Believing is Seeing in Politics and Life

The very quotable Marshall McLuhan once said “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.” We are all subject to this subjectivity and selectivity in how we allocate our time and attention and our opinions. We will also tend to ignore new information or contrary data that does not fit our preconceived notions, beliefs and opinions.

WARNING! This is a longer post than usual...so relax and reflect with me for a few minutes.

Reading Lorne Gunter’s column in the Edmonton Journal this morning gave me a chance to reflect on just how this can work. Lorne is a noted columnist of the “right” persuasion and a fan of conservative policy and ideology. When you read him you can clearly see that frame of reference. What was interesting me this morning was to consider what he sees when he looks at certain events and what he concludes from them given what we know about his political beliefs. This is not unique to Lorne. We all do it but we should all try to be aware of it and try to be open to other points of view. Especially if you are trying to run a country with a minority government.

The Conservatives think they unconditionally won the last election. But they do not have a majority and therefore have to learn to govern with a compromising consciousness. Unlike the last Parliament, they now have to accommodate enough opposition objectives or they risk defeat. This is a bitter pill for Harper to swallow. His recent FU Canada (Fiscal Update) showed that he not only gagged on the bitter pill of policy compromise and political accommodation, he damn near choked on it. As a result he enabled and emboldened a Liberal–NDP coalition that was ready, willing and able to defeat and replace him. Harper cut and ran to the Gov Gen and begged her to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote he was destined to lose.

In that context I read the Gunter’s piece and about what he sees and seems to believe about Ignatieff and the coalition. To reinforce McLuhan’s comment, I offer some of my own believing is seeing observations on the same issues and events. I too have a filter and a lens through which I view the world. Go figure.

THE COALITION IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE COALITION!
Lorne’s piece invites us to “…assume the coalition is dead (and 99.9 percent is)” and that “...Ignatieff is keeping the possibility of a coalition alive rhetorically because without the threat of the coalition toppling the Tories…the Liberals’ bargaining position would be greatly weakened.” “It is not…in Ignatieff’s interests over the next three to six months to keep the collation alive.”

It seems both wishful and wistful thinking to invite us to assume the coalition is dead. There is still a signed agreement outlining it terms and conditions of the coalition and how it would operate. In that sense it is very much alive and full of political potential. Its sole purpose is to be a threat to topple the Tories, and then govern, if necessary. If the Tories don’t govern like a respectful minority government there will be a non-confidence vote to turf them. The coalition may not form the next government as a result of defeating the Tories. What if the GG decides there should be an election instead? Given that possibility, the coalition is hardly a "power grab" by some opposition political leaders as Harper's hype would try to sell us.

Besides, this possibility of a coalition is exactly how our parliamentary system of government works. It is not a sinister plot by Ignatieff and Layton. It is their duty as opposition to keep testing and trying the government. So keeping the coalition alive, even if it is in hibernation for the winter, is very much in Igantieff’s best interest in his duty to keep the government on it toes or to cut the toes off if they cross the line.

IGNATIEFF IS TOO AMERICAN TO LEAD CANADA!
Lorne implies Ignatieff is more American than Canadian referencing a “…old New York Times column championing American empire and referring to ‘we’ Americans."

My gosh how defensive can you get? Ignatieff has returned to Canada, run for a party leadership, coming in second, and the successfully ran for parliament and is now the interim leader of choice of the Liberal Caucus and party elite. Besides he has already effectively responded to the context of such “we” American slurs in subsequent essays and interviews. In the globalized reality and our closeness to the Americans, one would think Ignatieff's education, expertise, international and first-hand American experience would be an asset. Surely it ought not disqualify him from Canadian politics.

This is typical and tired Conservative rhetoric akin to American Republican Karl Rovarian tactics. If anyone has been American in their approach to governing Canada it has been Stephen Harper. His foreign policy and economic policy totally aligned with the Bush White House. This is well documented. His adoption of a presidential style of leadership is also renown, even to the point he now speaks to us on policy issues and events through a Press Secretary, just like President Bush.

IGNAGIEFF SEEMS TO ACCEPT QUEBEC AS A SEPARATE NATION!
Lorne suggests Ignatieff will “…have to live down his signature on the coalition agreement.” The reason is because the “…first line talks about the coalition begin in the best interests of ‘Canada and Quebec,’ as if the two were separate nations already.”

Interesting admission that there is an actual coalition agreement that exists don’t you think? So lets deal with the merits of the comment. Stephen Harper set up his last election run by publicly acknowledging “Quebec as a nation.” He also said, contrary to all the evidence, that there was a “fiscal imbalance” against Quebec’s interests within Canada and that he would resolve it as Prime Minister. Both of these are soft-nationalists hot buttons and have been used for political pandering purposes for decades, all the way back to Mulroney at least.

Cynical political opportunism was at the root of Harper’s pandering to Quebec in this way. By the way, Harper conveniently ignores the historical fact that he came into federal politics through the Reform Party. Reform started as a political force partly in reaction to such federal government pandering to Quebec.

The Reform Party had a platform plank about too much political control in central Canada. The Reform mantra Harper also espoused was “The West Wants In.” He actually fans the flames of separation in Alberta every time he does this Quebec pandering. His recent political tactics toward Quebec have had that effect in Alberta recently.

Ironically Harper was one of the signatories to the famous Alberta Firewall Letter encouraging Premier Klein to extricate Alberta from some core Canadian policies and programs. Talk about living down signatures and engaging in political opportunism! Harper’s name comes up more often than anyone else’s in recent history if those are your criteria for criticism.

WE NEED TO BECOME MORE POLITICALLY AWARE AND MORE MEDIA LITERATE
There more. But my point is Lorne’s lens focuses on issues and events but only in a certain context. We all do this and it is our right to speak out in a free and democratic country. What citizens need to be aware of and careful about is taking some time to get more media literate.

As traditional media’s effectiveness and even its viability is being threatened by fragmentation, competition and recession, its capacity to gather and give us the news is diminished. The Internet’s influence as a news source is growing. According to Pew Research, it is ranked and the #2 new source now, behind TV and ahead of newspapers.

If the Web is now a significant news source, where will the authoritativeness and authenticity of the “reporting” we can trust come from? How will we know we can trust and believe news and information when we actually see those items that capture our time and attention? Who will help us understand what is important and critical versus what is trivial and superficial? How will know if something we see, hear or read is just misleading spin or pure and dangerous propaganda?

We all have more data and information than we can handle. Where will the wisdom come from to help us make sense of all those inputs? How will we be able to put it all into a meaningful context in ways that creates some useful knowledge that we can believe in if and when we see it?

Beats me! Anybody out there got any ideas?

People Need to Read Dion's Green Shift Plan BEFORE They Comment

I wasn’t going to post today given other priorities. However, I am so frustrated with what it going on I had to comment on the superficial reaction I have been noticing for the Dion Green Shift Plan. Dion sure has his work cut out for him but with no need for an election until November 2009, there is enough time to get his plan understood.

GWYN MORGAN ON CROSS COUNTRY CHECK UP
I have just listened to most of Cross Country Checkup on CBC Radio One. Listening to a variety of callers to only talk about the Green Shift to gasoline and the inflationary costs it would cause make me wonder if any of those callers actually read the Green Shift Plan. Most notably fixated in this way was Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of EnCana. He said he would have agreed to a carbon tax to support Kyoto ten years ago but was silent on how vociferous the energy lobby was absolutely against Kyoto back then.

He also said the Dion $10 per tonne charge on CO2 would be inflationary but said nothing about the offsetting income tax cuts and allowances to help northerners, framers and low/fixed income earners in the Green Shift Plan. There was no comment on the use of the carbon levy to stimulate new technologies for cleaner fossil fuel extraction and refining processes and enable alternatives.

Morgan’s comments totally ignored the enormous windfall profits the energy sector is now making with $140 oil and the inflationary impact that is having on virtually everything in our lives. I found it not at all curious that he did not offer a cut in energy sector profits by suggestion a windfall tax to be used to reduce inflation, help the little guy.

GARTH TURNER'S BLOG POST
Then I scanned Garth Turner’s recent and oft reviled blog post. Garth is very thorough and thoughtful in his posts on the energy issues. He is apparently placing the blame for the regionalization resentments on a certain kind of person apparently a “…self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing separatist….” As an Albertan I did not find anything in his recent posts objectionable or inaccurate.

I smiled when he noted in his Blog he was “chewed out by Dion” for his comments. Good for him and good for Dion. Can you imagine any of the Harper Con-Trolls actually having an independent thought, then having the courage to express it openly and then publicly admitting his leader called him up and “chewed him out?” At least the Liberal Party is prepared to accept there is a representative democracy in the land AND with free speech rights, even for its MPs.


I am thankful for the fact Turner and Dion let us know that there is a range of thought in their caucus and even disagreement within the ranks. That is health for democracy and good for politics and even better for our confidence in their suitability to govern. It shows respect differences of opinion and gives some credit to the intelligence of citizens to consider the differences and to make more informed judgments about complex public policy issues. We Canadians can not only handle disagreement within a political party, we can appreciate and respect the fact not everyone in the Liberal Caucus has to genuflect to the absolute power of the Leader on all matters and all the time - like in the case of the Harper Cons.

LORNE GUNTER
I actually started out the day reading Lorne Gunter's column. I occasionally agree with Lorne but I find he mostly lives in a yesteryear time warp. I understand that it seems that he just can’t help himself. His facts are often wrong in this column, for example like claiming Dion is saying Alberta and Saskatchewan is “…deserving of a big hit from his new carbon tax.” That is not the Dion position and Gunter offers no authority for this accusation. Gunter’s commentary is definitely reflective of a hostile, macho, selfish and balkanizing political position as noted by Garth Turner. His framing of the issues on climate change is so passé and tired. This positioning and issue framing is typical of the old-style hard-core Conservative ideology that has no shame in being inaccurate, dated and misleading, so long as it speaks to the base, in their Party and otherwise.

He then has the cheek to write there is no separatist movement in Alberta while admitting “Yes, there are websites for parties claiming to be separatist.” He notes that there are “odd farmers” who may paint a separatist message on his barn and “occasionally a caller to a radio talk show” may make a separatist comment. But he notes Alberta has never elected a separatist government or held a sovereign association referendum, as if the acid test to say there is "NO SEPARATIST MOVEMENT IN ALBERTA.”


So, according to Gunter, there is no separatist movement here because we Albertan’s don’t share the same cultural difficulties in Confederation as Quebec does and we have not yet had our Quiet Revolution? Well Lorne we have our Firewall guys. They are public intellectuals largely from the University of Calgary Poli-Sci Department, the so-called Calgary School. The Firewall guys included Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but that was back in the day when he cared about Alberta. They could be the seeds of a Quiet Revolution, Alberta style, don't ya think?.

There is a separatist movement in Alberta and while it is small and fragmented they have received as much at 8% of the popular vote. They elected a guy named Kesler as an MLA under the Western Canada Concept banner in the early 1980’s. Less than two years ago, one of the popular Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership candidates made comments that if Alberta did not get its way with Ottawa we should perhaps look at our future in Confederation.

Fomenting separatist aspirations and regional resentments in Alberta has resulted form past policies like the NEP, that was ironically agreed to by Alberta and the Lougheed government of the day. That same reality is not happening today with Dion. Like so many hard-core Conservative political myths, the facts are rarely considered nor actually talked about openly and accurately in a public discourse. They just presume that they can govern us based on creating fears and excluding and dividing us based on perceived differences.

Alberta Election Reform Should Not Limit Free Speech

The existential anxiety I feel when I agree with Lorne Gunter amuses and alarms me. His column today goes beyond my usual cognitive dissonance. It actually astonishes me because I can’t even find a quibble with what he says - never mind any significant disagreement with him.

The election reform we need to restore citizenship and participation in Alberta’s democratic process is not going to be achieved by putting a limitation on free speech. The contest of how to correct the system so far sees Stelmach’s trial balloon of limiting third party election spending and the Alberta Federation of Labour’s counter punch of demanding big business donation bucks are taken out of politics too.

The story line is there is too much political muscle vested in special interests like labour and business. Those big money guys are the problem. Why? Because they can buy influence via paid advertising in the election process. I don’t buy that. I also don’t buy that political parties should be the only serious players in politics at election time. If any group has too much power over the process it is the political parties, not business and labour.

The problem with our lack of political engagement in our democracy is not about who has and is exercising monetary muscle. It is more about that what is being said at elections. What problems being presented in platforms. What solutions are being offered by the political class. For the most part the content and context of elections are not meaningful to the population.

Political parties try not to lose elections rather than win them. They play super safe by doing pointless polls, run obtuse focus groups, then media train the personality out of the leaders by shrink-wrapping them into a message bubble so they will be politically safe. Elections are supposed to be about choices and consequences. Instead of making election politics about practical purposes and people they become personality contests focused on tactics, gaffes and shallow media events.

There are some changes that need to be made in the election process that deals more with openness and transparency of who exactly is trying to buy influence over me. People who show up and think about the issues and how to cast their vote are not stupid. Those who don’t bother to get informed or to vote effectively abdicate their democratic rights to those who do vote. As a result the no-shows have made a decision that they don’t want to count in the future political direction and decisions that impact their lives. So be it but paid advertising is not likely to change the opinions much less the behaviours of the pathologically disengaged “citizen.”

The solution for that democratic dilemma is not the elimination of third party advertising or abolition of certain financial support sources for elections. I would be trying to expand both elements and also be encouraging individual donations and citizen political participation as a way to get political parties and leaders to become more open to new ideas.

We need more candidates who are able to be bolder, braver and come forward with more engaging and meaningful policy promises. they need to be able to clearly articulate a relevant practical political platforms they intend to keep. I think if there is going to be a focus on election reform, it is not so much about how free speech is being exercised but to ensure we know who exactly is “talking” to us to influence our vote.

The AFL gambit of not disclosing that they were behind the anti-Stelmach TV ads hurt the NDP who could have used the money. It also hurt the Liberals who got caught in a backlash because they were presumed to be the source of the ads and they got blamed because for many Albertans they were seen to be in bad taste and too negative. The irony is, as Gunter points out, that while Stelmach may be trying to limit such ads, he actually benefited significantly from the AFL negative TV ads at the end of the day.

There is some positive, serious and significant election reform going that will not likely get front page headlines because it is not deemed to be newsworthy. It is the recent Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta effort to amend and fix its own leadership selection process. It is one of the most open and democratic processes in the country today but still needs improvement. I suggest this effort is a more important and meaningful step at significant political reform.

The Alberta Liberals and NDP are poised for leadership changes as well. They might we well advised to look at their own party processes and shortcomings before they jump into any exercise or bandwagon to limit free speech masquerading in the guise of enhancing our democracy.