Canadiana

Okay, I'll admit it. I watched Biden-Palin instead of the Canadian leaders' debate last week. But I did flip channels from time to time. With the strangely dark lighting, the round-table format and the host's constant referencing of Biden-Palin, the sexiness deficiency of Canadian politics was on full display. That, and the fact that Canadian politicians, compared to those in the U.S., have a not very entertaining habit of actually answering questions and talking issues. How's that supposed to get people interested?

I managed to stay focused for a few minutes at a time and gleaned a couple of things. First is that, I must admit, I do understand the appeal of Stephen Harper. The left likes to paint him as a right-wing ideologue, and that he may be, but he comes across as pragmatic, calm and rational, and I get why Canadians have warmed to him in his short time in power. I don't like him, but I get it. 

Stephane Dion, on the other hand, seemed like he was flailing - in part, I think, because of his lack of comfort in English. I have to say that I have trouble understanding him, and whether it's fair or not it's very difficult for him to connect with a national audience if they don't know exactly what he's saying. Especially problematic when you're pushing something like the Green Shift, which demands a lot of explanation. 

Jack Layton might very well be a good enough leader to win. If he was the Liberal Party's leader, that is. From what I saw, he did a good job of playing up the NDP's populism while playing down its big-government socialism - the programs he brought up all had price tags and were paired with cuts in other areas that would pay for them. He also did the best job of attacking Harper. But it's still the NDP, and while the party might be able to peel off a few more Liberal votes, it won't be enough to become the official opposition. And, of course, it'll end up actually strengthening the Conservatives (more on strategic voting in a sec).

Elizabeth May was solid, taking full advantage of being added to the debate. The Green Party's electoral chances are slim, of course, but she helped present a de-radicalized image of the party that could serve it well down the line. 

I don't really much care about Gilles Duceppe. He was fine, and I always get the impression that he enjoys being the wrench in these things. He can't become Prime Minister, doesn't want to, and therefore he has the least pressure on him.

Overall, the U.S. economic crisis has hurt Harper a little, but it looks as though he's still going to win a solid minority. Which will rile up the operators websites like these, which offer lessons on strategic voting. Ah, strategic voting - one of the great joys of the Canadian political universe. A lot of NDPers, of course, disdain the practice on principle, and that does make sense. But with five parties out there, four of them on the left, to varying degrees, I think it's become a necessary evil.  

I wonder when the Libs and the NDP (and maybe the Greens, too) will realize that at least two of them need to band together. Taken as a whole, they represent Canadian opinion far more accurately than do the Conservatives. But there's too much vote-splitting. For inspiration, they might want to look at the Conservatives, who've been able to rebound from political obscurity by uniting the former Reform and PC parties. 

Never hurts to steal a page from the enemy playbook.