This is a reposted comment which I placed earlier today over here at the blog of a Canadian broadcasting corporation podcast called “Search Engine.” The radio host had asked for suggestions from his viewership before he went onto another CBC program and talked about how he wished that young people would be more active in being involved with politics in Canada. So I chimed in.

Congratulations on a new season for Search Engine.

You asked for suggestions about Canadian politics. Hmmm… the first thing I would suggest, is that you don’t copy what we have done, across the border in the usa. Looking at Canadian politics to me, is like stepping back in time to a gentler year in the usa. Because the usa has moved on to quite a different political atmosphere - with a lot of rancour - the could’ve would’ve and should’ve ideas start kicking in when I look at what’s happening up in Canada. I’m half tempted to move to Canada; here’s an opportunity for those who will work diligently to effectively start down a different road and achieve a very different result than the mess in which we have found ourselves, south of the border in the usa.

A lot of an election campaign is a battle of perception. How a political party and its adherents portray themselves really makes a difference in whether they get votes. It’s not necessarily true that the person with the best judgement will win, but it’s the person who is perceived to have the best judgement (or if the election is in the usa - it’s the person who has the most charisma).

What I see in Stephen Harper’s conservative party in Canada, is that it seems to be the party of big business. Big business has the resources and the interest in grooming candidates to go into office to serve its interests. Why does Stephen Harper talk about “the economy” and “jobs” and all these kinds of concepts? It’s because the conservative party is, to use a colloquial expression, “in bed” with big business. Now there are certainly benefits for a community if politicians cater to the needs of big business. The right kind of economic growth is great for a community. Cities should always be looking to encourage desirable kinds of companies to come and set up shop in their neighborhood. But, we in the usa have seen that the money and swag and opportunities which go to politicians from big business can eventually become a serious problem.

Now, the other thing that I see, is that conservatives have such an impressive and detailed set of models about how the economy works, that voters start to think that they are the party of logic and reason.

The left-leaning political parties in Canada also follow a pattern I remember well. They talk primarily about lofty ideals. They are very principled groups, and they want to specifically make Canada a better place for everybody. But they don’t seem to talk in a very logical or pragmatic way.

Years ago, there was a political party which formed for a brief time in the usa which brought up the idea of “natural law” (think the historic philosopher John Locke) - the idea that there are certain ways in which social patterns, and economic patterns, and other patterns in the world can be mapped out. These are “natural laws” which govern how these things happen. People who agree on cause and effect here, can then reason things out together, and have some basis for offering policy proposals, and for comparing notes. Too often, there’s no foundation when politicians toss ideas back and forth between eachother. Stephane Dion might say that the green shift will do x y and z… but then Stephen Harper will say it will produce a very different set of effects. If they cannot agree on a set of paradigms to use to weigh the known outcomes of such policy, that’s not good.

This notion of “natural law” is a really powerful one (although the party which grew up in the usa years ago was really not very wise, and actually got distracted with some other foolish ideas). My wistful hope is that there would be a political party which grows up in a sensible way around this idea. This kind of philosophical dialogue would impress voters, I think; it would also shine a harsh light on the conservatives’ models - and show them up as being pretty flimsy, and focused unfairly around the interests and needs of business owners, rather than on the broader good of the general public.