The Long and Winding Road...to the White House (part 1)

Like many politics watchers here in Canada, I have found my attention being drawn with greater frequency towards the U.S. Presidential election. With a little less than four weeks to go, President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney are locked in an extremely close race for the White House.

As we enter the final weeks of the campaign, I wanted to give my take on what I have seen so far and what I will be watching for between now and election day. But before I do, I would strongly encourage those interested in the campaign to check out the following writers/bloggers:

- Nate Silver at the New York Times;

- Dave Weigel at Slate; and

- Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post.

All three are regular posters and twitterers - @fivethirtyeight, @daveweigel, @TheFix - and are definitely worth a look.

Now, in terms of the race we have seen a lot happen in the weeks since the Republican and Democratic conventions (I am not going to delve into the pre-convention campaign or I will be writing all night). Let's try break the race into three phases:  post-conventions; the debates; and home-stretch.

1. Post-Conventions

This year the Republicans held their convention first, followed quite quickly by the Democrats. While the latter is remembered for some excellent oratory (Bill Clinton being the highlight), the former is remembered for Clint Eastwood's conversation with an empty chair.

So we'll chalk that one up to the Democrats, then.

Kidding aside, what the Republicans tried to do was "introduce" Romney to the electorate on their terms. In this regard, they did not succeed. The Democrats had already framed a narrative on Romney as an out-of-touch ally of the super wealthy.  

The Republicans did not do enough to counter this, and instead gave us a convention that featured speeches than ranged from the lacklustre, to the odd/personally self-serving (looking at you Governor Christie from NJ and Senator Rubio of Florida), to the surreal (*sigh* Clint). 

In contrast, the Democrats crafted a convention that energized their base and, particularly through Clinton's speech, set out the broad strokes of the election narrative on which they would campaign. It is a narrative that looks to make the case that while there is still work to do, America is on the right track following such an unprecedented financial and economic crisis.

They focused on the middle class, veterans and seniors, and in so doing established a link between their message and the swing states that will ultimately decide this election (looking at you Ohio, Florida, Virginia). The result was a strong post-convention bounce.

At this point, allow me to borrow from the wonderful world of infomercials...But Wait, There's More!

Shortly after the conventions came the release of the infamous 47% video. I won't go into details, but you can read my earlier post here.

The video release built off of the convention bounce to such an extent that the polls - again, particularly those in the swing states - moved President Obama's numbers up quite significantly. In the days leading up to the first debate, there were many who felt that the outcome of the election was set and that the Romney campaign had dropped the ball.

But politics is a funny thing...

2. The Debates

As of today, we have had two debates: the first of three Presidential debates and the only Vice-Presidential debate. In the run-up to the first Obama-Romney debate we were all told that debates do little to change things; that it would take something quite significant to move numbers that appeared so heavily in favour of Obama.

Of course what no one considered was that Obama would perform so poorly (no errors, but nothing to energize anyone -  he was flat), and that Romney would perform so strongly (engaged, on message, relaxed and clearly enjoying himself).

Of the two, Romney's case for change was widely considered to be more effective than Obama's case for a second term. The immediate polls declared Romney a clear winner, but more importantly the media narrative started to shift.

In the days following the debate we saw what I often consider to be a very chicken-egg reaction playing out. Commentary which described momentum shift in favour of Romney and polls which evidenced this shift. The former was influenced by the latter and vice versa.

The result was a significant tightening of the race, essentially bringing us back to where we were late summer, pre-convention.

Today, we are a day removed from the Biden-Ryan VP debate which most consider a tie. Biden did what he needed to bring back some energy, get the Democrats back on message and do what many hoped Obama would do - attack. Ryan did what he needed, which was look a suitable running mate and up to the job.

In essence what they did was set us all up for Tuesday when the top of the ticket candidates meet again. Cue more late nights for a certain Guy Watching Politics.

***

Of our three phases (post-conventions, debates and home-stretch), we are part way through the second and are set up for what promises to be a very interesting three and a half weeks. Here are some things I will be looking for:

Momentum is something that is very difficult to grab back, particularly if the media narrative starts to be built around the one who has it. This is where Obama was last week, and he needs to have a much more effective performance on Tuesday if he wants to avoid further slippage.

Importantly, the way in which a candidate tries to seize it back needs to be measured and thought out or it can backfire. The candidate who starts to look or is portrayed as being desperate will lose, so care needs to be put into the arguments, tone, manner, ads - basically everything.

Who's spending where is a great predictor for campaigns. It is an indicator that shows where candidates feel they need to spend. If Obama has to start directing funds to those states which only a few weeks ago seemed solidly blue, that is a problem. If either candidate starts pulling out of states, that also tells you something.

Look at the advertising and the time the candidates spend in: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin. If you are a Democrat, be concerned if you see more of Obama, Biden or Clinton in Michigan or Pennsylvania. Everyone on both sides will be in Ohio. Be sure to say hi.  

Polling, both nationally and at the state-level, will tell us a lot. Now is probably a good time to pay more attention to the state polls. Building on the point above remember that states elect Presidents. This election will come down to a few swing states. Notwithstanding his post-debate challenges, President Obama still has more ways to 270 than Mitt Romney. State polling will tell us more in the coming weeks.

Voter enthusiasm is critical. The ability to engage, rally and mobilize your base is one of the keys to success. When we look at Obama's poor debate, while this may have "moved" some voters towards Romney it also energized/deflated identified Republican/Democrat voters.  

Put another way, the swings we saw post-debate probably had more to do with base-engagement than they did about moving un-decideds. An energized base propelled Obama in 2008. Who will benefit in 2012?

The Economy and that all-important jobs number is critical.  Dropping below 8% was good for Obama.  There is one more report before voting day.  Just sayin'.

Wild Cards such as Libya, voter suppression tactics, Super PAC spending, the EU, Iran - any and all of this could conspire to knock the wind out of either candidate's campaign.

***        

I would make one last point on the polls and where things are today. Viewed through the lens of the last 2-3 weeks, the Democrats are rightly disappointed and dispirited. They were soaring post-convention/47 per cent video, and are now engaged in a very close race.

The thing is, given the economy and the divisive views on health care and the deficit, if you offered a Democrat in January or June the kind of numbers they have now (nationally and in swing states) as we head into the final weeks, my gut tells me they would have bitten your hand off.

***

The race to the White House takes a candidate down a long and winding road.  With over three weeks to go, there are more twists and turns ahead. Let's watch...

*part two to follow post-debate - follow me on Twitter @PoliticWatcher for live commentary on the debate

The Hidden vs the Not-So Hidden Agenda

This past week the House of Commons voted on a controversial motion which proposed a study on when human life begins. Motion 312, tabled by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth, was defeated 203-91.

The main talking point coming out of the vote was the fact that among the ranks of the 91 MPs who supported the motion were a number of Cabinet Ministers, including Rona Ambrose (Minister for the Status of Women), Jason Kenney (Immigration) and Peter Van Loan (Government House Leader).

For opponents of the motion, they saw it as an attempt to re-open debate on Canada's abortion laws. Those who voted against it did so either because they are in agreement with those laws, or (in the case of some Conservative MPs) because they were adhering to the Prime Minister's pledge that his government would not be opening up a debate on abortion.

Notwithstanding the motion's defeat, there remain many who feel that the Harper government continues to favour a social conservative agenda. Part of the evidence - the number of Conservative Cabinet Ministers who supported the motion.

Is this proof of a hidden agenda? No.

***

The accusation of a hidden agenda has dogged the Conservatives (and before them the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party) from day one. It is an accusation that was used to great effect by the Liberals, particularly when Stockwell Day was the Leader of the Official Opposition, but also in the dying days of the campaign that gave Paul Martin his minority.

However, the governing record of the Conservatives does not show evidence of such an agenda. Yes, one can point to the successive minorities to suggest that the government was not in position to advance such a social conservative agenda.

But now, 16 months into its "strong, stable minority", the Conservatives are still far from any credible suggestion that they are about to spring a sea change in social policy on Canadians.

Why?

1. Power. Mr. Harper is well-aware that the majority of Canadians are not supportive of the very social policies so many of his supporters favour. Even when factoring in the (generally) socially conservative immigrant population that is increasingly important to Conservative fortunes, the evidence still suggests that on balance, Canadians are more centrist in terms of social policy (if not liberal).

Recognizing this reality, Mr. Harper will stay away from any debate that could imperil his chances in an election, or allow his opponents to more successfully frame a social conservative narrative against him.

2. Priorities. While Mr. Harper may have catered to the more socially conservative members of his caucus and base over the years in terms of rhetoric, he would have done so for one reason - keep them engaged and mobilized. Rhetoric feeds coffers and keeps a base energized and ready to act.

Mr. Harper's focus has always been on something else. He has consistently adhered to an agenda which, far from being hidden, has been out in the open.

That priority is a fundamental re-shaping of the economic principles upon which the federation has existed for decades. The adoption of a social conservative agenda would simply serve as a distraction away from this priority.

***

Look at areas like tax policy, equalization or the division of powers. Look at areas that boil down to the role of government - in terms of policy, regulation and environmental stewardship.

In the vast majority of cases, we see an agenda that is focused on re-defining the relationship between the federal and provincial governments, between the government and business, and between the government and individuals.

There is no room in this agenda for an ongoing debate on issues like abortion or gay marriage, for example. While they may be "meat for the base", they are not the prize as far as Mr. Harper is concerned.

What they can do, unfortunately, is distract people from what is happening. In this regard, I suspect a small part of Mr. Harper is pleased to see people get exorcized about policies he would never implement, while at the same not paying as much attention to those that he will.

My fellow Americans. Well, 53% of you anyway...

Mitt Romney. 47%. What can you say?

For those who have not been following the U.S. Presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney has attracted the worst kind of media attention this week.

In a nutshell, a video of Mr. Romney addressing donors this past spring at a private, $50,000/person fundraiser has been released. In it, Mr. Romney speaks quite candidly about the electorate and in particular about the 47% of Americans who:

(a) will vote for President Obama no matter what;
(b) don't pay income taxes;
(c) possess a victim mentality;
(d) are dependent on the state; and
(e) will never be convinced to take personal responsibility for themselves.

During his remarks, Mr. Romney made it quite clear that this is not a portion of the electorate on whom he intends to focus much time during the campaign. In effect, he was saying that in the context of his search for votes they were a lost cause.

Now I could go on at length about the multiple problems with these remarks, but I will leave that to the media and the Obama campaign. Let me limit my comments to these points:

- His remarks ignore all of the other taxes individuals pay, often in percentage amounts which total more than the percentage of taxes he pays;

- His suggestion that this 47% is not prepared to take "personal responsibility" is insulting and ignores the fact that this percentage includes, among others, seniors, veterans and working families.

- He is campaigning to be President of the United States, not 53% of it and therefore needs to be seen as a President for all and not some; and

- He has given a very stark message to donors which in terms of tone and scope is markedly different from his remarks on the campaign trail, all of which gives the impression of someone who is not being forthright with those whose votes he is seeking - "one message for a vote, another for a dollar."

Suffice to say, the evening the video was released probably made some Republicans hark back to the good old days when the extent of their problems was a rambling Clint Eastwood and an empty chair.

***

If we move beyond the obvious and deserved criticism of Mr. Romney's remarks, there is another story and it is one which is common to all modern political campaigns. It is the story of targeting and focus.

During the 2011 Ontario election, I posted this piece on the forgotten voter; the voter who tends to get lost in the messaging as the parties vie for slices of the electorate.

This notion of slices of the electorate is not new, but it's dominance in election strategy is now pre-eminent. This is particularly true in the U.S., where the Presidential election is less a national one and more one which is comprised of several swing state battles, and a general focus on attracting support from a very small number of independents and undecideds.

In this regard, Mr. Romney's remarks - once you strip away the ugliness, elitism and most distasteful elements of modern conservatism embedded within them - are consistent with how all parties approach a campaign.  Get out your base and focus on those areas which can deliver the very thing you set out to achieve - power.

For Mr. Romney, the challenges associated with a twin focus on base and swing voters are great. In order to appeal to and mobilize his base he must tack heavily towards the right.  In order to appeal to independents and undecideds, he must appear more moderate.

Put another way, how he approaches the one can very easily alienate the other.  It is precisely the type of tightrope-walk that can lead a candidate to give one message on the hustings and another behind closed doors.

Mr. Romney fell off that tightrope this week.  The coming weeks will tell how damaging a fall this has been.

Those were the days...

Over the years there has been a fair bit written about Stephen Harper's long-held goal of not just over-taking the Liberals, but of consigning them to the dustbin of history. Now, as we begin the countdown to the Liberal spring 2013 leadership convention we can expect more of such chatter.

What sometimes gets lost in this Harper versus the Liberals narrative is the fact that should Mr. Harper succeed in forever vanquishing the former "natural governing party", it will mark the second time he has taken on and mortally wounded one of the federal parties.

The first victim? The federal Progressive Conservative party.

***

The death this past week of Peter Lougheed prompted a number of articles about his legacy, including this excellent one by Jeffrey Simpson.  

What struck me in reading these tributes was the number of sharp distinctions between what it used to mean to be a PC, and what it currently means to be a Conservative. The articles served as a reminder that there once was a time when the words progressive and conservative did not appear mutually exclusive; that there was a sense that government had a real role to play in the pursuit of the greater good.

More than anything, we remembered that good policy can and should be driven by both conviction and evidence. Facts and principles can exist side-by-side in our decision-making process. This was an approach that enabled Mr. Lougheed to govern for so long, so successfully. It was an approach that allowed the modern Alberta to emerge on the national scene.

***

The PC party of Mr. Lougheed does not exist at the federal level any more, and nor does the notion of a red Tory.  His federal heirs, if you will - politicians like Clark and Stanfield - and the values and approach to public service that they represented are long gone.  

In their place is the current Conservative party.  A party defined and moulded by Prime Minister Harper.  The current brand of conservatism is more principle-driven, relying less on facts and data.  More importantly, it represents an approach to politics and policy-making that is more adversarial; where accommodation and collaboration are rare and are too often portrayed as signs of weakness.

It is also an approach that has gradually started to erode the concept of the "centre", transforming the national political dialogue into a choice between two extremes.  

Unfortunately by making federal politics a "battle of opposites", as Mr. Harper has tried to do, policy debate starts to mirror the political landscape. When "what if?" is replaced by "either, or", innovation and the bigger sense of country are lost.

***

Over the course of the summer Canadians have been inundated with reminders about the war of 1812. The government's objective is to bring greater visibility to our military history, and to develop a national sense of pride in that history.

These are noble endeavours, without question. However, there is a certain irony in celebrating our military history while at the same time ignoring the principles and approach to politics that quite simply allowed a country like Canada to exist.

Canada is a nation that was born out of compromise, collaboration and a sense that if you wanted to make something truly special, at some point you had to leave your interests at the door and think of the big picture.

Mr. Lougheed understood that. We could do with more like him.     

The Quebec Election...plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Well, kind of.

The Quebec election campaign is in full swing and at this point it's fair to say...plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Well, kind of.

You see, we have what has become commonplace in all recent Quebec elections - that being the traditional Liberal-Parti Quebecois battle for the hearts, minds and votes of the province.  This is a dynamic which produces a remarkably consistent narrative.

On one side is the PQ, promising to stand-up to protect, defend and grow the Quebec project.  It is a rhetoric steeped in cultural and economic nationalism, with the end goal being the establishment of an independent Quebec.

On the other side are the Liberals, promising to effectively manage and modernize the province while at the same time offering stability and protection from the uncertainty of the separation debate.

Only this time around, we have a third party - and an interesting one at that.  The Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ), led by former PQ member François Legault, has arrived and is shaking things up.  Theirs is an agenda which says put separation aside for at least a decade and focus on getting Quebec's house in order.

In many respects it is an agenda which is more frank about the challenges Quebec faces and the need for the province to engage in a more meaningful dialogue about what to do.  Importantly, it is arguing for a dialogue that is unencumbered by the federalist vs. separatist noose that has been around the province's neck and which has choked off real debate and action.

The question now is whether Legault's CAQ can truly build itself into a viable third option, or whether it will suffer the fate of the ADQ (which it effectively absorbed) and simply fade away after showing early promise.  Interestingly, unlike the ADQ the CAQ has three things that point to more than a fighting chance at survival.

1. A desire for change - part one.  Federalist Quebeckers who have felt that they have nowhere to go but to the Liberals now have a choice.  Legault is not a federalist, but he is offering stability.  As well, for those who would favour a more business-minded approach to the management of the province, the CAQ offers a perspective which in some respects is more Liberal than PQ.

2. A desire for change - part two.  Quebec is changing.  Legault is a former PQ Cabinet Minister.  He was a PQ MNA as recently as 2009.  That he has managed, thus far, to successfully present himself as something other than a pequiste speaks volumes about the mood in the province.  Legault is attempting to tap into a desire for something new, something different and something that is not Charest or Marois.  So far he is succeeding.

3. The corruption wild card.  The Charest mandate(s) have increasingly been tainted by the spectre of corruption.  The CAQ's ability to draft the most public opponent of corruption - Jacques Duchesneau - as its star candidate has immediately branded it as the anti-corruption party and the one most willing to clean things up.

We are still early days in this campaign.  The debates are still to come.  As well, the electoral map of Quebec gives the PQ several significant advantages once you move outside of the Montreal area.  Still, thus far the CAQ is showing and making things interesting.  At the very least, Mr. Legault could find himself in the position of king/queen-maker.

Watch and see who attacks who as we move into this middle-period of the campaign.  More than any poll you will read, where leader's direct their attention will tell you volumes about what is keeping them up at night.

Nothing to fear but fear itself...

Here's a little secret that all parties know. The politics of fear can be extremely effective. It does not matter whether you are Conservative, NDP or Liberal; whether you are swimming in the federal pool or the provincial one.

Fear is a motivator. It drives engagement. And it mobilizes those most likely to vote.

Fear is what helped keep back the Reform / Canadian Alliance / Conservatives during the Chrétien-Martin years. I recall a Maclean's cover which pictured Stockwell Day and the caption "How Scary?" It was an image that played squarely into the Liberal narrative about what a Day government might look like.

Fear also helped Mr. Martin get his minority in the wake of the sponsorship scandal. The final days of the 2004 campaign saw the Liberals again employ the not-so-subtle tactic of suggesting the worst would come from a Harper government. Call it "How Scary? Chapter 2."

Of course, after 2006 the tables were gradually turned. While both the Liberals and the NDP continued  to sound the alarm about a hidden Conservative agenda (something which arguably helped keep the Conservatives away from majority territory for 5 years), the Harper government began its own attack.

It started with Mr. Dion and the spectre of the carbon tax. However, it took that "coalition crisis" to demonstrate the degree to which the government was prepared to play the fear card. The "threat" of the so-called "Separatist-Socialist" coalition grew from a clarion call in defence of prorogation to the ongoing mantra of the government whenever it faced criticism from the opposition. This carried right through to the election of 2011.

***

While the Liberals had used fear and the defining of the unknown to help frame a narrative, the Conservatives took it further.  Changes to the party financing laws in Canada made the individual donor a critical ally for anyone with hopes of power.

The Conservatives recognized this more quickly than their opponents. Importantly, they also recognized that fear brings in money. It mobilizes your base and rallies them (and their wallets) to act. There are a lot of reasons why the Conservatives are more effective fundraisers, chief of which is the database they have developed and maintained.

However, the ability to use wedge issues - think carbon taxes, gun registries, coalitions - should not be underestimated as a critical skill for generating engagement and filling party coffers.

***

I have written on this blog about the election around the corner and how it stifled policy debate in Canada; how it drove our political discourse away from substance and towards sound bites. The politics of fear has had the same effect.

Today we see the Conservatives employing these tactics against Mr. Mulcair. Over the next year we will see both the NDP and the Conservatives use them against the Liberals and whomever winds up leading them. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Unless...

Right now there seems to be a growing interest in the need to facilitate non-partisan discourse. Martha Hall Findlay's recent piece on supply management is a good example of the importance of taking partisanship away from serious issues. Interestingly, it often seems that former politicians are the most vocal about the need to change the tone and focus of our politics.

Canadians have a small window within which to seize the opportunity afforded them by a Conservative majority. With no election until 2015 or so, there is time to start to define what a less fear-driven politics can look like.

This will take time, and there will most certainly be no immediate pay-off at the polls.  It will take small steps, patience and perseverance. And make no mistake, it will be attacked.

But it is the right thing to do if we want to break the cycle. Right now, to borrow from the phrase, fear is the thing we should be most fearful of.

Leadership and Brand Go Hand in Hand

This week the Liberal Party of Canada announced that its convention for selecting a new, permanent leader would be held in April 2013. In the hours before this decision was made, Bob Rae - the current interim leader and at the time the presumptive favourite for the full-time job - announced that he would not seek the job.

Cue more existential discussion about the former natural governing party of Canada.

Attention has inevitably shifted towards Justin Trudeau - the man some are now saying is the party's last, best chance at picking itself up and re-inventing itself as a player in in Canadian politics.

I read through two articles which came out today on the subject. The first was by Warren Kinsella and the second by Rex Murphy. Both make the argument that Trudeau should run, albeit for different reasons.

Kinsella's argument seems to be based almost exclusively on the notoriety factor; that the name recognition and pedigree of Trudeau are sufficient to make him the party's first and only choice in what is likely to be a less than inspiring field. In short, his view is that Trudeau has the characteristics of a winner.

While Murphy also suggests Trudeau should run, he argues this from a completely different position.  To him, a refusal to run could potentially be the final nail in the coffin in a party that has now failed to convince your McKennas, Manleys and Tobins to seek the crown. A Trudeau refusal would be seen as a confirmation by the party elite that it has no future.

So, we have Kinsella saying the party must pick Trudeau and Murphy saying Trudeau should pick the party.

What's missing is a good discussion about what this party would represent.

The arguments thus far have tended to focus on the need to avoid the pitfalls that previous leader selections - Dion and Ignatieff - created. Without question, leadership is critical. A major element of the leader's job is to be the symbol and spokesperson of the party's brand.

And there's the rub.

For a party to succeed it needs an effective leader (the symbol / spokesperson) and a brand - those characteristics which it embodies. Unfortunately, the current Liberal debate is focused almost exclusively on the former, with limited discussion on the latter.

I believe that over time the sentiment that the Liberals were Canada's natural governing party became something of an albatross around the neck. Gradually it stifled thought and fostered an ever-growing sense of entitlement.

Post-2006, the party seemed to rely on the sense that electoral defeat was akin to time in the penalty box; that after they served their time out of power, they would get back in and that things would return to their rightful place.

What they did not recognize is that while they were in the penalty box the game changed.

Even now, six years removed from power and demoted to the third rung on the political ladder, the party is not doing enough to define itself. A failure to define itself in the old Liberal-Tory political axis is one thing. To do it today with the ascendant NDP is something altogether different. And dangerous.

The Liberals need more than a leader. They need an identity. They need to clearly articulate what they represent as a 21st century progressive political party. This means being definitive about yourself and purposely drawing distinctions between yourself and the other parties.

The further you are from power, the more important it is that you get your decisions on leadership and brand correct. The clock is now ticking for the Liberals.

Shifting right or tuning out?

One of the questions that has been asked with some frequency by politics watchers is whether Canada is growing more conservative. Whether over time, we have moved away from our more traditional centre and towards the right.

While this might be a fair question to ask, I am not sure it is the right one.  The problem with a question like this is that it leads to somewhat narrow answers which offer limited perspective.

The answer many offer is that three election victories for the Conservatives is hard evidence that the country is more aligned with Mr. Harper's policies than those of his opponents.  Proponents of this argument also point to not just three victories, but three increasingly stronger results culminating in the May 2011 majority.

Fair points, yes.  But surely there is more for us to consider as we ponder whether the country is shifting right.

• The progressive alternative has been splintered as the Liberals have fallen and the NDP have grown.  This game is still playing out, and as a result the Conservatives have been able to capitalize.  The combination of a fractured opposition and the first-past-the-post system have worked for Harper in much the same it did for Chretien, particularly in Ontario.

• Building on the point above, Mr. Harper strongly benefitted from not one but two ineffective Liberal leaders.  Yes, the vicious Conservative attack ads contributed to the ineffectiveness of Dion and Ignatieff.  However, that these ads were "complemented" by a Liberal reluctance or inability to define oneself as a credible option should not be overlooked.

• The Conservatives were highly adept at using the financial crisis as a platform for success.  First, they were essentially implored to spend - which they did in spades, thereby being able to legitimately wear the moniker of the government that steered Canada through "the worst crisis since the Great Depression." Second, as the global political winds have shifted and spending made way for austerity the Conservatives have gained a degree of legitimacy for the shrinkage of government they have always favoured.  Imagine being able to look out an ask rhetorically "do you want us to be like the EU?".  

These points are less about whether we are shifting right or left, and more about a lack of defined alternatives combined with a very unique and shifting "crisis environment."  And yet even then, I think there is something more that explains what we have seen over the past several years that goes beyond an ideological shift.

It is not that people have shifted right, it is that people have increasingly tuned out.

Our politics is more partisan.  It is more sound-bite driven.  There is less policy being discussed.  Parliament is by-passed at the earliest convenience and with greater frequency.  And every day that this happens, more and more people tune out and try to get on with their lives.

In the end, I think the better question to ask is not whether we are shifting right, but whether we are paying close enough attention to what is going on around us.  And by "we" I don't mean those of trapped inside of the bubble of Ottawa (or those outside, but fixated on those within it).

To say Canada is shifting is to say that Canadians are engaged.  We are not.

The Perils of Being Painted Into a Corner

If you live in Quebec, over the past several weeks you have been treated to daily reporting of the student protests against the Charest government's plans to eliminate a freeze on tuition. The issue has claimed one Minister and a Chief of Staff to the Premier, with thousands of students taking to the streets to voice their anger.

Students, eh? That crazy lot.

The cost of post-secondary education is an important issue. It is well-understood that a modern economy needs an educated workforce; a work force that is able to compete and succeed in what is a rapidly changing global environment.

However, when I look at the protests and consider the issue I am drawn towards another angle. Tuition rates in Quebec have been significantly lower than in the rest of Canada for several years. There have been no increases of note in over a decade. In fact governments of both stripes have patted themselves on the back for maintaining a freeze and derided those who suggested otherwise.

As a result, the issue has been politicized to such an extent that both the Liberals and the PQ have been painted into a corner. Reasonable debate about the province's ability to maintain a strong post-secondary system take a back seat to ever-escalating rhetoric.

There is a lesson in all of this for the other provinces and the federal government.

I see a parallel between this issue and the issue of tax increases. More and more we see the use of the tax system being pilloried and attacked. The party that proposes any form of tax increase is attacked, and often backs away from their proposals regardless of their initial merit.

Taxes fund public services.  Some of those are very visible, such as health care.  Others less so, but they remain important (defence, food safety, research).  Is there waste in the system?  Without question.   But the fact remains that taxes are a very important tool which governments use to govern and sustain the state.

Unfortunately, Canada seems to be following the path of the United States where the Republican Party has made an art of anti-tax rhetoric and policy.  As I noted here, the U.S. has "effectively taken off of the table one of the major tools available to a government to manage the affairs of the state."

Should Canada mirror the U.S. example and stigmatize taxes to such an extent that no one dare mention them unless the propose a reduction, then we will be depriving ourselves of real and important debate on what we can and cannot afford; about what we are willing to pay for and what we are not.

Quebec politicians have painted themselves into a corner; a corner which the Charest government is desperately trying to get out from - for the right reasons.  The system is simply not sustainable with the freeze in place.  Yet this conversation is getting lost in the noise, and more's the pity.

Across Canada we should take heed and consider the implications of extremes.  We should ask ourselves whether a debate on taxes is being avoided or stifled.  We should be challenging ourselves to think ahead and consider the corner we could paint ourselves into tomorrow if we avoid the difficult conversations today.

Students.  You can learn a lot from them.

Time Out...Back in Time

The passage of time is something that always fascinates us. Time flies. Where did the time go? Time out. Time heals all wounds. It's about time.

In recent weeks we have been treated to some observations about the passage of time...

- the Titanic sank 100 years ago;
- the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are in danger of losing their 40-year grip on power;
- the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is 30 years old;
- the one-year anniversary of the Harper majority is 12 days away; and
- your favourite political blogger has not posted in 53 days.

While certainly not the most important of these milestones, the last one - my break from blogging - is the one I want to take a moment to write about.

In the run-up to my break, the conversations of politics watchers were filled with references to robo-calls and dirty tricks. The general observation - mine included - was that our politics was in a state of perpetual decline, characterized by hyper-partisanship on the Hill and a decided lack of engagement everywhere else.

While I believe that observation to be correct, I nevertheless found it to be gnawing at me and not just influencing what I wrote about, but how I wrote. One thing I have always tried to do with this blog is remain outside of the fray. While I am progressive in mindset, it has always been important for me to retain a level of objectivity in my writing.

I started to find this difficult, so I took a break.

In taking a time out, I wanted to step back and start to look at our politics from more of a distance. Away from the partisanship and the scandals, real and imagined.

More to the point, I wanted to take some time to remind myself why I started writing in the first place.

The purpose has always been to promote a dialogue and foster a greater sense of engagement in our politics. This means looking at the issues that will define Canada. It also means taking a critical eye to all of our political protagonists, regardless of their affiliation.

So where does that leave us, dear reader (yes...I still cling to the illusion that someone reads this blog)? Hopefully right back where we started when this blog began. With the issues and the challenges and opportunities Canada is facing.

Our cast has changed (welcome Mr. Mulcair), but the issues have not (hello austerity, jets, deficits, and provinces...good to see you again). So let's re-start the dialogue by reminding ourselves that engagement is like oxygen to a healthy, well-functioning democracy. It is critical.

And it's time.