Canadian Cincinnatus

Harper must highlight the NDP’s destructive policies

If polls like this one are correct (and I remain skeptical – though I was also skeptical of the first poll that showed the NDP beating the Libs), then the NDP has effectively steamrolled over the Liberals and are directly threatening us. A strong NDP means Conservatives benefit from vote splitting. A too strong NDP means and we begin to bleed ridings.

While it is clear that the NDP is riding a wave of populist enthusiasm because the voters are sick to their stomachs of politics-as-usual, in their euphoria they forget the NDP’s noxious extreme-left policies. Stephen Harper’s job is to sober them up by highlighting those policies. 

He seems to be doing this already, but given the fact that public is recoiling from the ugliness of negative campaigning, this must be done extremely carefully. Making hysterical anti-NDP attack, a’la David Peterson in the waning days of the Ontario provincial election of 1990, will only backfire and drive voters even further into the arms of Jack Layton. Any hint of fear in the message will be proof that we are panicking.

What must be presented to the voters is a sober cataloguing of the NDP’s extremist policies - carefully explaining why these are a disaster waiting to happen. The name Bob Rae should be brought up in Ontario. This should always be counterbalanced with a positive message of pro-economic-growth policies of the Conservatives. Highlighting the recklessness of reopening constitutional talks is a good start. In rural areas, talk about the NDP’s anti-gun agenda. In the West, explain how the effete, urban sensibilities of Layton are a direct threat to tar sands development. The message must be a judicious mix of positive and negative.

Do that and the voters will have the appropriate sober second thoughts before May 2.

 

 

How to really reform Parliament: separate the legislative and executive branches

According to this survey of 65 former MP’s, most believe that our Parliamentary system - as it now stands - is dysfunctional. They overwhelmingly blame the centralized party structure.

I contend that this is an old refrain: when today’s Liberals whine over Stephen Harper’s micromanagement, they merely echo Reformers during the Chrétien era, when Reform MP’s referred to Liberal backbenchers as ‘trained seals’. The problem is that, in recent years, Ottawa is run by the Prime Minister and his all-powerful PMO. Ordinary MP’s are merely pawns who only do what they are told. Cabinet Ministers have even less freedom. Their chief function is to carry water for the PM. In our system of democracy, we are supposed to be represented by our MP’s, but lately they have little real freedom of action. Though the people in their riding are the ones who send them to Ottawa, they de facto only answer to the PM.

While I agree with this criticism, the trouble is, under the current system, ruling your MP’s like a dictator is the only way to survive in Ottawa. If you don’t believe me, recall Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. Those guys didn’t micromanage anything - indeed Preston Manning went out of his way to empower his grass roots. And look how far that got them. Rarely a week went by without a ‘Nazi eruption’. Manning and Day were always in damage control mode while Chrétien’s always-on-message trained seals crushed them at the polls time and time again.

If you want to change their behaviour, you have to change the rules our politicians have to play by. It seems to me that the root cause of centralism is that our executive and legislative branches are not separate. This is an anachronism inherent in the British parliamentary tradition, dating from a time when Parliament was the legislative branch and the King, the executive branch. Unfortunately, when the power of the King faded away, no other executive took his place; power just migrated to Parliament, and from there to its dominant member - the Prime Minister.

Over time, this changed the way MP’s operated. With the need to maintain unity to survive confidence votes, parliamentary politics favoured the united over the divided. Natural selection caused power to move from individual MP’s to the PM. It used to be that the MP’s in his own party selected the Prime Minister. In the 1930’s, Mackenzie King invented the party convention so that he could bypass the will of his MP’s altogether. Thanks to this innovation, Prime Ministers are answerable directly to convention delegates. By the time of Mulroney and Chrétien, Prime Ministers had another tool for control: MP’s needed the PM to sign their nomination papers. If the papers didn’t get signed, the MP couldn’t represent his party in his riding, regardless of what the party members actually living in the riding thought. And as icing on the cake, the PM also appoints Supreme Court justices and senators with little requirement to consult anybody.

I agree that this is a deplorable and dysfunctional state of affairs. The question is, what to do? Half-hearted reforms like holding more free votes do little to change the substantive nature of our politics. As long as MP’s fear their leader more than their constituents, nothing will change. Change that and all else follows.

In this spirit, here is my proposal: make the Governor General an elected official and schedule GG elections every 5 years. Second, hand over the executive functions of the government to the Governor General, giving him the power to appoint cabinet officials, subject to Parliamentary confirmation. This is less of a change than it might first appear, as even now ministers don’t have to sit in Parliament. This will give Canada’s CEO the freedom to appoint relevant experts to run federal departments. Third, hold parliamentary elections concurrently with GG elections. There is a move already afoot to fix the date of elections, but with the possibility of governments losing confidence votes, the date of elections can never be truly fixed.

You can still keep the PM - and he can stay at Sussex drive for all I care - but once the GG becomes Canada’s chief executive, the PM will be chiefly occupied with legislative matters. Since France has both a Prime Minister and a President, I don’t see a problem with this dual arrangement. And since party solidarity is no longer required to avoid the voters, MP independence will increase. To speed this up, MP’s can be required to indicate by annual secret ballot the confidence they have in their party leader. Annual confidence votes will force party leaders to respect their MP’s.

Do that and we can once again have independent Members of Parliamentary, voting according to their conscience and honestly representing their constituents. Individual riding elections will once again mean more than 1/308^th of the national election.

As a side bonus, you can now have an elected Senate without destabilizing the executive.

Any thoughts or comments?

Saudi payback against Obama?

According to this CNBC report, the Saudis are considering slashing oil output, citing market oversupply. The average consumer, looking at the price of gas at his local filling station can be forgiven for being sceptical of public Saudi reasoning.

But this begs the question, if ‘market oversupply’ is not the real reason why the Saudi oil machine is cutting back, then what is it?

In possibly related news, numerous reports have come out indicating that Saudi Arabia is seething at the Obama administration for forcing Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to leave power in Egypt, among other things. Worried about unrest among Shiites in Bahrain spreading to their own Shiites (who as luck would have it, occupy the oil rich portions of Saudi Arabia), they are concerned that if push came to shove, the Obama administration would hang them out to dry as well.

Are the oil production cuts a punishment to Obama for his general skittishness on the Middle East?

 

Happy Lenin’s Birthday! er, I mean Earth Day

Once again, its that time of year. Every year on this day, I take the time out to remind everyone that April 22, Earth Day, is Vladimir Lenin’s birthday.

Lest you think this is just a 1 in 365 coincidence exploited only by right-wing hate-mongers such as myself, consider the fact that the first Earth Day - April 22, 1970 – was the one hundredth anniversary of Lenin’s birth.

To be fair, Earth Day is increasingly being celebrated on the spring equinox. This is a positive development that helps distance the environmentalist movement from the ideals of a bloodthirsty killer.

Coalition talk: Ignatieff’s indecisiveness is the real issue

Apparently – in an attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of defeat – the Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff mused publicly a couple of days ago about a coalition government, the possibility of which he has previously – if legalistically - dismissed.

When Stephen Harper first raised the spectre of a Three Stooges coalition following the election, Ignatieff had three ways to respond. They are:

a. “There is nothing wrong, illegitimate or illegal about a coalition government. If the Liberals come in second place behind the Tories but the Conservatives fail to get a majority, I will do whatever I can to further the policy goals that I believe are right for Canada, and if that requires forming a coalition government with all the other non-right parties, then that is what I will do.”

b. “If the Liberals come in second place behind the Tories but the Conservatives fail to get a majority, I will do whatever I can to further the policy goals I believe are right for Canada. But one thing that I do not believe is right for Canada is a government that includes a partner dedicated to Canada’s destruction. Therefore, I will never form a government with the Bloc Quebecois.”

c. “Maybe a coalition, but not if it includes the Bloc, but a coalition that informally depends on Bloc support for certain key votes, I might be able to support, but only under certain special conditions...blah...blah...blah.”

To win an election, you need the unaligned voters in the middle. Typically, these people do not care about issues but are driven by personality and gut-feel (see this post for an explanation of how the moderate, centrist voters really think). What these people respond to most is leadership. What repels them is lack of leadership.

Therefore, given this reality, the correct choice for Ignatieff is option a or b. Option c – legalistic and noncommittal waffling in the middle – is his worst option. Real leaders realize that many decisions in the real world are digital – yes or no, a or b. They don’t choose King Solomon’s baby. Paul Martin’s balloon deflated when he went from being the heroic deficit slayer to Mr. Dithers. Iggy is following the same trajectory – minus the heroic starting point.

Mickey Kaus on why Obama is “bad at politics”

In this article, the political number cruncher extraordinaire, Jay Cost argued the case that perhaps President Obama is just bad at politics. Pioneer blogger (and former Democrat senate candidate) Mickey Kaus posits a reason why Obama is bad at politics:

“Cost doesn’t go into why Obama managed to get to the top of politics without being all that good at it. The answer is distressingly obvious: Obama’s the biggest affirmative action baby in history.  When other pols are trying, failing, learning, while climbing up the middle rungs of the ladder, he got a pass.”

Nuff said.

The Liberal attacks are becoming unproductive

I was originally worried that all the accusations made by the Liberal and the NDP on Stephen Harper would take their toll on the Conservatives during the election campaign - you know, a death by a thousand cuts. But, so far at least, they have been so vicious and on matters so petty that I think the strategy is beginning to backfire on them.

While I am a big believer in the efficacy of negative advertising in swaying undecided voters, I think that beyond a certain point such attacks can become counterproductive, particularly if you fail to deliver a smoking gun.

The big weakness in their strategy is that all the accusations are about procedural matters - not personal ethics. For instance, the worst that can be said about Tony Clement diverting a small percentage of money earmarked by Parliament for the G8 summit to local projects is that he has engaged in pork barrel politics. If he had diverted the money into his own pocket, or even recycled it into campaign contributions, it would have been a different matter. It’s a similar story with the Bev Oda NOT scandal. She stands accused of changing a document to prevent the taxpayers’ money from being spent. If, instead, the opposition parties had caught her channeling public money to Tory-friendly organizations, then they would have had something.

The problem for the Liberals is, who really believes that if the Liberals were in charge, pork barrel spending would stop? Or that the Ignatieff government would have a respectful relationship with Parliament? The reason why the voters can’t swallow such things can be summed up in two-word - Jean Chrétien. 

At the end of the day, the Liberals haven’t given the undecided voter a reason to change governments. Which is why Harper’s insistence on staying the course and focusing on economic issues trumped the other leaders during the debates. Harper came out looking sober and serious, while Ignatieff looked petty, vindictive and desperate.

Liberal vs. Tory campaign platforms: well, at least somebody is doing something right

In the National Post, Kelly McParland compares the Liberal and Conservative policy platforms. This is his conclusion:

“It’s two very different views. The Conservatives believe Ottawa has a specific role in well-defined areas of responsibility and should stick to them; the Liberals see themselves ranging broadly over Canada, putting their hand in where they think there’s a need. The Conservatives believe budget certainty is key to providing other services, the Liberals see it as important but not a game-breaker. The Tories see Canada playing a strong, high-profile role in the world, the Liberals prefer a more muted, collectivist approach. Mr. Harper’s government sees plenty more areas to come down hard on law-breaking, Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberals think the Tories are paranoid.

You don’t need a debate to figure out what these parties are about. It’s right there in black and white. It’s a distinct choice, and an important one.”

As somebody who has pushed for a Conservative campaign based on principle, I am somewhat heartened by this finding – well, at least partially.

Now, if only the Conservatives could take that already-spelled-out vision and articulate it publicly to Canadians in clear, forceful and easy to understand terms. You know, the way Rob Ford was able to do. If they did, I think they would find, to their surprise, that all the petty scandals that have been dogging them throughout this campaign would fade away into the background.

 

The G8 summit in Muskoka and the political liability of government spending

Us small government types are always being told by political ‘realists’ (i.e. ‘moderates’) that penny pinching isn’t popular, that it makes you look heartless and cruel. To win the trust of Canadians – we are assured - you must demonstrate your ‘compassion’, and the best way to do that is by creating new government spending initiatives.

And yet, time after time, these politically advantageous projects blow up as major embarrassments. The current example is the Auditor General’s report on government spending on the G8 and G20 summits. To recap, a draft version of Sheila Fraser’s audit of the spending at the summits has made it into the press, apparently noting that $50 million of the $1.24 billion earmarked for security, policing and the hosting of foreign dignitaries was diverted to pork barrel projects in the Muskoka area.

I have no idea how much truth these press reports contain but, if accurate, I can just see the thinking behind them: we host a prestigious foreign conference - highlighting Canada’s leadership role in international affairs, while diverting a small portion of the funds to political feel-good projects; Harper comes out looking like a statesman while, at the same time, we solidify our hold on central Ontario; a win-win. 

Only problem: it turned out to be a lose-lose. All Canadians took away from the G8 and G20 summits was gross government waste and images of violent left-wing anarchists trashing Toronto and tying our court system up in knots. And now, to add insult to injury, a potentially serious scandal appears at a time we can least afford it - in the middle of a federal election!

So, from this moment onwards, I don’t want to hear so much as a tiny peep from our red Tory comrades about the ‘cleverness’ of big government spending programs. The fact of the matter is that the only ethical government is a thrifty government, and the only government effective at carrying out its core responsibilities is a small government. Those who think that attempting to buy off voters with government spending schemes is a good idea should explain how they intend to deal with the unintended consequences of feeding the bloated, stupid and venal beast of big government.

 

According to Hillsdale College’s history professor, Paul Rahe:

“There are those who have nightmares about Barack Obama. He was not, they suspect, born in the United States. He was not and could never be eligible to be elected President of the United States, and behind his candidacy lay a great conspiracy to impose upon an unwitting populace the agent of a foreign power profoundly hostile to our country.

I am not in their number. I admit to lunacy, but my fantasies run in another direction. Every once in a while I lie awake – or am I then awake? I know not – pinching myself (or so I think).

“Could it be true?” I ask myself. “Has everything that we have seen in the course of the last twenty-seven months been engineered by the supreme Machiavel of our age – that evil genius Karl Rove?”

“So, I suggest that this must all be the result of machinations on the part of Karl Rove. Rush Limbaugh failed with Operation Chaos, but Karl has succeeded with Operation Annihilation. Think about it. After the events of this week, what are the chances that Barack Obama will take Wisconsin in the general election scheduled to be held a bit more than eighteen months from now?”

Of course, Rahe’s suggestion is tongue-in-cheek, but it does bring out a factor in Barack Obama’s life that I have pondered several times: At the point of his inauguration on Jan 20, 2009, it can fairly be said that Barack Obama was the luckiest man alive. With very little effort on his part, he lazily buoyed upwards on a path from complete obscurity to the very pinnacle of power. Yet from Jan 21, 2009 until today, his luck, which had hitherto been bountiful, has completely deserted him.

As President, he has had the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to crap. The left-wing progressives thought that with one of their own in the White House, they would experience victory. Instead, all of their program – Keynesian stimulus, ownership of means of production (think GM and Chrysler), government regulation, government-run health care, open borders, climate change, deficit spending – is now completely discredited and widely unpopular. A grass-roots, small-government movement – the Tea Party - rose up under Obama to become the driving force in American politics today, at the same time that Obama’s own AstroTurf group, ACORN, was discredited for aiding and abetting underage prostitution. When he tried to negotiate with Iran, a popular pro-democracy, anti-Islamist revolution took place in the streets of Teheran – making his engagement strategy (which the mullahs in Iran contemptuously brushed aside) look stupid.

From the perspective of the left, Barack Obama is exactly the right man at exactly the wrong time. If he had been President in the palmy days of the 1990’s, he might have been able to get somewhere, but by expanding entitlement programs, growing government debt and imposing costly regulations right after a major financial meltdown he precipitated an unmitigated disaster.

It will be a very long time before another radical progressive is given the keys to the US Federal Government again.