Alberta Stays the Course

Canada is a peculiar sort of democracy that tends towards periods of one party rule.

At the Federal level the governing Conservative party has no effective opposition with any realistic prospect of winning an election. It was this dynamic that allowed Stephen Harper to govern as if he had a majority even when he held a minority of seats for a number of years. With a newly minted leader of the Opposition New Democrats and an interim leader of the Liberal party, Harper's majority is unlikely to be threatened at the next election.  Prior to Harper, Jean Chretien rattled off 3 successive majority election wins due to an incoherent and divided opposition. He was finally forced from office by his own party in a move reminiscent of politburo politics.

At the provincial level, the Progressive Conservative Party held power in Ontario for 42 years until 1985. The New Brunswick Liberals under Frank Mckenna truly had one party rule when they won every single seat in the legislature in 1987.

Alberta is probably the most grotesque example of this sort of one party rule. The Social Credit party ruled a dynasty that governed Alberta for 36 years until 1971. They were replaced by the Progressive Conservative party that has ruled since (41 years).

It was against this background that the upstart Wildrose party rose to challenge the status quo in Alberta. Opinion polls showed the Wildrose ending the Tory dynasty right up until 24 hours before election day when Tory numbers surged. The PC's were returned to power with a majority thus extending their rule til around 45 year at the time of the next election.

The Wildrose party was a new movement and as such had it's share of kooks. One candidate said he had an advantage because he was white and thus could speak for everyone while minorities tended to represent their own. Another candidate said that homosexuals would burn in a ring of fire on judgment day.

Now I'm no Constitutional law expert but if indeed homosexuals are to burn in a ring of fire....I don't believe that to be a matter of Provincial jurisdiction under our Charter.

The Wildrose party was not ready to govern. However it is still unfortunate that they didn't do better. The Tories of Alberta have gotten too comfortable in power. This happens with all parties across the spectrum. Once they are in power too long, they stop serving the people and start serving themselves. They become lazy and corrupt because they get used to being in power. A sense of entitlement creeps in.

This is why change (for its own sake) is occasionally good in politics. Alberta is in an enviable fiscal position because they happen to sit atop a lot of oil, natural gas and coal. They are not there because of good prudent government management. In fact Alberta has run serious deficits recently despite their natural advantages.

The wealth of natural resources has made good government less important and the Tories have behaved accordingly. One hopes that the near death experience that they just experienced gives them a good wakeup call to sharpen their pencils and get to work. If not, there will be a seasoned and experienced opposition waiting to take power from them in 4 years. By then Wildrose should have gotten over their teething pains, expelled their more loopy members and be ready to win.

Republicans Cruise towards a Disastrous November

It's been said that a strong political party is characterized by a weak elite and strong grassroots.

The Republican party's elites anointed Mitt Romney as their standard bearer some time ago....perhaps as much as four years ago. The Republicans have long had a tradition of "waiting you turn" wherein the second place finisher in one cycle becomes the nominee at the next available opportunity. Reagan finished second to Ford in 76 before getting the nomination in 80. George H.W. Bush finished second to Reagan in 80 before getting the nomination in 88. Dole, McCain and now Romney continue this pattern. This establishment support was fine when the grassroots (more or less) agreed. Never before has the grassroots been so at odds with the establishment.

Four years ago the Democratic party's elites clearly lined up behind Hillary Clinton. So deep was her support amongst the establishment that she was initially endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus over Barack Obama. The Democratic party had a brutal primary battle and the support of the elites was not enough. The grassroots came out in force to give Obama the nomination and then they mobilized to make him the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win 50%+1 of the votes cast nationally.

In 2004 George W Bush was able to mobilize his base of support to be the first President since his father to win a majority of votes cast. (Clinton did not get a majority either time and Bush did not in his first election). The grassroots support was the key to his election victory.

Today Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee. Other candidates have come forward to surge into the lead in polls. The party establishment went to great lengths to squash the candidacies of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and now Rick Santorum. Each of these candidates were complicit in their own implosion as well and that is also telling.

The Republican party's base could not find a champion who could withstand the establishment bias and so Romney hung in with his money....the others all ran out of money.

Mitt Romney will not carry Massachusetts despite his serving as Governor of the state. He will not carry his home state of Michigan. Nobody seriously expects him to have a chance in either.

He ran as a pro-choice candidate when he ran for Governor. He brought in something close to universal health care as Governor of Massachusetts. Today he is running as a pro-life candidate and swears that he will repeal Obamacare...which many say was modelled on Romneycare.

It is very difficult to respect someone who manages to be pro-life AND pro-choice. He has the look of a classic politician who will say ANYTHING to get elected. He now claims that he is "severely conservative".....a claim that Reagan never needed to make.

The video of Mitt Romney declaring at a southern primary campaign even that he "likes grits" was simply too precious. I've tried grits. I neither love nor hate em. Did he really think that a pathetic attempt like that to curry favour would win him any votes?

Other big misses: challenging Rick Perry at a debate to wager 10,000 dollars. Who does that? Bet a hundred bucks or a case of beer maybe. Most ordinary people might have a hard time identifying with someone who can bet 10,000 dollars like it's spare change in his pockey....which to him it is.

He said that he doesn't follow NASCAR but is friends with several NASCAR team owners. Seriously?

The establishment's crowning of Romney will come back to haunt them. He will have a hard time holding traditionally Republican states as many "base" voters stay at home unable to bring themselves to cast a vote for Romney. He doesn't have crossover support because he (more than any other recent candidate) fits the stereotype of the the Republicans being a party of rich white guys.

When the Democrats kept losing, their candidates kept falling over each other trying to show how tough they were on crime and declaring that they support capital punishment. A pundit on TV ridiculed this approach by saying "if you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time."

The Democrats will have campaign ads featuring Mitt Romney declaring that he is pro-choice and favours universal health care. The voters will choose between a Democrat and a Democrat.

I'm glad i'm not an American voter because I'm not sure what i would do if faced with marking ballot for Obama or Romney.

Obama will win in a landslide!