Solving the problems of inner-city youth

I was just on the blog of Greg Bester, an NDPer...

He was quoting an article by Christie Blatchford from the Globe and Mail, and I started to leave a comment, except that it got super long, so I decided to post it here as well... excuse the poor grammar:

Innneresting.

A columnist both NDPers and Conservatives like?

Blatchford has always been one of my favourite columnists. Definitely my favourite from the Globe (easily beating Ibbitson, Simpson and whoever else.)

As far as the politics of her suggestions go - I'd agree that inner-city neighbourhoods need a lot of work, a lot of help, especially for the youths that are still unpolluted.

Buttttt... stating the fact that those areas need help does *not* imply that the government is the best avenue for delivering that help.

(this explains why I personally can't stand a lot of political quizzes on the internet, the ones that try to help you determine your ideological standing - sure you might think the environment needs some help, sure you might think it sucks that poor people are poor - but your *political* views are on how you think the state should react to such situations.)

Anyways, this situation is particularly hard for the state to interfere in. The root causes for street problems cannot be helped by bureaucrats, welfare assistance - especially at the federal level (considering that social workers are employed by the provinces). Social workers too can do lots of good work, but their ability to do good is hampered by so many restrictions and guidelines.

The best way for inner-city youth to be helped... is naturally through private organizations... through charity. There's one thing that the government can't spread, and that's.... love. The entire citizenry should be ready, able and willing to love their neighbours, to help out their fellow citizens.

Big government programs stifle that initiative. Social workers (and whatever else the state does to curb social problems) might work on some people, but most people require a change of heart - and government can't and will never be able to provide that change.

Why aren't the NDP doing better?

Because they're a bunch of deeply ideological, extremely left-wing group of people.

I remember, once upon a time, I used to suggest to (left-wing) people that they vote for the NDP. I no longer do.

The thinking was that the NDP aren't as bad as the Liberals, and that less Liberal voters would mean a split in the left-wing vote.

I'm no longer able to bring myself to tell people to vote for the NDP under Jack Layton.

After actually listening to what the man says, I've come to realize that he is such a dangerously ideological socialist - not the kind of socialist you would routinely find in western democracies. He is super duper hard-left. Even tax cuts for the poor leave a bad taste in his mouth. He has no vision for any future - except for a return to the 1960s/1970s era of big government expansion. He seemingly has no confidence in capitalism whatsoever - he seems to have a complete disdain for private property and free enterprise.

More NDP MPs (in the case of a Liberal minority) would mean more NDP influence, and if anyone has learnt anything in the past 2 years (as it relates to the Canadian Parliament), the Liberals, more than anything else, are dangerous not because of their ideology... they are dangerous because they are weak. If the NDP were to continue to hold the balance of power in Ottawa, Canada is doomed, at least in its hopes to be a competitive global influence or power.

Instead of telling (left-wing) people to vote for the NDP... wouldn't it be better to tell them to vote for someone truly harmless? Like the Greens?

Intolerance

I wasn't able to watch the English Language debate, but I did see some of the news coverage.

I know that this is one of the prices of watching a campaign unfold (especially a campaign in which you think one side is clearly superior to the other), but Stephen Harper's talking points on same-sex marriage are incredibly weak. Every time I hear him repeat what he says, I'm frustrated with what he does *not* say.

Same-Sex marriage is usually brought up in order to make Harper look intolerant, and yet it appears that it hasn't occurred to Conservative strategists to turn right around and make the Liberals look intolerant instead.

I'm not even personally opposed to SSM... but there are a number of good arguments Harper could make anyway - arguments that would sound rational to most people.

By enforcing cabinet solidarity on consience issues, Martin is either doing one of the following 2 things: a) he's putting a litmus test on all his members of cabinet - that they must support SSM. Can that not be portrayed to be a divisive position? Since it doesn't even recognize that people who disagree with SSM might do so in good faith? And b) Martin is making (some of) his cabinet ministers vote against their beliefs in order to maintain a position of power.

Why doesn't Harper bring up both of those two points?

Also, on Harper's end, would it kill him to even concede that it's reasonable to have the opposite position? The other side never concedes such a position, but why can't Harper? Three prominent members of his caucus support SSM and yet Harper never mentions that fact. He doesn't try to create any impression of inclusiveness or a variety of views on that specific issue. Why? How could it hurt? He's the only leader who *personally* opposes SSM, but I imagine that dozens of his candidates are in favour of that option (mostly candidates in unwinnable ridings).

Yes, Harper has promised a free vote for his cabinet, and that makes him more tolerant than either the NDP, the Libs or the Bloc, but Harper still hasn't created the impression of inclusiveness on this issue, and he's actually in a far better position to make such a case.

The Gift of Institutionalized, Bureaucratized Daycare

When Conservatives try to win voters in an electoral landscape filled with people who prefer the statist status quo, they generally try to appeal to non-tax and spend issues - stuff like transparency, corruption, etc.

All stuff that is fine and good, but it doesn't really involve the crux of what governments do. A government without corruption would be excellent, but at least in Canada, the perception and presence of corruption is not that big a deal in terms of what results the government can offer. Getting rid of corruption would be more emotionally satisfying than anything else. It would not rapidly make government more efficient, it would not make the results of our state much more impressive.

The Conservative game plan at least until earlier this year, particularly in April/May seemed to be to feed solely off the emotional anger caused by the sponsorship scandal. This plan, at least according to the polls, failed. Emotion can only keep people going for so long.

It's best to win voters by actually converting them to your ideology, though this is not always easy. It's best to help people to see through the big-government idea of the state that they've grown used to all their life. It's tough to do this through health care, especially on a large and public scale. In private, it is easy to tell friends that the lack of a private option in health care is tyrannical and unjust, but it's impossible for a political party to carry that message without being unfairly tarnished as Americanizers of the Canadian system (something that no one in Canada really wants. A private-parallel system would be good - for now.)

Daycare is different though. It's not the status quo. Institutionalized daycare has not been around before. It's not "part of the identity". It's not something that people have become dependent on. And because of all these reasons, it's the perfect tool with which to create ideological converts.

I've already convinced a few people to vote Conservative based on this issue alone. It's easy to play to people's feelings of self-reliance, of independence - and this may be non-PC to say, but this is especially true with males. I've ranted to a number of guys over the past 2 weeks about how small government makes much more sense than big government, how high taxes for high spending isn't necessary, how the Liberals approach all issues based on weakness, and how the Conservatives theoretically approach those issues based on strength (less hand-outs, less institutionalized social service bureaucracies, a stronger military and so on.)

If the issue of daycare wasn't out there, it wouldn't be possible for me to get those people riled up. It would be harder for me to get those people to question their pre-conceived notions on the rightful role of government.

The proposal to introduce a brand new bureaucracy which plans to institutionalize kids from the time they're a year old is a gift only because it's awakening people to the irrationality and patheticness of big government.

"And we'll make sure that deported criminals actually leave this country"

That's Stephen Harper from the Conservative ad on crime.

It's also a perfectly reasonable position.

Immigration to Canada is a privilege, not a right. And therefore, those who aren't naturalized citizens (i.e. immigrants and those on visas) should be deported if they're found guilty of serious crimes.

However... and I know this is partly due to the 30-second length of the piece, the impression given off by Harper is not a good one.

Objectively, almost everyone agrees with his position. When a couple of Punjabi Sikhs were being deported not too long ago, and when a certain Sikh temple decided to stand up for those two men, there was a degree of anger in the Sikh community, due to the impression that the Sikh temple was in favour of keeping convicted criminals in Canada. So obviously, it is both immigrant communities AND the public at large who want to see convicted criminals (who are not citizens) deported.

However... let me explain why the impression given off by Harper is not positive, and maybe even negative... and again, much of this is obviously due to the restricted time. He does not mention the fact that he is referring ONLY to those who are not yet citizens. This might be obvious to those who have half a brain, but, in reality, most of the electorate is simply stupid, and might've gotten the impression that serious crimes for all people are worthy of deportation.

Secondly, Harper still does not have enough trust and goodwill in minority communities to say something about deportation without provoking some fear and anxiety.

And there's even a reason why I'm a bit upset about the ad. If the ad does gain the Conservatives votes, it will do so in some part to the deportation line, and in some cases, it will be because of racial tension or even racial animosity. I don't like that. I don't like it when political parties play to racial problems. I find it offensive and I find it regrettable even if Harper did not intend to say it that way.

An ad about crime did not need to carry a line about deportating landed immigrants or those on visas - the amount of those people who are deported and then do not actually leave constitute a whopping fraction of a percentage point of the Canadian crime rate. He could've discussed something more substantive, and he didn't.

How would Canada's foreign policy change?

I'm a taking a course on Canadian foreign policy next term, and the topic of how Canada's foreign policy would change under a Conservative government will certainly be out there, at least until the 23rd of January and perhaps, beyond election day.

Considering that Canada's position in the world is of interest to just about every Canadian (or should be at least!), it's worth wondering what changes a Stephen Harper-led government would initiate.

Here are some of my predictions:

1) Here's the obvious, but it would definitely institute a more sophisticated approach when it comes to our southern neighbour. Harper would not America-bash in order to win votes, and this would not go unnoticed when it comes to trade disputes or other issues that directly effect the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. If he found it feasible, I imagine he would also join BMD (ballistic missile-defense), in order to get a seat on the table when it comes to continental security concerns.

2) To be fair, Canada is already committed to a number of hot zones around the world, but because of a likely increase in military spending, commitments would likely grow both in size and in duration.

3) As has been noted already, Canada has began to engage in a number of combat operations instead of traditional peacekeeping duties, it would only be natural to see these commitments increase as the capabilities of the armed forces increase as well.

4) At the UN, Martin has already instituted a supposedly "even-handed" approach when it comes to Canada's vote on Arab/Israeli issues - i.e. Canada not joining every resolution that comes up condemning Israel for just about every reason imaginable. If Martin hadn't instituted this approach, Harper would have.

5) Speaking of the UN, a Harper-appointed UN ambassador would likely be much more outspoken in favour of reforming the UN... everything from the makeup of the security council, to the placement of dictators on the human rights panel and so on.

6) While being hesitant to backtrack on signed international treaties and agreements, I'd be surprised if Harper carried forward with an internationalist worldview when it came to future agreements. I don't think he'd explicitly scrap Kyoto either.

7) Obviously the biggest question of them all: Iraq? I'd be shocked (and proud) if Harper authorized the deployment of Canadian peacekeepers to Iraq, but it's so unlikely that he would, considering that demagoguery he'd face in the House and even the backlash he'd face at the polls. Harper would only commit to stabilizing Iraq, I imagine, in the medium-range future - i.e. in a couple of years or more, once it seems like far less of an American operation.

8) In addition to Iraq, there will likely be other American attempts at regime-change in the future, like maybe Syria, maybe Iran, maybe even North Korea... who knows. I think Harper would have some leverage in deploying a limited amount of Canadian troops in such an operation since the gazillion arguments that were put forth against invading Iraq were all basically combined and espoused by every anti-Bush person out there, regardless of whether those arguments were realist or dovish. Some of the arguments included "Iran and North Korea are the real threats, Iraq is a distraction!". Since many people who opposed Iraq seemed in favour of going into Iran or North Korea (even though they really weren't, but simply wanted to create a new argument to bash Bush), Iran and North Korea wouldn't be impossible to justify. The decision to join America would also depend on the depth of the international coalition... even if it's the same as last time, i.e. lacking France, Germany and Russia, but including Spain, Britain, Italy and others, it would probably be legitimate enough to persuade a silly electorate that requires the thought of international approval.

Odd, isn't it?

When Canada's conservative political party apparatus was overtaken by... actual conservatives via the Reform movement and then once again through the successful merger with the PC party in 2003, it seemed as if finally, Canada was capable of having an ideological debate between two parties that shared noticeably different ideas on how to run the country.

And of course, that never came to pass for a variety of reasons... due to the left-leaning and statist political landscape of Canada which causes the Conservatives to take a cautious approach to change, but also due to the reality that the NDP is even more far-left than the ruling Liberals, and of course because the Liberals can create the mirage of pragmatism or centrism at any moment.

During the 1980s, and this might not have been true in the 1984 election itself when Mulroney unseated Turner, Conservatives seemed to have vastly different ideas than the Liberals. There seemed to be a national debate on a host of issues. A lot of these differences over issues weren't even ideological, since certain Red Tories such as Flora McDonald, Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens, Ray Hnatyshyn and others were far more left-wing than a number of Liberals, particularly on social issues. The differences included the will to campaign on something as radical as Free Trade, the introduction of the GST, (and the will to campaign on it, since I don't believe that the PC Party intended to lose the next election), and of course the will to have a dialogue concerning the constitution. Mulroney did a helluva lot as Prime Minister, even if a lot of what he did was misguided or boneheaded. On the whole though, his policies eventually paved the way for a balanced budget (GST) and a growing economy (Free Trade). The failure of his constitutional efforts (well maybe the failure, rightly or wrongly of the public to accept his endorsement of those efforts) resulted in the 1995 referendum.

If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, why do I have no confidence that he will actually do significant and important stuff? Sure, it's largely because he's only mathematically capable of running a minority government surrounded by a bunch of raving socialists, but even if he did have a majority, I still think he'd take a cautious approach. Odd that Stephen Harper, the very definition of a small-c, movement conservative, is almost destined to achieve less in office than the Red Tories of the 1980s and early 90s.

The ideological makeup of both the parties has re-aligned to some degree, but the debate and therefore the level of progress has lessened.

Of course, I'd be so happy to be proven wrong once Harper gets elected. It's one thing to have a conservative/Conservative government in power, but what's the point if they don't actually DO conservative or productive things?

Power for the sake of power will result in the just (and rightful) demise of the governing Liberals, but that'd be a pretty petty sense of satisfaction if the Government of Canada is not reformed, radically.