Among my friends, one of the most prevalent reasons for distrusting Obama, even now, is that he’s too charismatic. This argument annoys me to no end, because like any stupid justification, it’s not grounded in fact and ignores information that would have taken about five minutes on Google to find.

Early in the campaign when no one knew who he was, Obama’s charisma was a valid consideration to bring up. Was there any substance to his rhetoric? How would he govern? Did he have the capacity to handle the Presidency? As the campaign went on and he demonstrated that he was competent, this argument became less and less of an issue. And in the months following his electoral victory, he proved that he could act quickly and decisively and act transparently, through his first executive actions and cabinet appointments.

So why is the fact that he’s popular still a strike against him now that we’ve learned that he’s not just an empty suit and he is fully capable of the Presidency? If you’re a conservative and reasonably well-informed, there are so many other points to hit him on. I suspect it’s because most of the people that subscribe to the “popularity makes me suspicious” meme are not well-informed.

It’s an easy argument to make, because most people will consider it reasonable to mistrust something that’s popular. That cynicism appears to most people as intelligence. It’s the same reason people believe in retarded conspiracy theories. It’s the belief that you’re not one of the sheeple and that you’re sticking it to The Man.

During every election cycle, there’s always someone that reminds everyone else that the Antichrist is supposed to charismatic. I guess the implication is that we’re not supposed to vote for that particular candidate, but that conclusion is retarded based on theology. I mean, if a particular candidate is the Antichrist, they’d be in power regardless according to prophecy. So why does that have any bearing on your political views?

The other case study in “popular people are bad” is always Hitler. The fact that this argument even works betrays the lack of informedness among the people having the conversation. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history can explain why. Reagan was ridiculously popular, but American conservatives still worship him. Or how about Roosevelt or Kennedy?

This argument is made even more ridiculous when you consider that most of the people that I talk to are in their twenties. They’re always suspicious of super-charismatic politicians? Who was the last politician with charisma that they would’ve been suspicious of? Was it Clinton or Chretien? George H.W. Bush? Brian Mulroney? For the States, it probably would’ve been Reagan, but none of my friends would’ve been born. For Canada, it’s even more hilarious, because it’s probably be Trudeau.

But this matters because this idea harms good candidates while promoting bad ones. Under this hypothesis, getting people to like you and having a firm grasp of English and rhetoric is bad while oversimplifying issues and sounding like an idiot is good. What other reason is there for labeling anyone who can put coherent sentences together an elitist? Why else would McCain be pressed to choose Palin? Why else would George W. Bush win the presidency twice?

Not supporting a particular politician just because they’re charismatic is just a way for someone to avoid being called out for not actually understanding anything and is a convenient way to avoid having fact bear on their political views while not having to justify it.

Tomorrow, we’ll see a new President for the United States inaugurated and we’ll see the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. I thought that I should take this opportunity to express my thoughts on his term as president, seeing as how I’ve only mentioned him in passing on my blog. Where should I begin?

How about intellect? No, I’m not going to go for the “lolol bush is dumb”, since I honestly don’t think that’s the case, as much as we’d like for it to be true. He’s no mastermind, but he certainly knew what he was doing. It’s certainly easier for him to get away with crap under the guise of his alleged stupidity. It was easier for him to convince people that he was just a regular guy. He essentially made it bad to be an intellectual. And in office, he continued that war by ignoring and working against the scientific community.

How about civil rights? From the Patriot Act to the domestic spying program to the suspension of habeas corpus for those under suspicion of terrorism, the Bush Administration has seen a number of restrictions on civil rights in the States, both through legislation and illegally. You didn’t think warrant-less wiretapping was legal did you? I don’t care if it was for the security of the nation. Democratic nations have a little something called Rule of Law and that rule should never be compromised for any reason.

How about economics? Remember how Bill Clinton left office with a surplus? Bush decided that would justify some massive tax cuts. Not too long after that, there was 9/11 and a recession, and a bit later, a war to fight. And there was no more surplus to act as a safety net, leading to some fairly large deficits. And let’s not forget massive deregulation of the banks that have landed us in our current financial pile of crap.

How about foreign policy? It’s amazing how quick it took for Bush to squander all of the goodwill that the world had for America just after 9/11. Starting an ethereal war against terror, invading Iraq even though there was no reason to and lying about it, and deliberately antagonizing enemies are all the mistakes that Bush made while he was trying to impress the nation with his bravado. Because of his actions, the world is a much more dangerous place.

How about religion? Somehow, Christianity in America transmogrified into some sort of political entity and an extension of the Republican party over the last decade because of Bush. Seeing my religion used as a political tool that’s used by politicians that I don’t agree with is not something that makes me happy. Much has been made about the fact that Bush is a devout Christian and Christians seem ridiculously quick to forgive him of his faults because of it.

Based on his actions, I find it incredible that any Christian can consider him a shining example of our faith. If he is a Christian, he’s done a poor job of showing that he is one. Sure, he might earnestly appeal to God in his speeches and he might pray for the nation. However, I don’t think that a Christian would subvert Rule of Law, lie to the public, or politicize their faith. This doesn’t really indicate whether a person is saved or not, but it gives insight to their character, and I would find it troubling if someone with poor character were going around calling themselves a follower of Christ.

Ultimately, Bush’s legacy will be overshadowed by all of these problems. He acted against the interests of the nation, so he was a bad president. He knowingly lied and subverted the law, so I’d even say he was a bad person. Unless they address each of these huge problems that he’s wrought, I will be very skeptical of anyone who claims that Bush was good measured against any metric, and I’ll be questioning their judgement pretty hard.

What we just learned over the past week is that most people don’t understand how our government works.

Essentially, if you said that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was undemocratic, you were either lying and misrepresenting how Canada’s government works or you don’t understand how Canada’s government works. If you were misrepresenting, then congratulations, you’re a liar. If you don’t understand parliamentary democracy, then I suggest you get on it, because you’re being a bad citizen. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t just get to waltz into a voting booth and make a little x next to your candidate of choice. You have a duty to be informed and this includes understanding how this entire machine works.

People blame this on the incredible gravitational pull of the States’ elections, but I don’t think this is true at all. I mean, the electoral college system and the simultaneous House and Senate elections are a system that’s just as complicated as our own parliamentary system. The problem is that people don’t actually understand either of these systems, but think they do. Their perception of democracy is one of 50% + 1. People don’t want to go through the effort of understanding how the entire thing is put together.

There’s a reason why our country is lead by a Prime Minister and not a President. You might think that they’re two names for the same job, but they’re not. The President is the head of state. The Prime Minister is the head of the government. The President of the United States acts as both the head of state and head of the government. Canada’s head of state is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, who is represented by Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

The head of the government in Canada is the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. This is an important distinction, because we, the people, do not choose the head of the government. We elect members of the government. The Prime Minister is chosen by the Governor General, based on which member of the government would command the most confidence in the House of Commons. Usually, this is the leader of the party with the most Members of Parliament. This does not necessarily have to be the case.

This distinction is emphasised more in a minority government. I think that we’ve been spoiled by having so many majority governments that we come to expect them and think of minority governments as temporary anomalies. We’ve come to believe that minority governments are bad because they’re perceived to be unstable and unable to accomplish anything. And it’s become apparent that the minority governments themselves think this too. Instead of concentrating on governing, they’re obsessed with trying to get a majority in the next (presumably quickly approaching) election.

I’ve always been a firm believer in the merits of minority governments. Instead of just handing over the reins of Parliament over to one party, the government is forced to work with other parties. There are many industrialized democratic states in which minority and coalition governments are the norm. This becomes more important as we move further away from having our Parliament dominated by two parties.

History shows us how minority governments should work. Lester B. Pearson, the fourteenth Prime Minister of Canada, is considered to be one of our greatest Prime Ministers, but he never had a majority government. He led two consecutive Liberal minority governments, in which he chose to work with the Tommy Douglas’ New Democrats instead of antagonizing the opposition. With their support, he put into place many institutions that are still in place today, like universal health care, race-free immigration, and the Canadian flag. His government planted the seeds for what would eventually grow into NAFTA and official bilingualism.

In today’s case, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, put the interests of his party before the country, and as a result, he lost the confidence of the House. The proposed coalition government was a government that was willing to govern and place the country before party. They chose to cooperate together instead of trying to tear each other down. In other words, they’re working in the way that minority governments were intended to behave.

Democracy in Canada was working as intended. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.

I’ve heard that Stephen Harper has a degree in economics. Maybe this would be more apparent in his governing if he weren’t so preoccupied with destroying his political opponents and attempting to set up a golden age of conservatism in Canada. The economy, it seems, is the thing that no one will shut up about, even though most people probably have no idea about what’s a good or bad plan to save it.

Let’s have a look back at the election. The Conservatives constantly pushed the fact that there would be no deficit. I mentioned to some people that that was a retarded idea. The surplus was already getting tremendously thin because of Harper’s previous tax cuts. It was incredibly stupid to make a promise that would box them in like that, especially given that the word crisis was being thrown around.

Essentially, the Conservatives had two choices. One was to break the promise and go into a deficit by spending on a stimulus package. The other was to do whatever it takes to balance the budget. One of these ideas was good economics. The other idea would have prolonged a recession. Thankfully, the Conservatives decided to go with good economics. Unfortunately for them, it now looks like they’ve either lied during the campaign or they just learned some introductory macroeconomics in the last week or two.

To compound on that problem, the Conservatives decided not to take an opportunity to fix the economy this week, but instead tried to destroy the opposition by taking away public financing for political parties under the guise of protecting the economy. I can’t really blame them. If their goal is to ensure permanent Conservative control of the government, then this was an excellent opportunity. If their goal is to save Canada’s economy, this is pretty much the worst thing they could be doing.

In 2003, Jean Chretien introduced some legislation that would ban corporate and union money donations, lower the personal donation limit, and create a public financing system in which each party would get $1.95 per vote per year. This way, we remove lobbyist influence and at the same time, the parties that have traditionally relied on this money won’t suddenly implode.

Now Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty want to take away this subsidy. It’s not difficult to see why. The other parties rely on the subsidy to survive. The Conservatives don’t. In scrapping the subsidy, the Conservatives will essentially bankrupt the opposition and make it impossible for them to ever challenge the Conservatives again. This is even more suspicious after the election that was seemingly called for no reason – except to drain the finances of the other parties.

The worst part is that they tried to cover this up as something to help the economy. If you want to reform party financing, go ahead, just don’t try to pass it off as a consequence of fiscal policy. And I don’t care what you think about the current state of party financing. Trying to defeat your political opponents by deliberately running them out of money is not a win for democracy. Even more so if it leaves any opposition completely crippled.

And why is Stephen Harper so terrible? Because he only saw two outcomes to this. Either there’d be another election, which he would pretty much be guaranteed to win, likely with a majority, or the parties would wallow in their weakness and get trampled by losing all of their money and being unable to operate. He obviously didn’t think the other parties would have the spine to seriously consider a coalition. He also obviously miscalculated. And so instead of trying to solve our economic problem, he’s inflicted a political crisis on himself, all because he couldn’t let the opportunity pass to give the other parties another kick to the shins.

And now, we have the Conservatives trying to fight back by doing what they do best – spreading misinformation. Already, we’re seeing them paint the opposition as greedy and trying to undemocratically overthrow the government. This is why Civics was required in Grade 10.

So at this point there are a bunch of things that the Conservatives would like for us to forget. They’d like for us to forget that they were trying this exact same thing back in 2004 that the opposition is doing now. They’d also like for us to forget that they only had 37.6% of the vote and only have a minority government. Finally, they’d like us to forget that this minority government and coalition government stuff is how the parliamentary system is supposed to work.

Interesting times for Canadian politics, that’s for sure.

Now that the little distraction that was the American Presidential election is now over and we’re all feeling chipper that Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States, we can roll our eyes back towards this land of ice and snow and start killing snow moose for walrus-men consider the political dynamic here.

On October 14th, Canada held its 40th General Election. On the surface, it seemed like nothing changed. Seats were flipped and Stephen Harper remains a Prime Minister with a minority, just as it had been since 2006. But for the two major players, the Conservatives and the Liberals, everything has gotten considerably worse.

Yes, Stephen Harper managed to get the Conservatives another term in power and even gained a bunch of seats. But, he’s failed to get a majority after facing a severely weakened Liberal party twice. He couldn’t do it against Paul Martin and a Liberal party that was caught in a scandal. He couldn’t do it against Stephane Dion, even after controlling the narrative about Dion being a weak leader and shoving misinformation to everyone about the Green Shift. It’s becoming less likely that he’ll see the majority that he’s been fighting for since he became leader. This draws us to consider who might be succeeding him and it appears that there’s no one obvious yet. This will be a problem for them.

On the other hand, the Liberals couldn’t be in worse shape. Most of the seats that were changed were ones that were red. The party is in a poor state financially and with another leadership race so soon after the last one, the strain on the monies will only get worse. The party’s share of the popular vote is getting gobbled up by the NDP. The chances that the Liberals go the way of the Progressive Conservatives is getting larger and larger and the next leader will be determining whether the Liberals survive or not.

And that brings us to the Liberal leadership race. Immediately, we’re faced again with Michael Ignatieff facing off against Bob Rae, but things are looking a bit different today than it was two years ago. For one thing, there isn’t the cornucopia of candidates running. This time, we aren’t seeing the bitter divides between the two frontrunner camps that plagued the last race. It looks like the Liberals have realized the situation they’re in. And in addition to the sombre mood of the party, there’s the sombre mood regarding the economy.

These two factors greatly reduce the chance of anything like Dion’s from-behind victory from happening again. On the other hand, from the endorsements and support that he’s been getting, it looks like the party is almost ready to just hand Michael Ignatieff the leadership. On the plus side, it doesn’t seem like there will be an irreparable rift between the two frontrunner campaigns this time around. However, I’m not happy with the near-presumption that Ignatieff will just take a stroll until May and win. I think he should have to fight for it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like he’s going to be getting much of one.

I’ve honestly never understood how it was possible for Bob Rae to become a serious contender to lead the Liberals. I know he’s smart and has all the qualities for the job and it looks like a lot of Liberals do too. But outside of that, there are too many people who have a dislike for him, regardless of whether or not he deserves it. It doesn’t matter if he’s changed his positions or that he may have done the best he could in the early 90s, you can bet that the Conservatives will attack that angle relentlessly. Just look at how they controlled Dion’s image.

The other guy is Dominic LeBlanc. He’s young, smart, and is apparently a fine MP. His biggest challenge is the fact that we’ve been hearing nonstop about Rae and Ignatieff for over two years now, while he’s relatively unknown nationally.

I guess it’s fairly obvious who I think should be the next leader of the Liberals by default. But I will qualify that by revisiting the 2006 leadership race. In 2006, I thought Gerard Kennedy should be the leader. He swung more to the left side of the party and had a pretty good record. As the Minister of Education in Ontario, he did a lot to fix the screwups that are the reason that Mike Harris is so reviled by students.

Michael Ignatieff on the other hand was not those things. He’s definitely more of a centrist. His initial support for the Iraq war threw a wrench in his campaign. But most importantly, he was a very new MP and had just returned from the States. Before his return and shortly after it, there was speculation that he returned to try to run for the leadership of the Liberals. The question to me was why we would want someone who came back just to do that?

Two years later, through his time as an MP, we’ve learned a lot more about him. He’s definitely intelligent, but more importantly, he’s also very articulate. Despite being away from Canada for so long, he has an excellent understanding of the national culture. He’s got a vision for Canada, as a nation and for our standing in the world. He has the progressive values that the Liberals stand for. He’s not one of the old-school guys from one of Chretien’s or Martin’s camps. He’s got the support of the party. He understands that the party desperately needs to be transformed and rebuilt. And he’s likely not going to get trapped and smeared by the same Conservative strategy that took down Dion.

He’s someone I can respect and someone who’ll probably be able to make me switch my vote back to red.