In From The Cold (Andrew Coyne Explains The Revolutionary Intent Of Stephen Harper Alert)

New York Times ^ | 01/23/06 | Andrew Coyne

[goldstategop]

[Stephen Harper] will also have to make reforms to Canada's outmoded democratic institutions, notably the appointed Senate, in which the Liberals, quelle surprise, hold a majority of the seats.

Last, he will have to set aside some of his own privileges, placing limits on the powers of patronage with which prime ministers have consolidated their rule. The Conservatives must plan for when they are again out of power and remove the instruments by which they were kept out.

Previous Conservative prime ministers aspired only to run the Liberal machine for themselves, leaving the motor running for the Liberals when they returned. Mr. Harper wants to dismantle it, piece by piece.

[goldstategop]

Does Stephen Harper have a revolutionary intent? Andrew Coyne explains the answer is yes. Where previous Conservative Prime Ministers wanted to simply share the spoils with the Liberals, leaving the government to them when they returned, Harper aims at nothing less than dismantling it piece by piece. This is why the Paul Martin Liberals are afraid of the Conservatives. For their defeat today portends nothing less than the beginning of the end of the 1 and one half party system through which the Liberals have ruled Canada for over a century, with brief Conservative interludes. Clearly Harper's arrival at 24 Sussex is not going to be business as usual. A Conservative Revolution will get underway even if it has to proceed to reach its goals by fits and starts. And in the long run, Canada will be the better off for it.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Although speaking of Canada, Coyne sounds like he is issuing a warning/appeal to the Republicans in Washington, too.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

For the edification of any Americans, who aren't aware of which outmoded political institutions Coyne is referring to, here are some not mentioned:

Senate -- not only unelected, but appointed without any review or oversight by the Prime Minister.

Supreme Court -- appointed by the Prime Minister, without any review or oversight by Parliament.

Cabinet -- appointed by the Prime Minister -- without any review or oversight.

Deputy Ministers (administrative heads of the bureaucracy) appointed by the Prime Minister -- without any review or oversight.

Governor General (titular Head of State -- with powers to determine who forms government, where the numbers are close) -- appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. (Effectively, appointed by the Prime Minister).

Tens of thousands of other patronage appointments (Boards, heads of Crown Corporations, Prime Ministers Office staff, Ministers staff, etc.) -- appointed by the Prime Minister, Cabinet, or the Minister -- with no oversight and review by Parliament.

Imagine what the Democrats would be saying if Bush had all of these powers.

[x]

Does Stephen Harper have a revolutionary intent? Andrew Coyne explains the answer is yes. Where previous Conservative Prime Ministers wanted to simply share the spoils with the Liberals, leaving the government to them when they returned, Harper aims at nothing less than dismantling it piece by piece.

I don't know. It sounds like what he's saying is that Harper has to dismantle the Liberal patronage machine to make a difference. Is it clear that Harper is going to actually do that? There's a difference between that patronage machine and the government itself. Harper may want to undo the Liberal establishment, but whether he wants to really cut into the size of government and whether he'll be allowed to do so are different questions not so easy to answer.

There are going to be limits to what Harper can do, so he's going to have to learn to prioritize, as any political leader ought to. "Revolution" talk often doesn't pan out. Were the Reagan years or the Gingrich years really a "revolution"? Harper will probably be similar. There are some things he just can't touch, even if he wanted to. If Harper wins, he'll have to pick and choose what's most important.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You're right X. Some things I think should be priorities:

1. Allow for Senate elections -- since this would require a Constitutional amendment, only a baby step is practical at this time. Harper could begin to appoint people nominated by provincial premiers on the basis of special elections. Nobody can stop him from doing this.

2. Fix the fiscal imbalance so that the provinces have enough money and the feds stop having surpluses burning a hole in their pockets. There will be a lot of support for this from the provincial governments, and from the Bloc.

3. Stop interfering in provincial affairs. This follows from fixing the fiscal imbalance. No more talk of National Child Care programs, or municipal infrastructure programs.

4. Increase defense spending to the point that we can pull our own weight.

5. Set a more respectful tone regarding the relationship with the U.S. We'll need some help from the U.S. here as there will have to be horse-trading for bigger changes.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Should have added another:

6. Introduce real Parliamentary review of Supreme Court appointments. Harper can just do this unilaterally, if he gets a chance to make an appointment. Once the precedent is established, it'll be difficult for the Liberals to end the practice.

[goldstategop]

Its clearly going to be incremental. Harper hasn't stopped being a conservative but he realizes things are going to get done piecemeal, if at all. Basically do one or two things and save the rest for a second term, if there is one.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

Harper will probably move to seat the Senators elected from Alberta and British Columbia. The Liberals can hardly oppose the appointment of popularly elected Senators and since they appointed most of the Senate themselves, they're not in a position to object to the appointment of Senators by a Conservative Government.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[caveat emptor]

Allow for Senate elections

Bad idea, FRIEND. Just look at the US Senate. Bring back the status quo ante. That'll cut those blowhards down to size.

[caveat emptor]

Bring back the status quo ante (in the US). And don't start electing senators in Canada.

[RWCon]

I wonder if Harper is grateful to the NYT for telling him how
to run his country.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

By "status quo ante", I presume you mean appointment of Senators by the State governments, rather than direct election.

I could live with something like that here -- where the Senate would be responsible for representing the interests of the provinces in confederation. I can't see any redeeming features in a Senate appointed solely by the Prime Minister.

[caveat emptor]

By "status quo ante", I presume you mean appointment of Senators by the State governments, rather than direct election.

Yep. The point of the senate was to provide protection for low-population regions, not a forum for pettifogging, bad hair, North American emirs. Canada needs an elected or PM appointed Senate like a fish needs a bicycle.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Good points.

Our Senate is known as the "chamber of sober second thought". It is modeled on the House of Lords in Britain. The thinking was that democracy is a dangerous thing -- and the peasantry couldn't be trusted with all the power, so the Senate was supposed to keep the unruly peasants in check.

Still -- we've got them, and appointments don't seem right. One argument against elections is that it would give the Senate more legitimacy -- and then they would interfere more than ever. It seems there is no easy answer.