American Politics

As was widely expected, Michael Ignatieff recently announced his intention to enter the leadership race to replace Stéphane Dion. That the race will feature a renewed battle between the Rae and Ignatieff camps, means that Canadians will likely see Liberal knives out a little while longer before they see them sheathed away. 

The Liberal party, its leadership candidates and their supporters are rightly examining the Democrats’ recent victory for clues on how to not only energize their increasingly disillusioned base, but to again appear relevant to an increasingly skeptical Canadian public. While a lot of focus has been on Barack Obama, I think there’s a more fundamental lesson on party solidarity to be learned from Hillary Clinton.  

The evening of November 4, my Facebook news feed read like a lament for a nation. My Canadian friends, inspired by the candidacy of Barack Obama, began to long for their own visionary and transformational leader.

Through their status messages, young Canadians expressed their envy of how engaging American politics had become. They too wanted to reclaim their government, but felt aimless without a compelling figure to call them to action. They wondered, “Where’s Canada’s Barack Obama?”

True, it often takes an inspiring figure to galvanize a critical mass of people. And Barack Obama’s charisma and inspiring message were certainly part of his stunning victory. But neither his candidacy nor his election would have been possible without the willingness of everyday Americans to believe in something greater than them and work tirelessly to change their country. Young Canadians looking for their own Barack Obama should start by looking at themselves.

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the Democratic Party managed to shatter the coalition that Karl Rove had hoped would create a permanent Republican majority in Washington. Rove’s strategy was to energize the Christian Conservative base while fracturing the opposition with “wedge issues” such as gun control, gay marriage, and abortion.

Stephen Harper has ambitions of creating a permanent Conservative majority in Ottawa. His strategy is very different from Rove’s. He essentially hopes to recreate the Mulroney coalition by holding grassroots Western support, winning over Québecois soft nationalists, and splitting Ontario and the Atlantic region with the Liberals and NDP. What lessons can the Liberal Party learn from the Democratic victory that might help them return to power?

Barack Obama’s election has changed Canada forever. Of course it’ll have a huge impact on the United States, but the influence on its northern neighbour will also be profound, albeit subtle.

No, Obama’s election doesn’t spell the end of NAFTA and millions of Canadian jobs like right-wing observers suggest. It does, however, shatter many of the myths that Canadians like to believe about themselves, especially vis-à-vis their giant neighbour.

With Obama’s election, Canadians can no longer pretend to be the more racially tolerant of the two countries. Tuesday’s outcome is both a triumph for Americans and a reason for Canadians to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror, particularly when it comes to racial inequality within their own country.

McCain’s proposal for a “League of Democracies” is an absurd idea. McCain argues that the world’s “more than 100 democratic nations” should form this league to work in concert on issues such as terrorism, Russia’s turn towards authoritarianism, and climate change.   

There are two fundamental problems with McCain’s plan for a League. First, it views the world as a place in which democracies share values and interests that are consistently opposed to those of non-democracies.  The truth is that on each of the issues that McCain mentioned, various democracies — the United States, Europe, India for example — have drastically different interests and positions. And the United States’ interests are often closely aligned with those of very undemocratic states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE.   

Just watching CNN’s coverage of the U.S. Senate’s vote on the revamped bailout proposal. One of the things that frustrates me the most about this mess is that it was foreseeable. But what’s even more frustrating is that lawmakers could be powerless to get us out of it. 

Last spring, I read an article in the Economist warning that the American financial markets may be overstretched. Big financial institutions were betting heavily on complex securities — like mortgage-backed securities — in an increasingly global market and lots of smart people, including those who are about to be bailed out,  recognized the risks involved:

Watching last night’s Presidential debate in a local pub, I was suddenly struck by something (not a dart, happily). These guys don’t really disagree on much of anything when it comes to foreign policy.

How is this possible, you may ask. These guys couldn’t be more different, you may say.

Fair enough. But, let’s look at the actual transcript of the debate.

The debate on foreign policy (which followed extensive debate on the financial crisis) consisted of 5 “lead questions”. Here are the questions, and the candidates’ heavily redacted answers. (I have tried to cut out everything that did not directly answer the question posed by the moderator, Jim Lehrer).

Sarah Palin is the beneficiary of sexism. The public response to Palin’s candidacy is a major setback for feminism because it proves that negative stereotypes about women are deeply engrained in the subconscious of many Americans. But society’s sexism is a political advantage for America’s first female Republican vice-presidential nominee because it shields her from the vigorous scrutiny normally faced by her male counterparts.

Palin’s popularity is based largely on superficial qualities. Much of her appeal stems from the fact she’s a self-described “hockey mom” — a middle-class wife and mother whose life revolves around her family. And, although no one dares to say it, the “Palin Factor” has a lot to do with her physical appearance.