Invited to an election and no one shows up.

I've been thinking a lot lately about democracy since I listened to last weeks Ideas show on CBC radio. Hosted my by old Canadian Studies Prof, Paul Kennedy, the show wrestles with the question: is democracy always a good thing? (The second part airs Tuesday night.)

In the meantime, as a resident of Montréal and a citizen of Canada I am soon to be faced with the quandary of having to cast a vote in a civic election where I have a choice of a péquiste warhorse and an scandal ridden incumbent. On the national side, there is Harper (the anti-Canadian), Ignatieff (the born again Canadian) and Layton (the caring Canadian). As for "other category" we have Elizabeth May (Green Canadian) and Gilles Duceppe (visiting head of state and therefore not eligible).

As I believe strongly that one has to exercise their right to vote, not ticking off a ballot is not an option. So what's a citizen to do?

Democracy is hard! So is it worth the effort? What difference does it make if I vote or not? (add your excuse here). Democracy is a worthy ideal, how it works is dependent on the close scrutiny of a state's citizenship and leadership. As I have remarked last year following the proposition 8 debacle in California, democracy is not intended to be "rule of the majority" to the detriment of it's minority. There are protections that have been embedded in constitutions that are there to protect citizens from leaders who may for pragmatic reason, decide to ride a wave of intolerance.

We have seen that in the US when the Right used same sex marriage and family values to re-elect Bush. Now, it's health care. In beaverland, Harper drives the wedge between us and you people; the Tim Horton crowd and the Starbucks fans. Luckily, Canadians seem to hold their Constitution and the Supreme Court that protects it, in higher regard than our American neighbours. I think that ultimately Canadians believe in their "responsible government" and are fair. The idea of taking away rights of people as they have in California and are trying to do in Maine (in the case of same-sex marriage) is aberrant to most of us.

There are many philosophical questions surrounding the definition of democracy but one thing that is certain is that it fails when the very people who benefit from it cease to participate in it.

That is what I'll keep repeating to myself as I gulp down a scotch before I head into the municipal voting booth and cast a vote for whom I believe will do the least harm to the city. And as the Conservatives keep trying to force an election by giving the oppostion a chance to bring them down and force an unwanted election, I will do my best to find out what Ignatieff stands for and having failed that move my vote to the party that will do the least harm to my country. It's not the most inspired way to exercise my civil duty, but until Mister "Hope" comes along, I'll settle for Mister hope for the best.

Happy election season to all.

And furthermore...

As a follow up to the Harper Attack ad posting, here is an excerpt from one of my favourite Globe and mail columnists, Jeffery Simpson who writes a piece following Harper’s address at a fundraiser in Montreal.

(photo from Montreal Simon)

“The formula they have used, and still use, has six fundamental elements. In no particular order, they are: cater to Quebec nationalism; demonize the leader of the Opposition; impose tight internal discipline; string out announcements across the country that flow from budgets; woo multicultural Canadians; and throw the occasional piece of red political meat to the right-wing core.

They've been deploying this strategy from the beginning and it hasn't worked, at least not in moving Conservatives to a majority. If anything, the party is now further from majority territory than the day the Conservatives were elected.
…
When in doubt, the Harper Conservatives reach for attack advertisements, backed by the chorus line of Conservative MPs, constituency mailings and, of course, prime ministerial speeches.

As always, these ads contain gross policy distortions and nasty personal attacks, as we saw in the ads against former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. They reflect far more on the mentality of the makers than the portrayal of the victim.

This time, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff stands accused, among other things, of preparing massive tax increases (including a carbon tax), having lived too long outside Canada and speaking French with a French accent.
Happily, for those who care about decency in politics, these attacks are all misplaced.

Of course, Mr. Ignatieff would raise taxes as prime minister, as will every government in the Western world once the recession is over - including Mr. Harper's, unless he is being grossly irresponsible, as is possible from someone who weakened the fiscal underpinnings of Canada by cutting the goods and services tax. The huge deficits in Canada and elsewhere cannot be reduced without tax increases, the only question being which kind, how much and when.

… As for his French, well, francophones won't much care about his accent, knowing he's an anglophone, especially when they stack his accent against Mr. Harper's.

Forget the attack ads, because this set will fail. They're just part of the wider, failed strategy to move the Conservatives to a majority. The rollout of announcements; the formulaic, mind-numbing prime ministerial speeches; the failure to impress Quebec; and the government's right-wing instincts - these are the real culprits in their receding majority prospects.


Mr. Ignatieff responds (CBC)

"If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done," Ignatieff said Saturday.

Ignatieff told his audience in Gander he plans a different approach as he takes on the prime minister.

"Let's be clear how we carry the attack, because I will not attack Mr. Harper's patriotism. I will not attack his character. I will not attack his family. I will attack his record, and God knows, there's enough to work on," he said.

Seems Harper may have just met his match.

Will Harper attack ads work?

Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail asks in today's column, do nice guys finish last?

He goes on to make a pretty damning case for it in his article:

“There's an old rule in politics. Don't bet on the nice guys. Robert Stanfield was the princely example. Lost three in a row. Lester Pearson was too soft to ever win big. Joe Clark was characterized as wimpish, Stéphane Dion the same. The American Democrats had nice-guy Michael Dukakis, nice-guy Walter Mondale, nice-guy George McGovern and another skirt-wearer, nice-guy Al Gore. They all went down.

Ignatieff responds - too nice?


Liberal MP Ujall Dosanjh had this to say -

“With these ads, the Conservatives are showing a streak of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia that goes back to their Reform roots. It needs to be confronted.” The implicit suggestion, says Mr. Dosanjh, a Punjabi, is that if you've spent a lot of time outside the country - like he and Mr. Ignatieff have - you're less of a Canadian.”

These ads, unfortunately are affective; they are created because they work. And in the face of no real counter campaign from the Liberals, I’m afraid they will hurt Ignatieff’s chances of building enough support to mount an effective election campaign.

The Tories have the bucks and they’re spending them like drunken sailors in a whorehouse. One can only hope that they will have used up considerable resources by the time the upcoming election is called. Unfortunately, they do have friends in low places and Alberta is awash in blue money.

This campaign has been greatly helped by the free coverage the media have given it. Not only did I have to listen to this tripe while watching American Idol (ok, it was in good company), but there is almost daily reference to it in the print, electronic and web medias.

The sad truth is that it will push buttons and will convince a large number of Canadians that Harper is Mr. Canuck. He can wear a sweater, a cowboy hat, a flak jacket or a lab coat when he absolutely has to (and he also plays piano for all you cynical special interest artists out there).

The liberals have to do something soon to counter this campaign. Being cosmopolitan, intelligent, creative and “a true patriot” are not inhibitors to leadership. Nor is drinking espresso instead of Tim Hortons. That Harper targets these attributes as "scary stuff" puts him more on the side of Pol Pot than John A.

For an interesting discussion of this, listen to the Globe and Mail Roundtable Podcast:

And for an enlightened chuckle, nothing beats Rick's Rants: