that he’s unwilling to genuinely press Harper because that would require him to spell out clear and meaningful policies of his own. That is a risk only to be taken by someone who can capture the public’s imagination, confidence and support. That is the work of a leader of a nation, not a mere party boss.

There’s talk of Mr. Dion triggering an election. Maybe that’s just what we need to get the long overdue debate on so many important issues.