The Liberals have work to do

I wrote a blog a few weeks ago about a direction for the Liberal party in Canadian politics. I argued that they should attempt to take the centre, since two ideological parties already occupy the left and right portions of the present political framework.

However, I may have failed to articulate the difficulty of this staggering task.

The current "frame" of political dialogue was brought about by Stephen Harper's polarizing, wedge style rhetoric. This tactic, while damaging to an honest debate, is extremely effective.

Mr Rae recently stated “His {Harper's} is still a politics that polarizes, that divides, and that excludes... Pride like this will only be followed by a fall.” While I agree with this comment, it should be noted that that fall will move to the left, not centre.

Once the discussion is split into "blacks or whites", the grey's are effectively muted, as their messages are more complex, and contain components of both black and white. This will make enemies on both sides, and friends with neither.

To break the wedge, you must engage this divisive style with bluntness, and preferably some ridicule. Any intellectual appeal to reason or facts will result in the loss of the audience.

Even journalists fall prey, as was demonstrated by Power & Politics host Rosemarie Barton, who prodded Bob Rae, insisting the Liberals had no position regarding the postal lockout issue. This query, by an experienced reporter, demonstrates the difficulty of maintaining the centre position in a polarized political atmosphere.

Liberal leader Bob Rae was required to restate the Liberal position, but it lacked brevity. In polarized politics, issues are presented as "black or white", "left or right", etc. and it is the succinctness of the message that is powerful.

A well articulated, but nuanced policy cannot sway the masses. Many people wish that this worked, but in the modern "on demand" culture, it never will.

During the postal lockout, the 'centre' position should have been something like:

"Fire the management (CEO), and pass back to work legislation."

The message is short and clear. It also satisfies or disarms both the union and corporation, which are the vested interests in the debate.

It is irrelevant as to whether this is a perfect policy, it is one of the few political messages that could be used in that situation - because it breaks the wedge. You've attacked both sides and resolved the situation. The other parties would be forced to agree with half of your policy, and defend why they wouldn't support the other half. But this only works if the message is brief and aimed equally at both sides.

This is the unfortunate reality of modern politics. Whoever descends into an explanation of a policy is roasted on a spit. Conservatives understand this, and deny that controversial decisions require explanations. They simply say "We feel this is the right decision for Canada". By not explaining, they are providing no fodder to be throw back. Despicable yes, but it has proven results.

I'm not arguing that the Liberals emulate Conservative shenanigans, but rather abuse them at their own game. The Liberals must put forward ideas that attack the very wedge that the Conservatives use to their advantage, driving them into deep explanations of their decisions. Each and every failure to blunt the impact of polarization plays directly into NDP and Conservative laps.

A good place to start is with an analysis of the Conservative bread and butter: Fear and derision of ambiguity. Minimize, or remove these two strengths, and their communications fall flat. But don't forget the NDP at your back either.

Going forward, the Liberals must choose policies that attack both sides, or issues which neither side has raised previously (and then promote it quickly to keep ownership). The Conservatives and NDP have the luxury of lumping the Liberals with their enemy (already practiced by the CPC).

The Liberals are still underestimating the significance of the last election - the worst popular vote and seat count in the parties entire history.

If the party fails to break the frame, or is unwilling to do what it takes, then they might as well just merge with the NDP now, relegating Canada to a two party system.

Maybe the Liberals could use a grassroots organisational primer, in which case I recommend reviewing my blog "Rules for Radicals" and the 13 tactics underdogs can employ in their struggles. But now I'm just self-promoting.

Cheers!

Canada is going to War!

Canada's Conservative Government has now put forward all the signals of an aggressive interventionist foreign policy, or colloquially, they are military hawks. Libya is not the war I'm worried about either (and no, there are no blue helmets in Libya).

Defence Minister MacKay recently announced that Canada is setting up foreign military bases or agreements to facilitate our participation in 'International Missions'. Mackay's rhetoric, blithely repeated in national reporting (not journalism), does a disservice to the public by hiding the implications for our future.

I believe the below commentary, from David Bercuson (director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, director of programs at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, and Board member of the Royal Military College), sums it up best. (source)

“We can send troops, ships, aircraft to pretty much any part of the world in a pretty short time, even though we’re a pretty small military,” Mr. Bercuson said. With the bases, rather than being “open to anything,” the Canadian military would effectively be predicting parts of the world in which it will need to have a military presence. “We’re announcing that we have an interest in a particular region and that we may deploy military forces to that region in the future,” he said.

His last sentence is the most revealing. Not only is Canada well known for our speed of deployment, but the positioning of two bases in Africa is significant. We've announced an interest in the region.

Taken alone, one could see this as humanitarian prognostication.

However, the Conservatives, or more specifically Harper, have taken an interest in directing intelligence activities, starting in 2007 and culminating with the new Cabinet Committee on National Security.

Again, the Prime Minister directing intelligence activities is normal. But in recent years there have been calls for a foreign intelligence service. In fact, in 2010 the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) recommended the creation of a foreign spy service because of "greater demands for intelligence across government".

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is a 'security intelligence' service that can operate anywhere in the world to protect the security of our nation. A foreign intelligence service is different, in that it's an offensive force.

SIRC even states in its 2009/10 report "Fourth, there are no CSIS guidelines to help with the design and implementation of disruption operations, or to prepare for the potential consequences of such investigative activity" {I added the underline}. In CIA jargon, that's 'blowback' from sticking a finger in someone's eye.

I could drone on about foreign intelligence services like the CIA, but the car bombing of Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C., perpetrated by a former CIA employee and orchestrated by Manuel Contreras (a paid CIA asset, even after the assassination) speaks for itself.

Or maybe the 2003 CIA information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is a better example.

Whatever the reason when we declare war, in the next 2-6 years, please don't forget that we saw it coming. I even doubt that a non-CPC government could stop the freight train that will be going downhill, with no brakes, by the time of the next election.

By this point, my 'peacekeeper' bias is probably seeping through your screen, so I'll end with the reason for the blog.

Where is the discussion of Canada's changing role in the world?

It's a sad day for the country that fathered peacekeeping, when this topic receives nothing more than an occasional op-ed, blog, or inaccessible academic debate at the Munk School.

Oh wait, the Peace activists on rabble.ca posted a blog, about vigilance.

I've read enough history to know that Hawks rarely go hungry.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

A Direction for the Liberals

The Liberal party of Canada is at a cerebral cross-roads. The party is at a low point, it's members soul-searching for an ideology, while others prognosticate or dream of the party's death or merger. Recent grumblings even accuse the liberals of lacking an ideology, tearing at Liberal supporters, confusing them and creating in-fighting. It is a sad state of affairs.

However, I believe they should look to a direction, not an ideology, thus providing a stark contrast to the two ideological parties already present in Canada. The Conservative and NDP bases are here to stay. If the Liberals want to stick around, they're going to have to take a bite from both parties, not just one.

Left / Right politics is a game, with no government ever practicing it's ideology in the purest form. The terms left and right are distant from their origin in the French legislatures of the late 18th century, where they represented very different values, dissimilar to modern interpretations.

Participants in this diversion constantly expose themselves to ridiculous positions and arguments, and are forced to concede that their ideology cannot be supported at this time or in that particular instance, generally alienating some followers. This type of left /right politics plays directly into the game of wedging people and, more importantly, votes.

To win the centre, the Liberals must break the wedge, and shatter the out-dated political anachronism of Left / Right.

Which brings me to the distinction between Direction and Ideology.

A direction is a plan, plotted with evidence and input from interested groups.

Ideology is a device and veil for the weak on policy, a set of rules blindly adhered to in the face of contradictory evidence.

This is where a pragmatic, almost realpolitik approach could be used to great effect (please keep ethics in the approach).

When asked questions regarding the party's lack of ideology, answer "We are not American neo-conservatives nor are we pure socialists. We simply make the best decisions for the people of Canada. We are the Liberal Party".

You can even jest at how the other parties have to pass resolutions at their conventions softening their positions - the conservatives changing their gay marriage wording from "government" to " party" because they believe in it, but their leaders know it's never happening. Or the NDP changing the language in their constitution from 'socialist' to 'social democrat'. I'm wondering if that alteration has drastically changed people's perceptions or the party's direction?

To take back the centre, where I believe most Canadians sit (including where the left/right have to move to win), you use mantras like "People are tired of the left / right political fight - They just want a Government that makes good choices and doesn't waste money on ideological sponsorship." The Liberal direction could be this Good Government, patronizing those who blindly follow ideology at the cost of reason and ethics. This sounds ridiculous, but it is one of the few places available in the political spectrum when the fight has been framed into left/right gamesmanship.

This tactic also allows the centre party to take pickings from both sides of the political demographic, not just one. Liberals have courted the Conservative vote in the past, and can in the future.

This new focus would need firm and clear policies. There are a plethora of issues on which the bulk of Canadians agree. Stooping to the Conservative mindset, the most basic are security / safety and the ability to prosper (economy) -without too great a tax hit. The masses can be both simple and complicated - they want government to benefit themselves without a tax hit or interference in their personal affairs. Not surprising, since the driving principle behind our society is Capitalism (self-interest - or in the extreme, greed).

But as I ramble myself off into darkness, may I suggest expanding upon the Thinking Conference of Lester B. Pearson - except take it to the communities. I understand that the last leader tried this, but unfortunately he had already been framed by the Conservatives and forgot to push back.

You need candidates in every riding. You can't win if you don't run, cough - NDP. Those candidates host the thinking groups that listen to their ridings concerns. You've got three years or more to listen. Do some opinion polling - lots of it. Don't ask about the party, ask "What do you want from your government" and don't provide a list of options.

This strategy also requires gifted wordsmiths to craft succinct articulate policy messages, talking points, and counter points. This is key. The brevity and clarity determines effectiveness. Sometimes people don't even like the government they vote for, but they like their style. (Globe & Mail editorial endorsement during election 41 listed Harper's "bullheadedness" as a positive trait and a factor in their choice.)

Then shore up the policy. Vote, decree, just make firm policy choices. But don't limit yourself either. "We're interested in alternative energies, and will commit money to them, but in the meantime the oil-sands project must continue." You are the centre party, which gives you the unique ability to straddle issues being the compromise in politically sensitive areas. Start doing it, and stop looking in the bloody mirror.

Oh, and only create think tanks if you plan to keep them honest. Otherwise just start a publication/ collection of graduate papers and dissertations. The facts should be on your side on this path.

I'll cease blathering now.