It's NOT the policy, stupid

Well, it's finally happened--over at Sinister Thoughts, the lefties' "vote strategically" set has turned on the ones that have been gleefully battling the Liberals of late. Apparently, if you make arguments against voting Liberal in this election, you're "indistinguishable from a typical right whinger." "Nothing is more important than a progressive agenda," they say. I mean, my god, they're acting as if the Liberals and the NDP were two separate political parties or something.

I had the same conversation--albeit with a bit less namecalling--with my father over the holidays. As a prominent political scientist with a daughter living on the northerly side of the 49th parallel, he's quite up on Canada's political situation and the circumstances that led to this election. But after hearing me go off on the Liberals, he turned to me and said that I didn't know how good I had it, compared to what they have to deal with down there. Well, it's true that I vastly prefer the Liberals to George W. Bush's Republicans, and that's why I live here and not there. But I do have solid reasons to think the Liberals need to be tossed out on their ear--those reasons just aren't about policy. Here's what they are about.

1. It's about the man behind the curtain. Paul Martin is bad enough, but it's the people behind the scenes who really scare me. Is there anyone out there who doesn't think Mike Klander was just the tip of the iceberg? These people aren't brilliant political minds with a strong vision for Canada and the will to implement it, they're thugs who think nothing of eating their own. Unswerving loyalty, not good ideas, are paramount. Enough, already.

2. It's about the power-hungriness. If you weren't already convinced by Paul Martin's years in power that he's more interested in sitting in the big chair than he is in improving the lives of Canadians, then Monday night's debate should have cinched it. Suddenly and explosively, Paul Martin is running on scrapping the notwithstanding clause. Not because he doesn't believe in it--he himself said as recently as last year that he would use it to protect the rights of churches not to perform same-sex marriages--but because he wanted to put Harper on the spot. Think about that for a moment: he proposed changing the constitution in an attempt to throw his opponent off his game in a debate. He didn't even discuss it with his own caucus before announcing it on national television--he just pulled it out of thin air. If that isn't the very picture of power-hungry desperation, I don't know what is.

3. It's about the culture of entitlement. Paul Martin is fond of saying that Judge Gomery "exonerated" him of any wrongdoing in the sponsorship scandal. But if you take that statement at face value, then you also have to accept Gomery's findings about the culture of entitlement that allowed that scandal to happen. This is more than a "few bad apples," it's a whole way of thinking about money and power. If nothing else, it's seriously harmed this country's faith in its politicians. Do I think there are honourable public servants in the Liberal party who aren't wading hip-deep in this culture? Of course I do. I just don't think Paul Martin and his gang of thugs are among them.

4. It's about the broken promises. If I really believed the Liberals would implement their agenda as they've laid it out, I'd quite honestly be okay with yet another Liberal government. I'm just not that naive. They've had twelve years to implement their promised national child care program, with no results and very little action. They've promised to protect public health care, but weren't willing to put the brakes on privatization. They've promised student tuition relief that only materialized through NDP meddling in their budget. They're even claiming to be the bearers of electoral reform, despite the fact that they refused to take action on the issue during the last Parliament when the NDP came knocking on their door with a proposal. Liberal policies may well be "good enough" in a pragmatic approach to politics, but they're no good to anyone when no one bothers to enact them once the Liberals assume power.

5. It's about the stranglehold. Any country that claims to have a "natural governing party" already has a rather substantial problem. But if we're going to live in a country doomed to one-party-rule for most of its future existence--and until we change the voting system, we may well be--then I damn well want that party to be something I can stomach. Right now it's not, but it could be, and for that, they need a little time out once in a while. After twelve long years, the time for that is now.

On the face of it, I'm the Liberals' ideal lefty. I'm an immigrant, I'm a pragmatist with a strong belief that compromise and coalition-building are a part of any healthy political culture, my cushy academic job makes me comfortably upper-middle-class, and I see strategic voting as a tragic consequence of our electoral system rather than as the root of all evil. And I'm not saying never--there are certainly circumstances under which they could woo me. But they can't do it with policy alone--especially when I can't trust them to implement their own empty promises. And this year, with every other card stacked against them, they haven't a chance in hell.

[Edited to add: The Globe and Mail's editorial board seems to have reached a similar conclusion.]