Obama's America

The wind of change is blowing through America. Whether it is a light summer breeze or a strong gale remains to be seen.

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America

"The wind of change is blowing through the United States of America, whether we like it or not, this growth of liberal consciousness is a political fact."

Don't believe me? See for yourself.

McKenna will not run (Surprise!)

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Frank McKenna will not run for the leader of the Liberal party. McKenna's candidacy seemed to good to be true (from a Liberal's prospective), and a potential nightmare for the conservatives. It turned out that those rumours reported widely in the press were either made up or inflated.

McKenna was the only one who could have effectively rebuild the Liberal Party and possibly win the next election. Now it looks like it will be a race between Rae and Ignatieff (unless John Manley joins the race), and the fight will be between those who want to move the Liberals (further) to the left, and those who want to stick it closer to the centre-right. It looks like the Liberals will be pulled apart, which from my prospective would be a very interesting and slightly satisfying spectacle.

Obama for President

I have finally decided who I think would be the best President for the United States (and for the world). Although I'm probably closer to John McCain in principle, but he failed to impress me.

The Republican Party is corrupt and tired and needs some radical reform. I thought that McCain, being a self described maverick would have renewed the Republican Party, but he hasn't. The Republicans have to get over the whole Christian conservative thing as their main planks (You don't have to ditch social conservatism, just get rid of the whole bible thing) Maybe if they came a cross as a bit more moderate, (ie. not alienating those who are not evangelicals!), they would get some more support from the northern 'secular' middle class. Also, their constant emphasis on "Joe the plumber" is starting to get very annoying. I know that they're trying to appeal to the silent majority, but come on, not everyone is a self employed tradesmen.

Now for the problem with John McCain. Since the Republicans are a disaster and will loose big in the House and Senate, McCain will basically be a lame duck president. (His friendship with top democrats will not get him very far in the long run.) His constant attacks on Barack Obama for being associated with that Ayers guy looks like desperation. Yea he was a terrorist and a crazy radical hippie, but serving on a board with him and being a little friendly towards him doesn't mean you support what he did decades ago! (I'm part of clubs that have radical student activists on it, and I'm even friends with some of them, but that doesn't make me a radical student activist!).

McCain's constant attack on Obama's tax plan is also a problem. The USA is suffering from huge deficits, raising taxes on the top earners seems appropriate! McCain and Palin should understand that its not socialism! Compared to most other developed countries, Obama's tax plan is very un-socialist!

Now, enough with domestic policy. I'm not particularly a fan of most of McCain's foreign policy. The United States has to do something about Iran. Yea their president is really crazy but the USA has a big opportunity here. Obama should not be attacked because he wants to talk to Iran! Look, China was communist, killed a lot of US soldiers in Korea, and aided North Vietnam. That did not stop Nixon from going to China. Maybe if the state department entered talks with Iran, Russia, and China could step in and be a mediator between the two countries. When Iran no longer feels threatened by the USA, they will probably back down on wanting to destroy Israel. The rest of the Middle Eastern countries would no longer feel threatened by the USA, and would begin to slowly force Iran to cut of funding for Iraqi terrorists and back down on supporting Hezbollah. Mr. McCain, isn't this a reasonable idea? If diplomacy fails, then the USA will say that they tried everything, and the world would recognize that Iran is a problem.

Also, I have issue with McCain's assertion that Eastern Europe and Georgia should be allowed into NATO, that is really irresponsible! All this would do is further alienate Russia! Hello, Russia for centuries had influence over eastern Europe! Bringing Russia's neighbours into NATO is irresponsible.

There are many more points, but I will present them over the next few days. Basically, the Republicans do not deserve office and McCain, even though he has been tested, is not the right man for the job. America does need change, generational change! McCain is stuck in the 80s, and Barack Obama would have a better standing on the world stage-why? Because 80% of the world like him. You want UN reform? Obama's the one. You want the Europeans to finally work with the USA, then I think Obama should be president. You want to fix the Afghanistan mess? He's the only one talking about Afghanistan. All McCain says is that he's gonna capture Bin Laden. Well, how about rebuilding Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban too?

The End of Capitalism?

After reading this week's edition of The Economist I couldn't help wondering if this is the end of capitalism. It seems like capitalism was abused so extensively that the only solution is to abolish it. Governments nationalizing banks?! Isn't that socialism? What's next, nationalizing oil companies and home builders? I'm not saying that governments should not try to prevent an economic collapse, I just can't believe that we have to go that far!

The Economist says it perfectly, "Now economic liberty is under attack and capitalism, the system which embodies it is at bay. This week Britain, the birth place of modern privatisation, nationalized much of its banking industry; amid talk of the end of the Thatcher-Reagan era, the American government has promised to put $250 billion into its banks..."

It seems like all that Reagan and Thacher has accomplished has been thrown out the window. The only question is who to blame. Current governments, the governments of Clinton and Blair (and others in the 90s for mishandling the Reagan-Thatcher policies), or should the blame be put on Reagan and Thatcher themselves.

One thing is becoming increasingly clear, if this trend continues, you can kiss goodbye to neoliberalism and say hello to socialism.

God help us.

The Election's Over, Now What?

Now that the election's over, its time to speculate on the future of the parties and the leaders.

I think we'll see Stephen Harper move swiftly to implement an economic plan to stop Canada from going in recession. When this happens, all the post-election polls will probably show a commanding lead for the Conservatives. If Harper plays his cards right, he could govern like he had a majority. (I don't think there's any risk of the government falling for at least 2 years.)

Other than sweeping northern Ontario and electing a MP in Quebec, Newfoundland, and Alberta, there is nothing to cheer about if you are a NDP supporter. They lost a seat in Toronto and made virtually no gains outside Ontario. Despite this Jack Layton should be safe.

The Liberals have problems. The received their lowest share of the popular vote since Confederation. Also, not including the 1984 debacle, the Liberals have their lowest seat count in over one hundred years. The party is bankrupt and is now basically leaderless. If they force Dion out at the March convention, they would have to have a second leadership convention in November/December 2009 (they'll probably only be able to afford to have it at some 2 star hotel in Toronto). So, for the Liberals, if Dion doesn't resign, they'll face bankruptcy, division, and be leaderless for at least a year.

Finally, the Bloc and the Greens.

The Bloc Quebecois only held on to their seats because Ducceppe was able to blow conservative missteps out of proportion. Once he retires they'll probably loose some support.

The Greens have big problems. Elizabeth May should have run somewhere in BC, or in the Ontario ridings of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, or Guelph. Running in Nova Scotia, against Peter Mackay was, to be blunt, really stupid. All of the party's resources and her time was spent trying to knock off a Conservative giant. If she ran in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for example (assuming that the Liberals did not run a candidate) she would have won, and she could have focused more on a national campaign. It will be interesting to see what happens to her and her party.

Check out my election prediction, it was surprisingly close to the real thing!

How Will History Judge Stephen Harper?

In 25 to 50 years how will will history judge Stephen Harper? Well, it depends on the outcome.

A Conservative majority government would mark a significant shift in the political allegiances of Canadians. When Stephen Harper became Canadian Alliance leader that party was in decline. Similar to the PCs, the Alliance was polling at around 15 %. Paul Martin was supposed to lead the Liberals to the largest majority government in history, destroying the NDP and PC party and reducing the Bloc and the Alliance to a small group in the corner. Now here we are 5 years later, the Conservatives are heading to their second mandate and the Liberal are on the verge of bankruptcy.

I'm not going to discus the factors that led to this (if I did that post would be way too long). The point that I am trying to make that a Conservative majority government would probably mark the death of the Liberal Party and finally complete the "unite the right" process. Stephen Harper will be regarded in political science textbooks as Canada's greatest political leader who lead the Canadian centre-right out of the abyss and destroyed the Liberal Party. Looking back on the Canadian political events of the early 21st century, historians and political scientists will remark in amazement at the greatest reversal of political forces. There will probably be a book called the Decline and Fall of the Liberal Party (the decline I believe began in 1984.)

Now, enough speculation. It is more likely that Canadians will elect a Conservative minority government. If this happens, Harper will go down in history, not as the greatest political leader in Canadian history, just as the guy who led the centre-right out of the abyss (which is a good consolation prize I guess). The title of 'Liberal Party killer' would be handed to both Jack Layton and Elizabeth May.

Many in the future would speculate that if the Conservative Party had a leader other than Stephen Harper, they would have been handed a majority government in 2006. It is easy to say that, but we have to look at the facts. If Harper never ran for Canadian Alliance leader, that party would have disintegrated and would have probably re-emerged as a small Alberta protest party. Peter MacKay's PCs would be the only mainstream party that has some centre-right credentials. I think its safe to say that Peter MacKay as Progressive Conservative leader could have never formed a majority government, let alone a minority (its not his fault, it was the PC Party).

No matter what tonight's outcome is, one thing has to be remembered, only Harper could unite the right. History will judge him accordingly.

Election Prediction

Here's my election prediction:

The conservatives will not form a majority government, Tuesday's big questions will be if the Liberals can stay above 80 seats, if the NDP make big gains, and if the Conservatives can hold on to all of their seats in Quebec.

B.C: Conservative 21, Liberal 5, NDP 10

Alberta: Conservative 28

Saskatchewan: Conservative 13, Liberal 1

Manitoba: Conservative 9, Liberal 2, NDP 3

Ontario: Conservative 50, Liberal 39, NDP 17

Quebec: Conservative 10, Liberal 12, NDP 1, Bloc 51, IND 1

New Brunswick: Conservative 5, Liberal 4, NDP 1

PE1: Liberal 4

Nova Scotia: Conservative 3, Liberal 4, NDP 3, IND 1

Newfoundland and Labrador: Conservative 1, Liberal 5, NDP 1

Territories: Liberal 2, NDP 1

Total: Conservative 140, Liberal 78, Bloc 51, NDP 37, IND 2

According to my Textbook Canadian History Does Not Exist!

A course that I am taking called "The Making of Canada" increasingly seems to be a misnomer. At the halfway point of the semester, the course is now at the turn of the twentieth century. I'm not going to criticize the professor's lectures because they are fairly balanced in content. It is the textbook that I HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH! The textbook for this course, A History of the Canadian Peoples does not fit the course description. This text is nothing but a survey of social history and a criticism of confederation! For example, in Chapter 5 entitled Becoming a Nation, the author spends 2 pages on responsible government, and 8 pages on life on the family farm!
I'm not disputing that pioneers were not crucial to the development of the nation, but can you give political history a chance!

Now on to Confederation. The author goes on and on about industrial working conditions and how women suffered under a male dominated society. Finally, he mentions confederation. It is rushed through in several pages towards the end of the chapter. The author spends more time highlighting a letter written by some obscure farmer than he does on John A. Macdonald and the other 'fathers of confederation'. (He only mentions Tupper, Cartier, Brown and Macdonald, and I'm sure that there were more 'fathers of confederation than that!) To make matters worse, the author goes out of his way to highlight how the Maritimes were super pissed off when they were forced to join confederation. In fact that is the only aspect of confederation that the author describes in detail!

So what did I learn about Canada becoming a nation? Way to much about industrial working conditions and way to little of the leaders who were largely responsible for the formation of Canada!

I don't know about you, but it seems like this textbook is nothing more than a politically correct social history textbook. Do I have to mention that the section on the First World War barley mentions Vimy Ridge! In the chapter on the Second World War only two pages are given to the battles that the Canadians took part in. Instead it is a description of women working in the factories.

Come on! Teach me some political and military history too! Thats why I took the class!!!!

A Grand Coalition

If the conservatives, or the liberals get a minority government, there should be serious talk of forming a grand coalition. No, I don't mean between the Liberals and the NDP. What I'm talking about will shake Canadian politics to its core. If the Conservatives get a minority government (which they likely will), Stephen Harper should ask Stephane Dion to form a coalition government. Liberals and Conservatives together in government! Am I crazy? Well, we had one during the second world war! Also, there was a grand coalition in Britain during the depression. There are also countless ones today, with the German CDU-SPD Grand Coalition.

The world is heading towards a deep recession (even though Canada has weather it so far, our time will come, soon). Harper can say that for the sake of the economy the Liberals and Conservatives should join forces, throwing aside the crazy NDP and the increasingly annoying Bloc Quebecois.

The House of Commons will look like this:
Conservatives 120
Liberals 90
Bloc 48
NDP 45

A Conservative-Liberal Government would look like this:

Speaker - Peter Milikin
PM - Stephen Harper
Finance - Jim Flaherty
Foreign Affairs - Michael Ignatieff (he has a similar foreign policy as the CPC and theire no credible one in the CPC Caucus)
Environment/Deputy PM - Stephane Dion
Defence - Peter Mackay
Justice - Rob Nicholson
Public Safety - Stockwell Day
Treasury Board - John Baird
Revenue - John McCullum
Public Works - Scott Brison
Health - Tony Clement
Indian Affairs - Chuck Strahl
Agriculture - Any conservative other than Gerry Ritz
Social Development - Give it to Ken Dryden to make him happy.
Immigration - Diane Finley
Industry - Marc Garneau (if he wins)
Transport - Lawrence Cannon
Fisheries - Some Liberal from Newfoundland
(Give most of the other, low profile portfolios to Liberals).

Now this would be a government that roughly 60% of Canadians voted for. Danny Williams will throw a fit. Jack Layton can realize his dream of being opposition leader, and economic policy will be streamlined through the committees and the Senate.

This would provide for a strong government in uncertain times. the Conservatives and the Liberals would work out a realistic economic plan, and would be in control of Foreign Affairs and the Environment (minus the Green Shift). This would be countered with the conservatives having full control over Justice, Defence and Senate Reform. I'm sure some would be shocked, but many conservatives would swallow it because it would prevent a possible Liberal-NDP coalition, and the Liberals would like it because they would be part of the government.

(Oh and notice that Bob Rae and Ralph Goodale do not have any big portfolios? They're be sent to junior minister jobs if Dion insists on having them in the cabinet.)

Brilliant, or Crazy, what do you think?