Skip to content

Category: Politics

Published June 25, 2011

Is Quebec Separatism Irrelevant?

From an article in The Economist:

“Quebec’s status has blighted Canadian politics for almost half a century. As recently as 1995 a referendum on independence was lost by barely a percentage point. Two out of five Quebeckers continue to tell pollsters they want separation. Yet if not dead, there are many signs that separatism has slumped into a deep coma.

Continue readingIs Quebec Separatism Irrelevant?

Published June 23, 2011

Farm Subsidies and Foreign Aid: Why Fund Both?

From a post I had missed when it was published in February but which deserves to be linked to over and over:

“The USDA routinely disburses $10 billion to $30 billion a year in farm subsisdies. President Obama has allocated $47 billion for the State Department and USAID for the next fiscal year (not including proposed expenditures for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan).

Why does the U.S. simultaneously fund domestic agricultural subsidies and foreign aid? The policies oppose each other. When it comes to promoting development opportunities for farmers around the globe, one of USAID’s ostensible goals, the left hand of the U.S. binds its right.

Agricultural subsidies primarily benefit corporate farmers, distort world food prices, and nudge us to eat ridiculous amounts of high-fructose corn syrup. But these policies are longstanding, seemingly immutable, and have support on both sides of the political aisle, as Jonathan Rauch elegantly and exhaustively describes in Government’s End.”

For me, the answer to the question in the title probably lies in a combination of the rational ignorance of some voters and in the mistaken belief among politicians that there is such a thing as a free lunch.

 

Published June 16, 2011

Biggest Losers: Warren Kinsella on Canada’s Liberal Party

This Walrus article by Warren Kinsella threw me back to the two summers I spent while in college working in Ottawa for a Liberal cabinet minister who shall remain nameless:

“Campaigns matter, sure. But for the once-great Liberal Party, the 2011 election was lost before it was even called. First of all, the Tories’ multimillion-dollar anti-Ignatieff advertising campaigns, however despicable, were highly effective. By the time Ignatieff and his palace guard decided to strike back, it was too late. And, ironically, the election campaign attack ads marshalled by both the Conservatives and the Liberals principally benefited the New Democrats; disgusted voters were propelled toward a third party.

The second reason for the Liberals’ failure was the terrible strategic error of voting to defeat the government when they did. The Tories had been outpolling the Grits for months and had an overwhelming fundraising and organizational advantage. Experienced senior Liberals, like campaign manager Gordon Ashworth, pleaded with Ignatieff to wait for the political environment to become more favourable. Despite all this, however, Ignatieff pushed for an election he could not win.

The third factor in the defeat is more contentious, but just as real. When Ignatieff had a chance to effectively eliminate NDP leader Jack Layton as the only other progressive choice; when Ignatieff had an opportunity, long before the election, to craft a deal with the NDP, for cooperation, or a coalition, or even a merger, he emphatically said no. In June 2010, with his former leadership rivals Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc standing behind him in a House of Commons hallway soberly nodding their heads, Ignatieff declared that he wanted nothing to do with the NDP. Forming an alliance with the NDP was ‘ridiculous,’ he snorted.”

Given the results of the last election, it is difficult to believe that the Liberal Party was in power for 69 years during the 20th century.

Personally, I believe it is high time for the Liberal Party to abandon its love affair with intellectuals. Pierre Trudeau was that rare breed of charismatic intellectual. Neither Stéphane Dion nor Michael Ignatieff had charisma.