On the lookout for policy
The Liberal leadership campaign has been almost entirely bereft of policy debate, at least as far as ordinary Canadians can tell. It took a damaging scandal to get the leadership candidates to take a stand. And even in this case, only two of them took a stand, while the rest didn't disagree. They just didn't say anything at all. Do any of them believe in much of anything?
Has anyone noticed that in the media coverage of the Liberal leadership campaign, there hasn't been any real issues? There has been plenty of politics, of course.
The Joe Volpe donations scandal.
The problem with French fluency for Scott Brison, Caroyln Bennett, Ken Dryden, and Hedy Fry.
The dithering and confusion over what to do with Borys Wrzesnewskyj.
But no policy debates that have reached the pages of the newspapers Canadians read.
There have been two debates so far. I can't recall anything of substance to come out of them.
Jim Karygiannis quits as Joe Volpe's manager, leading to speculation about where all those members he signed up would go.
There are some issues that started to be talked about. The Middle East, of course, but with Borys Wrzesnewskyj's incredibly bad judgment and subsequent self-immolation, I expect that most candidates will stay mum. So push and pull on Kyoto, but not much to differentiate the candidates.
About the only issue that I think has gotten any serious play is whether Michael Ignatieff is "too American" to be considered as leader. That's political too, but underneath are policy questions. But even here no one is actually talking too much about the policies themselves, just whether or not Ignatieff's position on these policies exceed some forbidden threshold of American-ness.
Part of this is because the Liberal Party is staging a huge policy renewal effort, with literally dozens of committees reviewing all sorts of policy areas. But that is being done in parallel with the leadership campaign. How can leadership hopefuls enumerate policy positions while the party is doing the same?
Consider the Philosophy team:
What are the basic values of Canadians? How well do they conform to the philosophic core of liberalism? What is the right vocabulary for reflecting those values back to Canadians in ways they can recognize?
Isn't the leader supposed to do this? Isn't the point of a leadership campaign to test the ability of the candidates to speak to Canadians and move them with their words?
And for that matter, isn't a leader's personal philosophy supposed to drive the policies of party?
This is a head-scratcher for me. Maybe I'm just being impatient. Maybe things will heat up in the next couple of months, and real differences will emerge. But I get the feeling that the renewal commissions will deliver their reports on what the Liberal Party stands for on women's issues, on social justice, on foreign policy, on immigration, on aboriginal issues, and so forth, after the leadership campaign is finished. The candidates will keep mum when it comes to substance (Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett being two notable exceptions with the Wrzesnewskyj issue). Then the best looking or wealthiest or most underhanded candidate will win two things in December.
First, the leadership of the Liberal Party.
Second, soon after the convention is finished, a report from the renewal commission containing everything he or she is supposed to believe in.
That's leadership?
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Liberal Party Canada leadership renewal commission
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I am predicting a "we're not Harper" campaign. But we'll see.
Posted by: Luke at August 24, 2006 02:06 PM
I for one support Harper's position of support for Israel and will support him.
We Canadians have watched the Liberal government welcome the Hamas and Hezbolla to this country and only after great pressure named them terrorist organizations. Their actions on this matter alone have distanced many of my associates from their party as well.
Posted by: Toby at August 24, 2006 03:34 PM
Yes, there's a leadership vacuum. What's really frustrating for the Liberals right now is that there doesn't have to be such a vacuum.
They have a leader in place, named Bill Graham. The problem is that Bill doesn't want to take a stand on anything, because the odds are that it'll be reversed or tossed aside by whatever new leader comes in.
And it's especially damaging now because, with Parliament not in session, there is no formal mechanism working right now to enforce party discipline. Hence the Borys Blowout.
Should the Tories actually wind up with a majority government, it will be due just as much to Bill Graham's failures as Stephen Harper's virtues.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at August 24, 2006 04:24 PM
Steve asks plaintively about the Liberal leadership: "Do any of them believe in much of anything?"
Beliving in something means conviction, and this can be trouble. Top priority for Liberals is to remain unconvicted.
Wes
Posted by: Wes at August 24, 2006 05:42 PM
I think you are being unfair.
The Liberals have deeply held, philisophically rigorous and coherently expressed policy convictions. They just haven't been able to interpret the public opinion surveys to determine what they are.
Posted by: Bruce at August 24, 2006 06:50 PM
You mention "policy convictions". Even juniour Liberals-in-training are able to believe three mutually exclusive "policy convictions" concurently.
Child's play really.
The convictions that top ranking Liberals want to avoid are the Guite-Coffin kind.
Wes
Posted by: Wes at August 24, 2006 07:40 PM
In short: The Liberals don't have any policies that mean anything. They have only temporary policies that can change the moment a poll indicates that the Canadian public may, and I mean may, feel strongly about something. But that could change at the drop of a hat.
What the Librano$ are good at is schmoozing, partying, networking, taxing and spending lavishly, and being ready at a moment's notice to "abandon ship" to swim to another one if it means they can hold onto "power," a commodity which up till now they thought they had a handle on.
They're in total confusion because they have no centre. They don't know what they stand for. They've had their finger in the air so long, that now that the wind is changing every few minutes the old finger can't figure out what the heck's happening. The old weather vane is spinning so fast, the Libs are dizzy and feeling quite sick.
Gravol is not going to help them. Gravitas might, but they forfeited that a long time ago.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 24, 2006 08:04 PM
I recognized the style of how Bill Graham dealt with Wrzesnewskyj's little "oops" as being of the vintage Chretien variety...
"He resigned his appointment so it's all done. Nothing to see here. Move along! Pepper on my steak!"
Posted by: Mac at August 25, 2006 12:44 AM
 
|
|
