September 29, 2008   

Barack O'Canada   

 

Leave it to a twenty-something in Steve Paikin's studio audience of The Agenda to nail it. And boy do I mean nail it!

The theme of last Thursday's show was whether or not Canada is poised to once again become a two party system and if that's a good or a bad thing.

It was my first appearance on the Agenda, one of the best current affairs programs in my opinion. Steve Paikin is, by far, Canada's best host, which is why he has again been selected to moderate the English debate on October 2, 2008. Don't miss it.

I think Canadians are as divided on the "United Left" issue as the panelists were. Some oppose it for partisan reason, while others believe it's like trying to simultaneously fit a square, a triangular, and a rectangular peg into a reluctant not-so-round hole. I offered that in the absence of some form of Proportional Representation, the argument in favour of merging the non-Conservative parties is neither for good or bad reason, but rather for practical reason. Getting elected.

The current behaviour of the center-Left parties reminds of why the Canadian crossed the road ... to get to the middle. Canadians can't seem to make up their minds about themselves, and yet, as the young man in the picture above asked it so perfectly [place cursor over quote to hear audio]  "I read a poll recently that said disproportionately Canadians support Obama about five times to McCain, and I am just wondering what does that say about the electorate of Canada that we are supporting a majority, potentially, of the Conservative party but we disproportionately support the Left-Center option in America?" 

It wasn't my turn to answer a question so I did not get to answer, but that question was one of the best questions of the evening not because of what the correct answer says about the electorate of Canada, but because of the answer that is contained within the question. We endure silly partisan arguments about why the diversified political Left could - heaven forbid - never merge, yet that same group of voters who makeup 62% of the vote have no difficulty whatsoever agreeing on what they would do if they lived south of the border.

Could it be that even I have been drinking too much of my own Kool-aid? Perhaps it has less to do with vote-splitting after-all, but everything to do with who leads te center-Left entity. That may be true in a different time, however, I still maintain that vote-splitting, primarily led by the indeterminable Elizabeth Nader, will be the determining factor on October 14. More on that in my next blog post in a day or two.

Following the live television broadcast which you can link to by clicking the photo above, there was a live video web-chat which unfortunately I was unable to stick around for. You can access the web-chat here.   

The web-chat featured another great question; "which current leader from the Left is best suited to run the united Left?"

The question pre-supposed or limited itself to choosing from among only the current leaders, i.e., Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton, or Elizabeth May. I agree, the likely candidate will not emerge from among the current crop. As hinted at previously one of the candidates is Canada's version of Bill Clinton - in popularity not sexual appetite - Bob Rae.

However the other name that few if any have mentioned, is Jean Charest. Among his other qualifications, Mr. Charest is a mix of Left and Right, he has hands-on experience at both the Federal and Provincial level, he is the most fluently bilingual politician in the country, he's still young enough not to appear too old in 4 years time, and in the past year he has shown that he can resurrect from the political dead.

Look for a snap-election in Quebec shortly after the current Federal election which, if the polls are correct would result in a Jean Charest majority. And then look for the same underground movement that pressured Mr. Charest into accepting the role of picking-up the federalist pieces in Quebec, urging Mr. Charest to piece together a new and united federal Left.