Sound-Bytes and Political Teeth. . . .

The only real 'soundbite' in the debate seemed to belong to Jack Layton when he mentioned the "crooks" in the Senate. Once again I was surprised by the failure of Harper's opponents to properly attack him with quips that would stick in people's minds. "Why do you hire Criminals for the PMO and have prostitutes for dinner at Sussex Drive?" Harper's teflon style seems to be continuing despite his absolute corruption and dishonesty. I have a theory about this and it has to do with the idea that the opposition has just let itself be bullied for so long that they have become incapable of fighting back with the kind of spirit necessary to win.

On the other hand it may be a real issue of policy that is standing in the way of the LPC. One of the big problems for the Liberals in this debate is that for many years now they have bought into the entirely erroneous neo-liberal idea that lowering corporate taxes leads somehow to an improved economy. This outrageously counterfactual lie was a fundamental cornerstone of Paul Martin's politics and until this election the Liberals have continually touted this lie as fact. It is for this reason that it was almost impossible for Ignatieff to "win" the debate. When you essentially adhere to the economic approach of your opponent it is very difficult to tell him that he is wrong in any kind of memorable way. If Ignatieff didn't belong to a party that touted this economic lie he could have properly called Harper on the issue of giving billions to corporations. But I think to most Canadians it just sounds like an empty critique to say  "don't let the Conservatives give billions to Corporations, let us do a few years from now!" And the simple fact is that no matter what most Liberals and Conservatives say, the two parties are not that substantively different on the economic file. And until the public is really fed up and has reached that inevitable 'throw these bums out' moment, the Liberals will have no way to win an election because they are just too close to the Conservatives on their basic economic outlook.

The UK is a good model for this problem. Tony Blair essentially brought the Labour Party so close to the Tories that there was little between them in terms of economic fundamentals. But Blair was doing this at the tail end of seventeen years of Tory rule. The fact is that Blair hardly had to distinguish himself from John Major on any particular issue because the British public had reached that level of boredom and exhaustion that they were simply ready to get rid of the Tories regardless of policies. As long as Blair had not been perceived as completely whacko he was a shoe in to win the election in 1997. Ignatieff simply does not have this advantage because the Conservatives have not been in power that long and people have not reached this vital moment of political boredom. Thus to really have a chance in this election he would have needed to actually offer a strong fundamental alternative to Harper's regime. But the fact is, the most you can presently say about the LPC is that is is trying to promote a "kindler, gentler" version of the same kind of pro-corporate agenda that the Harperites represent. And this just isn't enough. If Ignatieff could have stood up in the debate and said "the economic advantages of lower corporate taxes is just a Conservative lie designed to shift money and power to Bay Street," I think some people, (particularly young voters) might have payed attention. But the fact is that most Liberals I hear and read actually buy the neo-liberal lies of corporatism, and for this reason they will not win an election until people are just fed-up with the incumbent party, which is still a few years away. Four years of a Harper majority will do the trick. After that, a sufficient number of people will be fed-up and others will see a "kinder, gentler" version of the Conservatives as a desirable thing. But time and hardship  will be the only things that will sell the Liberal Party which is presently little more than 'Conservative-lite."

In the end I think we can safely say that Ignatieff had no good sound-bytes because his policies have no teeth.

A-Type personalities and the death of hope. . . .

It is interesting that yesterday when I wrote a blog on my opposition to the war in Afghanistan, Tony Blair decides to call the war a "Religious Conflict." Tony Blair, a man who seems to have no real idea where he stands, changes his story a great deal to suit the changing situation and the changing evidence. He initially tried to sell Briton's military involvement in the Middle East (Involvement which has been going on for generations of course), with talk of weapons of mass destruction and the evils of Saddam Hussain. This despite the fact that England had been a long time supporter of Hussain and had been supplying Iraq with weapons for generations. So what if the English empire had conquered and subjugated millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere. So what if British companies had made millions of dollars from the Iraq-Iran war. Suddenly Mr. Blair wanted us to believe that he and his military were a force of altruism. But it is an easy sell. People love war and will buy almost any spin in the pursuit of military adventure. But of course, when the accusations of WMDs turned out to be false (something that many people knew because they simply had to listen to Hans Blix), Blair must sell the war as a religious conflict, curiously throwing his hat in the ring with over a thousand years of Crusading States who, motivated by both religious fervor and the excellent profits of colonial wars, have subjugated the people of the Middle East.

But if you have been paying attention to the long history of oppression and struggle you know that radical organizations find their constituency among the dissatisfied, the oppressed, the hungry, and the hopeless. Radical Islam was not 'created' by us in the West, just as Christian Fundamentalism and Puritanism was not 'created' by oppressive religious laws in England. (Keep in mind that Unitarians did not gain legal status in Briton until the Doctrine of the Trinity Act in 1813, which also effectively legalized Islam too. And Catholics did not gain this status until the Catholic Relief Act of 1829) Radical religious groups are not 'created' by oppression, hunger and hopelessness, but they are fed and maintained by these conditions. Radical Islam would have much less appeal and currency if the West didn't have a long history of carving up the Middle East in its own interest, of supporting dictatorships that are pro-Western, of utterly failing the people of Palestine, and of enforcing their will with military might. But instead of correcting past mistakes Western leaders like Blair continue to support non-democratic processes in the region, invade countries for fabricated reasons, and fail to use their real influence to stop illegal settlements in the occupied territories and create a viable Palestinian state. Tony Blair and those of his ilk are the very best recruiters that radical Islamic organizations could ever have. And talk of a religious war is like a call to arms for many people who watch the West treat the Middle East like its own private playground of colonialism. Meanwhile, frightening ignorance in the West, even among the so-called Left, means that there is very little opposition to these terrible events, and by buying the spin of men like Blair over and over (largely because so many testosterone filled Westerners secretly love war because it feeds their sense of power and superiority) we are condemned to watch as A-type personalities with narcissistic psychosis guarantee that peace is a pipe-dream.