Your Moment of Politcal Zen... brought to you by Red&Sky

The Reformist Revolution: the redesigning of the Canadian political landscape that lead to Harper's Majority

How did Haper get here?

Monday morning the whole of Canada awoke to the news of the new Harper majority with 167 seats in parliament out of 308 total seats it appeared to be really a strong conservative mandate that would be instated in Ottawa. It's been a long trend since 2006 and the first Harper government, since then Canada, Canadian values have metamorphosed into something unrecognizable, unthinkable for Canadians merely 5 years back. But what really does this Harper majority mean for Canada? What does this election of 167 MPs teach us about the changing nature of Canadian politics?

The logo of the Reform Party of Canada

First of all without any doubt a "polarization" of politics is coming into effect in the Canadian political landscape, what Canadians have to remember is that the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of the Right Hon. Harper changed radically. The Conservative Party of Canada today isn't at all the Progressive Conservatives that existed before. That "race" of politicians and that political conception of Canada seems to be extinct at least inside the new Conservative Party of Canada. Throughout the political history of Canada the Tories as we call them where the party of fellows like John Diefenbaker and John A. Macdonald, they had very different perception of what Canada's place should be. Today it's seems like we are assisting to an "Americanization" of Canadian politics through the policies implemented by the consecutive Harper administrations, through the loosening-up of gun registry and soon enough the move by the evangelistic wing of the new Harper majority to push for more regulation of abortion and so on. Since the ascension of Harper to PM and even before since his election as leader of the new Conservative Party the old Canadian "social-democratic" ideals, the heritage of Tommy Douglas and Pierre Elliot Trudeau have been seen as the "enemy'. In fact Harper has a hit-list and as we have seen throughout his previous mandates he will not stop until the Canadian social state is on it's knees. But how did things get so tangled-up how did Canada the idyllic north started becoming little by little the 51st State?

Preston Manning the influential leader of 

the Reform Party

To understand really this metamorphose of Canadian politics we have to go some what back in time, to the 1990's Canada was hit but a very severe economic crisis, Mulroney at the head of the Progressive Conservatives lead a series of economic reforms that would help put Canada back on track. During this period of economic stagnation, voices on the right would rise up to ask for reform. The link between the crisis of the 1990's and the birth of a new bread of right-leaning groups in Canada is doubtless. The Reform Party of Canada was without any doubt the spearhead of this right-wing "renaissance". Under the leadership of  Preston Manning they would destroy literally the Progressive Conservatives, robbing them of the Prairie and their western Canadian basis. In the 1993 election the Progressive Conservatives would drop to an unknown bottomless bottom. What was the appeal of the Reform Party? It was a populist movement that had for source of it's political capital the discontent of the ordinary folk against rising taxation. But the main factor driving this "Reform" movement to Ottawa was based on a western prairie movement (that then after extended to British Colombia) calling for a stronger representation of the west in Canadian politics. It called for lesser rights for the gay, lesbian and transexual communities, to give the first nations lesser importance, and to rebuke the idea of Quebec's autonomy. It was an evangelistic, populist, enraged movement against federal power (expect in the case of Quebec of course).  With it's electoral victories in 1993 and 1997  the "Reform" party forever divided Canadian politics. The Reform Party created the fault lines on which now the Conservative Party has gained a majority. Now the next question resides in the death of the Reform Party, the birth of the Canadian Alliance and all that mashed-up into gumbo gave us the new "Conservative Canada".

Canadian federal election of 1997 (In Green the Provinces that voted Reform)

Even with the impressive electoral performances in 1993 and 1997 that was the death sentence of the Progressive Conservatives, the Reform Party just couldn't get elected into governing. Yes back then Canada still was a "Liberal Nation" and the Canadians during that time input their trust in Chretien's Liberal Party with three majority governments (from the 1993 federal election through the 1997 election and finally with the 2000 election). So the option was rather simple it was the merger of the various political groups of the right in one strong Conservative Party. But before that happened the Canadian Alliance emerged replacing the Reform Party and tried harder and harder to "break the ice" in the eastern provinces of Ontario and of Quebec, without success. Like today with the NDP and the Liberal splintering up the vote and impeding the Canadian left a real chance to govern, back in the day it was the same old ball game the Progressive Conservatives won seats in Ontario and Quebec and the Canadian Alliance would take seats in the prairie provinces. And so was born the Unite the Right movement and through it's impulsion finally the two united to create the actual Conservative Party of Canada. This being the union wasn't an easy thing the Progressive Conservative electors were radically opposed to the idea of the merge, they preferred to vote Liberal then to vote for a Canadian Alliance candidate, and so when the union was finally formulated it seemed that it wouldn't last. And that's when the "Reformists" (a very iconoclastic bunch, made-up of tax haters/neo-liberals, social conservatives and western patriots) hijacked the conservative movement.

One of the consequences of the "Reformist Revolution" the 1995 Quebec referendum

I guess that if John Diefenbaker or MacDonald (maybe we should ask Mulroney) were they still alive, they would probably not recognize their party. Today the Conservative Party is not even the shadow of it's former self. We always look south of the border and  to the American political disarray to comfort ourselves. The problem is that we are heading down the same trend in little time, Ms. Sarah Palin could very well find a new home in Canada. The rapid ascension of Stephen Harper was only possible due to the grassroots movement that was already existent. The "Reformist Revolution" was the centrepiece of his political career, the front page story of the last two decades. The vision of Canada, of what Canada should be, the "Reformists" changed forever the Canadian political landscape, and that "change" has started to change Canadian society. The "Reformist" vision of a Conservative Canada in America's image has little by little has lingered into Canadian society, poverty is up on the rise, ever more perturbing is the rise of poverty among immigrant communities, they become more and more ghettoized shoved into a corner. The "Reformist Revolution" brought neo-liberalism and social conservatism into the mainstream of Canadian politics, the particular consequence of the appearance of these new ideologies in the Canadian political landscape was: the reduction of social programs, the liberalization of the Canadian market (that means through the efforts of Globalization a bigger share of the Canadian economy to American companies), the dismantlement of heath care and the reduction of funding for federal education. But one other flaw of the "Reformist Revolution" was the birth of a sort of Culture War inside Canadian politics, between the Canadian west that was the "stronghold" of this new born movement and Ontario and Quebec, specially Quebec. The Culture War would push Quebec into the hands of the sovereignist Bloc Quebec and put Quebec on the edge of the oblivion of independence during the referendum of 1995. The Conservative movement has played on this fault line of provincial division to assure their reign. The question that stands out is will the party of Diefenbaker (once champion of a Canadian conservatism), his ideological stance re-find it's place in Canadian politics?

Unite the Right campaign poster

The preexisting divisions between the basis of the now defunct Progressive Conservative Party, still hide under the sink of the actual Conservative Party, it's just a question of remembering those Red Tories that the political stance that Diefenbaker certainly deferred form the nowadays Canadian left, but that in the end the objective of a true north strong and free is not going to happen through the continuation of Harper's  rule. The "Diefenbaker ideology" is of course not a left-leaning ideology, but it has for base social-justice, the belief in meritocracy (opposed to capitalist oligarchy, the American model, that Harper tries to implement with so much zeal) and equal opportunities. This perception of Canada is completely opposed to the "Reformist" perception of the ideal Canadian society. In the end the Red Tories of Ontario and Quebec can find a home in the "grand" left of the political spectrum. A formation that would confederate the liberals, and the centre-left, the socialists and social-democrats on the left and to the centre the Red Tories. It's time to learn from the history of the "Reformist Revolution". Without any doubt the "Reformist Revolution" was the motor of the political surge that swept Canada and that today lead Harper to Ottawa at head of one of the greatest Conservative majorities in history. To save our Canada, the non-neoliberal nation, the home of Greenpeace, a nation of equal opportunities and a meritocracy based on equity and moral principals and not uncontrolled, wild capitalism, we have to fight the "Reformist Revolution" with a "Righteous Revolution" to reinstate the Canadian ideal.

Canada we stand on guard for thee.

Sky

Osama Bin Laden's Death or the unanswered questions

It was during the night of Sunday to Monday, it happened like a blast, when all hope was lost. The news would spin around the world like a forest fire in the drought months of the summer, it's spark and flare would reignite a feeling of unity and invincibility unseen in the home of Jefferson for years. And yet as Americans gathered throughout the streets of New York and Washington, in Times Square or on the lawns facing the White House, America would slip just a little more into denial.

Osama Bin Laden, was the most wanted terrorist, maybe even man in history. Without any doubt the images of 9/11 still hunt the United States today as a nation, it's heritage lead the United States into two "wrecking" wars that would forever undermine America's place at the table of nations. Two wars that would ruin the economy and send the deficit into soaringly high waters. Worst of all it would through the Bush presidency really emphasized the "culture war" predicted by Patrick Buchanan some years before. The truth is that as always in state of shock  (a state in which America was plunged into after 9/11 and to a certain extent sank into nowadays after the dead of Osama Bin Laden), the right, the most pertinent questions are not asked.

Osama Bin Laden was without any doubt the leader of Al-Qaeda. He was the rich heir of one of Saudi Arabia's most influential families which goes without saying had more then very close ties with the Bush family was one of the founders of an armed group of Islamic radicals. Thing many have forgotten is that during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980's Osama Bin Laden was supported in more then one way by the United States. And even during the civil war that would fill the vacuum left by the retreat of the Soviet forces after 1989 the United States continued to keep strong links with Osama's mujaheddin, bizarrely favoured by the United States instead of the Lion of Panjshir that a much more "open" view for the implementation of a democratic form of Islamic rule in Afghanistan. Thought the military aide allocated by the United States to help Al-Qaeda fight the "red" menace it also assured a future safe heaven for terrorism in Afghanistan.

With or without the intention of doing so, through the foreign policy implemented during the Reagan and Bush senior years the grassroots movement for global terror was created. That's the first undeniable fact Osama Bin Laden was America's own creation. America made him in 1979, by the year of 2001 he was able to mastermind the attacks of 9/11 and last Sunday year 2011 the creator took the creation's life.

Another unanswered question is the US/Saudi Arabia relationship, is this relationship really beneficial for the world? For the peoples of both countries? Well then again it seems that it isn't at all. First of all the great majority of the terrorists that attacked American soil on 9/11 were Saudis. Then again we are getting into the dark side of politics, the ugly side. The fact is that the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is much more then a common economic partnership or common enterprise. As of today American is the biggest investor in Saudi Arabia and today Saudi Arabia controls 2% of the American GDP a huge share for a country of Saudi Arabia's importance. So what? Some would say, I would give you that if it was between two modern democratic regimes but it isn't Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Islamic regime built on a conservative interpretation of Islamic laws much like the vision that Osama Bin Laden had for Afghanistan. So American is hand and feet tied to a backwards Islamic regime? Yes and I say more what did the American or Saudi Arabian people gain in this relationship, terror.  Maybe Osama Bin Laden was just one of many consequences of this special relationship?

Another question that still surrounds us and now since the death of Osama Bin Laden involves us, is the real meaning of this war on terror, the links between the war on terror and the markets, the "capitalization" our political society, the concentration of power in the hands of some. Osama Bin Laden sleeps forever, but the legacy of his actions still prove the demise of our democracies and of our modern political systems. Two unanswered questions that emphasize this demise, the fact that this war on terror seems more like a mini series soap opera the main actors being the Bush and Bin Laden families and as sidekicks the Husseins, and the fact that this so called war on terror had for banner freedom and liberty over fear when in the end it was all about Halliburton and Carlyle Group.
Let me explain myself. First of all the Bin Laden and Bush families have been partners forever, the Bush family actually served as a satellite for the Bin Laden's investments in the United States. The Bin Ladens had so many interests in the United States that they partly resided in side America's borders. So to paint the portrait of Osama Bin Laden as fundamentalist, an Islamic radical with a sort of "dog/wolf" hate for the United States is not true. Let it be said that Osama Bin Laden actually stay in America on several occasions, what we know for sure is that he did in 1979 and went to Chicago and Los Angeles. How is it that right after the 9/11 attacks none, not even one of the 13 Bin Laden family members that were in the United States were questioned?  This is just proof that today politics is the affair of some and it's minuscule details (most of the times in democracy details are the most important) are unknown to the masses.
Second question here: was the War on Terror really a war of ideals? Throughout the length of this war ideals of freedom, liberty, fundamental democratic ideals were used to preform really undemocratic actions. The restriction of personal liberty in the United States through the Patriot Act, the censorship of the first amendment for reasons of "national security" but even more terrifying the opportunism of some through the war of Iraq and Afghanistan to enrich themselves. Dick Cheney before becoming the "worst" vice president in America's history was part of the renown "big oil" and armament giant Halliburton a company that experienced an increase of 284 in profits throughout the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan conflict of interests? No sir not at all. Shafiq Bin Laden (Osama's brother), Bush senior and junior and Donald Rumsfeld were all part of  Carlyle Group another group that made titanic profits during the wars through armaments too.

So "okeh", Osama Bin Laden is now gone, but the questions still stay unanswered and well I guess they will always stay so, because to my big disarray people find it more patriotic to go out and wave flags and chant USA USA USA!!! the problem is they don't even know what it stands for anymore.

Sky                           

Your Moment of Politcal Zen... brought to you by Red&Sky

A bittersweet symphony

And so last the final act of this roller-coaster of an election was engraved forever in Canadian political history. Like throughout the entire length of the election it's final act always was a "shaking" of the established ideas that once made Canada such a "stable" (in terms of politics at least) nation.

First of all it seems that it's the end, maybe even death of a "Liberal Nation", for decades the Liberal Party of Canada was at the heart of Canadian politics it fashioned Canada into it's image. To really catch the grasp of this historic "meltdown" of the Liberal Party we have to take a glimpse back into history. From 1896 and the election of Wilfrid Laurier to the defeat of Paul Martin and the rise of Mr. Harper in 2006, the Liberal Party hold power between it's hands. It ruled Canada with an iron authority, only one country in the world with a multiparty system can say the same (Mexico with the rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party). And yet yesterday as Micheal Ignatieff took front stage it seemed that some political tectonic plate had shifted in the Canadian political landscape. The shift had for effect an earthquake and the Liberal Party of Canada collapsed. Many things may be said about this campaign and how "inefficient" Mr. Ignatieff was, but do not be fooled the problem is much more deeper then mere logistic problems. No it's a crisis inside the Liberal Party, probably inside it's owns basis perception of their ideals. The lesson all Canadians have to take out of this debacle is that a weak Liberal Party is unhealthy for the Canadian left.

It's unhealthy as of yesterday night because the collapse of Liberal Canada allowed the unwanted ascension of Conservative Canada. Harper did certainly win a majority yesterday night and that was the bitter side of the election results, I know from my point of view the catastrophic side of the events, but remember the conservatives won a relative majority not an absolute one. Many pundits came out during the night and early morning stating that it was a crushing victory for the Conservatives and the Conservative agenda, but it wasn't. Harper won 40% of the national vote 10% shy of the 50% by my calculus the majority mark. On the other hand the Liberal/New Democratic vote combined is over that "dotted line". So the lesson is yes it was catastrophic that the Conservatives gained a majority on the hill, a majority that will allow them to turn Canada more and more away form it's fundamental values. But the only ones we have to beat-up around here is ourselves. If the talk of coalition had not been taboo, if instead of a picking a fight against each other the Liberals and NDPs had decided work out an agenda of "circumstances" with the idea that the main threat was a Harper majority. But then again it's all idealism because in the end it's all about political gain, or is it?

So middle way through the night Layton appeared. Confident and smiling as always crowned with the biggest victory in the history of his party and as leader of the official opposition. But Layton had a lot more to smile about first of all I think we can all no mater what our political orientations are that Layton's campaign was morally speaking the cleanest in the race. Layton did things his way, instead of giving into the politics of division and fear Layton offered a renewed hope in the political system, engaged hundreds of new voters and gave an asthmatic democracy a new breath, maybe even new lungs (only time will tell). But probably the most important thing Layton did through his campaign was that he gave Quebec a voice in federal affairs and in doing so for first time in decades showed Canada that unity can still be achieved and that Quebec is still no matter what part of Canada.

Yesterday night was also the death of the Bloc and what a death going form the mid-40's in the number of MP's to barely 4 it was the end of "souverainiste" Quebec. It was the end of an ere, almost like the end of war that started in the late 1960's and that continued on to today. No province made a stronger statement yesterday evening, Quebec with one unified and symphonic voice reengaged itself with Canadian politics and decided to be the new propulsion of change in Canada, Dieu Merci! So when Duceppe said what before would be seen by the rest of Canada as a horrible threat to nation unity "And we will not stop until Quebec becomes a (independent) country" it was just some bickering of an old man that forgot to jump on the "reality" train. What an amazing weekend during the night of Sunday we assisted to Bin Laden's death with all of it's consequences and it's meanings (there will be an up coming post on that subject) and on Monday night we assisted to death of the Bloc, let's just hope that it stays were it should be forever that's means in it's grave.

So yes without any doubts yesterday's election was a breakthrough in Canadian politics a "watersheder" and for sure this pivotal election will be remembered as a turning point in Canadian political history and the power behind such change (we have to stop fooling ourselves with the talk of the Conservative tide-wave) it was the meteoric ascension of the NDP who changed the face of Canadian politics as we knew it. So Harper beware for you might have left us a bitter taste in our mouths emphasizing the division between Liberals and NDP to gain a majority but beware because in doing so you have given the Canadian left the greatest opportunity in decades if not history to unite and re-enhance a "Liberal (as in the left leaning sense) Nation". So I guess it's a bittersweet taste indeed but a bit more sweeter then bitter, the game is on now to make it all about sweetness.

Sky