Fighting on the Beaches

Old Dogs Suggest Old Tricks

2006-05-04T00:33:00.000-07:00

One of the failings of Paul Martin's fabled "Board" was the prominence of many of charter members. It sometimes seemed as though the Board was more concerned about convincing Canadian of their brilliance than demonstrating their ability to run a country. This tendency contributed to the rather premature end of the 'Golden Age of Paul Martin."

One might think that the rather their spectacular failure would encourage the members of the Board to step back from political life for a time. Yet Scott "Beer and Popcorn" Reid doesn't seem to share any embarrassment in his advice to the Liberals offered in the Toronto Star. His advice will sound a little familiar to anyone who has been listening to Team Martin expound for the last 10 years. And it has much of the weakness of that advice.

Among his advice is that the Liberals need to "Define Harper." This is presented as a fresh new insight as thought the Liberals have up to those point have been gentle with Harper. Anyone who watched TV in the last two election cycles got a big dose of the Liberal version of Stephen Harper. Unfortunately by the second time around the Liberal version of Harper didn't find a lot of believers. The challenge that Scott Reid and many Liberals face is that they genuinely believed that the Prime Minister is on the extreme of Canadian public opinion.

Unfortunately for the Liberals Canadians won't have a to wait for the Liberals to define Harper again. He is systematically building a record on which the public can judge him. Undoubtedly some of his actions will be less popular then others but the Stephen Harper of Scott Reid's mind is unlikely to emerge because that Stephen Harper is simply a fantasy of Mr. Reid's mind. Unless the Liberals come to grips with this reality they may be spending a lot of time on the Opposition side of the House.

The Thrill of the Chase

2006-05-01T23:48:00.000-07:00

Since I grew up without a natural hockey team to cheer for and a lack of appetite or serious interest in sports I've always taken the Stanley Cup playoffs a little less seriously than many Canadians. Yet its impossible not to get a little caught up in playoff excitement,

Of course the buzz in the Lower Mainland is pretty quiet since the Canucks couldn't even make it into the playoffs but fortunately I'm non-aligned. I support any Canadian team. Now this could easily become a little awkward as there's a pretty good chance that Calgary and Edmonton will meet in the second round. I'd like to consider a no lose type of situation but I happen to watch most of the games with a bunch of Edmonton fans (in the fanatic sense of the word) who do not accept my theory of nationalistic theory of fandom. They all cheered for Tampa Bay in the 2004 finals out of principle. Regardless it would be nice to see a Canadian team take home the Cup. It would be a nice reminder to Canadians of the benefits of Conservative rule.

Claiming the left or abandoning the center?

2006-04-26T21:58:00.000-07:00

As the candidate line up to fight for the leadership of Canada's "Natural Governing Party" there seems to be a strong trend developing everyone is running on the left. From Bob Rae to Gerald Kennedy to Ken Dryden everyone wants to be the "progressive" candidate.

Now of course these Liberals explain they're really above ideology but the reality is that the center right seems to be sorely lacking a candidate in the race. The only candidate who seems to be resisting the rush to the left is Maurizio Belilacqua who while more capable then many candidates isn't high on anyone list of likely winners. (I suppose Joe Volpe is not a candidate of the left either but he's really below ideology.)

Now it seems to be conventional wisdom that the Liberals need to chase NDP voters. Yet as John Ivison points out the numbers don't seem to add up. Simply put the Conservatives won because of voters who switched from the Liberals. Oddly many Liberal supporters seem to insist they should concede the those center-right voters who switched to the Conservatives last time to chase NDP voters.

As a Conservative partisan this scenario leaves me feeling pretty good. There are a significantly number of voters who voted for the Paul Martin Liberals specifically because they thought that the Liberals were relatively competent and understanding of business. In 2006 they stayed with the Liberals due to doubts about Conservative craziness. Yet a Liberal move to the left coupled with a couple years of non-crazed Conservative rule could shake loose a lot of Liberal voters. Ironically the Liberals seem almost intent on allowing Stephen Harper a lot of room to build a new "Natural Governing Party" while the Liberals chase the elusive split left.

TV Picks

2006-03-30T22:32:00.000-08:00

The grand 400 channel universe is pretty much here but sadly it seems to simply consist of many more channels with nothing worthwhile on. However it does make channel surfing much more enjoyable since one can spend a fair amount of time flicking through the channels before absolutely determining that nothing interesting is on.

That being said there is some quality TV still being made. Here's some of my recommended shows:

- The West Wing: I am rather ideological in my viewing tastes but even I have to admit the West Wing can be brilliant. I just recently watch the 2nd and 3rd series on DVD and I'm pretty much convinced that Aaron Sorkin is a genius. The politics of the show are often simplistic. The conservative characters are generally charicatures and losers but the show has far too much brilliance to be ignored.

- How I Met Your Mother: Probably my favourite new comedy. It's a fairly typical sitcom with a slightly conservative message about young adults who (mostly) are actually trying to grow up. Plus its very funny.

- Arrested Development: It's now off the air which is too bad. Arrested Development is consistently out there but hilarious. It combines all types of humour in such a sophfisticated manner that it's hard not to appreciate it.

- Scrubs: Like Arrested Development it has a strong sense of the absurd but Scrubs has a much warmer heart.

- Veronica Mars: I've always had a soft spot for mysteries and Veronica Mars girl detective is combines mysteries with an fairly acute look at teenage life.

Fear and Loathing in the Blogosphere

2006-03-26T00:16:00.000-08:00

Recently the Washington Post decided to shake things up by hiring a conservative blogger. The reaction was likely a little more intense then they had expected. Seemingly the entire leftwing of the blogosphere rose up in outrage. The thought that the Post would give a blog to a conservative writer was too much for many. It took very little time for things to turn ugly. Ben Domenech was accused of being a racist and many other highly dubious and disturbing things. The response lacked any pretense of a civil debate. The left had simply decided that Domenech must be destroyed.

Unfortunately for the young writer he had already sown the seeds of his own destruction. In their attempts to bring him down a few bloggers find past writings which bore striking evidence of plagiarism. Soon hundreds of people were pouring through his old articles and several questionable examples were found. Domenech resigned from the Washington Post and admitted that he had made some bad decisions in his past.

And what have we learned from all this? Nothing good. Despite what some would claim Domenech's plagiarism is not a statement on the conservative movement or the Republicans but more on how easy it is for writers to get lazy. There have been numerous plagiarism scandals in recent years involving people from across the political spectrum. The advances in the Internet and search engines will make it increasingly easy to uncover plagiarism while the vast reams of writing out there will continue to tempt writers struggling to come of with prose.

The more concerning part of this story is the intensity and hatred of those who opposed the blog in the beginning. Uncovering plagiarism was simply a means to an end. That end was to force Domenech out of the Post. While Domenech was obviously particularly provocative as a conservative activist who has worked for several Republicans it's not like former political staff never cross over into the media.

Yet the furious nature of the attacks are indicative of the increasingly politicalized nature of the media and culture. Many on the left simply do not wish to see any conservative appear to gain ground in the media. To be fair many conservatives are just as willing to close themselves off from critical voices. Yet if we continue to drift apart conducting politics will grow increasingly challenging. It may seem a little novel but perhaps we should start asking for a little civility in the blogosphere.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

2006-01-29T21:16:00.000-08:00

Despite the fact the I've had a week to adjust to the idea of Prime Minister Stephen Harper the words still seem a little surreal. It's not that I'm quacking in fear of what scary neo-conservative ideas Harper will try to introduce. It's more that having spent a great deal of time and effort in the past four years working towards this day it's still hard to believe that it has come.

It was not that long ago that I was in Ottawa in the summer of 2003. In some encounters with various members of the then Leader of the Canadian Alliance entourage I was given the general plan as to how Harper would deal with Paul Martin. In short the logic was that Martin was a lock to get 200+ seats. The only saving grace for the Alliance was that the Progressive Conservatives would be even more devastated than the Alliance. After Martin had effectively devastated both parties the Alliance would rise from the ruins. In an election or two or three.

At least one person disagreed- Stephen Harper. In fact he had already started the process that would lead to a merger of the two opposition parties. He then proceeded to run a fairly masterful leader campaign followed by a less masterful election campaign.

The time that followed the 2004 election gave plenty of opportunities for the doubters to find examples as to why Stephen Harper would never be Prime Minister. And yet in a week Stephen Harper will be sworn in as the next Prime Minister of Canada. Will his term be a success? I don't think that anyone knows yet. However he has already accomplished so much more than he was ever expected to. It takes a bold person to bet against him now.

And the scandals continue

2005-12-28T23:12:00.000-08:00

Ralph Goodale is boldly refusing to step down as the RCMP launch a criminal investigation into the income trust affair. And why should he? After all, as he explains it's not like he's been accused of anything? And that old fashioned idea that a minister was responsible for the actions of his department has long been abadoned by the Liberals. Ralph obviously shouldn't have to spend his time surpvising his staff. He's far too busy taking dictation from Jack Layton as to what his budget should look like. The Liberals are continuing their groundbreaking exploration as to what it takes before the resignations come. So far we've learned that ethnic slurs against NDP candidates are a no-no but attacks on Canadian parents are fine. We've also learned that a minister is not responsible until he or she is taken in custody.

Notes about the election

2005-11-29T00:58:00.000-08:00

Despite the fact that I haven't posted in months people keep visiting this site so I guess I may as well offer some new (if not totally original) content. Here then are my random thoughts on the coming election.

Mild optimism: For many reasons I have been fairly pessimistic about the Conservative chances. However I've decided to be optimistic if for no other reason than it will help justify the large amount of time I'm about to commit to the campaign.
Watch BC: I'm convinced that BC could finally be key to an election. While a lot will depend on what happens in Ontario the BC results could very well determine who gets the keys to 24 Sussex. I'll try to offer some updates of what my sense of the situation on the ground here throughout the campaign.
Who's going to win?: Quite honestly I have no idea who will win. Things are so carefully balanced that a small shift in voter intention could radically change the face of Parliament. On the other hand we could easily get a government that looks almost exactly the same as the one that just fell.

And We're Back

2005-09-13T19:14:00.000-07:00

Not that it appears that a great many readers have been around to miss Fighting on the Beaches but for a variety of reasons posting has been rather non-existentant over the past few weeks and pretty spotty before than. In that time a lot of things of have happened. I don't have any special thoughts on much of the news. I watched Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath devastate the Gulf Coast with the same horror that most felt but it feels a little foolish to offer any comments from the safety of the West Coast.

One subject of less import but more in my realm of experience is Peter Newman's new book. As someone who was not particularly politically aware during the Mulroney years I have never really understood the intense hatred that so many Canadians have for Mulroney. His record is clearly mixed but compared to the devastation Pierre Trudeau wreaked on Canada Mulroney was a model PM.

The major response to the book seems to be shock at the graphic language used by Mulroney. Anyone who's spend a lot of time with politicians will know that the typical politician has a very healthy opinion of themselves and a less than generous view of many of their counterparts. There are exceptions but in general the main difference between Mulroney and other politicians that the others don't have the hubris to go on the record with their true feelings.

New Thinking on Africa

2005-08-21T23:17:00.000-07:00

Life in North America has it's ups and downs yet compared to so much of the world the average North American has a dream life. We may have problems and pain but our life is not a constant struggle for survivor or peace. It's easy to forget how good we have it.

From time to time we are reminded that others do not have it so good. Events such as the tsanami in Asia or even planned events like the Live8 can get us thinking and maybe even doing a little more to help out. However all to often our good intentions are wasted by the ineffectiveness and weaknesses of the nations we are trying to help.

I don't think it's too controversial to suggest that much of Africa is highly dysfunctional. That dysfunction adds another level of complexity facing anyone who would offer help to that continent. The organizers of Live8 offered little in the way of comprehensive solutions perferring to instead use the language of western guilt and call for more money from governments.

Africa has received enormous sums from many Western governments in the past 40 years and there is little evidence to suggest that any nation is the better for it. Fortunately not all are content to try the same failed ways over and over. Time's profile of American mega-church paster Rick Warren's new venture in Rwanda suggests that something big may be happening. The project appears to be both ambitious yet modestly focused on a network of volunteers. I'm in no position to judge whether this particular project will be a success but I am convinced that a partnership between the North American church and Africa is the best hope Africa has for a better tomorrow.

2005-08-19T00:31:00.000-07:00

Pro-Life Blogs points out that a recent UN treaty on the rights of the disabled somehow included a provision dealing with the right to abortion. As the post recounts this strange inclusion is no fluke. The UN has a long history of aggressively promoting abortion and birth control at every opportunity.

Since it's creation the United Nations has been a magnet to those who believe we can build a better world through planning. A key belief has always been the need to "control" the population. For UN bureaucrats children are a hinderence to progress. Yet one can't help wondering if a brave new world is worth having if it has no respect for children and families.

2005-08-09T00:37:00.000-07:00

There's been multitudes of articles written on the difference between Canadians and our neighbours to the south. Often the differences are greatly exaggerated by Canadians eager to build an identity of non- or even anti-Americanism despite the remarkable similarities between the two nations. However that doesn't mean that there are no distinctions. An article in Policy Review provides a lot of food for thought by focusing on a key difference- the divirging birth rates of Candian and American woman.

As the article points out in recent years Canadian birth rates have continued to fall similarly to those of most developed nations. At the same time American birth rates have actually risen somewhat. The implications of the divirgence are significant and are producing two very different nations. The writers make a plausible case that the growing divide between the two nations can be attributed partly to birth rate patterns. Interestingly only one Canadian province shows a birth rate comparable to that of the US. Of course that province is Alberta. More evidence that Alberta may not be forever content in the brave new Canada.

A Poetic Interlude

2005-08-02T15:32:00.000-07:00

Kipling's The Gods of the Copybook Headings

"AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turnThat Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would comeThat a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrewAnd the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was trueThat All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make FourAnd the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of ManThere are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world beginsWhen all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return."

2005-07-29T00:21:00.000-07:00

When the Democrats are counting their core constituencies few stand out as boldly as the entertainment industry. In many ways it seemed like a lot of performers spent more time campaigning than entertaining during the last campaign. A similar ideological bent can be seen among Canadian performers and actors. The Barenaked Ladies had concerts in favour of the NDP while Avril Lavinge spoke out to encourage Canadians to vote for anyone other than the Conservatives.

For all the noise from the world of celebrities there was remarkable little results. Most people now accept that famous people are hopelessly leftwing and simply filter out the lectures. Even the Democrats as Mark Steyn notes treat the famous more as mascots than a source of serious ideas.

Yet the entertainment world was not inevitably a bastion of the left. It's true that historically radicals tended towards the arts but few of them actually did art for the masses. For much of history mass entertainment was ideologically neutral. Even the golden age of Hollywood had room for diversity. An article in City Journal offers a potential explanation for the current dominance of the left- Communist infiltration. It's clear that the communists saw value in the arts and as the infamous UnAmerican Activities Committee demonstrated they were successful at recruiting people in the industry. The fellow travelers were then re-enforced with the babyboomers and from then on the left was triumphant. The dominance is helpful to the left in many ways but it also presents a potential problem for the industry. Increasingly a gap is growing between the entertainers and much of the audience. The stirrings of a backlasch could become louder.

2005-07-26T23:24:00.000-07:00

Rather than attempt to come up with something witty and thought-provoking tonight I'll just direct your attention to several people who already have something to say:

One of those things that we all know is that poverty is getting worse. But as Lorne Gunter points out the empirical evidence proves this is not the case.
The American Scene offers some fascinating musings on the marriage debate and the future of conservatism. The idea of a family-centered, community oriented conservatism seems to me to be the way social conservatism can be relevant in the twenty-first century.
I'm hopelessly addicted to political speculation no matter how far-fetched it is. Thus I enjoyed Calgary Grit's rundown of potential Liberal leaders. Interestingly the race is probably more wide-open than any Liberal contest in the 20th century with the singular expection of Trudeau-mania. For once the natural governing party does not have a savior waiting the wings.
If we're talking about future elections there's always the 2008 American Presidential race. I willing to be that the Republican candidate will be neither John McCain nor Rudy Giuliani. It's not yet clear who the winner will be but it wouldn't be a bad wager to put some money on the threesome of George Allan, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney.

The Christians are Coming! (Again)

2005-07-25T14:47:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year the Globe and Mail discovered that Canada has Christians and that some of those Christians are involved in politics. On Saturday the Vancouver Sun followed up the investigative reporting of the Globe by running several features on Canada's "Christian right."

To be fair the Sun was much more thoughtful and balanced the Globe and Mail. The only feature available outside the firewall right now gives a good taste of the series. The story gives several staffers of Focus on the Family Canada a chance to speak and balances it with the critics who see American-style fundamentalism under every bed.

One has to give the Sun some credit for making an apparently sincere effort to understand what drives Christian activism but the story doesn't escape the inevitable distance that seems to separate the media from religion in Canada. The writers don't quite know what to make of those who let their faith impact their thinking. The idea that someone would oppose same-sex marriage because the Bible claims that such behavior is sinful seems to be genuinely confusing to a lot of secular minded people. Thus we get features like the Sun's which try to figure out what's driving all these Christians to get involved in politics. The straight forward answer is that Christians are driven by much the same things that drive many others- a desire to serve and build a better country.

Thoughts on Terror

2005-07-07T22:49:00.000-07:00

I don't have any original thoughts about the attacks in London. I have no reason to believe that the friends I have in that area were involved in the blast but the pleasure of that thought is greatly weakened by the reality that the friends of many others were killed or injured on London's streets this morning. I certainly pray that those who are mourning will find comfort.

The attacks were a surprise in that I didn't expect them today. Yet it wasn't the surprise I felt when I woke the morning of September 11, 2001 after dreaming of terror and towers falling only to learn that my mind had been incorporating the news feed from my radio alarm. At that time I terrorism was a abstract possibility that I was shocked to see had come true. Today there was sadness but little surprise.

A surprising number of Canadians still believe that Canada is immune. It would be nice to think so. I hope that they will not have to face their naivete but far from convinced that Canada's peace can be long-lasting. Even if Canada chooses to sit out some battles the battle will still come to Canada.

As for root causes I think one thing is pretty simple- there are those who wish to kill us. And the only reasonable response is that they must be stopped. The fight against terror must go on without ceasing. In the spirit of a great lady it's time to say that the West is "not for turning."

2005-07-07T00:40:00.000-07:00

Brief thoughts:

Belinda Stronach is going to tour Canada looking for the reasons people are growing cynical about politics. May I suggest she saves some money by skipping the tour and buying a mirror.
London has won the 2012 Olympics. Should the British be excited or is it the New Yorkers and Parisans who really won. I don't know. But as a resident of the area hosting the 2010 games I predict that the people of London will be a little tired of the leadup to the games long before the opening ceremonies.
Live8? Read Mark Steyn.

2005-07-04T00:30:00.000-07:00

I took a short visit across the border this weekend and was reminded of some of the reasons that the United States is a country worthy of admiration. While the pride of Americans may sometimes be overbearing and a little obnoxious they have a confidence in their nation that any Canada has to envy. Despite all its short-comings the US is a force for good. For today I'll let go of my sympathies with the Loyalists and salute the men who created such as grand nation.

The Failure of Social Conservatives

2005-06-30T00:30:00.000-07:00

The passage of Bill C-38 ought to lead to some serious questioning among the leaders of Canada's social conservative movement. They really need to ask why do they always lose. And I do mean always. Unlike our American counterparts Canadian so-cons have pretty much lost every battle to the point that there's not a whole lot left to conserve. Clearly something is not working.

Obviously there are a few excuses that have some legitimately. It's tough to fight battles when the media is almost completely against you. So-cons have been disorganized and underprepared for some skirmishes. Yet I think the problems go much deeper than media bias and a lack of organization. The problem is that Canadians in large part no longer accept social conservative values and that so-cons refuse to accept this reality.

Far too many so-cons are looking for a magic solution. The failure of that solution to present itself has led to a great deal of grumbling. It also has led to a tendency to turn on leaders who are seen as insufficiently pure. I know one high profile politician who took a very outspoken stance on a major issue but who was willing to compromise to make significant gains rather than fall on principle. The response of many was to condemn the politician for breaking with her principles. The reality is she was much more concerned with establishing clear grounds where social conservative could have a seat at the table than the grandstanding many seem to prefer.

An even more tragic example was the collapse of Jake Epp's attempt during the Mulroney government to forge a compromise on an abortion. The pro-life community turned on him when it discovered his bill would have allowed some abortions to continue. The pro-abortion movement piled on with glee and together both sides killed a compromise that would have seriously limited abortions. The result was that Canada now has no abortion law and that no sane politician wants to even discuss abortion.

While Canadians are not uniformly social conservative they are also not nearly as liberal as our leaders would like to think. There is little enthusiasm for an unlimited right to abortion and even less for the new definition of marriage.

The utter failure of the so-con movement has allowed the left to appear much more dominant than it really is. Unfortunately without a major shift in strategy so-cons will continue to face defeat after defeat. The movement needs to start thinker broader. It's time for a rethinking of what social conservatism means and where it should be going and how it can get there. I'm planning to introduce my rather radical suggestion in a future post but I'm quite interested in getting as wide-ranging a discussion going as possible among so-cons, fellow travelers and even those who are not sympathetic to the movement. Let's start with the question of what social conservatism is all about?

Why do they call it deportation if no one ever leaves?

2005-06-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court of Canada has finally found that Leon Mugesera can be deported. Mr. Mugersera was fighting his deportation on the grounds that his life would be in danger if he was forced to return to Rwanda. For some reason people there hold bitter feelings about his speeches inciting genocide.

The more outrageous part of the story is that he has been fighting deportation since 1995. The long fight isn't really surprising. Every year thousands of would-be refugees are rejected. And then they appeal and appeal. As long as you have a half decent lawyer you can plan on staying in Canada long after you theoretical should have left. But then what can one say about a system that is willing to hear arguments by a member of the Hell's Angel on the grounds that the American government was persecuting him because he was a biker.

Stem Cells and Science

2005-06-24T11:54:00.000-07:00

There are some things that we are told that we should simply accept. For instance we are know that evil pro-life conservatives oppose stem cell research because the Bible tells them to. In fact many critics seem to be convinced that the pro-life movement opposes stem cell research because it wants to see people suffer. Apparently they cannot see why anyone could object to finding cures for disease.

Unfortunately embryonic stem cell research isn't the typical combining of bacteria or chemicals to development treatments. The uncomfortable fact is that it requires the destruction of human life to go forward. Some might argue that the benefits outweigh the costs but that's not really the argument we're having. Rather the debate has devolved to the pro-life movement attempting to make the philosophical defense of human life while the other side keeps asking "Why do you hate sick people?"

Fortunately stem cell research doesn't have to be done with embryos. And as Prolife Blogs points out there are many breakthroughs being made with adult stem cells. Hopefully the reality of science will eventually catch up to the terms of the debate.

Why Can't the Tolerant Tolerate Christians?

2005-06-23T10:33:00.000-07:00

Evangelical Outpost has a brief survey on the increasingly intolerance non-Christians are showing towards those who they feel are too Christian. Apparently Christians are so obviously wrong that we no longer deserve a place in the public square. As Christians gain in prominence in American life it appears that the vitriol is also growing.

The champions of tolerance are also active in Canada. In fact I would suggest that anti-Christian attitudes are much worse north of the 49 parallel. Consider the recent hysterical reports by a major Canadian newspaper that a number of "born-again" Christians have been nominated as candidates for the upcoming federal election. The media did not have dozens of examples of ways in which these candidates were outside of the mainstream. The paper seemed to think it was a self-evident truth that any Christian who wished to get involved in Canadian political life should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Perhaps the larger irony in all of this is that despite the confidence of non-believers the intellectual case for Christianity is in better shape today than it was 50 years ago. As Alister McGrath as recently written we may be witnessing the "Twilight of Atheism" Then again perhaps that explains why Christianity critics are growing ever more shrill.

The Problem with the New Stephen Harper

2005-06-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

Usually when the media gives advice to Stephen Harper it's best read backwards. If the Conservative brain trust watched CTV's Question Period or CBC's Politics and did the opposite of the suggestions given Harper would be in good shape. So I'm a little surprised to be saying this but the pundits are right about Stephen Harper's "Summer of Reinvention."

The plan is to have Harper go on a grand charm offensive on the summer BBQ circuit. We're being told that a new, lighter, happier Harper will been seen from coast to coast. There's only one problem with the plan. Harper is not charming.

I've seen the leader of the Conservative in action numerous times over the last few years and really can't say there's any evidence that Harper can be a charming magnetic personality. He appears to be a nice guy, occasionally a quite funny guy who genuinely care about his family but not the life of the party.

Thus I suspect this new image may fall flat. It's not possible to remake one's personality overnight. Harper is a serious and even brilliant thinker. For some reason the party seems determined to keep that intelligence under wraps. Hopefully someone will rethink this strategy.

It's unlikely that Stephen Harper would ever be on the top of a list of people I'd invite to a party but he's pretty high up on the list of people I'd like to see running the country.

2005-06-17T00:06:00.000-07:00

Batman Begins has been getting a fair amount of praise and it deserves it all. Christopher Nolan has put together a truly wonderful film that comes off far more realistic than one would expect. The cast is very strong and the plot works. Any movie that manages to combine batmobile car chases with profound musings on the nature of justice is a success in my mind and this movie succeeds in full.

Funny Kind of Tolerance

2005-06-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

As the Shotgun notes Henry Morgentaler has been given an honorary degree by the University of Western Ontario. Canada's leading abortionist took the opportunity to praise himself for his humanitarian work. He argued that Canada's high abortion rate is the cause of the dropping crime rate. According to his theory less "unwanted children" has led to less criminals. This theory though widely dissemenated is rather dubious. (Steve Sailer has extensive analysis of the flaws in the theory here.)

Obviously Morgentaler has good reason to seek justifications for his life's crusade to make abortion available without restrictions. Less clear is why the UWO would choose to honor him in the name of tolerance. It's true that you'll find lots of people willing to tolerate Dr. Morgentaler at any university. It's much less likely that you will find much tolerance for those who dissent from the brave new world of the doctor. Try setting up a display that simply shows what abortion is at the University of British Columbia where pro-abortion activists physically attacked pro-life students a few years ago before talking about tolerance.

Preparing the Traditional Sacrifice

2005-06-13T23:33:00.000-07:00

As the polls go south people seem to be increasingly unhappy with Stephen Harper. Indeed if we believe Bourque dozens of would-be leaders are lining up to push Harper out. While there is definite unhappiness at the grassroots level any suggestion of a rebellion is overblown. It would be in keeping with Conservative tradition. That tradition teaches us that when things aren't going well the leader must be sacrificed. Since things often aren't going well the party tends to go through a lot of leaders. Hopefully this time they can hold off.

The reality is that the problems of the party go far beyond Stephen Harper. The man undoubtedly has his liabilities but so does every leader. It's not as though Paul Martin has been dazzling voters recently. The Conservatives number one challenge to is prove that they are ready to govern. A good start would be to stay together when things get a little rough

Quiet Rumblings

2005-06-08T23:16:00.000-07:00

The Liberals seem to be regaining their confidence after their victory on the budget vote and a stream of steadily increasing polls. And why shouldn't they? It appears that there is pretty much nothing that the Liberal Party of Canada can do that would cause the party to lose power. Of course there is still an election to come. Things could always change but if the sponsorship scandal can only outrage Canadians for a few weeks the future of Canada looks grim indeed.

I mean that quite literally. There is reason to doubt if Canada has a future. The recent attention has been on that perennially unhappy province of Quebec as the pundits debate if Bernard Landry's resignation will lead to another referendum. I don't have any insights to add from the West Coast. What I can say is that a western Canadian independence movement is on the verge of roaring into existence. I've talked to a lot of people from the apolitical to highly influential political movers and shakers who are discussing the end of Canada.

The basis for such a movement is already well established in Alberta. Up to now it's only hindrance has been that any would-be leader was pretty much crazy. The next election may change all that. Many who have clung to the idea that the rest of Canada wanted to let the West in are wondering if their faith is about to be permanently shattered.

There is one potential out for those who still dream of Canada. (Of which I count myself on some days) A radical restructuring of the federation to accommodate those who are unwilling to remain in our decayed Trudeaupian state would provide the breathing room necessary. Fortunately there's already someone out there to lead the project. And it appears that he's getting ready for battle.

Should Grewal Go?

2005-06-03T16:54:00.000-07:00

Canadian politics seem to have come down to a few minutes of audiotape and three fairly unsavory sounding men. There has been a lot of comment both sensible and rather less than sensible around Gurmant Grewal's apparent negotiations for a reward in exchange for the votes of his wife and he. There is very little edifying here.

The Liberals have desperately tried to push the focus back to Grewal with rather more success than they really deserve. Even if the tapes have been edited as the government claims it's a fairly irrelevant point. It's possible that Grewal could look worse but I can't see how the two Liberals can escape the picture that has emerged. It's clear that the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and a senior cabinet minister were prepared to do a "deal" to make sure they held to their jobs for a few more months. The lack of character exhibited is depressing.

Yet Grewal also has a certain amount of accounting to do. As someone who's been active in politics in the Lower Mainland I can certainly attest to the fact that Mr. Grewal does not have the best reputation in the province. I don't know that he has broken any laws but he has failed to uphold the highest standards. Paul Martin has already had plenty of time to start cleaning out the Liberals and has failed to do much more than change some of the players. Stephen Harper must do better. It's time to consider if Gurmant Grewal belongs in the Conservative Party caucus.

What the Globe is missing

2005-05-31T00:07:00.000-07:00

The Globe and Mails continuing series on Christians and conservative party nominations is so far missing the really interesting story. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. The vision of a vast conspiracy of scary Christians is too appealing to let reality get in the way. However the real story is pretty interesting too.

The reality is that there are already a lot of social conservatives in the Conservative Party caucus. There's also a reasonable number in the Liberal Party. There's a reason for this- a lot of Canadians hold positions that are considered socially conservative. You wouldn't know this from reading the Globe and Mail but a lot of people refuse to accept that the supposed Canadian censensus is really a consensus. Every election cycle a lot of socially conservative candidates are nominated.

The real significance of the new breed of social conservatives who have been winning nominations is not their extremism but there moderation. I'm not familiar with every candidate given as a example of a fundamentalist takeover but I'm very impressed with those I do know. None of them have entered politics on some kind of jihad trying to force Christian values on Canada. Nor do they wish to enshrine the Bible as law. Rather the qualities that unite them are a high level of education and extensive experience dealing with the challenges of balance Christian beliefs and the public square.

What the new wave of social conservatives shows promise of doing is breaking away from the all or nothing stance of the past. They understand that Canadians don't embrace traditional Christian beliefs. Yet there are many places where a Christians conception of government and society can be accommodated by Canadians and even improve our quality of life. If some of these candidates manage to survive the media storm and make it to the House of Commons it's unlikely that Canada will move any closer to a theocracy. As Canadians find they have more in common is conservative values and social conservatives learn to compromise we just might have a slightly more tolerant and healthy politic. Even without the help of the Globe and Mail.

This is a takeover?

2005-05-29T13:04:00.000-07:00

The Globe and Mail has recently reported on the fact that a number of Christians have won Conservative Party nominations. And then it's reported the story again and again. Essentially it's done the same story four or five times. Their reporting has led to a great deal of mockery from the Conservative side of the blogosphere. All of it is well deserved. After all as Let It Bleed points out even if we take the Globe at face value they've only identified 8 ridings out of 308 where these scary Christians have won nomination races. If there's a vast Christian conspiracy it obviously has a lot of work to do if it's going to take over the Conservative Party any time soon.

However the Globe has problems that go beyond mathematics. Essentially the story is suggesting that any candidate who is identifiably Christian out to be considered suspect. The stories don't provide much evidence that any of the candidates in question are planning to promote a radical agenda if they make it to Parliament Hill. The question of the definition of marriage clearly motivates some but that remains a mainstream position despite the Globe's best efforts. It's fair enough to point out that candidates oppose same-sex marriage but the same is true with many Liberals.

Ultimately the story is unfair because it fails falsely throws a number of candidates together who realistically have no connection beyond a common faith and political party. I don't know much about most of these candidates it may be that some of them are out of the mainstream. However I wouldn't take the Globe's word on it.

Consider, Cindy Silver the candidate in North Vancouver. The evidence that Ms. Silver could have a secret agenda is that she represented some evangelical groups at the Supreme Court in the 1990's and that she was a former counsel to the Christian Legal Fellowship. And she attends church regularly. Obviously someone with a hidden agenda, right? If Ms. Silver is suspect Paul Martin has some work to do in his own caucus since John McKay a Liberal MP from Scarborough is a founder of the Christian Legal Fellowship and current North Vancouver MP Don Bell attends that same church as Ms. Silver. Now one might respond by saying that Mr. Bell and Mr. Mckay have a record that demonstrates that they don't have a hidden agenda. Yet so does Ms. Silver. She was elected as a school trustee in 2002. If her critics can't point to any tangible evidence of any extremism there they'd be much better off keeping quiet.

I suspect that similar cases could be made for many of the others who are supposedly taking over the party. There is no conspiracy here. Each candidate will have to make their own case to their individual ridings and then the people will judge. Christians shouldn't have a different standard than any other candidate. Perhaps the Globe can't see this but hopefully Canadians will.

2005-05-22T23:52:00.000-07:00

It appears that the Star Wars saga is finally complete with the release of the Revenge of the Sith. The final installment is a success in as much that George Lucas so radically lowered the bar with his last two movies. Nonetheless the movie is perfectly enjoyable if rather dark. It's certainly not a perfect movie. The typically great Natalie Portman is not really good at all. But most of all the movie attempts to function as a rebuke to George Bush's America only to fail.

The problem Lucas has is that it is impossible to sell the concept of paficism in the Star Wars universe. After all the Jedi solve a lot of problems through violence. One doesn't get the impression in the original series that the rebels would have been more successful if they'd try to turn the other cheek. Nonetheless Lucas attempts to ram in lessons about moderation and complexity that simply don't fit in. Perhaps the biggest laugh comes when Anakin proclaims that whoever isn't with him is against him in a obvious Bush reference. Yet the budding Darth Vadar is just speaking the truth . Why else would his former allies attempt to kill him. There is a place to make the case that the categories of good and evil are not as simple as we'd like to think. The black and white world of Star Wars is not that place.

And We're Back

2005-05-22T00:39:00.000-07:00

I took an unplanned break from blogging over the last month primarily because I was simply too busy to take the time to write. Of course this means that I missed the chance to remark on all kinds of major events. (Not that there has been any great demand that I add my two cents worth) So here's my quick thoughts on some of the things that happened while I wasn't blogging.

The BC election: I was fairly pleased with the results of the recent election on the West Coast. While the NDP may have made a comeback the Liberal are still firmly in control of the province. Thus I can call off my plans to move to Alberta. While I'm slightly amazed at the numbers of people who voted NDP I wasn't surprised by it. My experience on the ground led me to lots of people who are convinced that Gordon Campbell has destroyed the province despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

STV: By a very thin margin British Colombians rejected electoral reform. As Martha would say this is a good thing. Most voters went into the campaign not understanding the proposed reforms and remained ignorant of the system until voting day. This wasn't really their fault the system happens to be really complicated. The interesting thing is that the more informed voters I talked to tended to be opposed to the change. It was the uninformed voters with the attitude that any change must be good who almost pushed the system through. Undoubtedly the movement for reform will continue but hopefully it will continue with a more informed debate.

Belinda: I admit Belinda's move stunned me. I certainly wasn't a fan nor convinced that she had much of a understanding of conservatism but I did thing she was committed to the party. I could see a defection based on principle or policy disagreements but I cannot respect her decision. I think her sense of morality is going to fit in well with her new party.

The Vote: The immediate consequence of the defection was the failure of the attempt to bring down the government. Obviously a defeat in the technical sense yet not necessarily in the long term. It's true that Canada can't afford much more Liberal rule but this reprieve may give the Conservatives more time to properly prepare to end Liberal hegemony once and for all.

Random Thoughts

2005-05-08T22:04:00.000-07:00

It appears that being really busy is not conducive to writing posts. This does not mean that I haven't had anything to say. Here's a few bite-sized thoughts.

- Do the voters have to care? So far the defining feature of the provincial election is that very few voters seem to really care about the election at all. But is this a bad thing? I suppose one ought to be outraged that the next government of British Columbia is going to be chosen with very little consideration on behalf of voters; however I'm inclined to feel that if the voters don't care it's shouldn't be the politicians' job to make them care.

- Who's for sale? I'd really like to think that Canadians can't be bought. And perhaps many of them can't be. Yet I fear that the Liberals will successfully buy enough of them to cling to power. Every time the Conservatives response to every deal is a promise to respect that deal they give up more and more ground in the battle to define the terms of what Canadian politics can discuss.

- Should the Conservative force an election now? Yes. Not because it's politically wise to do so. (I have doubts that it is.) The time has come to give Canadians another chance to hold the Liberals to account. If the results is a vindication for the Liberals the consequences could be very bad indeed. To back down now would display a lack of resolve to truly take corruption seriously.

Surrendering before the battle

2005-05-01T23:14:00.000-07:00

Professor Bainbridge points to an article which suggests the Republicans are losing the battle for public opinion on virtually every issue. The Democrats would argue that it's simply that the public disagrees with the Republican party yet a closer look at the issue doesn't support such an interpretation. The Republicans are losing because as Kelly notes in the article,

"Democrats benefit enormously from having most of the major media in the tank for them. Although media bias is more egregious than ever, it's not exactly a new phenomenon. You'd think Republicans would be prepared for it by now."

The parallels with Canadian politics are unmistakable. Canada is heading rapidly towards an election. The widespread assumption among Conservatives is that the topic of that campaign will be the deep corruption of the Liberal Party of Canada. And it certainly ought to be but a major problem is emerging. The media appear to be content to report evidence of Liberal corruption and vague fears of a Conservative hidden agenda with equal weight.

The strange thing is that much of the supposed hidden agenda of the Conservative Party is neither party policy nor particularly unpopular. Take for instance health care. A favorite piece of Liberal demogogory is a to charge that Conservatives will turn medicine into a cold-hearted business. Not only has Stephen Harper shied away from anything but mild suggestions of reform of the Medicare system but the Canadian public doesn't really seem to be that alarmed by the prospect of for-profit health. It's hard to stay committed to a system that lets hundreds thousands suffer for months if not years while waiting for surgery.

There's no need to Stephen Harper to bow at the grave of Tommy Douglas. We've seen Paul Martin's idea of a fix- throwing larger and larger amounts of money at the problem. The Conservatives ought to offer a simple promise. It's time to abandon the tired ideology of Medicare and allow the provinces to try innovation. The bottom line ought to be that everyone gets the care they need in a reasonable time. The details don't matter.

Or the Conservatives can follow the lead of the Republicans to the south and find themselves losing a public relations war for lack of trying. Being on the right side doesn't mean we're going to automatically win.

Perspective

2005-04-27T23:22:00.000-07:00

I recently found myself driving through Vancouver's Downtown Eastside on a weekday night after attending an event with a lot of very wealthy people. Being rather not rich myself I was a little out of place but managed to enjoy myself. As I worked my way out of the city I was once again struck by the large number of people on the streets of Vancouver. So many of them with obvious drug problems or other issues. It's a heartbreaking sight.

Unfortunately I don't have any simple answers to their plight. I can't endorse the popular view that more government money would make everyone happy. And I'm highly suspicious of the harm reduction school. The evidence that harm reduction works is very thin despite the hype. Yet it's not acceptable to just blame the victims themselves. Obviously their choices likely contributed to their situation but it's not acceptable to escape all responsibility. There are people working everyday to save people stuck in the devastation of drug addiction. If you have some spare money why not send it Teen Challenge or the Union Gospel Mission?

2005-04-24T23:16:00.000-07:00

It's about time I get around to posting about the first week of the BC election. Sadly I can't say that a lot has really happened yet. Carole James seems to be traveling around the province denouncing everything the Liberals have done yet strangely promising not to reverse any decision made by the Liberals while Gordon Campbell keeps on talking about the economy. From my vantage point it appears that the Liberals are still headed towards a victory but that things a tenuous. There's a marked lack of affection for the government even among those who ought to be strong supporters. People may vote Liberal but it's only because they fear the NDP. Will week two be more interesting? I guess we'll see.

2005-04-21T23:22:00.000-07:00

Paul Martin did his best in a political sense. At this point his only hope is to put off an election as long as possible even at the cost of committing to an election in 8 months. Yet as a leader Martin failed. He accepted responsibility in a pain-free type of way.

Yes, he admitted he ought to have paid more attention but he claimed he needed time to fix the mess. How can we believe this man. It's quite possible that a massive fraud was perpetuated without his knowledge but only due to his diligent effort to remain uninformed. He wants credit for doing the very minimum necessary. I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to praise a Prime Minister for not trying to cover up the scandal. It's great that he's outraged now but he's far to late. The time to cleanse Canada's government has come. Let's not wait any longer.

2005-04-20T22:42:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow night regular programming will be interrupted for a brief appearance by Paul Martin. We're told he will make an important commitment but not prorogue Parliament or resign. Apparently his main goal will be to speak directly to the Canadian people without the media filter. Indeed no reporters will be allowed to ask questions. After all pesky questions could muddy the important message of Paul Martin and the Liberals which as far as I understand it is an interesting variation on John Kerry's invocation of the rule "You broke it, you fix it." Of course Kerry was arguing that Bush had mishandled Iraq horribly and ought to be replaced but who's following the details. I'm sure the Liberal campaign team is putting together the ads that will expose Stephen Harper's hidden agenda to find the "One Ring" and create an army of orcs. I'm less sure that Paul Martin is serious about dealing with any issue other than clinging to the power he has sought for so long.

2005-04-18T23:40:00.000-07:00

For the next few weeks my posting may be even lamer and less frequent than normal as I spend much of my waking hours fighting the socialist hordes. Tomorrow the writ will be dropped for BC's provincial election. My position is fairly simple. While Gordon Campbell and the Liberals are far from perfect the NDP is a proven disaster. Electing Carole James now would undo all the hard-won progress made over the last four years. The economy has finally turned around and BC is finally moving ahead. British Columbia is too beautiful to let the socialist turn into a rundown haven. I'll post updates as the battle progresses.

2005-04-16T22:53:00.000-07:00

As the polls continue to look grim for the Liberals the wild speculation has really heated up. The rumour that I personally find most amusing is the idea that the Liberals could just turn the government over to the Conservatives without an election. This appears to be thought promoted by Liberals who I assume have been reading their history books.

The precendent for this change in government back to the 1920's. The Liberals were clinging to a power with a minority government following an election where a major scandal wiped away many seats. As the scandal intensified William Lyon Mackenzie King went to the Governor General, Lord Byng to ask for an election. Lord Byng refused to dissolve Parliament, instead he chose to ask the Conservatives to form government. After a rocking start the Conservative government also fell resulting in an election in which King campaigned against the interference of the Governor General in the political process and won a majority. Liberals who think that a somewhat similar trick can be used against Stephen Harper seem to ignore that fact that Harper's inner circle has a very good grasp on Canadian political history. Indeed one might see it as stronger than that of many currently in the PMO.

Where are we going?

2005-04-14T23:03:00.000-07:00

The momentum towards an election seems to be continuing to gain force. Several polls over the last week have found the Conservatives leading the Liberals. Except for a brief time during the last campaign the Conservatives have trailed the Liberals in every poll since 1993. More importantly the Liberal collapse seems to be solidifying. Obviously a week is not enough time to judge how long the anger will last but there are some signs that a Liberal revival is not near.

So what's next. There's still a few weeks of testimony to go at the Gomery commission. Perhaps the magic witness will emerge to vindicate the Liberal Party or to pull Paul Martin to the center of the scandal but the more likely outcome if several more witnesses who have convenient memory lapses. But as more and more witnesses reluctantly give credence to the overall scope of the accusations against the Liberal Party Paul Martin will need to come up with a better response than nothing has been proved yet.

Does this mean Stephen Harper should start packing up Stornaway? I'd like to think so but there is still several things that could keep the Conservatives on the opposition benches. One hopes that the party can avoid the dangers but I'm still prepared to be pessimistic. One doesn't want to underestimate the Conservatives ability to mess up oppurtunities.

What's he hiding?

2005-04-13T22:20:00.000-07:00

Facing an ever more embarrassing set of questions rising from the Gomery Inquiry Paul Martin is tiring of denying that the Liberal Party had nothing to do with it. That's not surprising. Even he must recognize that his suggestion that only a very small number of "bad Liberals" were involved is quite a leap of faith. Thus today in question period he tried a new tack- asking his own questions of Stephen Harper.

Of course a cynical person might find Martin's accusation of a hidden agenda on health care to be a little tired. After all we've being hearing about the secret Alliance/Conservative plan for a long time. And at this point a lot of Canadians are probably hoping that someone does have a secret plan to fix health care because Paul Martin's strategy of pouring ever largely sums of money into the pot isn't really working.

One might also be struck as the great Andrew Coyne was about the exact nature of the questions Martin was avoiding. The Conservatives were asking if Martin had lied to the Gomery commission about his relationship with Claude Boulay, one of the key figures in the scandal. Martin claimed to have never really met the man. Testimony at the commission contradicts that claim. One would think that a Prime Minister eager to clear his party of the stench of corruption would be quick to explain the contradiction. His failure to do so ought to alarm those Liberals who think Martin can escape the scandal.

2005-04-12T23:58:00.000-07:00

One amusing side-note to Adscam is the number of provincial Liberal parties considering a name change. So far the musing has come from the Alberta and Manitoba wings neither of which is a particularly serious party. Yet one wonders if a name change could be in the future of the BC Liberals. After all the BC Liberals and the Liberal Party of Canada are not at all interchangeable. The party is a coalition between federal Liberals and federal Conservatives. So much so that the NDP has accused the party of being too far to the right and urged federal Liberals to switch to the NDP.

So it's interesting to watch Carole James try to tie the BC Liberals to the federal scandal. It's a little hard to buy that the party is the Conservative Party in disguise and ought to bear the stigma of the federal party at the same time. Someone is going to have to explain to Carole that you have to keep your talking points straight. Attacking on both sides of an issue may be harmful to your own credibility.

When to go

2005-04-11T23:54:00.000-07:00

With the release of two polls both showing the Liberal Party support in free-fall there seems to be increasing reason for Stephen Harper to go to the public in an election. Though both polls find large majorities against forcing an election now I don't think those numbers are significant. I simply cannot picture a voter who's furious about the sponsorship scandal but who votes Liberal because he's mad that the Conservatives forced an election.

There's a good argument to be made for waiting until Gomery finishes his hearings in May. With lots more potentially devastating testimony to come there's no reason for the Conservatives to go into an election before the public hears as much of the sordid story as possible. However once the hearings are finished there potentially will be a both good political and moral reasons to let the Canadian people speak.

Man overboard

2005-04-09T16:36:00.000-07:00

It appears that not every Liberal is ready to jump to the defense of the party. David Kilgour the Liberal MP from Edmonton had this to say:

"If you draw up a thing to make people want to vomit, this is it," said Kilgour. "This is everything to make you sick to the stomach. You can mumble the line, 'It's about a few people,' but there's really nothing you can say."

At least the man's honest. Kilgour says he's either going to retire or cross the floor. Will others follow his lead? Which MPs will jump ship before it sinks?

A Turning Point?

2005-04-07T22:43:00.001-07:00

There's outrage in the air. The blogosphere is buzzing and the talk line radio callers are red hot with anger. Of course that's pretty much always true. This time, however, things should be different. The big question is will it be?

I found myself yelling at my TV as CBC played clips from people on the street across Canada. The general response to the new allegations seemed to be a collective yawn. All politicians are corrupt, etc. It will be a few days before we can really start to tell what impact the sponsorship scandal has had on the Canadian public but I fear that the outrage will never really materialize.

We ought to recognize this is not a normal scandal. This is not an isolated incident involving a couple of people stepping over the line. The evidence before the commission suggests it was a wide ranging conspiracy to use government money for the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada involving large amounts of taxpayers money. If the Canadian people do not rise up in horror we're in danger of losing the tradition of honesty so important to a functional democracy. There's a reason why as imperfect as it is that government in Canada works better than most of the world.

In no small part its a function of the basic honesty of most government officials. From time to time someone will break the rules and occasionally get away with it. We're now at a crucial turning point. Will Canada stand up in outrage or just give a collective shrug? The answer to that question is fundamental to our future.

2005-04-07T13:35:00.000-07:00

With the partial lifting of the publication ban we can finally start to consider the remarkable testimony at the Gomery Commission. Various media sources are putting out much of the details including the Globe and Mail, Canadian Press, CBC, CTV, and the Toronto Star. Read in horror.

Bold new political forces

2005-04-06T17:48:00.000-07:00

While we wait to find out if the federal government will fall the lucky people in BC are guarenteed at least one trip to the polls this spring with a provincial election set for May 17. The good news is that there should be lots of comic relief from the many, many fringe parties out there. There's list of those registered available here. Some of my early favorites include the Work Less Party, the Platinum Party and the Party of citizens who have decided to think for themselves and be their own politicians (how can you not love a party that declares "Libertarianism is a neo-fascist ideology" and notes that anarchists are "correctly regarded as political nut cases.")

How to keep the Liberals honest

2005-04-05T12:20:00.000-07:00

Small Dead Animals reports that the Alberta Liberal Party leader Kevin Taft is suggesting that the provincial Liberals might have to change their name in light of the new revelations of the sponsorship scandal. Kate kindly attempts to help the party out by calling on her readers to offer suggestions of new names.

Personally I'm a little surprised they didn't think of this tactic earlier. After all we can all be pretty sure that the Alberta Liberals aren't corrupt since they haven't been anywhere close to government in the past 75 years. Perhaps this is the secret for an honest Liberal party- keep them away from the government. After all I'm sure a 10-15 interval in opposition would nicely shake out most of the oppotunists from the federal Liberals.

The Company They Keep

2005-04-04T15:36:00.000-07:00

Led by everyone's favorite Liberal blogger/Jean Chretien staffer Warren Kinsella the Liberals have suddenly gained a whole new respect for the Gomery commission. The new received wisdom is that to have an election now would be a terrible disservice to the Canadian people who have the whole picture. Which as their lawyer argued today will put this all in perspective.

And so it shall. I think we can all grant that not everyone Liberal party worker and MP is corrupt. There are many people in the Liberal party who are decent and conscientious servants trying to do what's best for the country. Yet this is more a cause for disappointment than a vindication of the party. The reality is that these decent people have allied themselves with a deeply cynical group of operators who's view of ethics is merely do not get caught. Paul Martin may be genuinely outraged but that's only because facts which he has been studiously ignoring have finally broke free. I agree that the facts are still being unturned but anyone who believes that the Liberal Party will be vindicated has clearly ignored everything we now know. It's time to ask if ignorance is really a defense.

Is the Day of Reckoning Nigh?

2005-04-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

At some point in the relatively near future Canada is going to face an election. The issue of that election is going to be whether or not Canadians really care about honest government. The Gomery commission is providing unmistakable evidence that the Liberal Party of Canada has a culture of corruption that extends to the core of the party. While there's no reason to believe that Paul Martin himself has been part of that rot he seems to have to willing enough to accommodate it. The question Canadians are going to have to answer if whether or not they're willing do the same.

Of course Canadians already had one chance to deliver a verdict on the sponsorship scandal. Quebeckers made a clear statement that they would not stand for the blatant theft of their money. The rest of Canada was less willing to make a stand. To be fair there were other issues that matter to people. However this next election can only be about one thing and that's how much "Have you had enough?" Undoubtedly the Liberals will try to change the subject. They'll say that the corruption is all in the past and oh look Stephen Harper is scary.

It's going to be the job of not just the Conservative Party but all those who believe that corruption is not just how business is done to remind Canadians why the Liberals must go. For instance if Paul Martin is committed to breaking free from the grim past why did he just appoint the ethically challenged Art Eaggleton to the Senate? It's time for the Liberals day of reckoning. Let's make sure that they don't escape again.

2005-04-03T01:38:00.000-08:00

A certain American blogger has posted details from someone who claimed to have inside the Gomery Commission. I wasn't there and obviously can't comment on anything that I've heard about the testimony due to the fact that I don't really want to go to jail. I will say that the reading sounds similar to what other sources have told me.

John Paul II

2005-04-02T15:31:00.000-08:00

There are very few people who had has much impact on the 20th Century as Pope John Paul II. I am a Christian though not a Catholic yet I have enormous respect for the life and work of this man. He made extraordinary sacrifices and dared to do bold things. There's not much more to say than may he rest in peace and may we be inspired by his example.

All fall down

2005-04-02T11:23:00.000-08:00

As Small Dead Animals reports rumours flying around the political world last night suggest the Gomery Commission may be on the verge of bringing down the government. While we'll have to wait for either an end for the publication ban or someone to come up with a clever way of getting around that ban if the rumours that I'm hearing from reliable sources are even remotely close to the testimony the Liberal Party of Canada is going to have an incredibly tought election. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

2005-04-01T16:14:00.000-08:00

As John Paul II is apparently nearing his end on the earth the various news networks have went to all John Paul all the time. The coverage is undoubtedly warranted for a truly great man. I did find it a little odd when CNN took time out in their discussion of the phrase "culture of life" to explain how the Pope's use of the word was very different from George W. Bush. Apparently the Pope was concerned about people in every stage of life unlike Bush who only uses the word to cynical get votes. I'm glad I have CNN to let me know these things or else I might of thought that the Pope thought that abortion was more of tragedy than social programs. Oh well I suppose it's hard to turn all the bias off.

Hiss and Chambers

2005-03-31T21:41:00.000-08:00

While channel surfing tonight I came across a documentary on Alger Hiss on History Television. The story of Alger Hiss is probably less well known than it ought to be. Without the context that a very senior American civil servant was caught working for the Soviets it makes no sense to discuss Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his famous crusade against communism. Yet I suspect that most of my generation have no clue who Alger Hiss was. Unfortunately they also don't know who Whittaker Chambers was. The story of Hiss the spy who everyone loved and Chambers the ex-communist who refused to hide the truth is one of the most important of the 20th Century.

As the documentary noted Chambers seemed like someone made to be a villain while the elegant Hiss seemed like an "improbable spy." Hiss did spend time in prison for his treason but he continued to find enormous support among many of the "beautiful people." Chambers was ostracized for his willingness to tell the truth. He left Communism in despair believing that the West could not prevail. Yet he joined the "losing side" because he was convinced it was the right one. We have yet to confront the story of the West and Communism but perhaps the future will bring an evaluation of the past and Whittaker Chambers were will the honor he deserves.

2005-03-31T17:08:00.000-08:00

Soxblog on the death of Terri Shiavo and what it means for the rest of us:

"It’s a tragedy that countless lives have been lost to date because society has yet to entirely come around regarding life’s intrinsic value. But such is the sweep of history. Generations of African Americans were enslaved, often by the greatest men of their eras like Washington and Jefferson, because the insight that slavery was wrong had not yet pervaded American society. Sadly, these things take time, time measured in decades not weeks. So our fight continues. Terri Schiavo, rest in peace."

"No joy"

2005-03-30T22:55:00.000-08:00

Terri Schiavo's death seems have provoked comment from everyone who has an opinion. From those who argue vigorously that her death is essentially the equivalent of murder to those who insist that the actions of Congress are the harbinger of a theocratic state the debate has become exceedingly nasty.

My own opinions are tentative but highly sympathetic to keeping Terri alive. Blogger Stephen Green leans the other way yet manages but makes an important point about the politicalization of Terri:

I get no joy from her death. I get no satisfaction from "my side" "winning" the "debate." All I see is a sad end to a sad life – and none of it had to be this way. I hear a lot of sound and fury about how Terry represents some noble ideal to some crowd or other.

Perhaps we ought to remember Kant's categorical imperative that we ought not to treat people merely as ends. I do think there's much that ought to be debated here but it appears that questions of life and death are being overwhelmed by the need for everyone to choose sides and root for their team. This is one case where we'd be much better off if we could leave our politics at the door.

Uncomfortable reminders

2005-03-30T15:16:00.000-08:00

As the Liberals continue to push same-sex marriage through the House of Commons they keep running into uncomfortable reminders that they're not quite as mainstream as they think they are. For instance a highly placed Sikh leader is speaking out to remind Sikh MPs as to how they ought to be voting. Let it Bleed is waiting for someone to speak out against this attempt at theocracy. Fortunately for any hardy anti-religious warrior there's lots of groups to fight against. My main concern is that they might be a little disillusioned to learn that the rest of the world is not quite on board with the re-invention as marriage as one would think from reading Canadian media.

What is the value of life anyways?

2005-03-30T00:00:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the biggest question that the Schiavo case presents is that of what makes a life worth living. The reason that the polls favour pulling the feeding tube is that most people can't imagine a life in Terri's situation being worthwhile. But as Asymmetrical Information notes its not so easy to make that judgment:

"Disability rights people are arguing no, with some support from cognitive scientists. People think that life will be unbearable in such circumstances, but the fact is that both quadrepalegics and lottery winners, after an initial period of adjustment, are roughly as happy as they were before their lives changed. In a rich society like ours, happiness is set by some sort of brain thermostat, not whether we can play basketball or buy a yacht."

One doesn't have to think that the tube should have not been removed to feel some concern about where we're headed. In a highly narcissistic society we do our best to avoid unpleasantness. The wonders of modern medicine allow us to escape some of the horrors of the past yet leave us ever more uncomfortable about those we cannot escape.

There's a reason disability groups have been vocal about the life and death of Terri Schiavo. They're wondering if we have room in a world obsessed with a form of perfection for those who fall short.

Who's stupid here?

2005-03-28T19:11:00.000-08:00

One popular button at the Conservative Convention in Montreal was the Western Standard's "It's the stupid charter." Not perhaps the most politic slogan out there but rather refreshing compared to the insulting "It's the charter, stupid" sported at the Liberal convention.

Laurent suggests a much superior slogan that really ought to be the mantra of any Conservative who talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - "Read the Charter, stupid" At this point Canadians appear to be convinced that the Charter was an unmitigated good. Ironically many of those who helped to create it are rather less excited by its impact. Conservative rants against the Charter are unlikely to get anywhere. A more promising approach is for Conservatives to claim the mantle of the Charter for the conservative cause. It's time to look at the Charter in context of Canadian history. Rather than a magic document that creates rights it's best seen as an affirmation of rights that are grounded in the common law.

The Liberals have repeatedly used the Charter to justify all kinds of actions which are a matter of interpretation not plain fact. Until Conservative start to challenge this Liberal mythology the Charter will remain a weapon in the hands of the Liberals. There's no reason we can't take that weapon from them.

Links

2005-03-28T15:49:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn writes a column that best expresses my feeling on the life and death of Terri Schiavo. He looks at the issue in its broader context in The Strange Death of the Liberal West. In both pieces he asked if the West has lost its respect for life.
Russ Douthat explores some of the apparent inconsistencies in the pro-life arguments.
In yet another piece on the Culture of Life Jeremy Lott reports on the stirring of the abortion debate in the UK. It's worth considering that the current restrictions on abortion in the UK are much stricter than those in either Canada or the US.
Andrew Coyne continues his discussion on the state of conservatism in the Conservative Party.
Hack and Wonks deconstructs a letter from the President of the Young Liberals on Canada without breaking much of a sweat.

2005-03-25T11:56:00.000-08:00

Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit

John 19:28-30

Is this defensible?

2005-03-24T12:59:00.000-08:00

After months of delay Paul Martin has finally named 9 new Senators. Reportedly the reason for the delay was an attempt by the Martin brain trust to figure out a way to make the appointments without causing mass outrage among those who stubbornly object to the practice of appointing our "representatives." It was probably with these complaints in mind that Romeo Daillaire was appointed. On the other hand I can't really begin to think who could imaginethat Art Eggleton was in any way acceptable. The Shotgun gives a helpful reminder as to why Eggleton is a former cabinet minister. Is this really the face the the Liberal Party wants to remind us of?

Still skeptical

2005-03-23T17:15:00.000-08:00

A new blog STV for BC is making the case in favour of a yes vote in the upcoming election. It generously links to this post of mine as one of those in opposition to STV. If you're interested in the issues behind STV the site provides a lot of information and arguments in favour of reform.

As for me I remain firmly unconvinced. It's not that the arguments STV for BC attempts to refute are extremely strong. I'll concede that in a purely abstract way STV is more democratic than first-past-the-post. However we don't live in an abstract world and in the real world STV remains a bad idea.

I have a hyper-political circle of acquaintances who seem to be rather split on the system. Some are strongly in favour with the rest being too confused or bored to develop a strong opinion. I recently was speaking with one friend who's currently a political science student who confessed to me that despite several explanations she still didn't understand how STV would work. There's other concerns that I'll raise in the future but my main concern has really not been addressed by any proponent as far as I'd seen. Instituting a system the voters don't understand cannot improve democracy.

A reply to Andrew Coyne

2005-03-23T13:45:00.000-08:00

While most of the commentary about the convention has been highly positive not everyone is prepared to get aboard the train. Unsurprising Andrew Coyne is prepared to play the contrarian proclaiming:

The conservative era in Canadian politics -- the age, beginning roughly in 1988, which conservative parties were prepared to deviate, however fitfully, from the prevailing Liberal orthodoxy -- has at last been extinguished. There is no longer any party at any level of government that has any intention of leading public opinion, or making changes to the status quo -- not, that is, in the direction of smaller government or greater personal freedom. The choice, rather, is between parties that are eager to expand the state, and parties that will do so reluctantly. And everyone couldn't be happier about it.

In short Coyne admits that the result may be fine for pure partisans of the party but was a disaster for those who want a conservative Canada. Its an argument worthy of consideration. The decision of the Conservatives to cede a great deal of ground to the Liberals allows the governing party to have more control over the debate than they ought. However like it or not the party never appeared to be ready to challenge the basic presuppositions of Canadians. It's clearly better to accept a moderate position rather than run another campaign where the party runs from accusations of extremism without even trying to defend those apparently extreme positions.

Moreover I think Coyne missed the mood of the delegates in Montreal. The crowd was a "blue Tory" crowd. The policies are best seen as an embrace of incrementalism. Rather than attempting to transform every area of Canada at once the party has accepted some elements of Trudeaupia in order to gain the credibility to rewrite others. There may be flaws in this line of thinking but it's hard to see how losing another two or three elections would advance the conservative cause.

Winners and Losers

2005-03-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

Before I moved on from the Conservative Convention I wanted to give a quick round-down of who impressed and who did not.

Impressed:

John Baird, MPP- The Ontario Legislative member gave one of the best speeches of the convention. His speech was highly engaging and firmly committed to small-c conservatism. I'm not all enthused by the thought of a John Tory led government but the fact that it would include John Baird makes the prospect much more appealing.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, President of the Montreal Economic Institute- Ironically it was a Quebecer who gave the most conservative speech of the weekend. He boldly made the case that Canada has a strongly conservative heritage and that Quebec itself is open to a re-thinking of many of the old tired lines of Trudeaupia. It's in voices such as Kelly-Gagnon that the Conservatives have an opportunity to move forward in La Belle Province.

Rona Ambrose- Unlike the highly overrated Belinda Stronach, Ambrose truly is exciting. She's very smart and articulate. Even though she doesn't have a massive fortune behind her I think she'll go far.

Losers:

Peter Mackay- As some previous posts may have suggested Mackay did not impress. He gave two good speeches but spent far too much of weekend causing fires. Regardless of the rightness of some of his position his actions did more than anyone to nearly derail a highly successful convention.

Saying No to Youth

2005-03-21T21:51:00.000-08:00

To the media's great disappointment the Conservative's convention failed to produce any massive disputes over social policy. The delegates split the difference by opposing same-sex marriage and accepting the status quo on abortion. Not everyone was happy with the results (myself included) but the debate was respectful and the losers generally showed grace in defeat.

The one issue that really brought the passion out was the vote on creating a youth wing. There were three proposals (created named Options A, B, and C) put forward ranging from creating a full-fledged youth wing similar to the old PCYF to following the Alliance tradition of rejecting organized youth wings. In the end delegates narrowly voted against a youth wing. The result left many young delegates in tears. Wandering around the floor I heard one group asking why the party had rejected youth.

The reality is that the Conservatives did not reject youth involvement in politics simply the structure put forward in Option A. This was not a case of older delegates looking to keep those young people in their place. The opposition to a youth wing was driven by young Conservatives including 20-something MPs Jeremy Harrison and Pierre Polievere and a large contingent of youth activists. Alberta, the province that voiced the largest opposition to a youth wing, probably had the youngest delegation of anyone with 1 in 4 delegates being under the age of 40.

The rejection of the youth wing does not mean that the party won't encourage campus clubs or that it can't develop outreach programs for youth. It does mean that it won't create a large new structure where youth interested in politics can pour their energy into fighting each other rather than building a successful Conservative Party. Adam Radwanski's experience with the Young Liberals provides plenty of evidence that the Conservatives made the right choice:

"Frankly, the youth wings that I belonged to were the lowest of the low within the party not because of a lack of seniority, but because the politics practiced there was the ugliest, most vicious and most pointless sort imaginable. Kids would enter keen to Make A Difference, and within a matter of months be so consumed with aggressive politicking that they'd become ambitious little twerps who were only concerned with screwing each other over in the most creative ways possible."

Convention aftermath

2005-03-21T12:31:00.000-08:00

For all those following the convention through the media the stories following the convention have to be a little surprising. After two days of coverage talking about division the post-convention coverage was some of the most positive I've ever seen the Conservatives get. And I think it was correct to assert that people left feeling united and hungary to be government. Of course I would argue that sentiment ought to have been obvious from the start but it's nice that it was finally acknowledged.

As for Peter Mackay I think he caused some serious damage to his political ambitions. While he was able to demonstrate he has a certain following in the party he did so at the cost of the alienating many other delegates. Yes the delegates voted against the resolutions he opposed but they did so in order to preserve unity. Only a minority of delegates agreed with Mackay's arguments but peace was more important. A lot of people I know left Montreal with serious questions about Mackay's judgment and determined to not support Mackay in any future leadership race.

Still waiting for the outrage

2005-03-18T20:30:00.000-08:00

Apparently Peter MacKay feels that the Conservative Party's future is in danger because of the minor changes to the formula for the leadership vote. Yet somehow the level of outrage among the delegates not named Stronach or MacKay is remarkably contained. Actually I haven't talked to anyone here who's even mildly concerned about the motion. Apparently John Reynolds is promising that it won't pass. I certainly wouldn't bet on its defeat. Essentially the motion simply requires that riding associations have a 100 members to be on par with ridings with 2000. While one can understand that Mr. MacKay's leadership strategy was designed to include finding five people in rural Quebec to form an association rather than on winning over the 1000+ members in Calgary ridings but this amendment really won't change too much.

The more interesting thing in my mind is that MacKay is rather alone in his perceptions of doom. The mood at Stephen Harper's speech tonight was overwhelmingly positive even from members who are rarely impressed with the leader. As long as the delegates stay away from the news the mood will likely continue to be upbeat.

Saved by the media

2005-03-18T11:32:00.000-08:00

Despite having spent the day at the Conservative convention I have to turn to the media to learn how it's going. For instance without the media I would have thought that things we going quite well. Delegates seem to be remarkably united compared to what one expects of Conservatives. Over and over again I've heard conversations about how the party needs to ensure it has a broad base so that it can will elections. And its not just for show. Most delegates appear to accept that some compromises need to be made. Of course not everyone agrees. And the media seems to be very adapt at finding every single disgruntled delegate and putting a camera in their face.

From the media I've learned that things are very fractious. It's not that there hasn't been some heated debates. For instance one constitution amendments which was approved at a workshop this morning would adjust the formula used in leadership elections so that ridings with less that 100 members would only have as many points as they had voters. Despite Peter Mackay's arguments against it the formula makes sense. Moreover the session soundly rejected a one-member-one-vote system out of deference to the concerns of regional equality. Despite Mackay's apparent outrage the rest of the convention goers seem to be not particularly ruffled. Perhaps the outrage has taken off since I've been back in my hotel but I have my doubts.

Fortunately the media is there to correct these and others misconceptions or else I might be optimistic about this party.

Live from Montreal

2005-03-16T21:35:00.000-08:00

Fighting on the Beaches has embarked on its first investigative report by travelling to Montreal for the founding convention of the Conservative Party of Canada. I'll be reporting back frequently with observations. Or not.

2005-03-15T17:23:00.000-08:00

Justice Scalia offers some advice that Canadian judges and political activists would be well-advised to consider.

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."
"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

via the Shotgun

"Liberal accusations and Conservative denials"

2005-03-14T20:48:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot of talk as to whether Stephen Harper's recent moves are a part of a strategic plan to trap the Liberals or simply the mess they appear to be. Paul Wells' latest column comes down firmly on the side of mess. Wells is persuasive when he argues that the Liberals will try to run the next election on the same platform they run the last two on: "only the Liberals can save Canada from a profoundly creepy bunch of wing nuts."

Wells is reasonable enough to admit that such accusations aren't really fair but he's absolutely right that such scruples won't stop Paul Martin from pulling them out for the next campaign. The Conservatives have put far too much energy into hoping Liberal fearmongering will just go away and that if they just play it safe Stephen Harper will soon be moving into 24 Sussex Drive. They ought to heed Wells' conclusion:

"Harper's big mistake, so far, is believing he can bore his way into power. The Liberals have no intention of letting him get that boring. He needs a plan for government that's way more distinct from Grit policy than anything he's managed lately. He needs a team that looks ready to move into the Prime Minister's Office and all those ministers' offices. If the next campaign is about Liberal accusations and Conservative denials, it will end the way the last two did."

2005-03-14T12:07:00.000-08:00

Small Dead Animals points out the recent investments announced in the military are rather less than advertised. This news isn't a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the government's attitudes to the Armed Forces. It has long been clear that the government understands that every self-respecting nation has a military thus Canada ought to have one too. What they don't seem to be able to grasp is that fact that the military has to be equipped in order to be of any use. For a lot of countries this would be a serious problem but for a nation under the American security blanket it's just another quiet surrender of Canadian sovereignty by its supposed champions.

More thoughts on Conservative strategy

2005-03-12T23:15:00.000-08:00

Conservatives in Canada face a dilemma. To be blunt there's not enough of them to win elections in Canada. Moreover it appears that a large number of Canadians are actively hostile to conservative ideas and principles. For some conservatives this merely proves that most Canadians are simply to dim to see the light. For those of us who'd like to win elections and see the cause advanced this is a larger concern.

For some the answer is for the Conservative Party to move to the center. I happen to think such calls are highly misguided. From a business strategy standpoint merely copying the competition almost invariably fails. The Liberals have spent a lot of time trying to lay claim to the "center." If the Conservative Party offers basically the same platform as the Liberals its going to find it very hard to ever win other voters.

There is one way the copycat strategy could work. Occasionally the Liberals reach a level of either corruption of incompetence so high that Canadians start looking for an alternative. At this point the Conservative Party is perfectly positioned to win. The flaws in such a strategy ought to be pretty obvious. Essentially it leaves the Conservatives at the mercy of the Liberals level of competence. Secondly it calls on the party to abandon most of the people who currently support it. Any business plan that starts by calling on the business to abandon its current customers should be treated suspiciously.

An alternative strategy is to grow the market. The Conservative Party should be looking at policies that will appeal to a broad section of Canadians who don't realize they that they hold conservative values. There a large numbers of Liberal voters who could be won over but not by imitating the Liberals.

I happen to think that a coalition of based on families, blue collar workers, rural communities, immigrant communities and the business community could be put together. The question is whether the party will ever make the attempt.

Links

2005-03-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

My posting has been a little sparse lately as my life seems to have suddenly become much busier but I'm still here for anyone who was wondering about me. Fortunately other people have been writing interesting things:

Mark Steyn looks at the rapidly growing, highly begrudging George W. Bush fan club
Andrew Coyne writes an absolutely brilliant column on one of the forbidden subjects of Canadian politics.
The Weekly Standard looks at the Los Angelous Times's interesting take on North Korea.
The government promises not to forces religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. Obviously we can trust them. Then again maybe not.
Let It Bleed considers Tom Axworthy's defense of the gun registry and finds it far off target.

Being more than a copy-cat

2005-03-09T00:25:00.000-08:00

Steve Martinovich points out that the NCC is warning that the Conservative Party is moving to far to the center. Martinovich appears to have the same worries. Of course various party officials are popping up to deny that the party is anything other than whatever you want it to be.

I'm still willing to see where the party goes at the upcoming convention in Montreal. Yet there is always a large number of commentators and political "experts" who insist that the key to power is to move to the center. How far to the center you might ask? As far as I can tell the answer is to keep on moving.

I don't deny that that party has to adopt mainstream opinions. After all we're not going to win elections if the vast majority of people disagree with your policies. However becoming a pale copy of the Liberals may be a flawed strategy. The Liberals have already cornered that market.

To look at the situation from more of a marketing strategy it makes no sense for the Conservatives to go after exactly the "market" or voters as the Liberals. Instead the Conservatives need to offer an unique product which will appeal to a different group of people. Among other things this means the Conservatives cannot jettison every social conservative. Rather it ought to be creating a platform that can appeal to a broad section of Canadians. The crucial point is that this group is not identical to Liberal voters. Obviously the party must appeal to those who have voted Liberal in the past. Yet the key has to presenting something distinct.

I think that the Canadian blogosphere could play a valuable role in developing some of the ideas that could provide that distinction.

Vindication for the Bush Doctrine?

2005-03-07T16:17:00.000-08:00

Patrick Ruffini calls it "The complete and total vindication of the Bush Doctrine." What he is referring to is the stunning moves to democracy that appear to be breaking out throughout the Middle East. Ruffini cites Fareed Zakaria's current Newsweek article as evidence that the Bush Administration ought to be given a great deal of the credit for what we're seeing in the Middle East.

Now it's unlikely that everything will continue to go smoothly. The doubters can pretty much count on all kinds of things going wrong in the future because that's the nature of humanity. But Bush's invasion in of Iraq was successful in destroying the old assumptions. What Bush was able to see even though so many others were not is that change is possible.

Conservatism has a long tradition dating back to Burke which argues that progress is possible but not inevitable. There's certainly room for debate as to whether the American invasion was a conservative move but I think it was to the extent that it recognized that the preservation of American security demanded a more peaceful Middle East. That peace could only be achieved through an dramatic act. It appears that the bet is paying off.

Does anyone care?

2005-03-06T21:05:00.000-08:00

Following the fallout from Paul Martin's decision to reject missile defense there's been a fair amount of commentary asking if the Americans still like Canada. Being as this is Canada there's a fair contingent willing to argue that the disapproval of the Americans ought to be worn as a badge of honor while others are rather more concerned. However I think much of the discussion is missing the key question. The issue isn't so much approval as respect.

The sad reality which many Canadians do not grasp is that Canada does not have to matter. We may take up a lot of space but the 30 million Canadians represent a pretty small chunk the world's population. Yet for much of the 20th century Canada had a disproportionate amount of influence in the world. Not quite as much as Canadiana fans sometimes insist but Canada did once matter. Yet with a nearly terminally weakened military and incoherent foreign policy that influence is gone.

A favorite slogan is "The world needs more Canada." It doesn't appear that the world feels the same way. Perhaps Canada's fate is to slowly slip far into the background while Canadian politicians pretend that it isn't happening.

Life with Martha

2005-03-06T10:53:00.000-08:00

Tim Blair notes a brave television reporter who is taking the risky step of spending a day with Martha Stewart as she begins her house arrest. Apparently "Inside Edition" will be broadcast live from the Stewart home. Tim seems a little dismissive of the exercise but here at Fighting on the Beaches we salute the brave people at "Inside Edition."

Now if any television producer out there is looking for a similarly brave reporter I think I could be your man. While main only appearances on TV have been all rather random I think I have the essential courage needed to visit wealthy people who can't leave their homes. I'm also wiling to investigate the dangers of beaches all over the world.

What's wrong with this picture?

2005-03-05T21:08:00.000-08:00

Now I'm generally pretty friendly towards the US. Compared to a lot of Canadians I'm crazily pro-American. But I'm not blindly in favour of the Americans. In particular I'm very unhappy with fact that the American border has been shut to Canadian cattle for over a year. The closure has caused enormous damage to rural Western Canada. Ironically it's probably hurt the most pro-American segment of Canada the hardest.

The border was supposed to open on Monday but an injuction has delayed the opening. While that decision may be overturned there is also a move afoot to continue to restrict imports. What ought to make a lot of Canadians take pause is which American politicians are against Canada and who is by default Canada's best friend. (Hint: He's the guy who's missile defense program we just rejected.)

2005-03-05T20:10:00.000-08:00

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."

Winston Churchill

2005-03-05T18:06:00.000-08:00

Well it's official, after voting against it three times, the Liberal Party now supports same-sex marrige. Does this mean we can look forward to legalized prostitution in 6 years?

On the other hand perhaps they should ignore us

2005-03-01T22:38:00.000-08:00

Professor Bainbridge notes that Condi has cancelled her trip to Ottawa in wake of the decision to opt out of Missile Defense and suggests "I suspect nothing annoys Canadians more than being ignored by the US."

I have to admit I'm more concerned that the Americans are paying attention to Canadian attitudes towards the US. For years Canadians have railed against their American neighbours for all kinds of reasons. Some of these are fairly legitimate; others rather less so. Personally I happen to think Canada was right in the War of 1812 and that American trade policy particularly on cattle is atrocious. That said I think our anti-Americanism is profoundly unhealthy. Considering perhaps the biggest insult thrown in the last election was that of being "like the Americans" its not surprising that American politicians may start wondering if Canadians are true allies. If they spent much time at all listening to the Canadian debate its unlikely their doubts will be quickly quenced.

The Amazing Race returns

2005-03-01T21:57:00.000-08:00

The Amazing Race returned to TV tonight. I'm a fan of the show mainly because it manages to generally transcend the cult of personality that most realityshows are prone to. The funny thing is that the contestants don't seem to realize that being tricky and deceptive is not particularly important to their success. The race is more about simply finding the fastest way to get around the world.

Unfortunately the show often tries to focus on the "relationships" between the partners. Thus they have a tendency to recruit teams with pre-existing problems in the apparent hope that these problems will make good television. Often that means the viewers have to endure endless bickering as people discover that high-stress situations is not necessarily the equivalent of relationship counseling.

The other thing that strikes me about the show is their rigid characterizations. Each team has their relationship summed up is one or two words such as "dating" or "best friends." My favorite was the dating team who were consistently described as "dating/virgins." While its undoubtedly true that a couple who's not sleeping together is something of an anomaly in the view of the entertainment industry I found it interesting that the state of virginity is treated with such incredulousness. Then again this is television. Perhaps I should be rereading Neil Postman.

2005-03-01T20:43:00.000-08:00

Perhaps a small demographic but if you're interested in BC politics the site to watch in the next few months is www.electionprediction.org where various commenting predict who's going to win every seat in the province.

The Rethinking of Abortion

2005-02-28T17:34:00.000-08:00

Get Religion has an interesting piece examining the reaction of pro-choice activists to the Democrats attempts to find new language on abortion. As a Canadian who endured an election campaign in which abortion was used as a blunt weapon to beat Conservatives its fascinating to watch American politicians discover that pro-abortion politics can costs votes.

Of course this apparently sudden turn in American politics has been coming for some time. The so-called intelligentsia has long assumed that opposition to abortion is simply a sign of close-mindedness. They may still hold that position but it's becoming apparent that minds are not going to be open soon. Thus as a matter of mere politics Democratic politicians are beginning to question their absolutist position on abortion.

This change is a tribute to lonely pro-life voices who have refused to accept that abortion's place in society. I doubt we're on the verge of the recriminalization of abortion across the board but perhaps we are realizing that modern liberalism is not the endpoint of morality. Canada certainly doesn't show many signs of backing down on an absolutist pro-life position but I'd suggest that those who insist that it never will have bought into the myth of liberal progress. This myth suggests that the changes of the 1960's and beyond were good and permanent. Considering the radical reach of those changes I wouldn't suggest that they were either all good or all bad. What I would challenge is the assumption that they're permanent. Just because the tide is flowing in doesn't mean it won't start to flow out.

2005-02-27T23:05:00.000-08:00

Rite Turn Only has a massive six part post summing up some of the highlights of the Blogging Tories. Check it out. Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

2005-02-26T23:36:00.000-08:00

Paul Tuns of Sobering Thoughts points out a Mark Steyn interview that is quite fun if for nothing else other than the crazy callers of CSPAN.

Abandoning Canada's self-interest

2005-02-26T22:34:00.000-08:00

Just as I was finishing a rather long post I had some computer problems and lost it all. However I did have a quick thought I was trying to make in that post coming out of the recent decision of Ballistic Missile Defense. Essentially I think it's time to wonder why the Canadian left is so obsessed with the United States.

In my experience at least the primary argument against BMD was that Canada's participation would make Bush happy. If Canadian conservatives can be accused of being reflexively in favour of any idea that comes from the U.S. then the Canadian left can certainly be seen as reflexively opposed to any American idea.

Of course it's not surprising that a party who's Cold War plan included calls for Canada to withdraw from NATO in the hopes that such a gesture would encourage the Soviets to let Poland out would not be the best source of clear-sighted foreign policy thinking.

On the other hand Paul Martin and the Liberals were supposed to be wiser than that. They claim that they pursue a middle course between the conservative and NDP approaches to foreign policy. This claim has long been shakey and is now exposed as fraudulent. As Paul Martin and Bill Graham has publicly explained in the past joining BMD was completely in Canada's interest. The only explanation of why Canada's has rejected it project is simply the reality that Canadian anti-Americanism has trumped Canadian self-interest. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising but it's still a little sad.

Differing opinions

2005-02-23T20:44:00.000-08:00

Kate at Small Dead Animals compares the different ways one can see the case of Terri Schiavo. Is it about her right-to-live or her right-to-die? The answer may not surprise you. It did remind me of a rather penetrating remark Colby Cosh made considering the health of John Paul II and suggestions he'd be better off dead:
Do we lament John Paul II's illness because it makes him uncomfortable, or because it makes us uncomfortable?
The two cases aren't the same of course but they are both examples of the growing sense that if you're not able to participate in extreme sports the value of your life is really questionable.

Do we really expect voters to understand this?

2005-02-23T17:10:00.000-08:00

In May the citizens of beautiful British Columbia (current temp. 16+ C) will go to the polls. They'll have a chance to decide if Gordon Campbell deserves another term or if it's time to go back to the NDP. Voters will also vote on the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly that BC abandon first past the post voting for a variation of proportional representation known as single-transferable voting (STV).

How does STV work? Fortunately Shannon at Shenanigans has a long post explaining quite coherently how the system works. Here's my simple thoughts on STV in four words: It's a terrible idea.

Now I know many smart people who disagree with me. They patiently explain how it's fair, how it will create a government that better represents people and avoid the ridiculous result of the 1996 election where the Liberal's won substantially more votes than the NDP while losing the election. And they're right for the most part. But none of that matters that much.

If you read Shannon's explanation two things will probably strike. One it's really long and two this is really complicated. I certainly think that and I'm about as politically minded as they come. However whenever anyone starts explaining how STV works I find myself simply unable to pay attention. Adopting STV will mean using a system that very few voters understand. For all its flaws first past the post is easy to understand- the person who gets the most votes wins.

This may sound like I have a low expectations of voters. That's because I do. I regularly talk to people who can't tell the difference between the federal and provincial or even municipal government. If STV discourage turn out as I'm sure it will that won't bother me much. What concerns me even more is that many voters will show up. I'm resigned to the fact that the average voter is going to have only a hazy understanding of policy issues when they show up to vote but I'm rather disturbed by perception that we could have a government chosen by voters who don't really know what their vote means.

A crazy new strategy that just might work.

2005-02-22T17:21:00.000-08:00

Let it Bleed offers some interesting thoughts about why the Conservatives don't appear to be any closer to beating the Liberals than they were last June. I don't necessarily agree with his thoughts on leadership other than to say if no one wants to vote for your leader it's going to be tough to win elections. He is very much on target when it comes to policy.

The Conservatives (and the Canadian Alliance) before them always seem to spend elections denying that they have a "secret agenda." For some reason unknown to me, the powers that be seem to think that if Conservative politicians talk only about why the Liberals are evil Canadians will turn to the Conservatives. As Let it Bleed observes, "Policy promotion is important from a strategic perspective because it acts as a bulwark against your opponents being able to define you." The Conservatives must push back hard against the media's image of what a Conservative is.

This means that every MP needs to stop talking about sponsorship, strippers, or any Paul Martin is doing for a while and start talking about how the Conservatives will do it better. I was recently at a Conservative fundraiser where the speaker gave a long rambling speech attacking the Liberals. His only pitch for the Conservatives was "We can do better." Considering the level of compentence he ascribed to the Liberals one would have thought that a Grade VI class could do better. No one who I talked to there left feeling more excited about Conservative policies or principles or even knowing better what those policies and principles are. I think its time to demand better.

Speak No Evil

2005-02-21T21:57:00.000-08:00

Paul Tuns points to Paul Martin's confused musings on Lebanon and detects a pattern.

Natan Sharansky says in his book The Case for Democracy that he and his fellow Soviet dissidents never thought that the world was divided between communists and capitalists but rather between those who were willing to confront evil and those who weren't. Paul Martin plants himself firmly in the latter category.

There's certainly no lack of examples of the Liberal's shying away from unpleasant conversations. Take for instance the war in Iraq in which from my understanding the Liberal's were in favour of removing Saddam as long as no violence was necessary. Or rather asking Saddam if he'd like to leave or failing that like to stop killing people.

And then there was the recently controversy during Martin's visit to China. Here Martin was all in favour of promoting human rights and trade. Ok mostly trade by he's hopeful that just introducing the Chinese to Canadian values of tolerance will make China a better place. Well at least Canadians will be making money there.

On the same trip Martin ran into trouble over his stance on the Tamil Tigers. The Tigers are what the Liberal's call an activist organization. They actively work for political autonomy in Sri Lanka by sending out suicide bombers. The Canadian government helpfully pointed out that it's against suicide bombing and terrorism in general but that being too condemning "could disrupt delicate efforts to negotiate peace."

And that basically sums up much of Liberal foreign policy. If we're too hard-nosed about condemning evil we make the bad people mad. There is a realist case for making some accommodations for less than perfect behavior but it appears the Liberals are acting more out of idealism. Hopefully that idealism will not lead to disaster. It's probably a good thing that the security of the world does not depend on Canada.

Karl Rove, Super Wizard

2005-02-21T17:18:00.000-08:00

I see that a bright Democratic congressman has come out with his bold theory of where the famed "National Guard memos" came from. He blames: Karl Rove. Now as Right Wing News suggests this may not be a winning strategy. In my experience at least people are wary of voting for candidates who exhibit too strong symptoms of paranoia but then again Nixon did all right didn't he.

On the other hand if Rove really does have the power attributed to him then you have to assume he's just getting started. It appears that some the American left are convinced Rove can manipulate the media at will. If nothing else it gives conservatives some hope that Hillary will never make it to the White House as long as the Wizard Karl is out there.

New Catch Phrase

2005-02-20T22:17:00.000-08:00

Here at Fighting on the Beaches we recognize how hard it is to stay on the cutting edge of language. By the time you hear the latest catch phrase it's no longer hip. We have that problem too but we're fighting back through Fighting on the Beaches self-created catch phrases. You may have heard of our first creation "The cheese is in the oven." Now we are pleased to present the second phrase soon to sweep across the English-speaking world:

"Crazier than an elephant on speed."

Get out there and start using it in as many contexts as possible. Join the revolution.

Fighting on the Beaches

Old Dogs Suggest Old Tricks

The Thrill of the Chase

Claiming the left or abandoning the center?

Suggested Reading

TV Picks

Fear and Loathing in the Blogosphere

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

And the scandals continue

Notes about the election

And We're Back

New Thinking on Africa

A Poetic Interlude

The Christians are Coming! (Again)

Thoughts on Terror

The Failure of Social Conservatives

Why do they call it deportation if no one ever leaves?

Stem Cells and Science

Why Can't the Tolerant Tolerate Christians?

The Problem with the New Stephen Harper

Funny Kind of Tolerance

Preparing the Traditional Sacrifice

Quiet Rumblings

Should Grewal Go?

What the Globe is missing

This is a takeover?

And We're Back

Random Thoughts

Surrendering before the battle

Perspective

Where are we going?

What's he hiding?

When to go

Man overboard

A Turning Point?

Bold new political forces

How to keep the Liberals honest

The Company They Keep

Is the Day of Reckoning Nigh?

John Paul II

All fall down

Hiss and Chambers

"No joy"

Uncomfortable reminders

What is the value of life anyways?

Who's stupid here?

Links

Is this defensible?

Still skeptical

A reply to Andrew Coyne

Winners and Losers

Saying No to Youth

Convention aftermath

Still waiting for the outrage

Saved by the media

Live from Montreal

"Liberal accusations and Conservative denials"

More thoughts on Conservative strategy

Links

Being more than a copy-cat

Vindication for the Bush Doctrine?

Does anyone care?

Life with Martha

What's wrong with this picture?

On the other hand perhaps they should ignore us

The Amazing Race returns

The Rethinking of Abortion

Abandoning Canada's self-interest

Links

Differing opinions

Do we really expect voters to understand this?

A crazy new strategy that just might work.

Speak No Evil

Karl Rove, Super Wizard

New Catch Phrase