Markers, "This American Life", "Three Pillars"

I think it's worth writing something down when I've made a connection for myself between different things that I've come across that allow me to view an idea from different angles.

Today I start with a segment on the National Public Radio documentary "This American Life", hosted by Ira Glass. This show's genius is in its ability to look deeply at average people and typical happenings and make them very interesting. Over several months of the 2004 US presidential campaign, Ira interviewed James, an articulate Republican doctor from Cincinnati, who was going to vote for George Bush but, according to the show's website, "pretty much hates every thing he's [president Bush] done since taking office". Ira was a Kerry supporter. He gently argued with James. Time and again, Ira would convince James that they agreed on a lot of things. James conceded that he agreed Bush was wrong on a lot of things such as the Iraq war, tax cuts for high income earners, and high deficit spending. Ira seemed to be persuading James to change his vote. James would consider changing his vote, and then move back. After many months of this and a final few days of thinking he might vote for Kerry or not vote at all, James finally returned to his original choice to vote for Bush. Why?

This leads me to policy markers. Policy markers, according to Jim Coutts in a Policy Options paper (Coutts is a long-time Liberal from Alberta, Canada who advised prime ministers Pearson and Trudeau), are long term political tenets that guide the party, and therefore characteristics that voters count on when faced with an uncertain future, unfamiliar politicians, or unclear facts about the present. The NDP in Canada and the Democrats in the US are identified with favouring organized labour. The Bloc Quebecois will act in the interests of Quebec nationalism. The Federal Liberal Party is for French-English partnership, multiculturalism, open immigration, and progressive social programs balanced against fiscal restraint. My explanation is that James felt drawn to vote for Bush because of the "security", "fiscal responsibility", and "trust" markers that hadn't yet faded for the Republican party and perhaps some negative markers associated with the Democratic party. What's amazing about the example of James is the staying power of these markers.

What Coutts argues is that for the long term health of political parties, and by extension democracy itself, parties need to be maintain their markers and from time to time seek to cultivate new ones. Conversely, political strategies such as relying on the charisma of a leader, relying on the electorate to vote against something, to vote simply for a change, or being a political weathervane do not cultivate and maintain policy markers and will not serve to give the party strength in the long term. Coutts gives the example of the Liberal party's apparently permanent loss of its traditional support in Quebec as the symptom of a weakening of the English-French partnership marker. Another marker whose credibility is in danger of being lost is the Liberal party's social program marker, threatened especially by delays in acting on healthcare and environmental issues. Coutts' 2004 article was in fact a plea to the new Paul Martin government. I guess it fell on deaf ears because Martin's team increased centralized control of the government by the Prime Ministers Office and more than ever, the Prime Minister was made to be the face of the Liberal party. During the 2006 election, which they lost, one of their campaign themes was that the Conservatives had to be stopped -- an example of tactical election campaigning that cannot lend strength to the party in the long run.

From time to time new markers are created when a major new policy issue arises in society. I think there is a great example in the third pillar of new Liberal party leader Stephane Dion's policy platform. It's environmental sustainability. Of course all of the leadership candidates had platforms that supported a stronger environmental policy. The difference with Mr. Dion was that he, in the language of this post, was promising to make environmental sustainability a new marker for the Liberal Party of Canada. In that sense he could be qualitatively distinguished from the other candidates, as much as the now coveted green signs, shirts, and scarves distinguished his supporters at the leadership convention.

Is selecting delegates complicated? unfair?

Many have complained, with reason, that the selection process for riding association delegates to the 2006 Liberal party national convention seemed complicated and perhaps unfair. The 14 elected delegates had to be chosen to conform to the vote percentages that the leadership candidates receive in the riding (after a non-trivial rounding off process), as well as conform to constraints by age and sex.

But perhaps it's just "Canadian"? Consider this quote about Sir John A. MacDonald's task in putting together the very first cabinet for Canada:

"Numerous regional and ethnic groups demanded cabinet representation according to their numbers, but MacDonald wanted no more than thirteen ministers because he believed that a larger number made fruitful discussion and reasonable compromise difficult, if not impossible. After much negotiation and near failure Sir John succeeded in forming Canada's first government. Ontario received five ministers, Quebec four, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia two each. Presbyterians, Catholics, Anglicans, and Methodists were all represented, as were the French, English, Irish, and Scottish."

Donald Swainson, Sir John A. MacDonald, The Man and the Politician, 2nd ed., 1989.

Welcome

I've often had ideas that I thought I should write down, not only to remember them, but to see if they were really good ideas or not. I also hope that everything I write here will be worth reading for somebody. So welcome, and don't be afraid to leave your comments and criticisms.