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.