OAS Opens The Door For Cuba Re-entry

Good news from Honduras. The Organization of American States is an important diplomatic institution in the Western Hemisphere and the non-presence of Cuba after the end of the Cold War, along with the continuing US blockade in general is a significant sore spot in US-Latin American relations. The re-entry of Cuba into the OAS is a welcomed development.

Canadian Government and Europeans Open Free Trade Discussions

Via the Winnipeg Free Press.

PRAGUE, Czech Republic - Canada and the European Union have formally launched negotiations toward a free trade agreement.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, European Union President Mirek Topolanek and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso announced the move today after meeting in Prague.

Harper says Canada is moving toward an economic partnership agreement with the EU at a time when many other countries are placing protectionist walls around their trading relationships.

The prime minister estimates a trade agreement with the EU could give a $12 billion shot in the arm to Canada's economy.

Free Trade deals are typically very controversial political matters, normally because they're signed these days between economically and socially unequal countries with large average income discrepancies. These normal disparities that exist between Canada and Colombia or Canada and Mexico, however, don't exist between Canada and the European Union, which as a unified customs union negotiates trade deals collectively nowadays. Free Trade between Canada and Europe therefore doesn't carry the risk of exporting manufacturing jobs out of Canada for what essentially is the benefit of corporate elites who reap in profits at the expense of Canadian workers who lose their jobs to lower wage workers from the southern hemisphere. As well, trade deals that at least encourage diminishing the dependency of Canada upon the United States for exports is always a good thing for the country's economic health.

Politically, Free Trade with the European Union tends to be an issue that oddly enough many left-wing and right-wing politicians can agree, although for quite different reasons. Conservatives for their general preference for low tariffs and general restriction on the movement of goods, while the left in Canada usually views the matter as encouraging less economic dependence on the United States, with whom many progressives actually view with some deep distrust, at least during the Bush years, which certainly might change with Obama becoming President. Also, Europe generally is viewed as closer philosophically to Canada by many liberals and socialists on issues such as labour law, health care, foreign policy, etc. and closer connections raise less immediate objections as closer ties with the United State historically has caused.

Raising The Stakes

The draft is an obvious no-go politically in the United States. Politicians who support it typically are shunned to the side as either lacking seriousness or simply being cranks. However, George H.W. Bush era Secretary of State James Baker has an important point about the consequences of the draft on the national psyche in the United States about the decision to go to war. Via Paul Bedard:

"This is a very unpopular thing that I am about to say," he warned. "But one thing that makes it harder to go to war is to have a draft, because when you have a draft, then everybody's got a stake in it, and the costs of war are brought home much more vividly and vigorously to the American people. I think national service is a wonderful idea." But unlikely, he conceded: "You get killed if you support a draft, politically, but it sure would raise the stakes. Everybody would understand a lot better what we have at stake when we go to war."

Baker's point here is that with a draft the national stakes are higher for the American people with the draft, because the sense of personal detachment between the civilian population of the US and the military population that is directed affected day-in and day-out by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is diminished. A population that has more to lose from embracing hawkish foreign policy positions are less likely to go to war, or to push for the use of armed force. In this way Baker's point is well met, although extremely bad politics.

However, it leads to a more important point of American military power in the world and the consequences of the supreme dominance of the United States over all of its potential military rivals. If one believes themselves to be invincible, they are more likely to embrace military conflict. This is a increasingly prevalent mentality amongst neoconservatives, who in their belief that the United States military was effectively untouchable believed that the War in Iraq would be a boardwalk with very little effort needed. This led to drastic shortages of manpower and proper materiel during the early period of the Iraq War that severely hampered counter-insurgency efforts and basic security in the country, as well as causing the US military to do short cuts such as the 'security sweeps' that caught and detained thousands of Iraqis, guilty or innocent of crime, and housed them in prisons such as Abu Ghraib.

This all suggests that the 'impervious mentality" that currently exists vis-a-vis the American population to the US military should be curtailed since it would weaken the foreign policy hawks politically. This however, is better done through substantial military budget cuts and reducing the role of the US military as a geopolitical hyperpower around the world. While this would weaken the American military, it would cause many politicians in Washington as well as the American people to think twice before foraying into some absurd military adventure such as Vietnam or the 2003 Iraq Invasion. A draft isn't necessary therefore to "raise the stakes" for the American people and reduce the tendency to fall upon hawkish solutions to problems that can be dealt with through international diplomacy.

Stretching

Mittens:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney compared the GOP to Americans fighting the British during the Revolutionary War. "We are the party of the revolutionaries, they [Democrats] are the party of the monarchists," he told the overwhelmingly Republican crowd, saying the Republicans needed to "once again lead the American Revolution."

Quoting James Stark's The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American Revolution:

Opposed to the revolutionists were the crown officials, dignified and worthy gentlemen, who held office by virtue of a wise se­lection. Hardly to be distinguished from the official class were the clergy of the Established Church, who were partially dependent for their livings upon the British government. The officers and clergy received the support of the landowners and the substantial business men, the men who were satisfied with the existing order of things. The aristo­cracy of culture, of dignified professions and callings, of official rank and hereditary wealth, was, in a large measure, found in the Loyalist party. Such worthy and talented men of high social positions were the lead­ers of the opposition to the rebellion. Supporting them was the natural conservatism of all prosperous men. The men who had abilities which could not be recognized under the existing regime, and those that form the lower strata of every society and are every ready to overthrow the existing order of things, these were the ones who were striving to bring about a change--a revolution.

This is what happens when your political movement lives in a bubble, you begin to see things as backwards or as completely differently then what history tells us. The modern GOP's position as the part of the economic elite can be easily linked in the story of the American revolution to the 'landowners and substantial business men who were satisfied with the existing order of things' that Stark refers to in his book. The GOP created the current economic order, just as the Anglo-Saxon economic elites who sided with the British during the American Revolution created the economic order of the Thirteen Colonies. To believe the opposite that apparently exists in Romney's mind that the modern GOP is synonymous with the petty bourgeois classes that were the key supporters of the Revolution, instead of the economic elites of their day is simply historical ineptitude. The GOP and its primary financial backers in the American economy benefited enormously from the neoliberal period from 1980 to the financial crash of September of last year, they have everything to gain from the restoration of the status quo and preventing an economic restructuring that liberals currently advocate.

An Adventure Into The Conservative Bubble

Sometimes it's important to remind ourselves of the alternate reality that conservative activists routinely and by choice put themselves in. Ron Chusid refers to this piece in Pajamas Media by John Hawkins as 'possibly the most delusional blog post ever'. For good reason.

Too often today, liberals are using below-the-belt tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever. Meanwhile, those on the right like to pat themselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts. But in the end, there’s not much to be said for lovable losers. Conservatives should realize that fair play isn’t going to pay any dividends.

While we conservatives don’t have to stoop quite as low as the left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine, if only to make them think twice about the way they’re treating our side.

Projection is increasingly a more and more common aspect to conservative thinking. In real life conservative talking heads routinely barrage liberals with personal attacks and smears as a means of pushing their political agenda, yet they put themselves constantly into a victimhood mindset where they are the victims of non-existent liberal personal attacks and are 'forced to respond' in kind. It's little more than collective paranoia.

For example, look at the media jihad that was shamelessly launched against Sarah Palin’s family. There was a not-so-subtle message being sent: if you’re a Republican woman, you better stay in the shadows or we’re going to destroy your family to get you. The left gave the same kind of intrusive, public scrutiny to “Joe the Plumber,” a private citizen who merely asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama. While conservatives defended both Sarah and Joe as we complained incessantly about the way they were treated, the reality is that the Democrats paid no price whatsoever for the out-of-bounds attacks.

Instead of continuing to complain, here’s a better idea. Why don’t conservatives do opposition research on the journalists endlessly running stories about Bristol Palin and Joe the Plumber? Have they ever been arrested? Whom do they own property with? Have they ever been paid to do a speech for someone and then run a favorable news story about him? Certainly Keith Olbermann’s personal life is just as newsworthy as Joe the Plumber’s, and the details of Maureen Dowd’s life are just as noteworthy as those of Bristol Palin — are they not?

Apparently "Joe the Plumber", who's name is actually Sam and he isn't even a licensed plumber was a 'mere private citizen who mere asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama', except that John McCain based his campaign late in October on Joe the Plumber as the 'average Joe', and then Joe the Plumber later on whored out desperately to the media post-November 4th to get as much out of his new found fame as possible. Including, attempting to sign a record deal, becoming a war correspondent for Pajamas Media during the December and January Israeli invasion of Gaza, advertizing for a Toledo, Ohio firm that promotes the purchase of TV converter boxes, writing a book, starting his own watch dog group, as well as his own charity. Joe the Plumber willingly became a part of the McCain campaign, the idea that the media is to blame for Joe the Plumber believing that his missed tax payments and all the rest of the his personal mirage would never be picked up by the press is lunacy.

Sarah Palin's candidacy was almost a self-parody. Her interview performances were horrendous, she came across as a lightweight compared to the Democratic ticket, particularly during the Vice-Presidential debate where she was destroyed in post-debate instant polling by a massive margin. Democrats never had to attack Sarah Palin, or Joe the Plumber. In fact, many of the Obama campaign's attacks on both individuals came across as weak and ineffective compared to the self-destruction that the Katie Couric interview unleashed on Palin's image. The fact that the McCain campaign barely vetted her previous to her unveiling in Ohio on the day after the Democratic convention in Denver didn't make many Americans much more comfortable with her, particularly so after the financial crash on September 15th. 'Liberal' talking heads never had to target Palin and Joe the Plumber, they targeted themselves. The idea that the response to regular media strutiny should be to hunt down who Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc. 'owns property with' is once again mere projection, these people after all are those who apparently find no problem at all with 'ambushing' liberals who disagree with them, such as Bill O'Reilly.

John Hawkins' post is clearly dillusional, but it gives a sight into how the right internalizes itself in light of their bankruptcy in regards to policy in the United States. Liberals have decisively beaten them in policy debates on almost everything ranging from same-sex marriage, to health care, urban planning, etc. and instead of attempting to figure out why this has happened, they decide instead to cut themselves off from reality and bubblize the conservative movement in the US. The right won't have any chance of emerging and rebuilding a national coalition to confront the renascent liberal governing majority until they re-evaluate basic policy.

Liberal Delegates Refusing To Give Up On Carbon Tax

I've had arguments with people before about the nature of the Liberal Party. There's a lot of people, particularly supporters of the NDP who believe that the Liberals are a centrist party. The party elite might view business interests as a leading mantra of the party's governing style post Mulroney, however the party's grassroots are a pretty left-wing group of people, evidenced by the policy motions that were passed during the Convention. Ignatieff has rejected Dion's Carbon Tax much to my chagrin, however the delegates left room in two motions for the implementation of the Carbon Tax when the Liberals obtain a mandate for government. The Carbon Tax bombed because it was inadequately sold to the public, not because it was bad policy as the Conservatives claim. It's implementation would be a substantial push forward towards making Canada's targets for Kyoto, as well as punishing polluters to the benefit of the general public through a progressive form of taxation. Excellent to see that Dion's bold vision has encouraged the grassroots in the post-Dion era to continue advocating for his environmental platform.

Also on the convention floor was passed motions on creating a national housing policy, green energy incentives, several motions on poverty reduction and increasing civil rights for Canadians, such as allowing gay men to donate organs. All very good stuff. Although:

There were other potentially controversial resolutions that didn't make it past riding presidents, including motions calling for the legalization of assisted suicide, eliminating the monarchy and financial penalties for provinces that refuse to fund abortions.

Gladly the riding association presidents killed the motion to support abolishing the monarchy.

Ignatieff: Canada's Obama?

It's certainly easy to imagine why Canadian politicians on the left, ie., Ignatieff, Layton and May would want to embrace and utilize the successes of the Obama campaign in the United States for political gain. Some would argue that it's a cynical attempt to 'steal Obama's thunder', however I don't buy this. Ignatieff's Obamaesque call for Canadian national unity in his convention speech is not a new phenomenon for Canada, it is merely a repetition of many calls for national unity in light of the cultural and linguistic divide between Anglophone Canadians and Francophone Quebecois. While connecting to Obama due to Obama's very high popularity in Canada is certainly a good thing for Ignatieff (something that Stephen Harper has also tried as well) and certainly new to the Canadian political culture, using the basic principles of Obama's national unity public strategy is not new to the Canadian political scene, they in fact exist in the Canadian political dialogue. National unity is a pretty easy angle for Ignatieff to run politically, especially after all the divisive and deconstructive anti-nationalist vitriol during the constitutional crisis of November-December alienated many Francophone Quebecois from Harper's Conservatives. So much so that Ignatieff's Liberals are currently riding very high in Quebec polling, around the mid-30s, while the Conservatives are collapsing rapidly to around 10-15% of the Quebec electorate.

National unity angles are arguably however, a natural circumstance to the Liberal Party. Their nature as a big tent party sees sometimes unstable coalitions of various interest groups from varying regions of the country. Larger internal demand for ideological compromise enables greater flexibility to wield larger national coalitions that span across the country. The modern Conservative Party on the other hand is built upon a less expansive ideological base, consisting primarily of Western right-wing populists. Creating less internal demand from various constituencies in the CPC for broader ideological platforms. However, as the 2009 budget demonstrated in February, even more rigidly right-wing parties in Canada moderate their line in order to build their political electoral coalition. Stephen Harper couldn't produce a more ideologically conservative budget, since the Canadian body politic would have rejected it.

The Progressive Conservatives as well performed as one of Canada's largest big tent political organizations for a extended period of time until the Mulroney coalition of Western conservatives, Ontario neoliberals and Quebec nationalists collapsed spectacularly during the 1993 Election. Obama's call for American political unity before and after the 2008 election therefore echoes Chretien's appeal to Canadian national unity during the 1995 Quebec referendum, or Mulroney, Trudeau, or Diefenbaker's national coalitions. Ignatieff's appeal for Canadian national unity is therefore not unique to himself, but unique to the circumstances and history of Canadian confederation. Ignatieff is not "Canada's Obama" any more as much as his predecessors were, since Obama's politics of national unity in many ways echoes existing Canadian norms. Obama's political coalition combined various elements of dissatisfied and disillusioned moderates, along with the traditional Democratic constituencies of Latino, Black and working class constituencies. The Democratic coalition can often be just as unstable as the Liberal coalition in Canada, or the Progressive Conservatives were during the 1950s and 1980s.

Obama's politics however echoes the fact that the United States was and remains a heavily divided country on issues, although recent issue polling is demonstrating that American liberals are beginning to win the major domestic policy arguments on issues such as same-sex marriage and health care. In order to heal many of the open wounds, Obama's tone of governance has embraced efforts at creating cross-ideological dialogue on various issues in a manner that American conservatives have been completely incapable of countering. This has led to Obama's conservative opposition discrediting itself in a battle royale of epic batshit craziness. Ignatieff's calls for national unity appear to be succeeding as the Liberals steadily increase in the polls, gaining evidently at the expense of all other parties in Parliament, however Ignatieff's current success shouldn't be construed as the success of 'Obamaism' in Canada, for Obama's national unity has been prevalent in Canadian politics for a long time.

Pretty Brazen Stuff

Via Impolitical:

About 94 per cent of funding flowing through the Enabling Accessibly Fund went project in Tory ridings, the Liberals say.

Just 6 per cent of the $36 million in projects funded so far ended up in ridings held by opposition parties, they found.

...

The Liberal analysis is based on information about the EAF tabled by the government in the House of Commons earlier this week that listed the projects by their federal ridings. It showed that 166 smaller projects were granted funding while another 562 were turned down.

Liberal MP Michael Savage said it was “pretty blatant” that the money was directed to Tory ridings. He said he’s sure the approved projects were worthwhile, but says it’s not fair those in other ridings didn’t get money.

“There are 306 other ridings in this county that have people with disabilities who are crying out for assistance. Who gets funding shouldn’t be determined who your representative is.”

It's a Liberal analysis so take it at a bit of arm's length, but 94% of disability funding going to Tory-held ridings is a really brazen form of political pork for Conservative ridings. I know it's very usual for this sort of stuff to happen, the Liberals used this sort of stuff to great political benefit in Quebec for many years, but really, 94% of all funding going to a minority of ridings in Canada?

Liberals Enact One Member, One Vote

As much as I detest the Conservative Party of Canada, I always admired their system of leadership voting. One member, one vote enables CPC members to vote in their riding organizations individually, instead of the current system of having their elected delegates elect the leader in a convention, which has existed in the Liberal Party of Canada for a pretty long time. OMOV was an issue of particular importance for the Liberal blogs as well as the party membership, as a means of defeating the tendency for elite thinking on the part of delegates collected within the confines of convention.

At the convention in Vancouver, the delegates with the support of the party leadership has finally passed OMOV. About time.

Ben Nelson Attacks Public Option In Weak Defence of Private Health Insurance

Ben Nelson is probably going to be one of the newest public enemies number one for progressives in Washington. He's like the Liebermann of domestic policy. This is a pretty weak defence of private health insurance however:

Nelson's problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game," Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a "deal breaker."

Apparently there can't be a public option for health care in the United States because Americans would love it too much and private health insurance is so broken that it wouldn't be able to compete. Nelson is already obviously a shill for banking lobby interests after his "no" vote on cramdown, but it appears that as the health care debate begins again in the US that Ben Nelson is going to be a major thorn in the side of liberal Democrats who're advocating for a public health care option to be implemented. Just another reason to move health care into the budget reconciliation process and beat past the filibuster.