Paper Dynamite Is Moving

I just wanted to let everyone know that starting next week Paper Dynamite Online will have a new URL: pdo2.blogspot.com.

I'd been thinking about creating a new site for a while, mainly to take advantage of some of the new features offered by Blogger but that I could not use with my old template, when a couple weeks ago my hand was forced. It seems Blogger no longer supported my old template and the entire site was a mess.

Anyway, I'll be back to semi-regular blogging (twice weekly at a minimum) at the beginning of October.

So after a much longer hiatus than I had originally anticipated, I'm looking forward to getting back to blogging and I hope you'll come by and check out the new site next week.

Brian Mulroney Lashes Out At Manion!?

From today's Globe and Mail:

In the interview (with CTV News), Mr. Mulroney resurrects Mr. Trudeau's adamant opposition to conscription during the Second World War, when the latter was in his early 20s.

Asked by CTV News anchor Lloyd Robertson whether Mr. Trudeau's opposition might be seen as a product of the times in Quebec, Mr. Mulroney said Mr. Trudeau wasn't alone in his opposition.

"But they aren't around 50 years later to say, 'I'm Captain Canada,' " he said.

"Look, out of 11 million citizens of this country, there were a million people - young men from British Columbia to Newfoundland - who rose to fight the Nazis. The most evil machine ever known to man, trying to exterminate the Jews, everybody knew that, and all these young Canadians rose and went overseas to fight them. Pierre Trudeau was not among them. That's a decision he made. He's entitled to make that kind of decision. But it doesn't qualify him for any position of moral leadership in our society."

Mr. Mulroney's remarks regarding Mr. Trudeau's opposition to the draft in the Montreal riding of Outrement appear to be a reference to the latter's decision to campaign for anti-conscription candidate Jean Drapeau during a 1942 by-election.

Funny thing is, do you know who else campaigned against conscription during World War Two? That would be one Robert James Manion, head of the Conservative Party of Canada and leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition (1938-1940). Who, by the way, was most certainly not in his early twenties at the time.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Mulroney that it was precisely his critical reflection on this period of his life which compelled Pierre Trudeau to turn away from the virulent ethnic nationalism and authoritarianism permeating Quebec society during the 30s and 4os, and to then embrace a pan-Canadian civic nationalism based on bilingualism, multiculturalism and individual rights? A vision of Canada that he actually succeeded in bringing into being!

The fact that Pierre Trudeau was able to overcome the retrograde and reactionary milieu in which he grew-up makes him even more praiseworthy as both a political figure and as a person. And though I doubt Mr. Trudeau ever referred to himself as "Captain Canada", no one is more deserving of the rank.

It Just Got Easier Being Green! But ...

Being A Liberal Is Still An Exercise In Frustration.

Okay, someone needs to explain this to me because I don't get it at all! How exactly does the quid pro quo worked out between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May, not to run in each others riding, benefit the Liberal Party of Canada in the next election?

Look, I've been in favour of Liberal-Green alliance on the environment since Tom Axworthy first floated the idea back in January of 2006. But, as I argued last month, the best way to achieve this is to reform the electoral system to some form of proportional representation.

As I often do when considering the strength of a given political strategy, I sat down and wrote a pros versus cons list and an if/then flowchart, and I couldn't come up with a sound reason to look favourably on this deal. What follows is the result of that deliberative process.

- It reinforces the perception of many voters that the Liberals will go to any lengths to return to power, including breaking with its proud tradition of running in every riding across the country. Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe will portray this as yet another sweetheart backroom deal concocted by power hungry Liberals.

- It reinforces the perception of many voters (particularly Conservative-Liberal switchers) that Stephane Dion is a one trick pony, fixated on the environment. The Liberals continue to put all their eggs in the environmental basket, so to speak. There is no guarantee that the environment is going to be the defining issue of the next election, and the notion that the environment is a ballot box issue has always been questionable.

- It diminishes the credibility of Elizabeth May. From this point forward May's criticisms of Stephen Harper and the NDP will be tainted and spun as political payback to Dion for giving her a shot at winning a seat in Parliament. Rather than being seen as a idealistic and fair minded observer, this deal leaves her vulnerable to attacks from both the Right and Left, and this could result in redefining her as an opportunist whose sincerity is suspect. The endearing quixotic aura surrounding May will soon be gone.

- The Greens are about to get a lot more media scrutiny, much of it will not be positive, and trust me, reporters are going to ask for Dion's reaction to whatever they dig up.

- New Democrat-Liberal switchers disenchanted with the NDP will feel more comfortable voting for the Greens instead of switching to the Liberals, while the remaining Dippers will close ranks in face of a potentially existential threat from the Greens.

- Liberals disenchanted with Dion, and who abhor the prospect of voting for the Conservatives or the NDP, will feel more comfortable voting Green.

- Given the questions hovering over Dion's leadership, it may be perceived as desperate tactic to garner votes in the absence of a strong, coherent and policy driven strategy.

- It's unlikely that Elizabeth May can deliver Green voters to the Liberals. In fact, supporters of the Green Party will view the next election as a chance to both elect May and enhance their standing in the popular vote across the country. Moreover, attempting to encourage strategic voting among such highly motivated, principled and idealistic voters is a dubious prospect at best.

- While the agreement between Dion and May appears to be uniting elements of a divided progressive movement, it actually introduces more volatility among centre-left voters. The cat is among the pigeons, to revive an apt phrase. But just to be clear, this volatility does not favour Liberals, it favours our opponents, as I've argued above.

I could go on but I think it's safe to say that the Liberal Party loses more than it gains from this deal.

The contention that this is beyond politics, and that Dion simply wants a strong environmentalist in House of Commons is ... how do I put this politely? Oh yeah, preposterous! It's politics of the purest kind -- forming alliances and promoting wedge issues.

The strategists advising Dion are, from my perspective, stuck in a rut. They know how to create alliances to win leadership battles but seem unable to create the conditions to win general elections. They know how to cut deals but seem unable to put the pieces of strong leadership in place. And when it comes to understanding voter perceptions and decision-making, I just don't think they get it.

Getting Elizabeth May into the House may be good for Liberals in the long term, since it could be a watershed moment in the decline of the NDP. But in the short term, I don't see much of an upside for Liberals. And so it seems extremely unlikely that Stephane Dion will be leader of Liberal Party if and when the seed he's sowed today is ultimately reaped.

UPDATE -- A qualification: I'm looking forward to hearing more about this,

In addition to not running against me in Central Nova, he (Dion) has signaled a willingness to reform our electoral system.

Embracing electoral reform will neutralize negative attacks from our opponents, and bring many progressives together under the Liberal brand (as I argued here). I'd still like to hear more from Dion, however.

The Red Green Show With Special Guest Proportional Representation

Last April in post titled "The Way Forward" I wrote the following:

"The first passed the post (FPTP) system has served Canada well, but it's a relic and it's time for a more democratic method of electing members of parliament.

"Proportional representation (PR) will help the Liberal Party in the next election on the issue of the democratic deficit. But there's another benefit that may be equally if not more important. The Liberals have been tagged with the "culture of entitlement" label. What better way to neutralize this attack than by advocating a change to an electoral system, that many Canadians believe has kept us in power for decades."

Looking over the current political landscape in Canada, I've become even more convinced that PR is not only good policy but good politics as well.

Many Liberals are reluctant to support PR because FPTP has served the party well in the past -- giving us significant majorities in the House despite receiving far less than a majority in the popular vote. Still others cringe at the probability of Liberal-NDP coalition governments that PR would seem likely produce. However, these traditional objections may no longer be valid.

A united conservative movement and the continuing presence of the Bloc in Quebec, means there is a possibility that even if the Liberal Party garnered roughly 40% of the popular vote (as they did in '93, '97 and 2000) it may not translate into a majority of seats in the House of Commons.

Now it's the progressive movement that is divided and it will suffer electorally in the same way conservatives have in the past. But with the rise of the Green Party the prospect of uniting the Left (or portions of it) may not have to involve a merger or coalition between the Liberals and NDP at all.

If the Liberals run on a platform that includes strong economic, social and environmental planks, and in addition advocates a change to PR, it will attract voters from the NDP and the Greens in the next election. And subsequent elections, after PR is enacted, could result in Liberal-Green coalitions (with NDP support, if and when necessary) as far as the eye can see.

In any event, running on a platform that includes proportional representation will no doubt shake things up during the election. And if there's one thing Liberals need to do, it's drastically alter the political dynamics currently at play.

Say what you will about Stephen Harper, he's one smart politician. His base is with him, he's courted ethnic and suburban voters, and he's about to make a big play for Quebec voters. Like it or not, it looks as though it may be a winning combination for the Conservatives.

Liberals aren't going to be able to outdo Harper on middle-class tax cuts, or offer even larger transfers to the provinces, both of which he's preparing to unveil in the next budget. We can offer our own versions of these policies but it's not likely to garner us enough support from Conservative-Liberal switchers to make the difference. And those who favour strong environmental policies are split four ways.

So rather then rely on scare tactics or fear mongering about a Harper majority to unite progressive voters behind the Liberal brand, let's advocate for something positive that will truly enhance Canadian democracy.

By proposing changes to the electoral system that will produce a more fair representation for the values of Canadians across the political spectrum and in every region, we can change the dynamics of the next election to our favour. But more importantly, we can change the country for the better. And that, after all, is what Liberals do best.

65% Of Canadians Support Extending The Anti-Terrorism Act

So I head over to Daily Canuck this morning to peruse the headlines and I see this: "Canadians Chide Harper for Commons Uproar". "Great!", I said to myself, "Finally some good news for the good guys! The people are with us!"

According to Angus Reid 57% of Canadians disapprove of Stephen Harper relying "on a newspaper article to link the relative of a Liberal Member of Parliament to the ongoing criminal investigation into the 1985 Air India bombings." And a healthy plurality think he should apologize, 49% in fact.

But that was where the good news ended. And here's why:

As you may know, some provisions in the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act, which was implemented in December 2001, will expire at the end of this month. These measures include giving police the power to make preventive arrests of people suspected of planning a terrorist attack, and requiring anyone with information relevant to the investigation of a terrorist act to appear before a judge. Which of these statements comes closest to your own view?

The provisions are adequate and should be extended - 65%

The provisions are excessive and should not be extended - 24%

Not sure - 12%

So the Canadian people seem to be siding with Harper on this one. And all the joy Liberals were feeling over the negative press he received last week, and all the talk of an opening, or that the tide had turned, may have been just a tad premature: Because when the extension is voted down tonight, two-thirds of our fellow citizens are not going to be pleased.

If It's Sunday ...

It's "Meet The Press For Idiots".

-----

Conservative Ad Attacks Canada (In A Subliminal Sort Of Way)

***SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS ALERT***

In recent years, the Conservatives have borrowed a number of strategies, tactics, and techniques from the Republican Party. But as far as I could tell, placing subliminal messages in their political advertising wasn't one of them. That is, perhaps, until now.

You may remember that during the 2000 presidential campaign, there was a bit of controversy over a Bush campaign ad concerning prescription drugs. This is how CNN reported on the commercial, which became known as the "RATS" ad:

Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's campaign contacted news organizations about an RNC ad in which the word "RATS" appears briefly on screen in a spot that criticizes Gore's prescription drug plan. A spokesman for the Texas governor on Tuesday brushed aside suggestions of subliminal advertising as "bizarre and weird," while the RNC had no immediate comment.

CNN slowed down a copy of the ad, and the word "RATS" clearly appeared on the screen in large, white letters superimposed over the words "The Gore Prescription Plan." In a fraction of a second, the word disappeared, and the words "BUREAUCRATS DECIDE" showed up in smaller letters. To viewers aware of the presence of the word, it is noticeable when the ad is played at normal speed.

Click here to watch the "RATS" ad.

Similarly, it seems as though the use of a word fragment to send a negative subliminal message to voters in Quebec about the Liberal Party and Canada, may have been employed in one of the Conservative Party's French attack ads, titled "Domino".

(Now you have a choice: You can continue reading my analysis of the ad, or you can scroll down, watch it and then come back.)

The ad begins on a red domino with the word "Liberal" on it. As the dominoes start to fall, the announcer lists off all the negative consequences for Quebec society that flow from not addressing the so-called "fiscal imbalance". Dominoes fall throughout. As the ad reaches its climax we get a foreboding close-up of a domino with the word "SCANDALES" written on it. The voice over says, 'centralization', 'scandal'. But the shot on the "SCANDALES" domino is not a static one, it's dynamic. The camera moves toward the domino, heightening the tension. As it does so, the "S" and the "L-E-S" begin to move out of the frame. Then, as the domino falls, and comes toward the camera, the "S" and the "L-E-S" are completely out of frame, and the screen is filled with the word fragment, "CANDA" -- just one "A" shy of Canada. The ad closes on a blue domino with "Conservative" on it, that doesn't fall and symbolically puts a stop to those centralizing, scandal ridden Candians .... I mean, Liberals.

Now, can I say for certain that this was intended by those who created the commercial? No. It could just be what filmmakers call "a happy accident". In this ad, the visuals are designed to evoke tension. And using a dynamic shot in the climax of a suspenseful sequence -- particularly one where the camera moves toward the object in the frame -- is a pretty standard film technique. It elevates tension in the viewer and thereby predicates the desire and need for calm, provided by a static shot and stopping the rapid edits, which is exactly how this commercial ends. So the form is true to the content.

But then again, who knows with these guys. Perhaps they are following the lead of their Republican friends. And subliminally drawing a connection between "Liberal scandals" and Canada, in order to garner the support of staunch Quebec nationalists, may have been exactly what they set out to do.

The bottom line is: Either they're malevolent geniuses, or I probably shouldn't have read William Bryan Key's "Subliminal Seduction" as an impressionable teenager.