LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Of all the remarkable political developments that have taken place recently south of the border, one in particular caught my attention.

I'm talking about how Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (better known in this age of initialization as "AOC") is thinking about quitting politics.

To my mind, that bit of information symbolizes how the victory of Joe Biden will dramatically change the dynamics of American politics.

What will change you ask?

Well, once right-wing populist Donald Trump whom the American Establishment desperately wanted to topple is safely out of the Oval Office, left-wing revolutionary thoughts will quickly fall out of fashion.

As history has shown us time and time again, once a revolution has succeeded, revolutionaries are no longer needed.

Hence, prominent left-wing figures like AOC, who were media stars during the Trump era will, for the foreseeable future be relegated to the sidelines.

After all, the only reason AOC became a media darling in the first place is that, as young, hip, articulate and attractive politician, she was the perfect poster child to personify the anti-Trump "resistance."

Basically, AOC's progressive agenda coupled with her celebrity-style looks propelled her to media stardom.

Her face adorned magazine covers, she was a sought-out guest on cable TV news outlets, and her every utterance was guaranteed to make headlines.

But now, with Biden about to take over the presidency, AOC no longer really serves a purpose.

If she defends Biden's policies, the media would consider that boring; if, on the other hand, she starts attacking the new president for any ideological failings, the largely pro-Biden media would likely deem her as too radical.  (This is basically what happened to Bernie Sanders.)

It's the old, if "you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.

By the way, the same goes for the left-wing group ANTIFA, which likes to voice its political opinions by smashing windows; during Trump's presidency, the media tended to portray this group's members as folk heroes, but if they decide to wreck a downtown core to protest Biden, they'll be deemed dangerous thugs.

At any rate, I suspect this partly explains why AOC is pondering quitting politics; she realizes the media will no longer saturate her with effusive praise.

The same sort of situation unfolded here in Canada with Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

Recall that while Stephen Harper was prime minister, May received tons of positive media coverage whenever she lashed out against the governing Conservatives.  The more outrageous her attacks, the more the media liked it.

However, once media favourite Justin Trudeau replaced Harper, May saw her media appeal rapidly dwindle.

There were no more Conservatives for her to kick, and the media had no interest in amplifying her criticisms of Trudeau.

Yet, while the electoral success of left-wing politicians ultimately tends to stifle the voices of strident left-wing agitators, like AOC and May, it also provides a wonderful opportunity for activists on the right.

Conservative agitators, such as Ezra Levant over at Rebel Media, can bash away at the Liberal government with reckless abandon, generating lots of donations in the process.

I know this from first-hand experience, since back in the early 1990s, while I was working with a conservative advocacy group called the National Citizens Coalition, the best thing we had going for us was former Ontario NDP Premier Bob Rae.

All I had to do was mail out Rae's name on a sheet of paper and our supporters would send in donations to help us stop his "ruinous socialist agenda."

It was a Golden Age for us, and when Rae was defeated in 1995 and replaced by the more conservative Mike Harris, the NCC's donations plummeted.

This is why American conservatives should take heart, despite Biden's win.

With Trump gone, some of the most active leftist voices, such as AOC, will be muffled, yet, with Biden in the White House, conservative advocacy organizations will likely be more energized than ever.

All this simply reflects the iron laws of politics: political opposites feed off each other.

Photo Credit: The Guardian

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


As the pandemic continues to grow at an alarming rate across the country, we are watching several premiers simply abdicate their constitutional obligations to do something meaningful about it.  Most of them Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, François Legault, Brian Pallister, and even John Horgan, have been more concerned about ensuring that restaurants and bars remain open and operating rather than taking the necessary steps to prevent the spread of the infection, apparently oblivious to the fact that if people aren't healthy, the economy suffers whether these businesses stay open or not.  And as the cases and deaths continue to climb, are the premiers being held to account?  Rest assured they are not, but everyone is turning to prime minister Justin Trudeau, whose jurisdiction this problem is not.

The focus on the federal government is as deeply curious as it is frustrating, because anyone who has spent any amount of time in this country should know by now that we have a strongly decentralized federation, and that healthcare delivery is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces (barring provision to First Nations and military personnel, much of which is still delivered by provinces by merely reimbursed by the federal government).  Provincial premiers constantly berate attempts by the federal government to "meddle" in healthcare, even though "meddling" tends to mean ensuring that provinces don't do things like charge for private delivery of services, or trying to fund greater access to certain priority areas like mental health or home care.

I can immediately hear the protests of "But surely they play a role!" and the invocation of the Canada Health Act like it's some kind of a talisman.  Few enough people and reporters especially seem to grasp that the federal role around healthcare is funding for the primary purpose of ensuring that there are equitable levels of care available across the country.  This is why enforcement to ensure that provinces aren't charging things like user fees or setting up alternative private for-profit delivery matters it keeps it equitable and accessible for all users.  There are still plenty of gaps, and places where provinces are not fulfilling their obligations, but for the most part, this is the overriding goal of federal involvement.  In addition, the Canada Health Act was the conclusion of federal-provincial negotiations, and not a starting point or something imposed top-down on the provinces, which is why demands to start unilaterally including things into the Act are non-starters (and why the federal government can't just draft a similar bill for pharmacare without provincial buy-in, like the NDP keep proposing).

What has become deeply frustrating over the course of the past nine or so months as the pandemic has essentially taken over the functioning of the country is that there is his erroneous belief, constantly perpetuated and reinforced by reporters, that somehow because of the Canada Health Act, that the federal government is some sort of parental jurisdictional figure, and that it can sweep in and start acting in provinces where their provincial governments are not doing enough to deal with the pandemic.  This is not the case.  Under our constitution, there is a division of powers powers are not delegated to the province by the federal government and cannot be taken back.  Instead, powers are divided between the provincial and federal governments based on spheres of responsibility, and it takes a constitutional amendment to change which order of government that particular area of jurisdiction falls under.

The federal government is not some parental figure, and it is not going to take over the responsibility of healthcare delivery in this country.  Yes, there is the theoretical ability to do so under the Emergencies Act, but that cannot be invoked without the consent of the provinces, and that has not happened, and you can be assured that it will not happen.  And yet, this is now the expectation that many members of the media keep circling around that eventually, Trudeau is going to unilaterally invoke the Act and take charge, and more to the point, these same reporters are trying to set up the expectation that if Trudeau doesn't do this, that he will be accountable for the infections and deaths across the country as some kind of refusal to act.  This is not only wrong, but it's completely wrong-headed.

Because there is a constitutional division of powers and not a delegation, provinces have tremendous amounts of power in their own areas of jurisdiction, and most are simply choosing not to act not only with regard to stricter public health protocols or lockdowns, but more fundamentally when it comes to things like supporting those small businesses, or commercial or residential rent supports, all of which have been important issues that they have refused to address (to the point where the federal government has been forced to twice now kludge together some kind of rent assistance program when they have a very limited number of levers available to them).  The federal government has been going above and beyond to support provinces, and turning over vast sums of money to them to keep the country going in the face of this pandemic and not complaining about it either but because they simply use the language of "working together with provinces and territories" rather than "you should talk to your premier," it keeps sending the wrong impression about just how much clout they actually have.

It's time to start really holding the premiers to account for their ballsing up the response to this pandemic because they are too afraid of their own bottom lines and balanced budget promises.  The federal government isn't going to save you it's not their job.  It's your premier's job to do the heavy lifting on testing, tracing, isolation, public health measures, supporting businesses affected by those measures, and yes, rent supports for people affected by this pandemic, and the longer you keep looking to Trudeau to do that work, the more these premiers will keep skating by, and nothing will get fixed.  Put the pressure where the responsibility lies.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Not so many months ago Alberta was low in the provincial rankings of Covid infections, praised for the number of tests it could complete in a day and lauded for its prescient stockpiling of PPE.

It appeared the Alberta government was on the right track.  It never completely locked down the economy, leaving construction sites buzzing and keeping a number of workplaces open without huge repercussions.

The picture is radically different now.

Alberta is punching well above its weight in terms of new Covid cases.  On Tuesday there were 713 new cases reported, seven deaths in 24 hours, 8,090 active cases in the province. Most troubling is the rapid filling up of hospital beds 207 Covid cases in hospital with 43 of those in ICU.

A continuing care home outbreak in Edmonton precipitated by one case in the third week October has claimed the lives of 10, with 76 patients and 70 staff infected. Still Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Medical Officer of Health Deena Hinshaw talk about the need to balance mental and economic health against the perils of the spreading pandemic. But now strategies that appeared to be working in spring and summer are failing.  Appealing to individual responsibility, Kenney's mantra of late, is having little or no effect. Just check Alberta social media if you still believe our better angels will save the day.  Twitter is devolving into a free-for-all of libertarian anti-maskers reviving the long since debunked theory that Covid is no worse than seasonal flu.

Kenney's thought processes on Covid strategy are pretty explicit.  He stated them on Friday. "We've seen other jurisdictions implement sweeping lockdowns, indiscriminately violating people's rights and destroying livelihoods.  Nobody wants that to happen here in Alberta." While that might fit well into his big picture balance-the-risk philosophy, the statement was pretty tone deaf given the current crisis.

Even Justin Trudeau felt the need to counter any economy-trumps-all sentiment. "I would hope that no leader in our country is easing public health vigilance because they feel pressure not to shut down businesses or slow down our economy," the prime minister said this week.

To be fair, Kenney's tactics aren't just about the economy.  In a province with a continuing job crisis and a relatively young population, mental and social well being must weigh on the public health balance.

However, it's time for some triage to wrestle the immediate crisis.  The circuit breaker strategy, a  short defined lockdown to knock back Covid spread, won't bring the pandemic to a halt but it will address the specific mounting emergency in Alberta's hospitals and care homes. The target is to provide some breathing room for health care workers to regroup. Besides the strains in hospital occupancy and staffing, Alberta is faced with a shortage of contact tracers.  The province is now only doing very limited contact calls while it scrambles to staff up call centres.

In the interim, Albertans with positive Covid test results are expected to call their own contacts a spotty and wishful-thinking strategy.

Ironically Kenney's refusal to adopt the national Covid Alert app in Alberta is particularly ill-thought out now.  The premier argued that since Covid Alert doesn't connect back to provincial contact tracers it isn't as effective as the province's Trace Alberta app.  That's sort of a moot point now.

The wheels have fallen off Alberta's Covid strategy.

It may be galling for the premier to follow the lead of his peers across the country and re-institute lockdowns but it's time to take action.  A short sharp lockdown will let the province take a deep breath before plunging back into the lengthy efforts to bend the Covid curve while trying to revive the economy.

Alberta's initial measured approach worked well for the province in early days.  But in any long campaign, battle plans must be occasionally reviewed and revamped to address changing circumstances.

Photo Credit: Edmonton Journal

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Justin Trudeau is a three.

The late, great Rafe Mair left us with one of the truest of truisms: in politics, if you are a three, it doesn't matter if everyone nearby is a two.

Never has Mair's observation been more true than with Justin Trudeau.  The Liberal leader may be a dwarf, politically, but he still dwarfs all the dwarfs around him.  (True.)

Such was the case with one Donald Trump, soon to be a private citizen.  Trump was the best thing that ever happened to Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau had no shortage of wounds, all of them self-inflicted.  And in each and every case, however bad Trudeau looked, Trump could always be counted upon to look far worse.

Take Trudeau's commitment to ethics (please).  Trudeau is the first sitting Prime Minister to have been found to have violated ethics rules multiple times.

Remember the Aga Khan scandal?  In that one, Trudeau took gifts from a lobbyist free flights, traveling to a private island, and then saying nothing was wrong when he got caught.

Well, it was wrong.  Plenty wrong.  So said the ethics commissioner, who found Trudeau had flagrantly  violated conflict of interest laws.

Same with the SNC Lavalin scandal, otherwise known as Lavscam.  In that one, Trudeau and his officials including his Minister of finance, who hastily-departed in the middle of yet another ethics imbroglio tried to bully his Minister of Justice into giving a sweetheart deal to a Quebec-based Liberal Party donor facing prosecution for corruption.

Because she refused to go along with the scheme, Trudeau drove out his female and Indigenous Minister of Justice.  He was again cited for wrongdoing by the ethics counsellor.

But, even after all that, Trump made Trudeau look like a rank amateur.  Trump actually attempted to get a foreign power to investigate a detested political rival who was also an American citizen one Joe Biden, Democrat thereby earning himself a full congressional investigation and a later impeachment.

Another example: racism.  In the middle of last year's federal election, Justin Trudeau was found to have worn racist blackface no less than three (3) times.  He even admitted that he may have done it more times than that.

It was inarguably racist, and it made Canada an international laughingstock.

Well, Donald Trump outdid even that.  After the terrible events in Charlottesville where an innocent woman was actually killed by a white supremacist Trump said that there were "fine people" to be found among the ranks of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

That's not all: in the middle of his first debate with Joe Biden, Trump declined to condemn white supremacy and groups like the racist Proud Boys.

During the coronavirus pandemic, which has been the defining political event of our collective lifetimes, Justin Trudeau again found a way to unimpress.

At the start of the pandemic, his government actively discouraged the wearing of masks, sniffed that the risk to Canadians was "low," and actually called those who wanted to shut the border to China racist.

In retrospect, not impressive.  But once again, Donald Trump was determined to impress even less. He said the virus would go away in the Spring (it didn't).

He said it was a hoax (it wasn't).  He said people should consider injecting themselves with bleach (they shouldn't).

And so on and so on.  Justin Trudeau is a three.  But Donald Trump was always, always a two.

Heads up, Justin: Joe Biden may not be perfect, but he's no two.

And compared to you, big guy, he's pretty close to a 10.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Hands up if you're worried about the American election.  My goodness.  What a sea of arms and such interesting hand positions.  But maybe everyone can unclench their fists and stop pointing fingers for a minute.  What harm could it do?  Unlike continuing to howl with rage or scorn.

In through the nose, out through the mouth.  Repeat until calm enough to note that every four years the United States has a raucous presidential election.  But once the voting is done the ballots are counted and, once people are confident in the count, the result is certified and we move on.  Which you'd think would be uncontroversial… if you lived under a thick and distant rock.  Instead it seems that everyone has gone mad.

I seem to be in a rather unusual position here in that I loathe Donald Trump without loving Joe Biden.  I don't like many of Trump's policies because I'm a small-government, traditional social values conservative.  But I do like many of them because I'm also a hawk and especially on foreign policy, despite his fondness for dictators and chronic aversion to systematic informed thought, he seems to have much better instincts than any of his predecessors since Reagan.

If you're a Trump-lover, hold off throwing anything including obscenities until I give you good cause by repeating that I loathe his character and politics.  And if you're a Trump-hater, hold off until, in addition to calling Biden shallow, nasty and possibly senile, I repeat that you seem to have turned into mirror images of Trump.

See, what really worries me at this point is that most Trump partisans I hear from are utterly convinced a priori of massive voter fraud.  Trump lost, therefore we wuz robbed, QED.  And most Trump-haters I hear from are equally and a priori convinced there cannot have been any fraud at all.  Trump lost, therefore the election puts Mary to shame when it comes to immaculacy of conception, QED.

I say again, have you all gone mad?  How do any of you know?  The raucousness of American democracy includes party machines creatively and shamelessly jamming the boxes one way or another from the beginning.  Google Lyndon Johnson and Box 13, for instance.  Or the 1876 presidential election.  But it has rarely been decisive.  Why would this year be different on either count?

The United States is a self-governing republic not a shady or sinister tyranny.  But the whole 2020 mess with post-dated and provisional ballots and campaigns going door-to-door "assisting" people in filling out mail-ins, plus late votes and lopsided "drops" and strange vote-counting halts and so forth opened a door to jiggery-pokery and if you don't think anyone danced through it you are a chump or worse.  You have hated Trump so much he entered your soul.

On the other hand, I have immediately and repeatedly not retweeted umpteen rumours of fraud. While I've heard of inexplicable swings or implausible turnout in some counties, out-of-state cars arriving with boxes of ballots, Dominion voting machines switching votes systematically from red to blue etc., I have no idea if they're true and, even more importantly, if they were decisive in any state.  But they could have been.

I am not being paranoid.  My hat has been lined with tinfoil since graduate school.  But while I do not believe in conspiracies I certainly believe in error, dishonesty and zealotry and if you say you don't, or that only your enemies are prone to them, you are lying, insane or both.

So my Plan B: Instead of sneering or raving, check it out with whatever rationality and charity we can still muster.  If you ask me to believe Trump was swindled, I demand real evidence.  If you ask me to believe he could not have been, I ask what drug you took and of course it's the blue pill.

Meanwhile, can everyone agree that the outcome is very close and it's premature to have media outlets braying that Biden has been "declared the winner" when they did the declaring?  The United States' clear legal and constitutional mechanisms for doing so have not yet been triggered for perfectly ordinary reasons, namely the counting and recounting is not done.  I also wish the press could drop the "president-elect" thing until he really is.  (And yes, that a vaccine had not appeared right after the election, a development perfectly calculated to fuel paranoia.)

I also wish the press could stop braying that Trump must concede and that court challenges undermine democracy.  Indeed, after George W. Bush phoned Biden and congratulated him like the gentleman it turns out he was all along, I found myself wondering how long it took Clinton or Carter to phone Bush and congratulate him in 2000?

As it turns out, even Gore did not concede until December 13 of that year, giving Trump another month.  And Gore and many others insisted then and later that that election was stolen, so no gluing on a cardboard halo now.

If that account seems one-sided, I also wish the Trumpistas would drop the paranoia.  But I think the Democrats and their liberal fellow-travellers have the most to gain by insisting on prompt and thorough investigation of any credible claims of irregularities instead of trying to hoot them off the stage in Trumpian fashion, precisely because Biden probably did win.

Even if his narrowing lead in Arizona vanishes, and in Georgia, it's hard to imagine jiggery-pokery in either Pennsylvania or Michigan being on a sufficient scale to overturn the outcome.  Hard.  But not impossible.

So again, unclench the fists and listen to me, please, about one more terrifying possibility.  What if Biden is certified and inaugurated and then next spring some real investigative reporter finds conclusive evidence of ballot-box-stuffing in, say, Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, on a scale sufficient to tip the Keystone state?  Can you imagine the harm to the body politic?

If Biden won, his backers have nothing to lose and much to gain, including in healing the nation, by saying hey, we know funny things happen in elections, and we're not afraid to check them out and punish anyone who cheated.  Bring us any evidence you have.  And if he actually lost, curiously, they again have much to gain by discovering it now.  Instead they've become funhouse mirror images of Trump.

What a legacy for him… and for them.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


On American Election Day, U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, tweeted the following noble sentiment: "To make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as enemies.  We are not enemies."

Biden's right, of course.

In a democracy, partisan differences shouldn't divide society into eternally warring camps that relentlessly hate each other.

But will anyone listen to Biden's plea?

Maybe, but I'm dubious.

In fact, an anti-Trump conservative friend of mine recently told me he's happy Biden won not because he liked Biden, but because he wants to go back to hating Democrats.

And yes, there are lots of people like my friend, conservatives, who, either because they didn't like US President Donald Trump's policies or because they couldn't stand his rash, unpredictable and sometimes boorish personality, were willing to form reluctant alliances with anyone who opposed him.

But with Trump soon to be gone from office will such people now go back to despising Democrats, their traditional enemy?  I'm betting the answer is yes.  (I'm assuming here, Biden's victory will stick and won't be overturned by any legal challenges.  But this is 2020, so who knows?)

Then there's Trump's loyal base.

Still stinging from defeat, I highly doubt pro-Trumpers are going to emerge from this election ready to stop treating Democrats as enemies.

If anything, they'll likely be angrier and more resentful than ever, convinced that Biden cheated their guy out of the presidency.  Plus, I fully expect an ousted Trump will maintain a high-profile presence, which he'll use to keep his base agitated, energized and ready to rumble.

In response, Biden's base -which includes Hollywood-style progressives, billionaire capitalists and hard-core left-wing socialists, will naturally continue to zealously lash out against Trump and his supporters.

So, in short, the rancor that has characterized the past four years of political discourse in America will likely continue and maybe even get worse.

Mind you, had Biden been able to live up to the American media's hype, i.e., had he electorally crushed the Republicans on Election night, the situation might be different.

After all, not only would a huge and humiliating loss for the Republicans have shattered Trump's mystique, but it would have demoralized and disheartened his base, taking the fight out of them.

But, of course, Biden barely eked out a victory, while the Republicans did better than expected in Congressional races.

And there's an additional twist to consider in all this.

As already noted, Biden's base is a heterogenous group, and once he occupies the White House, it's entirely possible his various Democratic clans, tribes and factions will start seeing each other as enemies.

I mean, how long can you keep billionaire capitalists and hard-core socialists harmoniously singing from the same hymnbook?

Indeed, there's all sorts of sensitive issues that might cause Democratic schisms: foreign policy, taxes, immigration, defunding the police, etc.

Nor is Biden the kind of leader who can keep his forces united on the basis of a sparkling personality.

Let's face it, Barack Obama, he ain't.

Mind you, any cracks in the Democratic façade likely won't show up for a while.

For one thing, hatred against Trump and his legions will continue to linger on for a while in the left-wing community, welding Democrats together.  (By the way, this is why, despite his nice tweet, Biden will have a vested interest in portraying Republicans as "enemies.")

Secondly, I'm certain the American media will do its best in the weeks ahead to glorify Biden as a great Messiah who saved the country from right-wing populist hordes, just as the Canadian media deified Justin Trudeau after he dispatched Stephen Harper.

This joyous message will also be amplified by America's cultural and corporate elites.

All that non-stop propaganda should, at least temporarily, create an era of "good feelings" among Democratic factions.

But as political tensions mount and you know they inevitably will mount it could trigger savage internal political squabbling within the Democratic party.

In short, it won't be long before everybody hates everybody.

At least, that's the way it will be on social media and on cable news shows.

Luckily, most Americans won't be paying attention to all that noise and hate, since they'll be more worried about the price of groceries.

Photo Credit: NBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Organization.

There are lots of theories about why Joe Biden beat Donald Trump.

That Trump had offended lots of people.  That Trump had alienated Americans of colour.  That female voters hated him.

But the reality is that Trump dramatically increased his vote total over 2016 including with minorities and Republican women.  The reality is that the Republican President received the second-highest share of the popular vote in American presidential history.

But it wasn't enough.  He lost.

Because the reality is also this: Joe Biden won an even bigger share of the popular vote.  And that happened his win happened because of organization.

Full disclosure: this writer worked as an unpaid volunteer for Joe Biden and the Democrats for many months.  I've helped the Democrats for years, and was to be an accredited volunteer at their August leadership convention in Milwaukee.

But the coronavirus had other plans.  With the border closed, I couldn't cross the border to knock on doors and get out the vote for Biden.

So, I and many others worked the phones.  Night after night, day after day, we ran phone banks, calling millions of American voters.  And our objective was always the same: encourage them to use absentee ballots.  Encourage them to vote early.  Encourage them to mail in their ballot.

Over and over, we'd tell voters how to use the so-called absentee ballots: get them from the town clerk.  Put an X on the ballot.  Put it in the small envelope, seal it.  Sign it with your real signature.  Put the small envelope in the big one.  Then take the sealed big envelope back to the town clerk and don't trust the postal system!

I made hundreds of such calls to Americans from New Hampshire to Florida to California.  And, over and over, I was amazed by how enthusiastically voters particularly Democratic voters were embracing early voting.

We would've preferred a landslide election-night win, of course.  But months ago, Biden campaign manager Jen O'Malley-Dillon told us on a conference call three things: one, the polls were wrong the race was going to be tight.  Two, our voters were much more concerned than GOP supporters about the coronavirus.  They were more concerned about possible vote suppression dirty tricks, too.

And, three, we weren't going to win big landslide on election night.  Instead, O'Malley-Dillon told us, we'd have to fight a long, hard organizational war to identify our voters early and then get them to vote early.

So we did that.  And the Republicans just didn't.

The other guys had big rallies, sure.  But those rallies are always just preaching to the converted particularly when the TV networks aren't televising them.

Trump needed to grow his vote base.  He needed to reach out to first-time voters.  But he didn't do that.

Joe Biden did.  The Democrats did.

The media, and the Republicans, didn't pay attention to what we Democrats were doing.  I will never understand why.  When around 100 million Americans are voting in advance, isn't that newsworthy?  When that many voters are motivated enough to vote in that way, isn't that something that should deeply worry the incumbent?

Joe Biden won because he was a specific antidote to Donald Trump he was decent, he was human, he was less partisan, he was experienced.

But mostly, we won because our voters were more motivated, and because our disciplined army of staff and volunteers were one thing the Trump Republicans simply weren't:

Organized.

Photo Credit: NBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


As part of his bid to be "open and transparent," prime minister Justin Trudeau came up with the brilliant innovation of tabling a prorogation report to be examined by committee in the wake of this summer's prorogation.  This is an idea that he has floated for a few years now, but as might be expected, this gesture was hollow and nigh on useless.  It makes no actual sense, and ignores the restoration of other measures that would provide more accountability, but then again, hollow gestures are this prime minister's stock in trade.

Much of this was borne out of Stephen Harper's tactical use of prorogation, first in 2008 and again in 2009, which caused a national debate on a perfectly legitimate parliamentary practice, and in 2008, which turned out to be warranted as the so-called coalition that was threatening to vote non-confidence in the government and set themselves up in its place fell apart.  Nevertheless, in the years that followed, academics came out of the woodwork to propose myriad ways to limit the use of prorogation most of them cockamamie schemes that defied logic such as requiring a two-thirds vote in the House of Commons when confidence remained a mere 50 percent-plus-one.

In 2017, Trudeau's House Leader, Bardish Chagger, tabled a suite of proposed reforms to the Standing Orders that included two potential reforms to prorogation a return to prorogation ceremonies, that were done away with in 1983, or tabling a report post-prorogation that Commons committees could study.  Trudeau chose the latter, and it was put into the Standing Orders something that makes no sense because prorogation is a Crown prerogative and has nothing to do with the Standing Orders.  Furthermore, sending said report to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee is similarly inscrutable because it has previous little to do with the operation of the House of Commons or its standing orders.  It's about the government setting its own agenda, and not the Commons managing its own affairs.  And yet here we are with the inaugural report now before PROC, while they try to decide what to do with it.

It's also a useless document.  It never actually explains the government's rationale for prorogation it recounts some of the timeline of the pandemic, quotes the prime minister's press conference announcing prorogation and segments of the Speech from the Throne, and then reprints the full remarks from the PM's press conference and Throne Speech.  It's political theatre, wrapped up in some familiar Liberal back-patting about how "open and transparent" they are for taking this step that hasn't been done before.  But there is nothing actually novel here other than the cynically creative way to waste the time of Commons and PROC in particular.

The way to reform prorogation in a meaningful way is to restore the prorogation ceremonies as they were initially intended, which is a sort of flip-side Throne Speech, whereby the Governor General arrives at the Senate in all of the pomp and ceremony that this entails, and reads a speech about everything that the government accomplished over that session.  And despite the fact that between 1939 and 1983, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada read the prorogation speech (thanks to a particularly petty bout of churlishness from William Lyon Mackenzie King, who disliked Lord Tweedsmuir because he was the recommendation of his Conservative predecessor, and the practice stuck), this should be the duty of the Governor General.  This focuses the attention on what was accomplished in the session as the reason to clear the decks with a prorogation in order to set up a new parliamentary session.

The public spectacle of these ceremonies is precisely why they would be more effective than the report that Trudeau settled on which is nigh-impossible to find on the House of Commons' website, incidentally.  Imagine in 2008 if Stephen Harper not only was kept waiting several hours by Michaëlle Jean, but had to justify a three-week session where nothing was accomplished it would have forced him to think twice about his actions and the request for prorogation, or to at the very least, have to very publicly eat some more crow in his plea to calm the situation.  Even more to the point, in 2009, he wouldn't have been able to just phone up Jean and request another prorogation the night before New Year's Eve, but would have been forced to go through the pomp and ceremony of it all.  Trudeau would have been the same this past summer rather than holding a press conference on the end of a Cabinet shuffle.

Like the previous Harper prorogations, Trudeau's tactical prorogation this summer was also at a time when nothing on his legislative agenda had been accomplished.  He inexplicably delayed the reopening of Parliament by several weeks in 2019 even though there was no actual transition to manage merely a Cabinet shuffle and even then, only sat for seven days before the Christmas break.  Little else had been accomplished before the pandemic hit, and the decision was made to suspend and then return in a "special committee" format rather than figuring out a way to return to proper sittings, insisting that merely asking questions of the government was good enough, while emergency bills were rammed through in a repeated abuse of process.  Yes, the pandemic sidelined the agenda, but Trudeau was also dragging his feet before it arrived.

One would hope that once PROC dispenses with this report, that MPs start to realize that this was a waste of everyone's time, and enough of them will start agitating for a return to prorogation ceremonies because it's how our system was designed, and it provides a much more public exercise in accountability you know, the kind of "openness and transparency" that they like to claim.  But as with so many of this government's "innovations," it's a half-assed measure that is big on performance and devoid of substance, and MPs should be demanding better of their parliament and their government.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


With the 2020 U.S. elections threatening to become the most interesting in the country's history, there will be no shortage of commentary about the drawn-out race to become the most powerful politician in the world the President.  But we would be amiss to overlook the thousands of other contests that took place on Tuesday, including some captivating races that illustrate the country is much more complex than any simplistic Democrat/Republican partisan split.

Rather than write my usual opinion/analysis column, I thought it would be fun to instead offer this overview of some of the more interesting ballot measures from the unfolding U.S. election, including referendums, initiatives, referrals and other forms of direct democracy.

The number of states in which recreational cannabis is legal has increased to 15, as Arizona, Montana, South Dakota and New Jersey all approved changes this week.  Mississippi also legalized medical cannabis.  Oregon went a step further by legalizing "magic" mushrooms (psilocybin) and decriminalizing many types of hard drugs in small quantities including cocaine and heroin while Washington D.C. voters instructed police to make the enforcement of entheogenic (hallucinogenic) drugs their lowest priority.

2020 saw the rise of grassroots campaigns to defund police forces, and two ballot measures aimed to put law enforcement under greater oversight.  In King County, Washington which includes Seattle voters supported introducing mandatory inquests for police-related deaths.  Fellow Cascadian city, Portland, Oregon, opted to create a new police oversight board with considerable clout, including a hefty operating budget and the ability to fire police officers.  Also concerning the justice system, California voters rejected a proposal to replace cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects awaiting trials.

On the subject of climate change, Washington state opted to both renew and increase its tax that funds public transit, while Nevada will require electric utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.  Alaskans chose not to almost quadruple taxes on oil production perhaps not surprising, in a state that has been so dependent on oil revenue in recent decades.  At the municipal level, new taxes will assist climate efforts: Denver, Colorado will introduce a new sales tax; Albany, California will create a new tax on utilities; while Long Beach, California will increase taxes on oil production.

Taxes are one of the more contentious topics in the USA, and voters in two blue states considered matters of tax justice this week.  Arizona chose to increase taxes on people with an annual income higher than $250,000 to help fund teacher salaries and schools, although Illinois decided to reject a graduated income tax and retain its constitutional requirement for a flat-rate personal income tax.

On the contentious issue of abortion, Democrat-leaning Colorado defeated a proposition that would have banned most abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy, but red-state Louisiana chose to declare that residents have no constitutional right to abortion.

Progress on LGBTQ rights was relatively minimal this year, although Nevada opted to overturn its 2002 gay marriage ban.  Regarding gender equality, the Mormon-friendly state of Utah chose to update its constitutional language with gender-neutral terms.

The USA is the only G7 country that lacks a public healthcare system and oddly enough, two red states known for libertarian leanings opted to expand socialized coverage.  Both Missouri and Oklahoma favoured making it easier for low-income residents to qualify for Medicaid, with Missouri also mandating that state officials must seek maximum federal funding for Medicaid expansion.

Regarding labour issues, Californians decided to classify gig workers as contractors rather than employees, a proposition established and heavily funded by numerous ride-hailing and food-delivery apps to keep their drivers on lower pay and benefits.  Florida, normally a red state, chose to balloon its minimum wage incrementally from the current $8.56 up to $15.00 as of September 2026.

Although rent affordability and evictions have been exacerbated by the current pandemic, support for their alleviation has not been universal.  Californians rejected a rent control initiative that would have enacted controls on housing first occupied over 15 years ago, if owned by landlords that hold more than two properties.  However, Boulder, Colorado, did support establishing a program to provide legal representation to tenants facing eviction.

Regarding privacy, Michigan voters overwhelmingly chose to amend their constitution to stipulate that law enforcement require a search warrant to access electronic data and communications, although this may be merely ceremonial, as the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous Riley v. California (2014) judgement already mandated this across the country.

Confederate symbols look to become increasingly passé, as Southern state Mississippi decided to adopt a new state flag that includes a nod to its Indigenous (Choctaw) tribes, casting aside its unofficial flag that incorporated the divisive rebel emblem.

Gerrymandering, in which electoral district maps are redrawn by partisans to ensure maximum advantage one of the great scourges of American democracy unfortunately didn't see much improvement this week.  Virginia supported a change to who draws its maps, but the amendment was a watered-down version of the original concept and probably won't usher in large improvements.  Matters actually worsened in Missouri, where an approved ballot measure was deceptively worded to make it appear to restrict lobbying, when in actuality its primary objective was to dilute 2018 anti-gerrymandering legislation but what's a little eroded democracy among Republican friends?

Regarding candidate primaries, a majority (57 percent) of Florida voters supported dumping their traditional, closed, partisan primaries for state office in favour of open, top-two primaries as currently used in Washington, California and Louisiana.  However, the effort was "Gordon Campbelled", rejected because it did not meet a 60 percent supermajority threshold.  (Gordon Campbell was Premier of British Columbia when a majority of residents opted to switch the province's electoral system to a form of proportional representation in 2005, but the change was blocked by a supermajority threshold intended by incumbent politicians to stymie reform).  Alaskans, meanwhile, rejected a measure that would have seen a switch to top-four (or so-called "jungle") primaries.

Oregonians instructed their state legislature and municipalities to introduce limits to political contributions and expenditures, as well as to increase the transparency behind political financing and advertising.  Alaskans, however, opted not to require contributions of more than $2,000 to have their "true sources" disclosed.

On the topic of electoral system reform, although the states of Massachusetts and Alaska both rejected moving to ranked ballots, voters in several cities opted for such a switch.  Most exciting is Albany, California, which will use the British-invented single transferable vote (STV), a form of proportional voting, to elect its mayor and councillors.  Two cities Eureka, California, and Bloomington, Minnesota will use ranked ballots to elect their mayor and councillors, while Boulder, Colorado will employ ranked ballots for choosing its mayor.  And Minnetonka, Minnesota, will replace its non-partisan primary system with "jungle" primaries featuring ranked ballots during its general elections to select its mayor and council.

Mississippi chose to switch its state elections to popular vote rather than winner of the most districts, thereby rescinding a Jim Crow-era election law that surreptitiously intended to keep Black candidates out of office.  Elsewhere, Colorado chose to remain a member of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states would give their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote but only after states totalling a majority of electoral votes have become members.

The USA is well known for having a two-term (eight-year) limit for its presidents, but state limits of terms/duration are a complex hodgepodge.  Arkansas, which in 2014 implemented a substantial increase to how long state politicians can serve, last week decided to dial that back with what could be called the "Putin compromise" up to 12 years of consecutive service, with the ability to return after a four-year break.  A proposal in Missouri to limit several state executive positions to two terms was defeated, although governors in that state are already restricted by a two-term limit.

The age of voting eligibility was a hot topic in California, where residents rejected allowing 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections.  Likewise, San Francisco quashed an even bolder proposal to lower its voting age to 16 for local elections.  However, Oakland did successfully lower the voting age to 16 for its school board elections.

And on the seemingly never-ending subject of whether Puerto Rico should become the USA's 51st state, a non-binding referendum to immediately seek admission into the Union narrowly passed although local politicians would still need to advance the cause for it to possibly come to fruition.  As of Thursday, pro-statehood Pedro Pierluisi leads the tight race to become governor.  But don't hold your breath this was the sixth such referendum.

A few concluding thoughts:

Curiously, U.S. ballot measure results often contradict the ideology of the political party that dominates a particular state.  For example, Southern states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump also passed such measures as replacing a Confederate flag, repealing Jim Crow laws, approving cannabis, expanding social healthcare coverage and increasing the minimum wage.  Meanwhile, voters in Democrat-held Illinois vetoed a progressive tax amendment that would have caused those in higher tax brackets to pay more.

When it comes to electoral system reform, the same is true in the USA as it is in Canada: real progress will come from the bottom-up: via municipal not senior government.  There are now five cities in Minnesota alone that will use ranked ballots.  Even proportional representation is making a gradual comeback, as a third American city opts for such a voting system.  (Many U.S. cities previously held proportional elections, including New York City, until the Democrats and Republicans colluded to get rid of it nationally in favour of a two-party voting system.  But the pendulum has begun to swing in the other direction: adoption.)

If voters aren't careful, direct democracy can become a contradictory mess.  We've witnessed California voters previously mandate public services while simultaneously opt to slash taxes that would fund said services all under the auspices of a law that barred deficits.  While ballot measures can help settle contentious social matters, constantly fiddling with topics such as term limits, or flipping back and forth between approving and banning gay marriage simply isn't good governance.  It's also inappropriate to refer matters of human rights and/or minority rights to a mob decision.  Canadians should appreciate the upsides of our system of representative democracy, in which we expect our elected official to decide nearly all matters.

And perhaps most of all, Canadians should be thankful our democracy is largely free from the treacherous practice of gerrymandering at least in senior government.  However, we would be wise to remember Canada did previously suffer from such political chicanery until Manitoba assigned responsibility for drawing electoral districts to its non-partisan elections agency in the mid-1950s, a reform the rest of the country soon followed.

Oh, and that Biden guy is going to win.

Photo Credit: Rolling Stone

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.