The Cloak and Dagger of Mario Dumont

When Mario Dumont was swept to power in 2007 as the leader of the opposition, few questioned his political support. Indeed, in true populist form, Dumont appeared to garner support from all quarters of the Quebec electorate. Outsiders dependent on English-language press reports outlining Dumont's policy stances were led to believe that he was the herald of a renewed era in 'democratic' Quebec politics, a new face that would change the tired discourse in the nation of Quebec. In my naivety and impetuousness, I too jumped on the bandwagon prior to the election to some extent, expressing my interest in the political appeal of his candidacy, though I never publicly or privately supported him. It seems now, looking back (though surely not to those who follow Quebec politics more closely than I do), that we were all duped - that the larger than life media profile of Mario Dumont grossly misrepresented his policy positions.

I remember talking to a friend who was living in Monreal prior to the election - someone I trust, with more or less progressive credentials. I was both shocked and tantalized when he told me he hoped Dumont would win the election. I had been following the campaign from a distance to that point, and had been impressed with the way Mario Dumont had been handling himself. Yet I was uncomfortably aware that Dumont didn't appear as a left-leaning candidate, despite the efforts of MacLean's to shade him thusly. So, snapping back to my diligent self, I reviewed just where Dumont stood, and my hopes and dreams were shattered. Union busting, fiscal 'conservatism' (read: tax cuts for the rich), racist immigration policy, only a short list defining just where Dumont stands. Add to this Dumont's recent comments on the 'riots' of Montreal, and perhaps we see the budding of a young fascist.

The problem I have with Dumont's deception is that, like with my friend, it gained wide credence among Quebec youth. It is true that increasingly I see young people sadly manipulated in their political and economic views by their desire to feel 'important, practical, and knowledgeable', in the same way that the great 'counterculture' campaigns - developed equally in corporate boardrooms and suburban garages - prey on kids desire to be 'cool'. But the success of the ADQ cannot be attributed to the hapless pandering of a minority of youth to the ideals of a class whose ranks they can only hope to join in some distant dystopian future. Rather, the ADQ has dragged in genuinely good-hearted and interested, if misguided, political participants with the false promise of a new kind of politics. What they have delivered is deceit, apathy, and the entrenchment of reactionary politics for a province that once claimed to be a leader in progressing Canada.

This experience has taught me a lesson, though I'm not entirely sure if I've truly learned it yet: rhetoric and representation are only half of the great progressive political equation - the balance is policy. In other words, what is spewed out of the mouths of candidates may go far in renewing political interest in otherwise apathetic voters, but it must be met by tangible policies that support that rhetoric. This is a lesson my friends in the United States desperately need to ensure they have learned as the campaigning comes down to the wire. On the democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling a little of the ol' ADQ 1-2. Clinton representing her policies in an unfaithful manner, Obama ensuring his rhetoric speaks louder than his policy proscriptions. On the Republican side, that well-known party of fear-mongering, expect John McCain to pull every populist trick (including claiming that the Democrats are populist) to connive his way into office.

Death of a Campaign

At the risk of revealing my obsession with the presidential primary season in the U.S., I'd like to draw attention to the collapse of Hillary Clinton's campaign. This race has certainly been a difficult one to pin down - for all observers I think. But as of last night I am able to make a projection (cue the cheesy CNN sound clip): Barack Obama will win the democratic primary, I repeat, Barack Obama will win the democratic nomination.

I didn't come to this conclusion by looking at the delegate numbers, or speculative assertions about super delegates, and certainly not by examining the poll numbers. Rather, it was by half-jokingly applying Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's "Five Stages of Grief" to the Clinton campaign. Let me enumerate each stage with a brief example.

1. Denial: Up until four or five months ago, Barack Obama was not on the pundit radar. When I first heard him speak some year and a half ago, I knew he would go places in U.S. politics, but I did not expect it to be so soon, or even so far. To use that disparaging term, he was not even the 'dark horse' in the democratic party. But when that quickly changed and the delegate numbers started coming in, Clinton acted, with her characteristic sense of entitlement, as if Obama was merely a fly that would buzz itself out in a short time. As recently as Super Tuesday, she believed, or at least portrayed the belief that Obama was not a force to be reckoned with.

2. Anger: Quickly after her first defeat, the Clinton machine became angry - who is this usurper of my rightful ascent to power? The slurs began to fly, most recently with the pre-Texas round of negativity. One might even frame her shedding of a tear prior to New Hampshire as a sign of internal anger that this just wasn't fair. She had big plans, good policies, a vision that deserves to be implemented. How could this happen?

3. Bargaining: When Obama passed her in total expected delegate count, advisors began deserting her campaign, and time was running out, she began to bargain. Just as one bargains with time to spare them from death, with considerable hubris, Hillary and Bill began proposing fantastical possibilities of a joint-ticket - with Obama on the second line. Obama, and the party leadership, quickly sped her along the road to the next stage when they flatly rejected such a proposal.

4. Depression: Most recently, Hillary has begun apologizing for all of the mistakes she made along the way. One could interpret this as an acceptance of loss, though this has not come formally or publicly yet. Rather, I see it as a kind of self-pitying that things could have been better and different, but they're not. It is impossible to predict these kind of things, but I expect Hillary to campaign with significantly less vigour then before.

5. Acceptance: I believe this is still yet to come, perhaps after the Pennsylvania primary, but of course, if may come sooner - or later.

This is hardly a faithful interpretation of the model, and I do it thoroughly from a lay perspective. Alternative analyses are certainly possible, and welcome. However, putting aside this lack of scientific rigour for a moment, this outline demonstrates one thing: that Hillary responded to her slow defeat the way someone does to something that they actually 'have' - a partner, a job, their own mortality. In true dynastic form, Clinton 'grieves' over something that she shouldn't presume to have had, but feels is her divine right. I'm not one to buy into the popular, sweeping assertions about politics in any country, in this case, the 'Bush-Clinton dynasty' argument. Still, if in the mind of Hillary, she viewed herself as the rightful 'heir' to the presidency, American politics has been saved from a dangerous turn towards further elitism.

Promise, Precaution and Preparedness: Obama and the Democratic Primary

I like Barack Obama - he appeals to my elitist demand for a candidate that can speak eloquently, and convey relatively complex ideas in an inspiring and forceful manner. As a believer in the power of discourse, this is a central quality that we should be looking for in any leader. He also, I believe, is unique in the history of modern U.S. politics in that his campaign rhetoric is rooted in grassroots organization. Yes, his platform consists of variations on a common theme - easy fix solutions provided by a Washington political class. But his speeches clearly foreshadow an era of renewed community organization and activism that America so desperately needs. This is not surprising, given his occupational biography, but the fact that this message seems to resonate so well with voters is. In an era of political apathy, of short-termism, of the paternal state or corporation advocating some kind of mild social responsibility, the long-dormant core of American culture is returning with renewed vigor.

All of his merits, as far as I'm concerned, make Barack Obama deserving of the democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency of the United States. Experience in the well-oiled machine of Washington politics is non-essential, and the kinds of political tactics that a true outsider - a community activist - could bring to the White House might actually blind Washington lobbyists and career politicians in a stupor that should match their mentalities.

But watching his speech tonight made my detested inclination towards strategy kick in. As older generations seize power based on their age and rely on the hackneyed rhetoric of their parents, the recent trend has been towards cyclical politics, culture and (hopefully) economics. If we can accurately relate current politics to those of the past, where does Obama fit in? Is history likely to repeat itself?

One name stands out in comparison with Barack Obama - Jimmy Carter. In 1976, Jimmy Carter ran on a record quite similar to Barack Obama. He appealed to a dissatisfied electorate reeling from the malaise of Nixon and Ford and promised that, as an outsider to Washington, he would reform the dirty politics of the day. This is nothing new now, but at the time it struck a cord with voters, and they delivered a humble Baptist, naval lieutenant and peanut farmer the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency. Carter's presidency is now well known - rising oil prices, stagflation, and ultimately the Iranian hostage crisis. He left office with a 25% approval rating, paving the way for Reagan (with a similar message and background) to seize the presidency in 1980.

One only needs to watch a few of Obama's speech to note some interesting similarities: the call for honesty, the cleanup of Washington, the "first" status (Carter was the first "deep" South candidate to win his party's nomination in over a hundred years). These comparisons to me are a moot point however. What interests (and worries) me is, given that Obama is in front runner status in my eyes for the presidency, will his story turn out like that of Carter?

The crisis that global warming presents looms large - any leader will have to deal with either the vomitous reactions of industry to regulation, or increasing environmental crises: neither will be popular. The price of oil has risen above $100 USD again, and shows no sign of declining precipitously. This will present a problem for any president tasked with crafting an energy policy for the 21st century. Certain foreign policy issues are likely to erupt, irrespective of the belligerence of American intent: Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, and many others that I am too tired to think about. Any way you cut it, the next five years are in no way 'Golden Years' for any candidate.

So my conclusion is honestly more of a question, echoing that of the last post. If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, will he fumble like Carter? Personally, I think Barack Obama is a much more formidable candidate and person than Carter ever was. History constantly provides cues as to how we might act, and if any politician is to act on them, it will be Obama. While Carter is passionate and 'rational', I would not call him shrewd. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have much more than meets the eye. This belief may be the result of over-exposure to Obama and not to Carter, but still - there is something of the Spirit of 68' about Obama.

My concern should not be a sign that I am skeptical of Obama as a candidate - I always think it is beneficial to push the discourse as far towards humanity as possible when time allows - but rather it should be a signal indicating the need for preparation for America and the world. We must be prepared to utilize Obama the vessel, in America and elsewhere, if he wins the presidency, to achieve ends that will benefit all.

A Frank (not Ronald) Discussion of the Republican Primary Debates

The best thing anyone can do is pay close attention to something they have a general disdain for, and consider it, not with an 'objective' eye, but with the exclusion of the aspects that are most frustrating for them. For me, the California Republican debate fit that bill quite well, mostly because of the radical disconnect between the consciously crafted rhetoric of the Republican candidates and the utterly destructive consequences of Republican policies on the American working poor, to say nothing of the millions worldwide that have suffered at their hands over the years. So (recalling that I have waived any claims of objectivity) with the debates as my focal point, let me offer an alternative analysis to what will certainly be a massive spectacle in the coming 24 hours.

Putting everything aside, in my opinion, the big winner in this debate was Huckabee - when he had the opportunity to speak, he delivered a clear, concise and even passionate response. Both he and Paul, perhaps from their vantage points as the "future Republican nominee drop outs", gave heated and concerned responses to questions asked of them, or seized their own space to present points from their platforms. McCain was obviously the big loser in these debates, and as I write this, I will concurr with Amy Holmes' pointed comment on CNN's aftershow that he appeared "surly". To take that further, I saw his performance resembling that of a cocky candidate, drunk on the fruits of his endorsements. Nevertheless, CNN, eager to back "power", no matter its stripe, was quick to remedy his less than stellar performance in the aftermath of the debate.

Which brings me to a major point of contention with these debates. Both Huckabee and Paul at some point in the night mentioned that they would like to speak about the issues, rather than - in the words of Huckabee - be an "umpire at a ballgame". Unfortunately, neither of them ever got a chance to really "swing a few" themselves, with no thanks to the questioners. But an even bigger issue was the entire questioning format. With no rules, CNN was at the helm to dictate what kind of debate this would be. Their decision: bring out the talkshow. CNN consistently would ask questions of either McCain or Romney, and after hearing their response, instead of letting the other give their own response to the question, would ask them to respond to their competitors point. This is a practice that blatantly obscures the issues. Instead, it encouraged (even forced) the candidates into the kind of absurd futility of character attacks that the media thrives upon. I can say, from the perspective of someone who fights tooth and nail against the policies that Republican candidates generally advance, that I honestly felt bad for all of them tonight.

But beyond the format questions, the main point that stuck out to me was really the disjuncture about what the Republican party is really all about. Listening to the diverse narratives of all the candidates and the back and forth name-calling of being out of synch with the party, I was left wondering: what does the Republican party really stand for? I heard Huckabee talk about the fundamental equality of all life, no matter what or where it was, alongside Romney criticize any claim of potential legitimacy for non-"Americans" to a right to live a life they choose. I heard McCain talk about a military class that needs to be upheld above all else, alongside Ron Paul talk about an ideal of freedom, rooted in the "everyman", that is the core of the country's pride and success. These different - and often contradictory - political and moral values leave one wondering what the cohesive glue of the party really is now. Why, for one, continue to link the party to Ronald Reagan? Should he really be the main referent for the party?

This, more than anything, signalled to me the demise of Republican leadership in the next election - and I have consistently predicted a McCain victory in both the primary and the presidential contest since 2006. If the Republican party hopes to have any shot at winning a general election, they need to have a consistent strategy that either solidifies their base, or transcends it. As times change and the Reagan personality fades into black, and he is remembered for the policies that he really stood for, the party will need to rethink just who they stand for. My hopes are that they fail to do this, so that Americans will at least get a good decade of marginal economic benefits (living wage anyone?), and an entrenchment of a much more egalitarian political culture.

But I defer to you - how did you view the California debate? What about this Reagan legacy? Is the party as fractured as people claim?