Six Criticisms of Stephen Harper's Conservatives

If you've been following the plight of Canada's Liberal Party as it tries to assemble a reasonable opposition and rebuild its ability to win government, you'll know that the current Liberal line entails accusing the Conservative minority government of (among other clichés) 'being in bed' with George W. Bush, the American neo-conservative movement, and U.S. Republican Party on the whole. While in some cases these villifications may not be in complete opposition with the truth -- the U.S. and Canada shared similar positions on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, for example, and the Conservatives have a similar, if placid, social agenda to the Bushites -- an award-winning election strategy Bushwhacking does not make. We need only look at the triumphant defeat of the Democratic Johns for evidence of this.

Yes, the 2006 Liberal Leadership Campaign looks like a boring version of a student union election, complete with tow-the-line pre-Law types, poli sci geeks, and crazy protest-loving leftists. Yes, Joe Volpe is a bridge troll. Yes, Bob Rae, one of the frontrunners, was Ontario's most ill-fated premier, and an NDP one at that. Yes, Stephane Dion, another frontrunner, wrote the most mind-numbingly vague piece of legislation in recent Canadian history, and later named it the "Clarity Act" in what must surely be the most tongue-in-cheek choice of words to ever appear at the top of a Parliament bill. And yes, Michael Ignatieff, another frontrunner, hasn't really lived in Canada since Trudeau was Prime Minister, and likes to call accidentally killed Lebanese civilians "diminishing returns."

It's all true. It's a shit show. And I'm normally fairly non-partisan, finding strengths in all three-or-perhaps-four of Canada's political parties. But the centralist, federalist, Trudeauist in me thinks we must have hope.

Hard-hitting, easy-to-understand election slogans are, generally speaking, a good species of language to use amidst the dull sea of policy rhetoric that is usually the hallmark of a Canadian election campaign. But trumpeting slogans (and the more detailed, wordy rhetoric that follows) such as "Harper is Bush," "The Canadian Blue is the American Red," or "Once a Neo-Con, Always a Neo-Con" will not work for the Liberals. The twin legacies of the Adscam Sponsorship Scandal and Paul Martin's complete and utter uselessness as a minority PM will require more than simple finger-pointing, moniker-applying, and an election strategy constructed entirely out of what appears to be negative space, in order to be overcome. The Liberals will need actual policies, actual vision, and, low and behold, an electable leader. Such may be the case by January 2007.

Aside from these positives, though, it seems to me the that Libs have missed a number of opportunities to get Harper where it hurts -- attack him on real grounds where he can't respond, and where the previous Liberal record may not reveal a conspiratory Martin or Chretien government. That is to say that few Liberals have mounted a well-researched attacks on the Conservatives that do NOT entail comparing them to the Cheney-Perle-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld brand of neo-conservatism.

In the spirit of political bloodsport and rubbing-things-in, here are a few the Libs may want to try between now and December (and maybe afterwards, too!):

1. Reinvestment. Canada has produced surpluses for more than a decade, the most recent being in excess of $13 billion ... and, in light of this, the Conservatives have decided to cut $1 billion-worth of programs on the basis that they don't serve the needs of Canadians. Interesting tactic. Of course, the Conservative idea of what a "Canadian" is seems to be a middle-class working person who has an education, belongs to a family, drives a car, and pays taxes... rather than, say, a "Canadian" who visits museums, attends adult literacy classes, or seeks youth employment. But let's not be too harsh. As has been pointed out elsewhere, these cuts were coming. And some of the cuts make sense. Look at the money the Conservatives released simply by downsizing the huge Liberal cabinet. Paying down the debt, likewise, should be a priority for any government with a surplus on its hands.

But the expected cuts are just that -- little bits of fiscal predictability from a government that shows no indication of wanting to reinvest in those "non-essential" parts of Canada that don't involve taxes, jobs, or some combination of the two. Funding the arts does not necessarily provide you with a monetary return. Instead, it provides with a point for living aside from paychecks and raises. The government should be looking at reinvesting in programs they cut high and dry in 1995 -- PSE, anyone? -- instead of trimming more "fat." And at this point we're talking thin layers of fat overlapping the bones of a near-skeleton. Let's not forget the Conservative abrogation of Kyoto -- for what? An environmental stall? Post-Secondary Education, Health Care, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Imbalance, you name it, the Acronym needs it. And the Conservatives have done shit.

2. Foreign Policy. The Asia-Pacific, now emerging as the world's most important region, is becoming peripheral in Ottawa as the Federal Government's field of vision becomes narrower. Aside from the ridiculous mid-Lebanon plane stunt, and his government's irrational and unconditional support of Israel, Stephen Harper's foreign policy has been a few shades better than the Liberals (this is a point especially well made when people like the Honourable Denis Coderre march in support Hezbollah).

But a major element in Canada's foreign policy, Canada-China relations, have slowly been going the way of Trudeau's mid-1970s "Third Option" push to increase Canada-ECC trade. That is, they are going nowhere. This report is hardly surprising. Increased trade with China represents the first real opportunity Canada may have to expand its export portfolio beyond the U.S. by a significant margin. Anyone up on Chinese foreign policy, domestic policy, or Canada-China relations realizes this. China is interested in our oil, our water, our markets, and our ability to supply just about all of the resources China will start needing if it plans to continue to develop its xiaokang and flying geese development strategies. Which it does. And the international demand from Chinese markets will be overwhelming. There is no lack of evidence that China-U.S. relations are tenuous at best, especially on the economic front. This relationship will necessarily affect Canada as Sino-American competition over our water, precious metals, and oil continues to mount. China has major feelers in the tar sand operations already; it's time to start planning, on a political level, so that Canada can ease into a large, robust trading relationship with China without damaging its relationship with the United States. And it's also time to start encouraging increasing China-Canada trade, more cultural exchanges, and political interaction. East Asia is a powderkeg with no neutral parties, including the U.S. By increasing Canada's profile in Chinese affairs, we are better positioned to broker future agreements and disagreements over BMD, militarization, regional disputes, and U.S.-China impasses. And we will gain a bigger, better chair at the human rights table in China.

3. Image. The Conservative Leader is one of the least charismatic leaders in the world, and may even be so within his party. Harper looks like your Average Joe, yes, but he is no "man of the people" insofar as diplomacy and statesmanship are concerned. Harper's hermitic nature does not score him points with international organizations, leaders, or persons expecting someone of Trudeau's, Chretien's, Mulroney's, or (at worst) Pearson's diplomatic stature. MacKay, maybe; Harper, no. Take the whole International AIDS Conference fiasco. Some people became very angry when Harper didn't show up to an international conference about the world's most high-profile killer. Others say his decision to send two ministers was enough, given that other PMs didn't go in the past.

But if you're the smartest man in the room, why not take the middle-ground? Why not send two Ministers (or one Minister) and a pre-taped message that explains the decision? Surely someone in Harper's handling team knew the AIDS conference organizers would be disappointed, particularly since Paul Martin promised he would attend if elected. Surely someone in Harper's handling team knew that issues like AIDS are not just African problems, and that millions of Canadians live with the disease each day. Surely someone in Harper's handling team knew that even a token gesture at the conference would have been better than complete ignorance, especially in the eyes of Quebec voters, whom Harper will need to win a majority. In electoral politics, image is almost everything. Provided someone worth a damn wins the Liberal leadership race (*cough*), image may not be the Liberals' worst liability.

4. Stockwell Day.

5. Social reform. The Conservatives are, to be frank, conservative. Liberal voters who "went blue" in the last election need to remember that. Harper has not moved on changing the definition of marriage so that it limits such a union to a man and a woman (doing so would be unconstitutional and require either a constitutional amendment and/or the use of the notwithstanding clause). But the Conservatives have said they will prevent marijuana from being decriminalized, and their latest round of cuts hardly point out their undying support for women's groups or the arts. A full discussion of why marijuana should be decriminalized in Canada is beyond the scope of my little number/point here, but essentially entails: 1. less kids in jail or with records that have ruined their lives; 2. the limitation of an underground economy that supports other types of drug trade; 3. more taxes for government; 4. a cleaner, more regulated product; 5. more jobs for skilled workers; and 6. less petty work for police so they can better focus on more destructive substance abuses and crimes.

Canadians should expect more of this if the Conservatives win a majority government. Or, rather, Canadians should expect the Liberals to point out an undeniable probability: that a Conservative minority means no movement on marijuana, possible movement on same-sex, and future revisions of Canada's progressive social agenda.... that is, if the Liberals could mount a campaign worth a damn.

6. Defence. The Conservatives have done an awful job explaining their defence decisions. I support the mission in Afghanistan. I semi-support BMD, although I have my reservations about a system that will give China, Japan, Iran, North Korea and possibly Taiwan further excuses to militarize. But the Conservatives haven't explained what our troops are doing in Afghanistan, and they haven't moved anywhere in regards to the yes/no ambiguity of the Liberals' decision on Canada's participation in BMD. Worse, the international community seems to be in the woods regarding the extent of our commitments. In Afghanistan, contrary to popular belief, Canadians are not involved in a purely combat role. Our troops are building schools, protecting residential areas and attempting to limit major Taliban presence to a small area in Afghanistan's south. And despite what Paul Martin says, this is exactly what was entailed in our mission when the Liberals signed on post-9/11. Violence in Kabul has been limited to the occasional suicide bomb and/or assissination. These are troubling events, yes, but this is far different reality from when we went in, or before we went in, when it was illegal for Afghans to listen to music, watch movies, and women were brutally oppressed.

The Liberals have a case, if slim, to call the Conservative government out on its own record -- and not its alleged ties to Bushism, neo-conservatism, or any "what may or may not be true" speculation about the "craftiness" and "creepiness" of Harper's secret agenda. Painting the enemy black is a good idea, but it should be done with some substance. Imagine carrying the Bush-Harper line for three hours in a nationally-devised debate; easy, perhaps. Election-winning, no. If the Libs are smart, and I hope they are, they should take heed and turn this slim case into a fighting one.