Pogge offers one suggestion as to how Michael Ignatieff and the Libs can respond to Stephen Harper's latest coalition talk, suggesting that they focus on explaining how Harper is fundamentally wrong about Canada's democratic system. But I'll argue that while there are times where opposition parties should focus on educating the public, this isn't one of them.
After all, if the coalition question is going to be a major election issue, then the opposition line of attack will need to involve a substantial clash on the values underlying the possibility. And simply pointing out that Harper is lying about the what Canadian democracy actually consists of doesn't accomplish much on that front.
Instead, the better course of action is to frame the debate over the parties' political options (including a coalition) in terms of principle. And there's plenty of room to do that in a way that can inflict political damage on the Cons.
Indeed, one could hardly design a central issue that works better to emphasize the Harper Cons' negatives. When a government already seen as secretive, controlling and hyperpartisan makes an explicit appeal for the absolute power that comes with a majority, it should be an obvious retort to point out just how much worse Harper would be if he got his wish.
That part of the equation fits reasonably well with the Libs' current position. But in order to provide a meaningful differentiation, the Libs will also need to be willing to defend the principle of cooperative politics which they've shied away from so far - developing the contrast between themselves and the Cons as open- vs. closed-minded, cooperative vs. inflammatory, and public- vs. self-interested.
So far, the Libs' desire to form power on their own has severely limited their willingness to develop that message. But based on the reality that the Libs haven't been able to take on the Cons in a party-to-party fight in recent years, they'd be ill-advised to throw away the opportunity.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
No comments:
Post a Comment