http://www.adamyoshida.com

www.adamyoshida.com

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Memo to Prime Minister Stephen Harper

FROM: Adam Teiichi Yoshida
TO: The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC, MP
SUBJECT: Your Glorious Regime

Well, it didn’t turn out quite as we (you or I, it would seem, expected it). Alas, it would seem that – in the words of Thomas Paine – “tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered.” That, Prime Minister, is the bad news.

Now, here’s the good news. Despite the defeatism that has seeped into our ranks – spread largely by dedicated supporters whose late hopes of a majority have been so violently dashed – your achievements are remarkable. In two and a half years, you have done the unthinkable twice. You united the seemingly irreconcilable Reform and Progressive Conservative varieties of the right in Canada. Now you have ended Liberal rule and beaten the undefeatable Paul Martin, driving him from public life in the process. We cannot lose sight of this.
Yet, Prime Minister, despite whatever is said in public, our goals are not achieved by this win. Our goal – rhetoric aside – must not be to “make this Parliament work” but rather to prepare for the next election, which is no more than two years away, and to search after the elusive majority.

We are not as far from a majority as it may seem. We are about thirty seats short of our goal. If we can overtake the Liberals and become the voice of Federalism in Quebec, there’s at least another twenty seats up for grabs there. That means we need only another ten or so seats in the rest of Canada to find a majority. This is easily possible if only we regain our losses in British Columbia and make some marginal gains in Ontario.

The question now, Prime Minister, is of how we are to govern in the interim. Shall you seek to compromise with the other parties, cutting deals with the Bloc and the NDP, or shall you seek to lead the nation as though you had a majority?
It is the latter course that I propose.

I. LOGISTICS AND PROFESSIONALS.

It is an old military axiom that “amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics.” The same, I believe, is true in politics. This is not 1979 – when Joe Clark’s plan to govern with a minority as though he had a majority led to disaster. Here is the simple fact. If there is another election, we shall win by default for the simple reason that we are the only party which is capable of fighting another election.

The Liberal Party is leaderless. They are $30 million in debt. They’ve just seen their public subsidy slashed by 20%. They’re going to struggle to avoid bankruptcy – let alone to wage an effective campaign. I doubt if they have the capacity to borrow to finance another campaign. I would wager, Prime Minister, that at this very moment there are executives at some of Canada’s major banks sweating it out over the possibility that the huge loans they’ve made to the Liberals might head south.

Similarly, the Bloc is in trouble. They rely upon public subsidies. They’ve just taken a beating. Indeed, the discrediting of the Federal Liberal brand in Quebec is likely to rebound to the benefit of the Provincial Government.

The NDP might be able to fight another campaign – probably can – but aren’t all that relevant under the circumstances.

If you put the new restrictions on individual and corporate contributions in right away, this will worsen the problems of our opponents. They won’t dare to bring down the government because they know that they don’t have the ammunition.

Given this, Prime Minister, there’s no point in cutting deals with the Opposition. Let them threaten – they won’t dare. Stare them down, if need be. Let them bring the Government down, if they dare.

II. A SHORT WINDOW TO ACT.

Prime Minister, the truth is that you didn’t win the last election – the Liberals lost it. We waged a defensive campaign – and wars are not won on the defense. To win a majority, our only choice is to revolutionize this country.

You have a window for change. The Liberals don’t dare to bring us down before, at a minimum, next spring. We can take this chance to pursue new policies which will truly contrast us with the left in this country – which will offer the people, to borrow a phrase, a choice, not an echo.

First, shrink the government. Cut taxes and cut programs. Do both and do them deeply and quickly. Cut the GST, retain the tiny Liberal tax cut, and – once you’ve had a chance to go through the books and find some more money – go further. Double the basic personal exemption.

Second, do something about the fiscal imbalance, and do it quickly. Use this to secure the support of the Bloc. When doing this, don’t simply shift money around the Federal table. Instead, let’s really change this country.

Junk transfer payments. They’re wasteful. Whatever benefits they confer on poorer regions are probably lost in the shuffle of paper and the attrition of money which naturally accompanies its flow through the state.

Instead, radically cut Federal taxes and let the Provinces raise additional revenues as they choose. This will increase flexibility, it will increase Provincial autonomy, and it will leave more overall dollars available for public services. Sure, this will cost us a few Atlantic seats – but it’s not like we won many seats there anyways.

Third, screw Toronto. They’re never going to vote for us. They’re our Alberta. There’s no reason to even bother with them. Stop sending Federal money into that sinkhole – and use it somewhere that it can be put to good use.

Fourth, do something about crime – and do it damned fast. We know what needs to be done. They’re no reason to wait.

Fifth, allow for private health care. Prime Minister, health care remains the top priority of many Canadians – and, now that corruption is no longer an issue, it will soon be the top once again. Make health care work

But, Prime Minister, we need to go further than that. We need to court controversy on issues where the public is on our side, but the organized left is not. The goal here is to shatter the myth that the Liberal Party represents Canadian values, while the Conservatives are somehow un-Canadian. We are patriots too – and we must make sure that the public knows and understands that. We must pursue policies which will place our own unique stamp upon this great land and which outline a vision of this country radically at odds with that of the left-wing elites, but in synch with the people of this country.

III. A TRUE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.

I propose that we pursue two basic policies – policies which we can get through this Parliament – which can demonstrate the fundamental disconnect which exists between the values of the Liberal Party and the values of the people. We must turn the Canadian values question on its head – we must establish our own credentials on this issue.

Capital Punishment: A majority of the public support the death penalty. A super-majority would, I expect, support a very narrow death penalty for the worst criminals. The Liberal Party and the media would oppose it – hysterically, I suspect.

We need to understand this: corruption will fade as an issue and the Liberals will return (possibly even in the next election) if the public goes on believing that they are the party which are basically in synch with public values and that the Conservatives are a party at odds with those values, but struggling to be acceptable.

If the death penalty were brought in for mass murderers, serial killers, and child killers, it would have the support of the vast majority of the public. It would have strong support that would cut across party lines. The mad shrieks that would emerge from the Liberal-media axis in opposition would therefore serve to remind the public that the Liberals are, their arrogant claims to the contrary, at odds with their values.

The Military: If there’s one way to reclaim the flag, it’s to expand the armed forces and to make sure that we’re identified with the policy. Let’s divide the Armed Forces back into the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. And let’s launch a decade-long plan to triple the strength and the size of the military in order to ensure that Canada can truly maintain a strong an independent foreign policy.

Inevitably, the Liberals will oppose this. We can use this opposition to show the silliness of their claims to speak for Canada. We should end Canada’s history of being the shouting weakling, shaking our fists and crawling along on our knees.

You would be well-served, Prime Minister, by making a series of speeches to members of the military outlining this vision. They would get good press – and they would help to define the issue in the public eye. State again and again – we are doing this for Canada, to make us a great country again.

Learn the lessons of Reagan, Prime Minister, who reached into America’s past to define the America of the 1980’s. Invoke the memory of the Canada that fought in the World Wars – use the imagery, the background, to remind people of what kind of a nation Canada once was and what kind of nation that it can be. Reclaim the idea of Canada as a power in the world.

I, for one, am optimistic about the future. This is not the end – but we have reached end of the beginning. God bless you, Prime Minister, and God Bless Canada.

posted by Adam at 1:04 AM

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

After Armageddon: A Memo to Prime Minister Harper

TO: Prime Minister Harper

January 24, 2006

Congratulations, Prime Minister. Your win, unthinkable only a month ago, is a truly Earth-shaking accomplishment – one which has not gone unnoticed in the world at large. Two months ago, even a Conservative minority government seemed out of the question. Anyone who bet on a majority at that time is now rather wealthy. That’s the good news.

Now, for the bad news. While the campaign that you and your advisors waged was critical to your victory, it is also undeniable that this result is much more a result of Liberal incompetence than Conservative proficiency. In short, Prime Minister, you won because the Liberals lost.

Their party is now in chaos. Martin might want to hold on. But there’s no way he can survive this result. He’ll be out – if not within a week, then very soon. Then there will be a divisive Liberal leadership race that will take at least six months. At that point, (if not sooner) I am entirely certain, the traditional veneration of the Liberal Party in the media will resume.

Canadian politics since the Second World War has been defined by a remarkable and nearly fixed pattern. The Liberal Party governs for an extended period of time – and places more and more of a stamp upon the country – and then is tossed out of power by voters sickened by the party’s arrogance and corruption. When this happens the Conservative Party takes over for a little while and serves, in essence, as the Regent of the Welfare State. Diefenbaker and Mulroney may have tinkered here and there with Liberal policies and initiated one or two of their own, but no Conservative Prime Minister has shaken the foundations of our Trudeaupian Nanny State.

The pundits who claim that this victory changes the shape of politics in this country have the thing entirely wrong. We are not breaking new ground here. Your win, Prime Minister, is history repeating itself – not history being made in new. We have seen this pattern before.

Winning the election didn’t change things. What you do with the win is what can be the salvation of our country. Politics is like a locked wheel. The majority of the time, it can be shifted only slightly to the right or to the left. However, sometimes, the wheel comes unlocked for a single moment – be it bitter or be it glorious. When the wheel locks again, it can only be shifted slightly once more – but now it sits in its new position.

When a political earthquake occurs, the people are disoriented and, to a degree, frightened. They don’t know what is coming. The opposition is not organized to oppose. “Any port in a storm” is a saying because it is true. During the storm, the people will have no choice but to accept what you do. Your win means the coming of such storm.

Some may say that you lack the mandate for such comprehensive change. Nonsense, I say. It is obviously true that your campaign’s great flaw, from a small-c conservative point of view, was that it seemingly bought into the liberal view of government as a dispenser of goodies to the population and into the Liberal Party’s view of Canadian values and Liberal values as being one and the same.

If you allow Canada to be defined on the terms of the Liberal Party – as a nation defined by unlimited social tolerance, nanny-state interventionism in the economy, and a weak foreign policy, then your reign (be it for one term or several) will be nothing more than an interregnum. The creation of a new Dynasty to replace the old requires that you break free of the constraints imposed by the campaign and, instead, seek to forge a new Canada – one which restores the best traditions of the old, saves what is worth keeping of what is, and adds a few new steps to the pattern.

The goal here, Prime Minister, is not simply to form a new government. It is to create a new country. If we are to save Canada, we must remake it. To do so, we must use the power vested in you to undertake a revolution.

Broadly, the program I commend to you involves action on three fronts: the social, the economic, and the foreign.

The Social Front:

I recommend that you make crime the focus of your opening effort on social issues. Abortion and Gay Marriage – though important to some people – have limited popular appeal. They’re dead issues. A vote on gay marriage is fine by me – but it’s not going to change the course of this country. Your efforts on crime, on the other hand, just might.

This is one area where we know that conservative policies work from experience – and where the results will be obvious in four years’ time. We already know what to do here. Abolish conditional sentencing for violent crimes. Add mandatory minimums. Allow for conditional sentencing. Bring in new guidelines. Cut useless programs like the gun registry and use the money to put more cops on the streets. The final point, not talked about much, is probably the most important. It should be obvious (but for some reason isn’t to many people) but the best way to curb most crime it to put police out on foot on the streets. Build more jails. However, to truly make a revolution, a Conservative Majority ought to go one step further.

Prime Minister, if you want to change this country, then bring back the death penalty.

Bring it back on a very limited basis. Only for the most heinous of criminals – serial murderers and child killers – and only under circumstances where guilt is certain (requiring DNA evidence would be the obvious way of doing this). But do it.

Why should you do this? Not, of course, because it will deter these individuals. Nor simply for retribution. Rather, there are two very good reasons to do this. One is political, one is moral.

Morally, having the death penalty – and using it – says something about a society. A society unwilling to look a Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, or Robert Pickton in the eyes and judge them to be unfit to live is a soft society, not a merciful one. In some cases (the number may vary) we have to pronounce some individuals as being so evil that their continued existence is evidence of our own moral turpitude. That we accord such demons the benefits of humanity is an insult to our race as a whole. Bringing back the death penalty – even to a limited degree – begins a crucial process of hardening our society to face the coming struggle. It also represents a stark and complete break with the forty-year Liberalization of our justice system.

The political reasons for this should be obvious. First of all, it would be overwhelmingly popular with the public (about 60% of them including 20% who, just based on the numbers, didn’t vote for you). Second, it would be totally unpopular within the Liberal and New Democratic bases, thus forcing the leaders of both parties to oppose it and leading certain members to do so with unvarnished hysteria. I need not point out that forcing Liberal and New Democrats to go on CTV every night for weeks to defend the value of the life of Clifford Olsen cannot fail to be of political benefit for us. Additionally, if gives us an issue which can be used to attack every Liberal leader to come along for decades to come.

The Economic Front:

There are two major jobs to be done on the economic front. It will be necessary to cut a whole host of present-day programs, for reasons both fiscal and political. Of greater importance is the need for rapid reform of the great fiscal albatross around the neck of the Federal Government – health care.

The first step in any program of budget cutting will be to comb the government’s books for money which is being spent to further Liberal ambitions, rather than the good of the people. Broadly, I would include in that grab-bag the overwhelming majority of cultural funding, most “national unity” funding, the majority of the budget of the Heritage Ministry, and most of the various off-the-books funds created by the Liberals over the years.

While you’re doing this, Prime Minister, I strongly advise you to junk a good chunk of the CBC. Sell all of the over-the-air television stations and turn the radio stations and CBC Newsworld into a series of publicly-supported stations in the style of PBS and NPR in the United States. The left will be outraged by this, of course, but, let’s be entirely frank: is there a reason why we should care what they think at this point?

The CBC, especially the old-fashioned television stations, is entirely useless at this point. Only sentimentality keeps it around.

While you’re at it, greatly scale back the powers of the CRTC and let foreign (read: American) television stations flow into Canada. It’ll cost you a little bit of corporate support, but it’ll win you no end of public support. Even the hearts of die-hard Liberals will rejoice in knowing that they will no longer have to wait for months to see their favorite cable shows on second-rate clones of American stations.

On the matter of health care, we all know what needs to be done. If we’re to truly remake this country, you need to step on the Third Rail of Canadian politics and allow for a true private health care system to operate alongside the public system. The way to make this politically palatable is simple: pledge to maintain full funding for the public system while allowing people to buy additional insurance. Couch it in a lot of technical language. In four years, waiting lists will have disappeared altogether. It won’t be necessary to cut health funding at this point – rather, it can remain flat (or steady with inflation) as people opt out of the public system, thus ensuring that more money will be available on a per capita basis for the people within it. The key to winning on health care, Prime Minister, is to turn the issue from an emotional one into a technical one.

For health care reform, I would suggest departing from prior practice and conducting a number of American-style addresses to the nation over some period of time, complete with flip charts and PowerPoint slides in the fashion of Ross Perot in 1992. “Health care is about curing sick people, not anyone’s political ideology” should be your mantra. Turn the Liberal attack around. You’re the one simply interested in making the ill better. They’re the ones who are attacking sensible measures because they are so driven by political considerations.

Eliminating government funding for pro-Liberal institutions like the CBC and reforming health care have a similar transformational basis. They undermine the national image of this country as defined by the Liberal Party. In particular, stealing away health care from the Liberals would be the coup of the century.

The Foreign Front:

On matters of foreign policy, Prime Minister, you should follow the words, but not the spirit, of the Liberals. They claim that they want Canada to have an “independent foreign policy.” What they really mean is an anti-American foreign policy. What I propose instead, Prime Minister, is that you chart a genuinely independent course for Canada. You should do this not by making sanctimonious speeches before the United Nations, but rather through rebuilding our Armed Forces and aggressively asserting Canadian values – those of individual liberty and security of the person – all over the world, with force if necessary.

There is no reason why Canada shouldn’t be a genuine Middle Power worthy of serious weight in International Affairs. Britain is. Australia is. We should be one as well.

As Prime Minister, your first act should be to dispatch a notable force to assert our claim to Hans Island, and to defend it if necessary. You should address the nation and explain exactly why this is necessary. Explain that the resource value of the North is potentially tremendous over the long-term and that allowing other nations to lay claim to our territory undermines our sovereignty as nation. State further, that you will defend Canada against all opponents.

Beyond that, further action will have to wait for the reconstruction of the Canadian Armed Forces. This, I think, ought to be done on more lavish a scale than previously contemplated, serving as a great national project and, indeed, as the most urgent fiscal priority of your government.

A nation is not a nation without an army. We have the nucleus of an army – but not an effective field force. Nor, for that matter, do we have an army in name. All of this should be rectified.

Put right one of the greatest atrocities of the Liberals and restore the Canadian military to its rightful shape – with an Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Give them back their names, their symbols, and their heritage. Do it right away. Nothing could more comprehensively signal the seriousness of your government in this area.

Over the first term of your government, the military budget should be increased to a proper 3% of the GDP – or about thirty billion dollars. This money should be used to build the best-trained and best-equipped force in the world, designed for expeditionary missions either as an ally or, if necessary, on our own.

The money should be used to put together a force of rapidly-deployable world-class infantry and their supporting elements. There’s no real point in our buying weapons to fight a major conventional opponent. Even if the United States goes to war with China at some point in the future, we could best assist the Americans by having forces which can take over American responsibilities elsewhere in the world.

Instead, you should build an Army of 100,000 men, organized into eight Brigade Units of Action, on the new American model, with associated support units and reservists. The focus of the Army and Air Force should be supporting this Army. That means building Amphibious Carriers and support ships for the Navy and buying C-17’s, tankers, and close-support planes for the Air Force.

Of course, we don’t want to build a force simply for the sake of building one. Instead, we need to build an armed force to suit or foreign policy.

What should that policy be? It should be, to put it simply, our idealism made real. Canadians like to talk a lot about “inventing peacekeeping” and our compassion for the oppressed. Well, I would suggest, that it’s time to put up or shut up. We live in a dangerous world. Terrorists seek to kill us simply because of who we are. Millions are murdered for no good reason. Our goal should be to defend Canada – and the West – by being an active force for good in the world. We should act as part of American or UN-led missions where appropriate but, where the world fails to act, as it has in places like Rwanda or as it is now failing in the Sudan, then Canada should act in the name of humanity.

The goal of this is three-fold.

First, domestically, it will change how Canadians think of themselves. We will cease to be the academic who sits at a cocktail party talking about the plight of the poor and instead become aid-workers on the front lines. And it will happen on the watch of the Conservatives. Our action will expose the rhetoric of the left as the empty fraud that it is.

On the matter of foreign policy, this expansion and assertiveness will make us a middle-power or better. Right now, in the councils of the world, Canada – despite its large economy and strong population – punches massively under its weight. In influence and power, we probably rank outside of the top twenty. A well-armed and assertive Canada should aim for the fifth position in the world of the future – behind the United States, China, India, and a re-armed Japan. Our ambition should be to replace a declining Britain (and rise-ahead of a soaring Australia) as the top Western nation behind the United States.

Such an increase in our national strength would not only be good for the nation in the sense that it would make us a better nation – it would be good in that it would confer benefits upon us. Do you really think that there would be a Softwood Dispute between that Canada and the United States? Strength breeds respect.

And, of course, the third goal should be obvious: we can save lives, kill bad guys, and make the world a better place.

None of what I have proposed, I will fully admit, is simple. Nor will it be easy to achieve.

But, Prime Minister, I put it to you that it is necessary to our future. Our country is in a lot of trouble and it will not be redeemed by our simply replacing the Liberals for a little while. A great national transformation is in order. A change is coming, one way or another. I hope that you are the man to lead that change.

posted by Adam at 1:07 AM

Friday, January 13, 2006

Thinking Beyond January 23rd

While it is certainly true that in politics, as in life, nothing can be taken as certain, I believe that, at this point, a Conservative Government is all-but-certain. At this point, I would rate a Conservative Majority Government as being more likely than not and set the odds of the Liberals managing to pull off even a minority government at about the same level as those of Duceppe moving into Stornoway. With that in mind, it is only prudent to examine the question of just what dangers lay ahead after a Tory win on January 23rd.

One obstacle, perhaps one which will be difficult to surmount, is the Senate. There are one-hundred Senators at the moment. Of those, sixty-seven are Liberals. There are five vacancies. Even with mandatory retirement, the Liberals are going to control the Senate for an extremely extended period of time.

Already, Senator Larry Campbell – a man whose talent for aggravating people is truly worthy of some sort of official recognition – has suggested that the Liberals will use their majority in the Senate to attempt to thwart certain Tory priorities. It strikes me as certain that the Liberal majority in the unelected Senate will be enough to stop any Conservative effort to overturn gay marriage. It also strikes me as being more than likely that they will use that power in an effort to curtail the power of a Tory government.

Another challenge will be the composition of the Tory Caucus. Even in the best-case scenario, it seems likely that there will be two major problems. First, there’s a good chance that, if we see a late swing which brings a strong majority, that we will have a large number of inexperienced and possibly unsuitable MP’s to deal with. Trying to control these MPs over a long period of time will very much be an exercise in herding cats.

Additionally, we face the reality of a media and establishment who are, present circumstances being an anomaly, generally hostile to conservatism and supportive of the left. Once the initial euphoria has passed, we can expect them to resume their previous position. At the outside, I give it six months before the media swaps positions.

Also (though we may get lucky and see Martin try to hold on) we face a probable scenario of a new Liberal leader who, given the general orientation of the media, will surely be venerated as Christ once was and hailed as the Lord and Savior of Canada.

Finally, there’s another factor to recall. Many of our MP”s and virtually all of our Cabinet members will be brand new at their jobs. They are going to make mistakes – and we’re not going to get any mercy.

As I’ve said to a number of Tories, it is not our aim simply to win the battle. We seek to win the war. The election is step one. This can’t be the end of “The Candidate” where, on Election Night, we turn to eachother and ask, “Now what?” We must be ready.

Given the dynamics of this situation, there is only one thing which we can do. We must maintain the assault. On taking office we must attack for sixty days and then we must attack for sixty more. We cannot halt. We cannot slow down. Only an all-out assault against the bastions of the enemy can carry the day.

Under normal conditions, politics is like a war of attrition. As in the Great War, grand and determined armies struggle against eachother for feet of blood-soaked ground. Every once and a while, the lines of one side or the other break and the other achieves a breakthrough. Sooner or later, the other side will throw in its reinforcements and the lines will stabilize – but they will hold in their new positions.

Once we have achieved our breakthrough, we cannot stop. There’s no time to worry about our flanks. We simply must drive forward, overrun the enemy’s trenches, and bayonet the survivors. We can show no mercy, no compassion, for the devilish foe.

Now, how do we translate this into real life?

It means, in terms of the Conservative legislative program, moving forward as rapidly as possible. It means having a strong small-c conservative budget ready to go and before the House of Commons before the first rains of spring. It means having harsh crime legislation ready to go when the House of Commons opens.

In doing this, we must remember two important principles of politics.

First, it is better to go too far than it is to go not far enough. If, early on, we go too far in terms of cutting government spending or increasing punishments, we can always ease off later. It will be much harder for us – absent an obvious crisis – to increase the measures later.

Second, if we’re going to get blamed for something, we might as well do it. No matter what we do, people are going to believe that our budget is throwing widows into the gutter and orphans into bonfires. And, while I wouldn’t advocate going quite that far, I will note that, if we’re going to make a 1% cut in a program, there’s little political reason not to make a 10% cut and that if we’re going to make a 10% cut, there’s not all that much reason not to abolish the program.

As for the matter of the Senate, a Liberal attempt to abuse the prerogatives of that unelected body would provoke nothing less than a full-blown Constitutional crisis. If the Liberal-controlled Senate seeks to use its undeserved powers to thwart the will of the people, then the Conservatives ought to open up the question of the Constitution and push an amendment to replace the present Senate with an elected Senate.

Of course, as that amendment would require the consent of the Senate, it is unlikely that an amendment of that sort would pass. That, alas, will require another option.

In the event of deadlock – hopeless deadlock with a Liberal Senate seeking to block the expressed will of the House of Commons and no way of overthrowing their power, there is a nuclear option which remains.

A Conservative Government ought, under such circumstances, attempt something audacious. It should put together a new Constitution and put it directly to the people in a referendum. This new Constitution would unseat all sitting Senators and replace the existing Senate with a directly-elected Upper Chamber. It could also include all sorts of other reforms (for example, enshrining property rights).

Some might object that such a suggestion is not within the strict letter of the law. Indeed, it is not. However, I would point out, that it is very similar to the actions taken in formulating the Constitution of the United States to replace the Articles of the Confederation. Governments and Constitutions are established with the consent of the people, not the dictates of unelected government bureaucrats.

Nothing in life can be taken as certain. But this is as close to a done deal as there is in this world.

posted by Adam at 11:16 PM

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The Death Throes of the Old Order

More than a few supporters of the Conservative Party are worried that we’re going to be done in this time in the same fashion that we were in 2004 – concerns about the power of a Conservative majority and a negative Liberal ad campaign. Frankly, I doubt if either is going to be enough to stop Stephen Harper’s trip to 24 Sussex now. Indeed – they might work in our favor. The Canadian people have seen just how dysfunctional minority governments are and, frankly, I doubt if the Liberals are trusted by their own mothers at this point.

What we are witnessing here, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, of Canada’s Ancien Régime. They may be back some day (indeed, they probably will be) but not in this form, and not just quite yet. Remember when Edwin Edwards said that the only think that could sink him would be being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy? Well, at this point, I daresay that either of the above scenarios would probably be help M. Martin in shoring up certain elements of his party’s base.

I know that we’re winning, in part, because I’ve started to receive hysterical e-mails from Liberal supporters accusing me of providing living proof of some supposed Conservative ‘hidden agenda.’ Heh. We know who Stephen Harper is. He’s a relatively cautious technocrat with generally libertarian tendencies who will, as Prime Minister, carefully work to keep his coalition of dissonant and discordant groups together while gradually working to shift power and resources from government to individuals. The odds of him listening to my advice are about the same as those of my dating Rachel McAdams (though, if you’re listening, Rachel, I’m in the book). The only people who take my advice are Satan and Dick Cheney.

Anyways, it’s clear to me (if you’ll pardon the language) that at this point the leadership of the Liberal Party is either high on drugs or somehow otherwise simply out of their fucking minds. There’s no other reasonable explanation to be found for Paul Martin’s bizarre decision to announce his plans to amend the Constitution in the middle of a debate or the outright insane Liberal ad (quickly pulled) which seemed to claim that, if elected, Stephen Harper would institute a military dictatorship.

Hilariously enough, they’re stilling running an ad on the military matter – only in French. Quebec, of course, is the one place where armed Canadian soldiers have actually been used domestically: against the FLQ (on the orders of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau) and during the Oka Crisis (when Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa invoked his right to request the use of the Army “in aid of the Civil Power”). That sort of stunt might work in certain parts of the Third World (Arafat in English: “I want peace” vs. Arafat in Arabic “Death to the Jews), but I somehow doubt if it’s going to fly here. The Canadian media may, upon the whole, be stupid and lazy, but they’re not that quite that stupid and lazy.

Of course, I’m actually pretty sure how the military ad fuck-up came about. It’s not like they released one ad today – they released twelve (more on that in a second). From the look of the ads, they appear to have been made quickly using a single template over and over and over again. The odds are good that they probably generated several dozen ads in a rapid period of time and didn’t study them nearly closely enough. I’m not going to speculate on whether or not the people writing the ads were intoxicated, but I’m not going to rule it out altogether either.

Speaking of which, has anyone else ever heard of any political party releasing TWELVE ads in a single day? I sure haven’t. It reeks of desperation. It reminds me of when, after it became clear to me that I was losing a High School Presidential Election (hilariously enough, to someone who has since gone on to be a relatively senior Liberal) I produced five hundred attack posters in a half-dozen different designs and put them up in a few hours. It didn’t work then – and I doubt if the television equivalent will prove of any greater utility.

The Liberals ran one really great negative ad in 2004 – the ad with the gun pointing, the woman huddled in the corner, and the Aircraft Carrier. It tied together the various threads of attack against the Conservatives – and it worked. These ads, by contrast, are shrill, hysterical, and often blatantly inaccurate. My personal favorite is the ad which refers to Harper’s now-widely quoted mid-1990’s speech to an American Think Tank as being “secret” and goes on about how the speech was “off-limits to press and public.” What they naturally fail to mention is that the speech is now known because it was ON THE THINK TANK’S PUBLIC WEB SITE. Heh. You can fool most of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time – but I doubt if even people who still believe in the Tooth Fairy at the age of forty-five will fall for this.

Another one of the ads is about the “undisclosed” contributions to the Harper leadership campaign. This ad more or less implies that Harper is some sort of covert American agent, bought with American cash. Of course, they fail to mention that he’s already disclosed everyone who donated more than $200 to his campaign. I somehow doubt that there are tens of thousands of $199.99 US Postal Money orders that were covertly sent to his campaign by sinister American interests without anyone knowing about it.

The Liberals are goners, for now. This fiasco is going to dominate the news tomorrow and possibly the day after that, which will carry us through the weekend. One week’s not enough time to overturn a party with both a ten point lead and strong momentum. The only thing which could restore Liberal fortunes at this point would be if Pierre Trudeau were to return from the grave (am I the only one who half-expected them to embalm him and put him on display in a massive mausoleum?) with the promise of the secret of eternal life.

What remains to be seen is how hard they will fall. That regicide will follow the fall of the Ancien Régime is already a given. As went the heads of Charles I and Louis XVI, so will King Paul’s head be on the Liberal chopping block as early as the evening of January 23rd. The question is what, beyond that, shall happen? Shall we have, as Britain did, an interregenum followed by a restoration? Or shall drive our enemies to the ends of the world and salt the Earth where their homes once lay? Our freedom will not be assured by a simple time-out for tyranny, yet the total defeat of the foe seems an impossible task.

We must remember, as Churchill once said, that our goal isn’t merely to win the battle – but to win the war. Let us therefore go forward together, again in the spirit of Churchill, sure in the knowledge that January 23rd will not be the end, nor the beginning of the end, but, rather, the end of the beginning.

posted by Adam at 1:36 AM

Monday, January 09, 2006

The Coming Conservative Majority

There is a traditional pattern in Canadian politics. The Liberal Party rules for a long period of time and, eventually, grows so corrupt and arrogant that the people throw it out for a term or two. We’ve seen exactly that happen twice already since the war. The Liberals governed for twenty-two years (1935-1957) followed by six years of Diefenbaker. Following Diefenbaker, the Liberals governed for another twenty-one years, interrupted briefly by the Joe Clark minority in 1979. It was inevitable that, sooner or later, this, like all other things, would pass.

Momentum in this campaign has shifted to the Conservatives. At this point, barring a truly Earth-shattering event, Stephen Harper is going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada. Harper is the beneficiary of a nearly gaffe-free campaign, a media grown hostile to the Liberals, an exhausted public, and, most of all, of the good fortune of an incompetent and self-defeating Liberals campaign which has been combined, to great effect, with the nearly daily arrival of new Liberal scandals. Admittedly, I’m not much of a fan of the moderate pabulum being served up by the Tories but it does seem to be working. Virgil might have noted that “fortune favors the bold” but, in Canada, it would seem that it favors the meek.

All of the Conservatives who believe that talk of a majority government, a transition, and the rest are dangerous are drawing the wrong lessons from past experience. Part of being an opposition – particularly being an opposition with a strong lead in the polls – is being a government-in-waiting. The Conservatives are going to form the next government. They’d better get used to the idea and get ready.

The Liberals are crashing. A look at the polls from the 1993 campaign provides a good illustration of just how this sort of thing could very well unfold. The first polls in 1993 either gave the Tories a slight lead or had the race statistically tied. Two weeks into the campaign, the Liberals had developed a ten point lead. By the final polls it was nearly thirty points and, effectively, the end of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I think we’re one more good scandal away from the Liberals being handed a defeat on something like that scale. The core Liberal problem is obvious: no one believes a single word that they have to say about anything. The party’s reputation for competence is in tatters, but the arrogance and the corruption remain. They don’t have any true ideology to fall back upon. For Paul Martin to remain installed in 24 Sussex thirty days from now would be a miracle on the scale of the resurrection of Christ.

I’m not “speculating” about a Conservative majority. I think that, at this time, it’s by far the most likely scenario – with a strong Conservative minority being in second place. The Liberals are demoralized. The public wants a change. There is going to be a change of government.

It’s important that we don’t draw the wrong lesson from victory. It isn’t nearly so much that we are winning this election as it is that the Liberals are losing it. As I noted, we have seen this story unfold before. Moreover, in looking to the lessons of history, all Conservatives ought to be well aware that the Tory governments that reigned during the last two extended interregnum periods failed to accomplish much of significance (with, pretty much, the sole exception of Free Trade) largely because they, elected as an alternative to the Liberals, tried to govern like Liberals.

What is the secret of the Liberals’ success in the last seventy years or so? Simply put, it’s that they’ve deliberately and purposefully put their own stamp upon the nation to such a degree as to define, in the minds of a majority of the public, the Liberal Party and the nation as being one and the same. From the flag, to Medicare, to the Constitution, the Liberals have sought to transform Canada from a nation which was, arguably, more conservative than the United States (certainly more traditional) to a North American version of Amsterdam.

Previous Conservative leaders – and governments – have failed largely because they have accepted the basic idea that Canada is a Liberal nation. Conservatives have presented – and too often viewed themselves – as little more than substitute managers of the welfare state, as the Farm Team of Government. In looking at the statist and soft-liberal policies of various Canadian conservatives over the decades, I’m reminded of the old joke that if the Democrats proposed burning down every building on Capitol Hill, moderate Republicans would respond with a proposal to burn down half of the buildings and to stretch it out over five years.

If a Prime Minister Harper is to be more than one more caretaker Conservative leader sandwiched in-between Liberal governments, he has to change the rules of the game. A Conservative government which accepts the Liberal definition of Canada is doomed to ultimately failure in the eyes of history.

The key is to place a Conservative stamp upon the fabric of the nation. The goal here is not to make a new government, but to make a new nation. Under a Conservative government, a deliberate and far-reaching effort must be made to restore what can be restored of the old Canada and to otherwise reform the nation in such a way as to change how people view this country.

For this to work, it will be necessary to move fast and to move on multiple fronts. On health care, on taxation, on crime, on the military, and on culture – all at once. And we must do more than tinker or modify – we have to tear down and rebuild in a fashion which is recognizable to the general public. A Conservative government must leave a legacy of conservative reform – and it must get to work quickly. Just as our enemies have sought to make Liberalism and Canadianism one and the same, we must now redefine the idea.

I’m told that the Tory War Room is taking advice from advisors to Australian Prime Minister John Howard – probably the boldest and more brilliant leader in the Western world today. They would be well-served to study Howard’s performance in 2005. Upon finally gaining control of the Australian Senate, the Australian Liberals (who are actually the conservative party) managed to push through the privatization of the Australia’s public telephone company, major changes to labour laws (effectively destroying union power), a major anti-terrorism law – and far more.

Interestingly, the Senate issue (that previously stopped Howard) might come into play here as well. A relatively senior Liberal who I am acquainted with recently openly mused that, in the event of a Conservative majority, the Liberals might well use their majority in the Senate to block certain bills (in particular the repeal of gay marriage).

There are other challenges, of course. The system will be in disarray after the shock of a Conservative win, but it will soon recover its equilibrium.

On major legislative issues, a Conservative majority government can – and must – move with breathtaking speed. Everyone already knows what must be done about crime. And we also know that harsh action against crime will be almost universally popular. We know what needs to be done in terms of immigration reform – and that can be done quickly as well.

There’s no excuse for not moving without delay, especially on crime. The bill could be written in an afternoon. New sentencing guidelines, which are also necessary, could be pushed forward in a similarly expeditious fashion.

But, more than that, a Conservative government would do well to keep in mind a certain political maxim of mine: if you’re going to get blamed for something, you might as well do it. By way of example I offer you the case of the provincial government here in British Columbia who, upon coming to power, actually increased overall funding for health care and education – yet are universally blamed for “cutting spending” by the media and the general public and, thus, are left with the bill for increased spending and the blame for imaginary “cuts”. Had they actually cut the budgets, as was done in Ontario and Alberta, they would have suffered the same political consequences – but had more extra money to throw around.

For example – if the Conservatives introduce any degree of private care, they will be universally derided for “privatizing health care.” With that in mind (forgetting my personal preference for private care) it seems entirely clear to me that if we’re going to go in for a penny we might we well go in for a Pound. A Conservative majority will have four or five years. We know that two-tiered health care will be massively more effective than a universal public system. In four years, if we have a two-tier system, waiting lists will be a thing of the past and the old system will be remembered fondly only by New Democrats.

The same goes for the CBC and cultural funding. The attacks which will result from cutting spending in these areas will be as fierce as they will if we simply abolish them. There’s no particular use for the CBC in the modern world. At the very least, we could quickly sell off all of the over-the-air television stations. Similarly, while they’re at it, a Conservative government could save itself all sorts of future trouble by cutting off all government subsidies to various special interest groups – IE, pro-gun control groups, gay groups, women’s groups, native groups, etc. One of the great advantages of doing all of this at once, I’ll note, is that the media only has so much time and so many pages. Most of their complaints will drown amidst the rollicking sea.

We’re standing on the precipice of either a revolution or the greatest disappointment in our history. God is giving all of us once last chance to save this country. One last chance to reclaim what was and to restore our land to its proper place among the nations of the Earth. One chance – no more than that.

posted by Adam at 12:48 AM

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Dear Prime Minister Harper…

In this campaign the Conservatives have caught all the breaks. Their careful policy-a-day strategy has gone a great length towards neutralizing the “Scary” factor while, elsewhere, the wheels have simply come off the Liberal machine. The scandal-ridden Liberal Party is discredited, out of cash, and out of luck. To put it simply, they have no one left to lie to. 2004 cannot be repeated at this point – the prior image of the Conservatives has been decisively broken. Barring a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, the Liberals are going to lose and Stephen Harper is going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.

I wouldn’t attribute this to the Conservative strategy. Basically, as I see it, the Tories got very lucky. The strategy of caution was enough to close the gap – but not enough to seal the deal. It was events – that bane of politicians – that did it. The Income Trust scandal when combined with the Boxing Day shooting in Toronto created a perfect political storm – which Harper and the Conservatives were exactly positioned to take advantage of. If this momentum can be maintained through the debates and if Harper can put in a solid showing as the leading candidate for Prime Minister, we’re going to see the bandwagon effect increase. It’s quite possible that he Conservatives might move ahead of the Liberals in Quebec a move which would strongly improve Conservative fortunes in the Maritimes and in Ontario. At this point in time, I regard a Conservative majority government as being far more likely than another Liberal government of any kind.

If a Conservative majority – or a workable minority – should come to pass, it will be a revolutionary moment in Canadian politics. When that happens, Prime Minister Harper and his team will have a very limited window in which they can effect true change in Canada. That window will close very quickly – before the end of 2006. But, while it’s open, it will be our last chance to save our country.

Politics in ordinary times, I’m fond of saying, is like a steering wheel in a parked car. You can shift it a little to the right or a little to the left – but not very far. However, there are moments – rare, epochal moments – when that wheel comes unlocked and can be swung one way or another. When that moment passes the wheel locks again. It can again shift ever-so-slightly, but from the new position, as opposed to the old.

These moments are rare in our history. But they happen. We saw one such moment in Ontario in 1995 – when Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution changed that Province forever. We’ve seen it in Alberta in 1993. We saw such a moment, which was then partially fritted away, in British Columbia in 2001. We’ve seen such moments in the United States in 1981, 1933, and the 1860’s. In Britain, the moment came in 1979. And when the moment came – and when it was seized – nothing was ever quite the same again.

A Conservative government cannot govern as it has campaigned. That is not to say that a Conservative government ought to abandon its promises or to introduce policies entirely unmentioned in the campaign, but that it ought to ensure that – when the new government takes charge – there will be one hundred days of reform. These reforms ought to be “spin the wheel” reforms – things which, once done, are unlikely to ever be totally undone.

One of the hidden truths of politics is that things, once they are established, are next-to-impossible to disestablish, regardless of their merit or the public’s approval of them. For example, while social programs can be modified or reformed – they are never going to be totally undone. Similarly, the reforms to the same programs of the 1990’s are unlikely to ever be totally undone either. They will be tinkered with, but they will remain largely in place, just as the underlying programs will continue to stand.

As Prime Minister, Harper ought to move very quickly in three areas where fundamental reform is possible (in that it is supported by the public) and popular – and will be impossible for a future Liberal government (for there will be a future Liberal government) to ever undo.

To begin, there’s a wide consensus for the reform of the Canadian Armed Forces. On taking office, the Tories ought to immediately launch a comprehensive program to expand and reform the military.

The budget of the armed forces ought to be, at the very least, doubled – together with a large increase in the size of the force. More than that, as a method of effecting permanent change, a Conservative Government ought to break the Canadian Armed Forces up into a separate Army, Navy, and Air Force once again. Such a move would put a permanent Conservative stamp upon the Armed Forces and, better yet, would undo one of the great atrocities perpetuated against this nation by the Liberal Party.

Similarly, a Conservative Government should privatize the CBC and abolish other Arts subsidies within days of entering into power. Similarly, it should force the CRTC to lift all Canadian content restrictions upon television and radio. Not only would these moves free up a large amount of money – they would also be popular and impossible to ever go back upon. Every time a Canadian enjoyed watching first-run episodes of Battlestar Galactica on a Friday night they would be reminded that their pleasure is a direct result of the actions of the government in Ottawa.

Third, bills to institute mandatory minimum sentencing, abolish mandatory release, allow for consecutive sentencing, and to increase penalties for violent crime ought to be passed within days of the Throne Speech. There’s no reason – to excuse – to wait. We all know what needs to be done. If we win, we might as well do it.

It simply won’t do if we govern as we’ve campaigned. A Conservative government will not be a success if we hold back and hold off. We’ve seen this game before.

Every decade or so the people get tired of the Liberals, throw them out, and we get a Conservative government. Alas, the recent Conservative governments we’ve had – the Diefenbaker and Mulroney interludes between long periods of Liberal power – have failed to reverse the destruction wrought upon this country by the Liberal Party because they have governed exactly as they attained power – as cautious moderates.

There’s an open window now. If we win, we’re going to have a chance to change this country that comes along only once in a generation.

posted by Adam at 8:58 PM