Interesting article. Thanks. Kennedy has a lot going for him.

I’m not sure if I agree about the left-ward shift, though, since more and more economic and political and cultural power is shifting to Alberta and the business elites of BC and the interior. What Harper’s ascension could just as easily indicate is that there is shift to the middle and that Canadians are not conservative but moderate in all things. Also, it is a mistake to assume the Bloc vote is all left - it is primarily separatist regardless of ideology - but it is mainly a reflection of the left.

One thing I didn’t quite get from the article though. You say that there is another shift that the Liberals must understand: the shift from strong centralized federalism to regionalism. I think I agree (Canada swings federal-regional the way the US swings left-right), but I don’t see the connection to Kennedy and your thoughts on the country moving to the left. If anything, I would have thought your opening paragraphs about the need for a strong progressive federal government is inconsistent with the regional re-focussing you are advocating. Furthermore, I think the left - particularly the NDP and the Greens - are far more strong federal centralists and so I’m not sure how many votes you can get by changing a fundamental part of the Liberal history and brand by going regional.

Finally, and I’ve said this before, what has Kennedy said one way or the other about this new regionalism that makes you think he is a “sure-fire winner”?

I’ve got a good discussion going over at Cerberus about Kennedy and most seem to imply they are supporting Kennedy because he will provide a stronger federal government that is more active and focused, which seems to counter your thoughts. Unless I’m missing something.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted - indeed my argument challenges assumptions that Canadians have long held — i.e. that ‘left’ implies a strong centralized government at the expense of weaker regional governments (which I think was your implication). I think the new left is a politics of empowerment. This means working with regional governments, not against them — working towards consensus and compromise, rather than simply dictating top-down standards (which breeds resentment and fails to account for regional differences).

We need to separate the policy from its implementation. In Canada, these have long been fused together, with little debate about alternatives. Let’s say we agree that we need an affordable housing program (the policy). Traditionally, this would mean the government would build housing (the implementation). The policy and implementation have long be fused together. But there are other ways to achieve the outcomes you desire - in the U.S. using incentives to get the private sector to build affordable units has been very successful. Here, you have a fusion of a progressive policy with an alternative implementation strategy. Similarly, with the environment, using sector-based cap-and-trade strategies rather than pure regulation. So, ‘left’ policies do not need a “strong centralized government” for their implementation (in fact, opposition to such top-down tactics has long stalled progress on affordable housing and environmental issues). We need a new left where progressive policies are pursued in a way that makes them more acceptable to a wider part of the political spectrum.

I think Kennedy is best placed to pursue this strategy because he holds progressive policy views, yet, because he is coming from provincial politics, he understands that universal health, education and child care system necessitates strong regional governments as well. So, I think it is false dichotomy to believe that progressivism means choosing between strong federal or strong regional governments.

The *real* debate today is not the choice between federal vs regional strength, but rather whether government is part of the solution *at all* or whether it is part of the problem (which is what conservatives tend to believe). To me, the path to progressivism lies in recognizing that we need strong governments at all levels. This requires clarifying the roles of each level, so we know who is responsible for what. This will require someone who can advocate for progressive policies, yet understands that those policies are often implemented by others.

Whether Kennedy takes that position is another matter. To date, all we know is that he is a progressive. If it turns out that he wants to continue to dictate terms from the top-down, he will find little support with the people, and the Conservatives will prevail. Canadians want to have their cake and eat it too - many want progressive policies, but not at the expense of local or regional empowerment. I think we can have both.

I guess that’s why I’m puzzled by your endorsement of Kennedy. He seems to me not just progressive but a traditional progressive (which, sadly, is a lot less of an oxymoron than it should be). He has actually expressed a specific view about so-called “cap-and-trade” strategies and is against them. I expect he would be in fvour of the federal government directly intervening to provide housing and life necessities to individuals despite the constitutional division of powers.

So, while I find it refreshing to hear a progressive truly be progressive by showing the courage to think fresh thoughts about central vs. regional management of government services, I don’t think your chosen candidate is on your side (on that issue at least) even if you are on his.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted, you could well be right. But, out of the declared or rumoured Liberal leadership candidates, who is more progressive than Kennedy?

To both of you in this discussion, who is more (or the most) progressive candidate yet remains to be seen.

Gregory, I think you are right by not underestimating how the left are not so homogenized as Ted suggests with his comments about centralist vs regional. In fact, in my experience with the left, the only centralist feature that really counts is for federalism to remain strong enough to prevent each province from becoming like a state in the U.S. with no economic redistribution of wealth to prevent the kind of poverty which would undermine the unity and integrity of who we are as Canadians.

The biggest problem for the Left, is how to unite the Left. The Left has never been so federalist or centralist that is has ever worked well together from region to region. It has always struggled with how to combine grass roots and community based politics with the idea of a strong central government. The left voters in Canada are diverse and different and cannot be categorized easily in one region or the next! To generalize about whether or not there is more alliegence to regional or central is a joke!

I think, Gregory, you are right on practically every point you made about Gerard Kennedy’s ability to be the best leader at this point in time for Canada. The unfortunate thing and his biggest weakness is that he is virtually unknown outside of Ontario. The (conventional) media (LOL) have not looked very deep or far for their focus and they will have to do serious “catch up” for Kennedy to get the kind of support he will need very soon in a short and intense race.

At the grass roots level right now, organizers are signing up as many new Liberal memberships as possible. The average new member is not generally well informed politically and has heard little, if anything yet, about Gerard Kennedy.

This does not mean there isn’t still time for a dark horse entry to win. But the media has to work fast to give him a national profile, because already, in the Liberal party, money is changing hands and support is still unfortunately ‘bought’ in many areas, and not necessarily ‘earned’.

Gregory, I truly loved reading this editorial. Your next one should be about the issue of fair leadership races and the difference between cadre and mass parties.

Louise M.

Great article. GK is my now ex-MPP and he’s definitely someone to watch!