My seat predictions, a week out from the voting.

Conservatives: 130 to 140
Liberals: 80 to 90
Bloc Quebecois: 55 to 60
NDP: 30 to 35

Background

Why are the Conservatives going to win? Well, to put it very simply, the (centirst, in a Canadian context, center-left in an American context) Liberals have now been in power for something going on 12 years. While Canada has generally done well under their leadership, and while the Liberal Party is considered the "natural party of government" in Canada (having been in power for 78 of the last 110 years), the Liberals have been wracked by a series of scandals. On their own, the Liberals might have been able to whether these scandals, but combined with being in power for such a long strech of time, many Canadian voters have come to believe that is time for another party to be in charge too ensure that Canadian democracy remains vibrant. Liberal dominance during the '90s (sometimes having overwhelming majorities, at one point controlling 101 of 105 "ridings" or seats in Ontario) was greatly aided by a split between the traditional party of the center-right, the Progressive Conservatives (typically called the Tories, as in Britain) and a new more explicitly right wing party, called, over time, Reform and the Alliance, largely born in Canada's most conservative province, Alberta, whose goal was largely to create a party in the mirror image of the American GOP. This project largely failed, as the Reform/Alliance were viewed as too closely aligned to the sectional politics of the Canadian West and too right wing by most Canadian voters, especially in the crucial province of Ontario. In 2004, Reform cum Alliance thus merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the new Canadian Conservative Party.

 In 2004, the Conservatives looked poised to win power, but new leader Stephen Harper's ties to the old Reform Party, his ideologically-driven think-tank past (largely seen as advocating the kinds of policies - vis-a-vis Canadian federation as well as more conventional right wing policies), his poor campaigning, the undiscipline of his newly formed party, doomed the Conservatives to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. However, the subsequent Liberal minority government - while not especially bad in terms of economic management, and quite good from a progressive social perspective - has continued to be dogged by scandal, a lack of new ideas, and new PM Paul Martin's generally mediocre leadership skills. Thus, in 2006, with a newly revamped party, platform, and campaign style, Stephen Harper appears set to become Canada's 22nd PM.

What does this mean? Certainly Harper is ideologically sympathetic to the right, mostly in terms of the economy. He is also ideologically a "decentralist," as in the past he has advocated a strategy of building a "firewall" around the province of Alberta, protecting it from federal imposition vis-a-vis the use of the province's extensive natural resources (oil, above all) and undesireable "welfarist" mandates (from whence he hails). However, his recent campaign has largely tried to muffle (what in Canada, although not in the US) are regarded as extreme social/cultural positions, if not from Harper (who is not esp. seen as an agent of the the Canadian cultural right), but from his candidates, upon whom the Party has imposed a strong and effective discipline. Certain of the more "flamboyant" "socons" have been deselected as candidates. His campaign has largely focused on the following: Liberal corruption, arrogance, and sleave, targeted tax cuts (for the "masses," a reduction in the national sales tax, for business a reduction on capital gains), a small increase in the Canadian military's size, a stipend of $1,300 to all Canadian parents with small children, some noises on law an order, and a promise of a "free vote" on the recently passed Same Sex Marriage law passed by the Liberal government.  He is also recently backed away from earlier (in 2003) support for the Iraq War and has promised not to send Canadian troops to the conflict if elected. Frankly, there is not much here that will look out of place in the Democratic Party campaign in 2006 and 2008.

Many in Canada remain skeptical of Harper, not believing that the new Conservative agenda will in fact be the agenda once elected, and that a "secret platform" will be unveiled. There are good reasons for this skepticism, as Harper past work with the Reform Party and as think tanker, particularly in the 80s and 90s, suggests he would (or at least, would have) desired to replicate a kind of northern Gingrich-style revolution. However, in must be said that even though I think Harper would like to govern to the right of where his current platform is, I think he changed to a degree since becoming more intimately involved in electoral politics, esp. on a national stage. The Reform project failure, the experience of 2004 in particular have chastened at least elements of the old Reform Party/Albertan wing of Canadian politics, recognizing that, in order to govern Canada, one has to make compromises with the ex-Progressive Conservatives (who are a not insubstantial part of the new Conservative Party) as well as with "middle Canadian" sentiment, esp. in Ontario. Finally, the fact his government will almost certainly be that of a minority will limit any "secret agenda" he may possess. While I personally think Harper's calculations and what he believes is possible (if not his fundamental ideological orientations) has changed over time, we really will not know the upshot until he begins to govern. Evidence for a "stealth agenda" exists (and some have made the comparison to Bush's 2000 "compassionate conservatism" schtick, although I think this comparison is quite superficial), but I personally think that something like the Bush in 2000 vs. 2001 will not play out, for reasons of principle, electoral calculation, and internal Conservative disagreement.

While the Democratic position is not the slamdunk majority position on every question, even a fairly negative reading of the evidence - which I take from CBS news wonderful, very detailed polling (from 1/10/06) on the issue - would tend to suggest the Democratic position is if anything a net positive, and certainly not a political loser.

For example, the only question where George Bush's position polls more favorably - and here, it is only by one point - is on the following (and pay careful attention to the wording, which puts Bush's position in a favorable light):

To this, 49% approve and 48% disapprove. I think it is safe to say that puts Bush's argument in a favorable light, framing the controversy in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, without any reference to the longer question of executive power and checks and balances. And even so, Bush's position is even with the Democrats.

And this is as good as it gets for Bush.

Basically, I have many views - or at least am open to many views - that I would never demand a national politician in the Democratic Party support. For example, I think all drugs currently deemed illegal should be decriminalized. I think at the very least marijuana should be. But I know this is not a position that could achieve mainstream support in the current incarnation, and would be electoral poison were a Democratic Presidential candidate attempt to run on such a platform. This does not mean I abandon my beliefs. But it does mean I am realistic about what can be achieved through the political process in the short term.

Simply put, it strikes me that many people here are so heavily invested personally in the political process that they aren't able to do so. And I think the reaction to Obama as well as all the hyperbolic rhetoric about the SCOTUS nominees demonstrates this. I think an argument can be made for the Dems opposing both Roberts and now Miers, as well as the sagacity of Reid's decision on the filibuster compromise. None present the Democrats with "good" options, except maybe the filibuster compromise, but even here I think the Democrats - had they chosen to gamble, which a more uncompromising would have represented - could have ended up in a worse position. Thus, Reid's decision was not a "sell out"; neither are (were) the votes on Bush's SCOTUS nominees. He took his calculations based on what he thought were the best options, both short term and long term, given the circumstances he found himself. And based on his actions more generally since he became minority leader, I am confident he did so because he has the best interest of the political and policy goals of the broad center-left coalition that is the Democratic Party at heart. The political is by definition an arena of limited possibilities: and the Democratic Party's are trying to make the best out of limited set of options.

To put it another way, in many countries, governments are formed by coalitions after elections. Probably most democracies function this way: Germany, Italy, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and currently, Canada represent a short list of nations governed by coalitions. Superficially, the US isn't. But, I would argue, de facto, that it is, and that the superficial unity of the major parties makes people demand "purity." But in reality, the Democratic and Republican Parties are grand coalitions in all but name, whose only distinction from the ruling governments listed above is that the coalition forms before the election campaign begins, not after. Now I think there are strong arguments to be made that the coalition style governments above are more democratic and more responsive to people's needs. But, also, a counter argument can be made that they are much less stable, and accordingly, much less effective. A quick glance at Italian politics since WWII would tend to suggest this. But I digress. The point in all this is is that by choosing to participate in the Democratic Party, you have chosen to participate in a coalition. And by definition, participation in such a coalition means you aren't always going to get your way.

I'm sure we all have our issues that are currently "off the radar" or, alternatively, "out of the mainstream." My comment about drug laws serves as just one example. The point is that unless I want to give up on electoral politics on a national level, I know - a priori - that I "can't always get what I want," and that I cannot define myself and my well-being and happiness on whether or not the Democratic Party closely mirrors my personal beliefs. Because its not going to. All I can hope for is to be a part of a coalition - the Democratic Party - which is going to move the country in ways that more closely reflect how I think than the alternative - the Republican Party. And at this point in time, I'm pretty damn sure the last sentance is true.

If you want the personal to be much more closely mirrored, you need to do so on an activist or advocate at the local political level. Talk to your neighbor or acquaintance about what you believe and why you believe it. Form a union (God knows we need more). Join a third party in a local election. Vote for more left wing or "unorthodox" candidates who have a chance. Campaign for public transport. There are many, many things one can do.

But when it comes to national politics, it is simply not realistic to expect similar things. To become president in such a large country, you need the votes - to even have a chance of having your views represented - of many people who might think very differently and have a very different set of "personal" beliefs or priorites than yourself. In short, you need a coalition. To ignore this fact is to doom yourself to frustration and perhaps, even worse, to be detrimental to the causes you support in the first place.

Anyway, I write this as a response to a fantastic article penned for today's Guardian by Jonathan Freedland. A quick note on Freedland: he is a genuinely centrist columnists, sympathetic to New Labour, if not a "true believer." Thus, this makes what Freedland has just written important: that Tony Blair is a right wing politician leading a center-left party. Many (falsely and disingenously in some cases) claim that people want Blair gone because they want to take the Labour Party back to the left, to Old Labour, to uncompromising socialism. Hardly. We want Gordon Brown to take office because we want to take Labour back to the center, back to New Labour. Hence the confusion some people have when they observe Brown is not a full-blooded socialism. Well exactly. But he's also not a right winger either, which is what Blair is.

On to Freedland's words, which I will quote for you at length:

Freedland's article just gets better. Keep reading . . .

First they say no one could have foreseen these results, then they say, yes, the results were foreseen, but it's the Democrats at the local and state levels that are to blame.  Which is it?

If the first is true, how can the second also be true?

Just Asking.

Now certainly, the relevant local and (especially) state authorities deserve some blame here. But in a catastrophe of this magnitude, covering several states, an disaster area "the size of Great Britain" (George Bush's own description), simple common sense dictates that the buck ultimately stops with the federal government.

If I have any problem with this article, it is that I think the comparison made to "My Pet Goat" in fact minimizes the sheer incompetence of the administration's response. I've always felt the "My Pet Goat" criticism was a bit of cheap shot. Clearly, the Bush administration was, in fact, on top of the events of 9/11 within a day of them having occurred. In the aftermath of Katrina, charitably, one could say the response began on Wednesday night, but it was not until Friday that any sense was given that the government, a) understood the sheer magnitude of what had occurred, and b) was able to implement any kind of plan to mitigate its effects. So, in other words, what took less than 24 hours in the wake of 9/11 took four days in the case of Katrina, a disaster whose direct human and material costs is going to be much higher. Simply put, I had the feeling for much of this week that the federal government ceased to function.

Indeed, that the Bush administration and its various fellow travellers and PR flacs are right now so desperately trying to deflect blame - "we couldn't have anticipated this," "its Blanco's fault," "its Nagin's fault" (needless to say were not just talking about New Orleans or Louisiana here) - shows they know as much.

For those of you who don't yet know, these were the final words of an unsripted rant by probably the most popular and artistically talented rapper in the world right at a primetime benefit show on NBC last night.

Here is West's an extended quote:

At which point, NBC struggled frantically to cut West off. I sense this is not going to play at all well in white America, but I also sense that this is a sentiment that is being felt acutely in the black community and I think his remarks will largely seen here in a positive light. And, this, in part, is my point.

As I said in my post, from yesterday, if nothing else, this crisis is going to relaunch race into the center of American public life in a way I don't think it has been for a while. Maybe since the LA riots of '92. I think it also going to put into sharper focus questions of economic inequality in a way it has not been probably since the early 90s as well. I don't know how I feel about all of this, because I don't think the ensuing dialogue is going to pretty. You already see the ramping up of not-so-thinly veiled racism in many of the more popular right wing websites in this country. In this sense, I think both sides - black anger and white racism - are going to continue to feed off each other in an escalating spiral. Here are some examples taken from free republic from yesterday:

Hat tip to Pam Spaulding. Now I suppose this isn't "racist" in the sense they don't actually say "nigger," but the subtext is, well, rather strong.

Needless to say, I think this kind of thing is going to continue for a while time. What the Katrina disaster has done is opened the cellar door on some of those issues that lying seething beneath the sometimes placid calm of the American body politic - most specifically, race and class. Just as I knew when I work up the morning of September 11 in a Gainesville, Florida motel to hear what had just unfolded was going to transform American politics and society for good, I felt the same way by Tuesday night this week. Indeed, I think we are entering a new post- post- 9/11 phase in American political life. This doesn't mean that everything post 9/11, pre Katrina will no longer be. No. What I mean is that the kind of debates and issues that largely framed and animated our national discourse are now going to change. Whether or not this is a good thing, I have no idea.

Again, right now, this is not the most pressing story. I simply cite this to note this hurricane is going to have going to have major, major ramifications. Indeed, this is - in terms of its material and human toll - a significantly more event devastating event than 9/11. I don't think it is more significant geopolitically. But in the damage it hath wrought, substantially greater. Today and Down the Road.