Blog THIS: September 29

September 29, 2008
A compass for the road to the general election
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:30 PM ET | Comments (1)

We often use the old left-right spectrum while describing political sympathies. You are on the right if you favour the free market, limited government intervention, and, often, social conservatism. You are on the left if you favour economic safety nets, or progressivism, and social inclusiveness. Simple. Neat. Inadequate.

The Political Compass tries to lend us a few more tools for this endeavour. We can now use the concepts of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism to draw a more detailed description of our political leanings; therefore allowing for more discriminating analysis. For example, both Stalin and Gandhi were leftists because they favoured the coordination of the economy by government bodies. But they obviously were very different as well. One viewed citizens as mere things to be pushed around and controlled by the state; while the other assumed the intrinsic worth of every individual and therefore gave great importance to the notion of personal choice - Gandhi would not force anything on you. So, Stalin is a leftist-authoritarian while Gandhi is a leftist-libertarian. Simple. Neat. A little less inadequate.

Now look below for where the Canadian federal parties place during this election season. I was surprised by the Green party.

Blog THIS: September 26

September 26, 2008
On vetting your candidates: try googling their names
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:23 PM ET

Before a political party settles on a candidate to run in an election they engage in the immensely important process of vetting. This is simply the examination of and research into the candidate in question: findout out about their personal history; their legislative or executive record; and everything else about the person so they don't unwittingly choose a candidate with skeletons in their closet.

Naturally, no amount of research will uncover every slip-up made by potential candidates. Some candidates will pass through, undetected by their party's elders and run their campaigns, only to be found out later (if at all). Some, however, are so bad you're left wondering how it's possible they weren't found out earlier. This election has its example: Julian West, the NDP candidate for MP in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding, recently dropped out for going nude in front of minors, some 12 years ago. In the United States, John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is obviously the product of poor vetting. This is as certain as anything after her pathetic display of vacuity in the Katie Couric interview.

Why weren't these two unelectables discovered earlier? Could the people making the final decision on who runs be forgiven: they are, in fact, mere humans. We all make mistakes. And I'm sure they put at their disposal every single research tool to uncover all the relevant details. Well, sadly this is an assumption I should purge myself of. When the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, was asked how thoroughly the party vetts its portential candidates, he assured us they would take more stringent measures in the future. As he put it:

"We thought it had been adequate. Evidently not . . . We're reviewing it, no question about that. In this era of Googles and everything else there's obviously new techniques we may be able to employ."
First, why did he call it "Googles"? Second, they didn't do a google search in vetting Julian West? The party passed up a chance to find something that could hurt them because they couldn't squeeze five minutes of basic internet browsing into their jam-packed day? Every high school student knows they can google something if it has been reported in the past, and the NDP can't google one of their potential candidates for Member of Parliament? The Republican Party couldn't spend more time researching Palin's credentials and capacities?

The state of our presumptive representatives is appaling. They are increasingly anti-intellectual, and now anti-information - hopefully it's only to their own detriment.

Blog THIS: September 25

September 25, 2008
We need more intellectuals to run for office.
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 12:14 PM ET

The Liberal Party is imploding, with Stephane Dion as unpopular as ever and left-leaning people increasingly shifting to the NDP, or even the Green Party. This is not the Liberal Party's year. But aren't they so very lucky to have Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal MP and deputy leader, as a member of their club? Yesterday, The New Republic, a very influential publication out of the United States, published a book review written by Ignatieff. The book he reviewed was Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention, by Gary J. Bass.

It's a history of the intensely debated idea of humanitarian intervention, and Ignatieff displays a genuine understanding. Which is not very surprsing considering that in the past he has been a professor of history; a journalist; director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University; a writer of books on nation-building and human rights; and even a writer of novels. Humanitarian intervention has been a point of great focus and research time for him.

We can't really say the same thing about other politicians. Their grasp of issues are usually superficial and glib. More of our representatives need to be like Ignatieff. We need more people like him in the room when foreign policy issues call for subtle and deep thinking. I hope the party to lead at the end of this election has someone this smart around, because it just doesn't look like it'll be the Liberals.

Blog THIS: September 24

September 24, 2008
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:34 PM ET

In this election, and in most others, strong words are common and as plentiful as the air we breathe. Stephane Dion has been pegged an effete, weak-chinned, intellectual; Jack Layton, a crude Barack Obama imitation; and Stephen Harper, stone-hearted and disengaged. Well now Harper can add "genocidal" to the list. Dr. Julio Montaner, a researcher on HIV/AIDS, accused the Harper government, on monday, of practicing the worst of all criminal activities due to their support of closing down Vancouver's supervised drug injection facility, known also as InSite.

Montaner's problem with this is that InSite, as some studies have shown, has done quite a bit to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver, with nurses providing clean needles.

I understand the intuition behind the Conservative's position. It's something like this: all things being equal, we should not assist others in their acts of self-harm. But, of course, the real world is messy and complex, and it forces us to do things we might not like for the benefit of greater goods. And there is a greater good with InSite. The drug addict is better off with this alternative to sharing needles and risking transmitting diseases.

If you feel the same way, you have an alternative as well. From the Globe and Mail, Layton this monday on InSite: "All of the evidence indicates that this is a way that we can help people, and it is tragic that the federal government is not providing that support," he said at a campaign stop in Montreal. "It saves lives."

make it better

I think this, an article on the urgency and importance of economic change, is excellent.

Blog THIS: September 23

September 23, 2008
Layton, Harper, and the Arts
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:50 AM ET

So far, the Conservative Party has made a real push for votes in Quebec. Harper recently asked Quebecers to ignore the Bloc Quebecois, saying the party would do nothing but come "empty-handed". And the Conservatives were doing quite well in the polls — beating the traditional favourites, the Bloc, infused with the sense that this was a sign of even more good to come. But all things are liable to change. Harper's proposal for a $45-million cut in arts funding has not been well-received (read: hated) by the average Quebecer. Who could have guessed it?

Well, perhaps the NDP's Jack Layton. Glimpsing the Zeitgeist, he swooped into Quebec with plans to reverse the Conservatives' proposed cuts. Fleshing out the details, he said he would expand to the rest of the country the common Quebec practice of income-averaging for artitsts; and he would provide tax exemptions to those earning income from copyright and residuals; among other, artistically-conscious, things. He also played the guitar and sang for the press.

I must say I enjoy this kind of instant-democracy. One party proposes a plan that does little more than anger people, and another comes along to provide its opposite. It might have been better to get it right from the beginning; or to not have to rely on public outrage to find out what the people want, but this is the way it goes - for better or worse. Our political system is a lot like what a scientist might call a kludge: a clumsy and inelegant, yet surprisingly efficient, solution to a problem.

Blog THIS, September 22

September 22, 2008
The carbon-tax is a plan, but where is it taking us?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:25 AM ET

The Liberal and the Green party share at least one thing in common this election: they both have carbon-tax plans. The specifics, of reducing income taxes and increasing taxes on fuel and other carbon emitters, are almost exactly alike. Well, except for Elizabeth May's superior presentation. Speaking of Stephane Dion, she says: "I can explain it better than he can."

But we should not forget that carbon-taxes have been implemented before, primarily in European countries. And we would do well to survey the various incarnations of this globe-trotting plan; forming an evaulation of the Liberal/Green proposal(s) in this light.

So, to begin, Finland started this eco-conscious trend in 1990 with its carbon-tax plan. As of January 2008, Finland has increased its tax by about 9.8% and exempted taxes on biofuel. In the UK, after including a Fuel Price Escalator, by which the tax would gradually, but inexorably, increase, there were public revolts. People were simply paying too much. The increases have since ended. British Columbia already has a carbon-tax plan and Stephane Dion, for one, has stated he would not exempt it from his national plan: effectively taxing its residents twice.

Questions also arise concerning how efficient carbon-taxes are, assuming people can even afford them. Is it true they require heavy government subsidies? How does it remain a self-sustaining way of taxing the bad things in our environment if these subsidies must be made?

I for one believe our environmental problems can be solved, in part at least, through economic means. The carrot and stick of economic incentives are quite persuasive. I just wonder if our national leaders have found the precise way of getting us on the right track.

Blog THIS, September 19

September 19, 2008
Where have all the rational voters gone?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:27 AM ET

Although a lot of us would hate to admit this, myself included, we are, in at least some very significant ways, determined by our genes. We are open to new experiences; dogmatic; and open-minded, among other personality traits, because of genetic inclinations. But what's more, researchers are now saying these traits affect our political orientation. So, my genes indirectly, but surely, affect my voting preferences! Some people just can't help but be conservative, while others liberal. Also, a study being published today says our physiological tendencies affect our views on specific policies.

From today's Globe and Mail:

"The researchers examined 46 individuals with strong political attitudes and found that those with "measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control."
On the other hand, "individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favour defence spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq war.""

All of this raises doubts about our claim to being rational decision makers during election time. The majority of us will be voting on the basis of genetic predispositions; heritable ideological outlooks; and just plain knee-jerk reactions. So what's the point of debating the policy promises of Harper, Dion, Layton, May, and Duceppe?

Well, despite all this research, I think there is a point. Our genes might affect our minds, let's grant that, but our minds are perfectly capable of clearing genetic hurdles. It might be difficult for our dogmatic friends, but they can learn to be a little more humble in their opinions. The open-minded soul can become narrow and rigid, xenophobic even. And the easily frightened defence-spender may become bold and fearless. Anything is possible. But only with constant engagement and effort. So, on with the debates, party leaders. We'll try to listen for a change.

Blog THIS, September 18

September 18, 2008
Stephane Dion is not a leader? Is Harper either?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 10:34 AM ET

I once remember Andrew Sullivan, that tireless blogger and commentator on American politics, distinguishing government from politicts in a very interesting way. Government, he said, is an incremental process involving detailed legislation and backroom negotiation. Politics, on the other hand, is something more theatrical and personality-driven. It is about convincing people to share in a certain vision for the country, province, state, or town, and moving them to action. This is usually accomplished with a combination of rhetorical sensibility, admirable character, and a healthy balance of populism and independence of thought. The master of Politics is what we might call a leader.

This brings us to our current election, where the Prime Minister has the reputation of being a strong leader. The Conservative Party continues to brand Stephane Dion as not up to the task of leading, while describing Stephen Harper as being unquestionably prepared for it. And a large part of the country seems to agree. Andrew Coyne of Maclean's had something to say about this in a recent column and in a blog post:

"But is that all there is to it? What do we mean by a strong leader? Strong in what sense? Leader in what sense? The word "leader" suggests someone who will lead us to something or somewhere. Yet Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals, only without the corruption. His message so far in the campaign has been much the same. There's been little sense of where he would take the country if re-elected, and little likelihood of one emerging. Indeed, he is at pains to emphasize his belief that the election will probably return another minority Parliament — the very one whose dissolution he had lately demanded."

So why do we persist in accepting this definition of Harper? Could it be the lack of real competitors to the title; our low standards; a dispiriting mix of the two?

Blog THIS, September 17

September 17, 2008
David Miller says "Vote Toronto" (read: "Greens")
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:00 PM ET

David Miller indirectly endorsed the Green party yesterday when he praised their national transit plan and their promise to increase funding for municipal infrastructure. Although he did not officially endorse the party, he did say it had the best plan for cities in a radio interview yesterday.

He also contrasted this thinly-veiled endorsement with some strong words for Stephen Harper, due, no doubt, to the latter's tendency to leave cities in the care of their respective provinces without a second glance.

"The prime minister always says cities are not of national importance," said Miller. "They are. And all of the parties should be speaking to that."

Although David Miller seems to be alone among mayors who opine on the federal election, perhaps the rest should take his example. It would be nice to have more democratically elected officials give their constituents an honest opinion.

Why the novelist Michael Chabon likes Obama:

For one thing the guy can write. He's a really good writer and that means a lot to me and is not true of almost anyone else who's ever run for office since I've been voting. I know that might seem silly, but that means something to me. But it's not just that he can write, it's that his writing, especially when he writes about America and American history, displays this sense of complete ambivalence. Of being fully conscious of both what's great and what's terrible about America and American history. The ills, the evils, the massacres, the injustices that have been done, and at the same time a sense of pride and faith and optimism that's coupled with a totally clear-eyed sense of the grimness that's there as well.

This is a recurring point of attraction for many artists and intellectuals.

secular mysticism

From Albert Einstein’s The World as I see It:

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

To do

Vote Michael Byers.

Obama's convention speech

Barack Obama has been described in some very unflattering ways. They have called him elitist. A supporter of black liberation theology. An overly intellectual pontificator. The Other. A celebrity. Out of touch with the average working-class American. Inexperienced and ill-prepared to lead. A secret Muslim. A man of oratorical gifts with little substance or concrete ideas. They have said all these things in a span of less than one year. But with his convention speech on August 28th, he effectively silenced these presumptive narrators of his story.

This was a less lyrical speech than past efforts, intent as he was in defining his specific plans and countering the meme that he is nothing by a rhetorician. He would shift tax breaks away from corporations and towards the poor and the middle-class. Well and good. He would develop a sorely needed health insurance system that would ensure affordable medical care for those that need it but cannot manage its costs. He assured America that, unlike McCain, he does not support the privatization of Social Security. He laid out an intuitive criticism of the trickle-down economic theory McCain has often espoused. “For over two decades," said Obama, "he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.” He criticized McCain for voting in favor of Bush policies about 90 percent of the time in the Senate; and of agreeing to go into Iraq when they should have stayed and invested more in the fight in Afghanistan. These plans and words of censure are of the times, and he articulated the mood well. The people were with him.

Now, naturally there were things he said I could not agree with. For one, he advocated energy independence. This is a shame in the light of this idea’s history and the specifics of his plan. The proposal of energy independence has been around since Nixon and it’s for good reason it hasn’t gotten off the ground. There are, as yet, no good replacements for foreign oil. Obama still defends the creation of fuel from food, or biofuel of the corn-based variety. But biofuel is a nonstarter. For one, it contains much less energy per quantity than oil. It also takes much more energy to produce biofuel (the vast amounts of fresh water, and the cleared forests, let alone the seemingly limitless corn) than might be expected, making the energy “investment” greater than the energy gained. In the near future they may discover something as efficient as oil, but biofuel is not it, and Obama would do well to realize this sooner than later. Also, even assuming a good fuel alternative, it would take a lot of time and, yes, energy to replace the existing infrastructure. This would take even more foreign oil. So, the idea for now cannot be energy independence.

Nevertheless, this is all a good start. Obama has made his goals clear. Time and a healthy dose of pragmatism will flesh these ideas out and, hopefully, improve them.

With this speech Obama made the case that Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans and as prepared and capable of defending their country as any. He laid the claim that America is as much about the self-reliance Republicans praise so much as the collective responsibility they praise not enough. More than any Democrat of late, he has set an ambitious course. This moving speech is a dream beginning its realization.