This is a journal entry by a co-writer dietcoupon on my own blog 1337hax0r.com. It is an excellent discussion of applying the lessons learned from Obama's primary successes to help Canadian left-wing parties in the future.
--
Canadian politics are both uplifting and frustrating. With the parliamentary system, Canada has eschewed the two-party charade that is American politics in favor of four major parties (with a fifth on the rise), each trumpeting their own unique blend of values. In place of America’s formulaic and immovable 2-/4-/6- year election cycles, Canadian elections come as they’re appropriate, in response to scandals and faltering leaders or noteworthy issues or whatever else deems an election worthwhile.
Yet however refreshing the system itself is, the leaders Canada elects always seem to be three to five years behind the American curve. Five years after the death of John F. Kennedy, Canada got Trudeau. Four years after the election of Reagan, Canada got Mulroney. The Liberal leaders up through 2006, Chretien and Martin, were reminiscient of the Clinton of the 90's: they kept the books balanced and their Ottawa buddies well-paid, and didn't do anything noteworthy policy-wise (with the singular exception of gay marriage), although they certainly did no harm. To the battle-hardened products of Bush's America, this liberal bastion to the north seemed refreshing, progressive even. But like America's Clinton, the Liberals were riled in scandal, and although they had phase-changing legislation at their fingertips (socialized child care and marijuana decriminalization, among other things), they failed to enact them. Whether that inaction was out of fear for their flailing careers or truly staunch ideology is yet unclear, but what is clear is the result of their floundering.
In early 2006, nearly five years to the day after the inauguration of George W. Bush, Canada got Stephen Harper. Like Bush, Harper claims to hail from a western land of oil, cattle, and "cowboys". Like Bush, Harper is effectively an Easterner (he was born and lived in Toronto for quite some time, not unlike Bush's residencies in Connecticut and Maine) and, like Bush for America, Harper has little to no regard for the Canadian people. Time and again he's pandered to demographics perceived as necessary for re-election (Quebec as a case in point) and eschewed useful policy in favor of popular strawmen (what have your GST savings done for you lately?). Like Bush, he took Canada's multi-billion dollar surplus and whittled it away to nearly nothing on ineffective tax cuts and extravagant military expenditures, leaving the Canadian Arctic unprotected and subject to possible invasion in the meantime. He is dangerous for Canada and Canadian ideals alike, and he absolutely has to go.
But who else does Canada have to vote for? Stéphane Dion ignored the recent security breach, a perfect opportunity for a successful federal election, with the reasoning that 'the plan for the election is in the fall.' Besides which, he has failed to bring any pressing issues into the limelight, opting instead, like the Liberals he most recently succeeded, to attempt not to offend anybody. Jack Layton is rich in idealism but poor in strategy; he has a committed army of diehards in Toronto, but they can never seem to expand effectively beyond Toronto. Besides which, in Ontario, the NDP is still marred by the disaster of Bob Rae's government, and has yet to make adequate strides to shed the image of the party from FIFTEEN YEARS AGO in favor of a renewed and able leadership, even though Bob Rae is not even a member of the NDP anymore.
These are similar to the issues which faced forlorn American liberals four years ago, which have now, to the shock and surprise of the world, seemingly been overcome. In a clean fell swoop, Barack Obama challenged popular perception and proved that with a winning combination, democracy can overwhelm corruption. His strategy has been multipronged and aggressive, qualities Canadian liberals desperately need. Here they are, as distilled as I can make them:
Comprehensive Internet Literacy
Ever since most people have known who Barack Obama is (I read a fascinating New Yorker article about him in spring 2004, but the world was introduced to him at the Democratic National Convention that summer), he has had a solid Internet presence. His website is clear, polished, and easily navigable. His Facebook has grown like a police officer in a doughnut shop, and his supporters now have their own independent social networking site for campaign organizing. His Facebook sends out messages to his supporters, perfectly in sync with his keynote speeches. So many of us have grown a surgical attachment to this series of tubes, and Barack has kept up with us every step of the way. In an election facing a strongly upwardly-mobile Clinton female, and now an old fogey with a rich wife, being Internet-savvy has proven invaluable to his campaign.
In Canada? Conservatives on the Internet are a joke; their website is disgusting and the Blogging Tories are a laughable force. While Liberal, NDP, and Green websites are clean and attractive, their blogging supporters are big on noise and vitriol, less so on organization and effective action. They'll preach to their echoing, commenting choirs on the Internet, but when the time comes to put their money where their mouths are they're nowhere to be found. I don't mean for this to sound high-and-mighty; it's something I myself am guilty of, and resolve to change. It NEEDS to change if we want Canada to go anywhere good.
By virtue of the Internet, many of Obama's passionate supporters organized in Idaho, a state he otherwise may have written off in the primaries, and yet due to the ease of communication among his supporters despite their varying levels of experience online, this infrastructure was virtually set up for him, independently of him (although, it certainly has helped that he's followed right behind his supporters). This leads me to...
The 50-state/308-riding Strategy
It has been argued that the single most destructive failing of the Clinton campaign was in not going for any of the caucus states. By virtue of simply paying attention to caucus states and smaller states, Obama was able to play the system effectively and garner his needed pledged delegates. Looking to November, American Democrats have for the last 50+ years been haunted by the "red states," the states believed to go for conservative Christian Republicans no matter what. Neither party has spent a dime in those states for many cycles, the one because it's seen as hopeless, the other because it's taken for granted and thus pointless. Yet many of these states, most notably Texas, are up for grabs all of a sudden due to a clear, hopeful message and a newly-energized electorate, much of which has never bothered to vote before. Barack is also notably big on voter registration, which helped him edge out Clinton's margins in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and he plans to open a campaign office in every single state this year, an unprecedented move which will almost certainly work to his benefit.
As convoluted as all of that sounds, the point is that the system needs to be played to greatest efficacy. Stop caring about the numbers that don't matter (such as trendlines in national polls) and start caring about the ones that do (is there any map of ridings similar to this map of the States?). We don't necessarily need to make Canada a more left-wing country overall, but we DO need to get people voting for left-wingers where it will count. Every left-wing politician elected chips away at Harper's strangehold on power.
Up and coming parties like the Greens need a sharper focus; they need to get people into Parliament in order to appear legitimate, and to do that they need to target their ridings. They are reportedly striking backroom deals with Liberals to do this effectively, which is fair enough.
But. It is far too often in Canada, as it was until just recently in the States, that Conservatives bluntly sweep the rural ridings. This can be for a number of reasons: Conservatives are quite loud in their moral righteousness, which appeals to the angry and offended social conservative constituency, most of whom are very likely to show up to vote. Indeed, Conservatives seem to be the only ones who even pay any attention to most of these rural ridings, so it makes absolute sense that they have maintained a secure hold on so many of them for so long. Additionally, the Conservatives have been able to claim all of Alberta (as well as much of British Columbia) for their own by virtue of a vendetta against the East. it is a popular myth that if it's not Conservatives who are elected, it is Quebec and Ontario who rule the country, but this is a myth and yet everybody seems mysteriously to be lacking in any sort of reply.
The solution is so simple it hurts. In the most recent Alberta election this past winter, despite a Progressive Conservative party mired in corruption and scandal, the ruling PCs made substantial GAINS, almost to the point of eliminating all opposition. My riding, Calgary-Buffalo, was among the nine Alberta ridings to vote Liberal, and virtually the only seat Liberals actually gained. Why was this? Mr. Kent Hehr, wheelchair-bound and quadriplegic after a drive-by shooting, went DOOR-TO-DOOR in the apartment buildings in my neighborhood, introducing himself and his policies. This personal attention, not unlike Barack Obama's, was quite more effective than the mailings the Conservative mustered up, and so Mr. Hehr won the seat.
Besides which, the fact of the matter is that left-wing policies can be good for rural folk, just as much as they're good for city folk. Everybody benefits when there's strong investment in health care, when money isn't being needlessly spent on fancy toys for the military, when more money is going to sustainable and superior methods of transportation (wind-powered high-speed trains, anybody?).
I get a strong, strong feeling that if Liberals (or, heck, any brand of non-Conservative) were not to write off so many rural and western ridings and instead do this sort of campaigning, the effects would be profound. Not only would left-wingers make a noteworthy dent in the Conservative market share, they would force the Conservatives to exert money and effort to protect these once-safe ridings. If the Conservatives have to spend any money to hold on to what they already have, it will be much harder for them to make gains elsewhere. This is especially true since Harper failed to win a single seat in many of Canada's major urban centers, including Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. And all of this should be made possible by...
Small Internet Donations (Campaign Finance Reform)
Pioneered by Howard Dean's cheeseburger in 2003, it is a proven fact that great strides can be made when lots of people are encouraged to donate $5 to a campaign over the Internet. With this style of small-scale, first-time donations, Barack Obama was miraculously able to outraise and outspend the Clinton special-interest machine and establish a strong donation base. As a bonus, his campaign researched every donation, returning everything from lobbyists and special interest groups, so he was able to maintain a squeaky-clean Washington-scandal-free image while still rolling in cash.
For Canadian left-wingers, this is notoriously not the case. Liberals lost power primarily because of embezzlement. Inexcusable. The NDP mails 1h with relative frequency, usually asking for donations that are out of his student ballpark right now. We would love to do legwork as outlined above, but the structure just isn't there, and when the moneymaking mechanism is equally off-putting, our progressive parties go nowhere fast. I would love to see the NDP or Liberals (or both!) run an Internet-based "Loonie against Lunacy" campaign, or something similar. I need the Liberals to promise and deliver me an imminent election season before I give them a red cent (ha!). I need Jack Layton and his wife to go on webcam and eat a AAA Alberta steak (or BC sushi?) in honor of the votes they NEED to win. I need to see something, anything, because the current system of getting gigantic donations from corporations, buddies, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc., doesn't work anymore and is not doing the Canadian left a shred of good. This all falls under the broader ideal of...
Paradigm Shifting
Somewhere in the onslaught of 'Why Hillary Lost' articles that have come onto my RSS as of late, somebody made the excellent point that up until Barack, the Democrats were mostly about not losing, as opposed to trying to win. Rather than take strong stances on any among the myriad key issues of our day, they opted instead to take as bland of a stance as possible, aiming not to offend anybody in hopes that the Republican would offend someone. No dice. Every Democrat in 2004 was wishy-washy on Iraq (even to the point of supporting it), and indeed non-committal on pretty much every major issue of value. I have hated Bush since I watched Florida unfold and unravel live on TV in 2000, but the Democratic affront in 2004 didn't excite me one bit.
The Obama campaign is only compelling because he actually says something about policy. He is against the war in Iraq, but for a responsible withdrawal. He is against ineffective upper-class and corporate tax breaks, but for tax breaks for the middle class. He is against a gas tax levy, but for investment in renewable energy. Most noteworthy to me personally, he considers infectious disease to be the #1 national security threat facing America today (let's just hope the "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo don't have avian flu or SARS).
I would be hard-pressed to tell you anything the Liberals or NDP really stand for. The Liberals sell themselves as not Conservative. The NDP sells itself as neither Conservative NOR Liberal. Why should anybody get excited to vote for that? Layton and Dion don't make themselves a presence in peoples' lives and homes, not because they can't but because....I don't know why, it's pretty stupid. The NDP at large makes a few chosen promises it will never be able to fulfill due to previously mentioned issues in finance and campaigning. I don't think the Liberals have made any promises worth noting. Sure, at least they're not lying about it, but they're also not inspiring anybody.
Canadians work hard for their money, and working mothers need child care to be both available and affordable. As it is, many would have to pay more for child care than they would earn in their work. Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in terms of sustainable, non-car transportation, but it still has a long way to go, especially in the face of the current oil spike; Canada needs more high-speed rail lines (Alberta in particular is in desperate need of one), and many of its cities need more comprehensive light-rail and/or subway systems. Canadians want their budget surplus back. They can get it back by withdrawing troops from losing wars, both at home against substances and abroad versus people who are angry we're even there. We need to stop spending money on pointless wars, and start spending it in the North where Canada is the rightful owner of a tremendous supply of fresh water and other natural resources which are under constant threat of attack and/or invasion by both Denmark and Russia, as well as other nations.
Left-wing politicians need to take strong stances on these issues, be clear on how they will be implemented and that they WILL be implemented, and they need to drown out Conservative banter with the fact that all of these issues ARE at the forefront and NEED to be addressed, NOW. But any among the hopeful parties can only do this with...
A Leader Who Doesn't Suck, and is Actually Quite Good
This goes along with the visibility that just was mentioned. The arduous primary race in the US was dotted by inspirational half-hour long Obama speeches. Both on the campaign trail and on television, he has made himself a formidable figure in the public eye. He is a person that simply cannot be ignored. Love him or hate him, he's there and he's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Who is Stéphane Dion? I'm not sure I've ever seen him speak publicly, and I've certainly never seen him say anything I thought was worth listening to. I may have seen snippets of him or Jack Layton in news clips, saying Conservatives are bad or something of the sort, but they haven't made themselves into sympathetic figures. I must give Mr. Layton credit for his thoughtful correspondence with 1h, but that is a conversation he needs to have with the country as a whole if he wants it to be worth anything. Strangely enough, I feel more inspired by Elizabeth May than either Layton or Dion because of the groundwork she's done to advance the status of her party. She came very close to a seat in Parliament in a byelection, and she (or the media) made a nice narrative of it.
We need to see more of that. Much, much more of that. I need to smile when Dion makes a mistake in his English, because I care about him and it's cute. I need to follow Layton around Ontario, advancing the NDP cause to people who have been hurt by it in the past. I need at least one, preferably all of them, to keep regular video blogs, to get angry when Harper does stupid crap that hurts Canada and make us WANT to listen to what they have to say about what's going on. I, and all voters in Canada, need to have leaders we can look up to, who we can sympathize with, who sympathize with us. Because after all...
Holism - We're all in this together
There is one last stupid, trivial thing that keeps left-wingers in Canada down: we have too much choice. Want corporate policies slightly different from the Conservatives? Vote Liberal! Want underdogs to fight the fat cats in Ottawa for the common man? Vote NDP! Are you a trendy environmentalist with conservative fiscal values? Go Green!
I can't pretend to be informed of the political climate in this country to the degree of knowing how to give strategy on this point, but when the majority of the population is voting for leftist values and is rewarded with a Conservative minority government, something clearly needs to be done. There is far too much vitriol between the Liberals and the NDP, and it needs to stop before it leads to another win for the Cons. Canada can glean a lesson from all the olive branches of this past weekend betwixt Clinton and Obama, after the most ferocious primary contest the US has ever seen. The pundits all said the Democratic Party would be irrevocably fractured, and yet it seems all the stronger for the battle. While there is no unified leftist party in Canada (and, as I said at the very beginning of this post, that's a good thing), the left-wing parties still owe it to each other and the country to work together so that the country may be a richer place for all of us. Nobody cares which figurehead is Prime Minister if they rule over a festering pit, which might be what happens to Canada if this infighting continues and Harper continues unchallenged.
Rise up, Canada! The time is NOW and for the sake of the country you need to listen to your brothers and sisters down south, and LEARN FROM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.
NB: I have ignored the Bloc Quebecois in this post not because I don't care about them, but because they are a very nuanced party with a lot of provincial baggage I simply do not understand, so I won't pretend to. Honestly, they seem to be doing just fine and should make gains in the next federal election, so I'm not too worried there...
dc
-- Crossposted at 1337hax0r.com