Categories for Feature

Comments (12)

Where have the political leaders gone?

The federal ones, that is. The national ones. The ones who are supposed to be leading this country, and other countries.

National leadership — in Canada, in the United States, in Europe and in myriad democracies around the world — seems to have disappeared. With the exception of the extraordinary Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine, it feels like Western nations are adrift, rudderless and leaderless.

If you don’t believe it, try a test this writer popped on various political and journalistic friends over Colonnade pizza in Ottawa last night: Name one national leader, apart from the aforementioned Zelenskyy, who has not appeared diminished in recent months and years.

There isn’t one. Consider the evidence.

Joe Biden facing open calls for his removal as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer, alongside carping about his age and mental acuity, all made on the record in the Democratic house organ, the New York Times.

Boris Johnson, forced out of power in Britain by hubris and serial scandal. France’s Emmanuel Macron, barely surviving an electoral challenge by the fascist right — and then losing control legislatively.

And here in Canada, of course, Justin Trudeau’s government is unable to provide even the most basic of services — functioning airports, timely passports, and a coherent fiscal policy. His main opposition, meanwhile, has slid into the maw of internecine warfare, alt-right lunacy, and conspiracy theories.

What makes all of this a bit shocking — and places it in stark contrast — is how state and provincial leaders are faring. Here in Canada, our premiers are meeting in British Columbia and acting as a united non-partisan group on health care — led by impressive premiers like Francois Legault, Doug Ford and John Horgan.

In the United States, it is much the same. The stronger leadership is increasingly seen at the state level — most notably California’s Gavin Newsom now actively challenging Florida’s Ron DeSantis with attack ads, thereby foretelling a possible future presidential contest.

So, in Canada, an unhappy nation turns its eyes towards Ottawa, and wonders if we will ever again have a strong national leadership. Because, at one time, we did.

A poll recently conducted by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies suggests that things were once better than they are now. The Leger survey, published by Postmedia, found that 41% of Canadians had a positive view of my former boss Jean Chretien, who was our prime minister from 1993 to 2003.

It has been almost three decades since Chretien was in power. But he still remains by far our most respected prime minister — most popular in Ontario, at 45%, but also favoured 42% in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada, and around 40% in Quebec and Alberta.

Wrote the National Post: “(Chretien) is a more popular — and far less polarizing — figure than other prime ministers of the last few decades, including (Stephen) Harper.”

“While Harper, who governed for roughly a decade between 2006 and 2015, is popular in Alberta, with 51% having a favourable view, his popularity collapses elsewhere … All told, just 35% of Canadians have a positive view of Harper, while 45% have a negative view.”

What distinguishes Jean Chretien from other prime ministers, perhaps, are the two things that seem to be most lacking at the national level nowadays.

One, voters do not feel like they are in control of their own lives anymore. Buffeted by war, pandemics, inflation and a looming recession, they feel that countries have become unmoored from stability and predictability. So they want national leaders who know how to lead — and are in control.

Two, voters have a reasonable expectation that they will get the services their tax dollars pay for. Here in Canada, the near-total collapse of basic federal services has enraged Canadians from coast to coast. And the Trudeau government seems completely incapable of doing the one job they were hired to do.

Leaders who lead, service providers who provide service: Voters do not ask for much. But they want that much.

Will we ever see again the likes of Chretien or Harper? It seems unlikely.

National leadership is a calling.

But it is no longer calling the best and the brightest.

Comments (26)

Comments (4)

Comments (12)

What if there are no more rules?

What if there are no more laws? No more precedents, no more constitutions, no more charters?

What if the law just becomes what people in power say it is?

That – along with the obvious implications for American women – is one of the most dangerous consequences of the US Supreme Court’s decision to toss out Roe v. Wade last week. For half a century, Roe v. Wade has permitted American women to legally obtain safe abortions.

And now that’s gone. A decision that had had the effect of a constitutional proclamation – that is, untouchable in law – was tossed out. Tossed out by three unelected, unaccountable partisan judges who had lied about “stare decisis.”

“Stare decisis” is a legal doctrine. It’s Latin, and it basically means “to stand by things decided.“ Stare decisis is the immutable legal rule that courts will stick to established precedent when making decisions.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States of America tossed stare decesis in a dumpster. They threw out the principle that holds together the law, and democracy, too. And that is very, very ominous.

The law comes from statute, passed by legislatures. But the law also comes from wise decisions made by judges in court rooms. Some of those decisions can be centuries-old, but still stand today.

In the United Kingdom, for example, there is Bushel’s Case, from 1670, which prohibits a judge from trying to coerce a jury plot convict.

There’s Entick v. Carrington, in 1765, which imposed limits on the power of Kings and Queens.

There’s the Carlill case, in 1893, that established the rules for creating contracts.

In the US, there’s been cases like that, too. The 1914 Weeks case, which said a person can’t be prosecuted with evidence obtained illegally. Or Brown v. Mississippi, in 1936, which said that confessions cannot be obtained through police violence.

In Canada, we’ve had no shortage of landmark legal decisions as well. Hunter v. Southam, in 1984, which threw out evidence when the authorities rampages through media newsrooms to find evidence.

Or R. v. Sparrow, in 1990, which held that Indigenous people had rights. Or the Feeney case, in 1997, which determined that the police can’t enter your house without a warrant.

It’s hard to imagine all of those rules being tossed out on the whim of some partisan hack. But that is what happens when unelected, unaccountable judges are given unlimited power, and an unhinged view of the law: they can change society with the stroke of a pen. And there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

There are many, of course, who are happy that the US Supreme Court ended abortion rights for American women last week. They feel that they won, and they arguably did.

But if “stare decisis” no longer exist, how will conservatives feel if this or a future Democratic president decides to stack the high court with his or her own partisans? What if that future court allows the authorities to seize private property without compensation, or take away gun rights, or declares pedophilia a legitimate form of sexual expression?

The loss of stare decisis cuts both ways, you see. If courts no longer feel bound by well-reasoned, long-accepted legal precedents, the law will become a joke. It will become only what those with power says it is. It will become an abomination.

And make no mistake: the US high court, no longer bound by precedent, has signaled it is going after gay marriage and equality rights next. When there are no more rules, the rules only become what the powerful say they should be.

The Americans are adrift in dark, dark waters, and God knows where they will end up.

We should not follow their lead.

[Kinsella has been an adjunct professor at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law.]

Comments (10)

Comments (6)

Comments (7)

Interest rates: Going up.

Voter confidence: Going down.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Federal Reserve did something it hasn’t done in nearly three decades: It raised interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point. That’s the biggest rate hike since 1994.

Anyone who thinks that the Bank of Canada won’t do likewise in July is dreaming in Technicolor. The only question is how much.

In recent months, the Bank of Canada has boosted its key interest rate by a half a point twice — moving the borrowing rate to 1.5%. For all of us who borrow — to purchase a home, or a car, or lines of credit, or credit cards, or student loans — those interest rate hikes have a meaningful and measurable effect on the bottom line.

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises — who, tellingly, fled Europe to escape the advance of Nazism, and would go on to influence generations of economists — once said: “Public opinion always wants easy money, that is, low interest rates.”

But easy money is getting increasingly less easy to get.

Why raise rates, you ask? Well, the economy, as the experts say, was too hot. Inflation was higher than its been in decades.

Unleashed from the strictures of the pandemic, consumers started spending like the proverbial drunken sailors, pushing prices of just about everything up. Inflation — that is, a drop in the bang you get for your buck — was back, with a vengeance.

Inflation was made worse by factors that were myriad and multiple. Russia’s insane invasion of Ukraine. Supply-chain chaos. Labour and housing shortages. Rising prices. And fear of yet more rate hikes. As Joann Weiner, an economics expert at George Washington University, inexpertly observed: “It’s a pretty bad storm.”

For many politicians, rising interest rates — and rising inflation — can be existential. In the late ’70s and ’80s, the oil crisis, government spending, and higher prices ended many political careers — President Jimmy Carter and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau among them. (Trudeau bounced back, but Carter never did.)

In Canada in the New Twenties, the dominant political issue is the cost of living. That issue, more than any other, is driving the political agenda, and causing no shortage of disingenuous finger-pointing.

Federally, the coming interest rate hikes will play an oversized role in the futures of Liberal and Conservative politicians. If the Bank of Canada overplays its hand, and pushes the country into recession, Conservative leadership frontrunner Pierre Poilievre — who has recklessly promoted InfoWars-style conspiracy theories about the central bank, and childishly called for its governor to be fired — will almost certainly benefit.

As Canadians grow angrier about the state of the economy, and as they feel more and more powerless about rising rates and inflation, Poilievre may reap the rewards.

Well, it isn’t. And it’s getting worse.

The late, great Alberta political guru Rod Love once said to me: “When the water dries up, the animals all start to look at each other funny.”

The water, along with cheap borrowing, is drying up. So too consumer — and voter — confidence.

We human animals may be edging closer to an economic and political drought. Who will thrive? Who won’t survive?

Because, make no mistake: Politically, not everyone will.

Comments (11)

Comments (12)

Dear Alberta:

Yes: I was Special Assistant to that dastardly Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chretien. Yes: I worked on the presidential campaigns of the two Democratic Horsepeople of the Apocalypse, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. And, yes: while I may have grown up in Alberta, I haven’t actually lived in Alberta for years.

So why should Albertans (generally) and UCP folks (specifically) listen to Yours Truly?

Well, listen or don’t listen. That’s up to you. But some tell me my campaign record ain’t entirely bad: I have helped win six majority governments, federally and provincially – and I helped secure 70 per cent of the vote in the last Toronto mayoral race, one of the biggest city contests on the planet.

Oh, and this: I love Alberta, and I enthusiastically support Western oil and gas. And I strongly feel that another Alberta NDP government is a bad, bad idea. Because Alberta New Democrats may claim to also support the province’s most important sector – but Alberta’s NDP is formally part of the federal NDP. And the federal NDP hates Western oil and gas.

So, the NDP can’t be permitted to form the next government in Alberta. How to prevent that?

Well, let’s look at how the United Conservative Party got so unpopular, shall we? Let’s examine why a sitting majority Premier was recently forced out by his own party, and why an Alberta NDP win remains a strong possibility.

There are four main reasons. One is this: Alberta has changed. The homophobic, xenophobic tendencies of some in the UCP have alienated urban Alberta voters – who are much more diverse and tolerant than some in the UCP are prepared to accept. So, the UCP needs a leader who attracts the support of Albertans of every colour, faith and sexual orientation.

Two: discipline – as in, lacking it. As Jason Kenney discovered the hard way, the discipline that was the hallmark of the Stephen Harper years, federally, has been sorely lacking in the UCP. Consultation with caucus, and respect for caucus, went out the window – and civil war broke out, big time. So, the UCP needs a leader who knows Harper-style discipline – but also Harper-style caucus management.

Three, knowing which fights to have with Ottawa – and which fights to avoid. Like it or not, energy is a shared jurisdiction between Ottawa and the provinces. It’s right there in the Constitution. That means finding a Premier who knows and understands Ottawa – but isn’t cowed by the federal Liberals, as Rachel Notley government would always be. A Premier who can go toe-to-toe with Justin Trudeau.

Fourth and finally: the UCP needs a winner. Danielle Smith is nice enough, but she did a secret deal with the Alberta Tories, and thereby blew apart Wildrose. Brian Jean is genial – but he loses more than he wins, and he has shown that he is better at division than unity. So, the UCP needs a leader who can win, and has a record of winning every election she has ever run in.

She? Yes, she, Alberta. Michelle Rempel-Garner.

Full disclosure: I know her. I like her. She’s a friend.

But, objectively, Rempel-Garner has what the UCP needs to win again. She fights for tolerance and diversity, and is better-aligned with modern Alberta. She was a senior Harper minister, and knows the value of discipline – and how to maintain it without alienating caucus. She knows the corridors of power in Ottawa because she’s been a longtime MP – but no one knows how to get under Trudeau’s skin better (trust me). Finally, she’s a winner in a way that Smith and Jean never were and never will be.

Will she run? No idea.

But she should.

Sincerely,

Warren

[Kinsella is a proud Albertan, and would still be there if the NDP hadn’t wrecked the place.]

Comments (20)