Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Liberals to lay out foreign policy vision in major speech by Freeland – CBC.ca

His name may not even appear in the text of the speech, but U.S. President Donald Trump and his policies are expected to cast a long shadow over what ForeignAffairs MinisterChrystia Freelandsays on Tuesday in the Liberal government's first major foreign policy statement.

The long-anticipated address to Parliament, which government insiders have suggested could be an annual thing, is expected to lay out in broad strokes where Canada's interests are in the world.

And "foremost among them is managing relations with our most important ally and trading partner, the United States," said Roland Paris, a University of Ottawa professor and former adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Liberal government has done a pretty good job, in the estimation of former United Nations ambassador Paul Heinbecker, dealing with the unpredictable Trump administration.

"Obviously, Job 1for the Canadian government and Job 1for Canadian foreign policy is relations with Washington," said Heinbecker.

Experts say Freeland's speech will almost certainly be different than the one the Liberals would have given before U.S. President Donald Trump was elected. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/The Associated Press)

Both experts say the speech Freeland will give is almost certainly not the one the Liberal government would have given a year ago, prior to Trump's election victory.

"I think every country in the world is readjusting now in the face of a mercurial president," said Paris. "The challenges of dealing with the Trump administration are significant. And it is understandably absorbing a great deal of the time and attention of policymakers in the federal government."

Government insiders have tried to position the speech as the door-opener for the even more highly anticipated defence policy review, which will set the direction for the military both in fiscal and equipment terms.

That is slated to be released Wednesday by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan after months of pondering and consultation. It is expected to be a weighty document that the Liberals have proudly signalled will come with an itemized costing of its commitment.

By contrast, there has been no detailed foreign policy review, which Heinbecker says should not be a surprise because the portfolio is 90 per cent reactive and 10 per cent proactive.

The previous Conservative government had at one point been working on its own global affairs policy but after years of work behind closed doors, it never saw the light of day.

What we can expect to see in Tuesday's speech when not focused on machinations in Washington are extensions of the Liberal government's articles of faith on climate change, working with multilateral institutions and championing equality and diversity.

Heinbecker says establishing priorities in foreign policy is important because without them Canada will get very little done on the world stage over the next few years.

During the last couple of weeks, government insiders have suggested the emphasis will be on the so-called Three D's: diplomacy, development and defence.

That has been a popular buzz phrase in government for over a decade.

But all three suffered inarguably from cuts during the Conservative-era drive to balance the budget in 2015.

What experts are hoping to see, aside from political window-dressing on Canadian values and aspirations, is a clear plan to rebuild diplomatic ranks.

There is also the expectation of some clarity where it appears policy has been adrift.

The most high-profile example is the Middle East, where some observers have argued the Liberal government has simply continued with Conservative-era policies without much thought or intervention.

Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council is something that is hanging out there, but it is not expected to be a major theme.

There has been speculation in foreign policy circles that the arrival ofFreeland as foreign affairs minister last winter was a signal Canada was prepared to take a harder line on a resurgent Russia.

Freeland is banned from travelling to Russia because of her unsparingcomments on the annexation of Crimea.

Paris says he doesn't believe the situation in eastern Europe will play more prominently with Freeland in charge.

He says the Liberal government, even under former affairs minister Stphane Dion, maintained a toughbut constructive position with Moscow and that is unlikely to change or figure prominently in the outlook.

Excerpt from:
Liberals to lay out foreign policy vision in major speech by Freeland - CBC.ca

Why the BC Liberals should suck it up and offer a Speaker – Macleans.ca

Linda Reid, the most recent Speaker of the B.C. legislative assembly, arrives for asession THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito

With grins and a handshake, John Horgan and Andrew Weaver ended four weeks of mystery over who would govern British Columbiansit will be Horgans NDP, with Weavers Greens propping up the minority. Christy Clark, known forbringing a chainsaw to a knife fight, appeared to be willing to let that end her six-year premiership: Should the government fail the test in the house, as seems likely, I would be given the job of leader of the Opposition. And Im more than ready and willing to take that job on, the Liberal leader told reporters that same May 30, flashing the assembled cameras a few subdued smiles.

But in a caucus meeting that same day, Liberal MLAs decided to drag out the fight Clark appeared to cede. Her 43 members agreed that none of them would stand for election as assembly Speaker, meaning they expect one of the 41 New Democrats or three Green MLAs to be the legislatures daily referee. As ifa minority Green-NDP government wouldnt provide enough calamity and uncertainty for Canadas third-largest province, a governing-side Speaker would mean constant brinkmanship and white-knuckle tests, in a 43-43 deadlocked assembly that would routinely need tie-breaking votes by the Speaker.

Clark has grown used to taking every advantage of the rules to benefit her side, most notably by preserving and reaping the full, absurd benefits of a campaign finance system that let Liberals attract unlimited donations from foreign corporations, wealthy individuals and lobbyists. The provinces conflict of interest commissioner had a son working as deputy minister to her cabinet, while one of Clarks key campaign advisers this spring simultaneously served as B.C. Hydro chairman, by her 2015 appointment.

If Clark is indeed ceding control of government, she should at least let the new guy and his Green sidekicks govern with some form of stability, and encourage one of her members to become Speakerideally incumbent Speaker Linda Reid (or one her former cabinet ministers, if they really miss the sort of plumped-up salary that comes with a ministerial or Speakers job).

The alternative is needlessly messy, in what could already be a messy government with a healthy-sized opposition.

COUNTERPOINT: Why B.C. should just hold another electionright away

The uncodified convention in Canadian and other Westminster-style legislatures holds that the Speaker votes against felling a government, and to continue debate. But in this case, should B.C. wind up with a non-Liberal Speaker,that would require convention to be broken on the first key vote once the assembly is recalled: on the Throne Speech that Clark has essentially admitted is doomed to fail.

The Speaker would need to act contrary to his or her conventional role, not only to make the Clark government fall, but also to pass vital legislation and supply for a Horgan government, says Philippe Lagass, a Carleton University political scientist who specializes in Westminster institutions.

Its important to note, though, that convention is flexible for a reason. In a situation such as this, bending the rule would likely be necessary for the legislature to function.

Saying that conventions are flexible for a reason, though, isnt the same as saying guidelines were meant to be broken. While theres nothing in law preventing an NDP Speaker from being an eager foot servant to a Premier Horgan, such a scenario wouldcause the institution reputational damage that might carry beyond this looming carnival of political anxiety.

RELATED: How the B.C. Liberals squandered their chance to keep power

In 2003, New Brunswick elected the last razors edge assembly, 28 Tories, 26 Liberals and one NDP; a Tory served as Speaker; one columnist suggested Bev Harrison was the most partisan Speaker in the history of the New Brunswick legislature. In late 2005, Harrison voted to kill an opposition health bill on second reading, cutting off debate duty actually required him to sustain.Amid Liberal caterwauling, he refused to provide a reason for his tie-breaking vote. Months later, he quit the chair for then-premier Bernard Lords cabinet, and his successor was an Independent MLA who subsequently crossed the floor back to the Tories while still playing his supposedly non-partisan role.

That legislature survived for three years before an election, with Lords nimble management of his second term. Horgan, trying to navigate as rookie B.C. premier, would struggle to manage sowell and let one of his members perform the Speakers role as truly honest broker.

Aside from dealing with a split assembly, the new premier will face overwhelming challenges that will threaten B.C.s economic and social health: the unrelenting opioid crisis, the latest round of U.S. softwood lumber disputes, possible NAFTA renegotiation, the Lower Mainland home-price mess and the NDPs and Greens own fights againstpipelines and other energy projects. Clark and the Liberals may deplore how the left-wingers preside over this collection of challenges, but they need not add to those headaches with a gummed-up political works that can scarcely pass legislation.

RELATED: What the B.C. NDP-Green deal means for the rest of Canada

An assembly with a Liberal Speaker and 44-42 MLA split will hardly be a model of parliamentary stability. If one NDP minister is in Quebec City for a national meeting and another member is with his newborn child, the deadlock is suddenly back (assuming theres no pairing-off agreement). When bills are at committee stages, and a deputy Speaker is NDP, its a closer 43-42 split.

The other alternative is the disaster scenario of 1908 Newfoundland: neither side offers up a Speaker, the assembly cannot meet, and British Columbians are thrustinto another election. The last one cost $44 million. Facing that cost shouldnt be a dealbreaker in a province that spends $52 billion per year. But what occasion would there really be for a new election besides partisan stubbornness? Voters decided what division of Liberals, New Democrats and Greens they preferred, and those members have decided how to arrange themselves. The parties owe more to voters than a chance to change those voters minds a few months later.

Will the NDP govern well? Thats up to Horgan and, to a large extent, Weaver. Will they be given a chance to govern well? The Liberals can continue their hyper-partisanship and deny them that chance. Or if theyre so confident the Green-NDP deal will be a political shambles, they can let them rise and fail by themselves.

Read the rest here:
Why the BC Liberals should suck it up and offer a Speaker - Macleans.ca

Neil Buchanan: Liberals Should Stop Flagellating Themselves – Newsweek

This article first appeared on the Dorf on Law site.

The 2016 presidential election was almost seven months ago. Why are liberals still so willing to blame themselvesand especially each otherfor Trump's narrow victory in the Electoral College?

The narrative that will not die is that "real Americans" abandoned the disdainful, sneering Democrats. Those coastal elites who say and think nasty things about non-latte-drinking regular folk got what was coming to them, we hear over and over again.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

And it is not conservatives who are saying those things. It is liberals themselves who are engaged in this orgy of self-doubt and intramural finger-pointing.

To be sure, it is a sign of maturity to be able to consider the possibility that what went wrong was one's own fault. The opposite of introspective doubt is, after all, stubborn self-righteousnessmost obviously personified in the orange-hued blowhard who is currently occupying the White House.

But when liberals think about the 2016 results, the now-standard response is to say, "We screwed up. They hate us, and it's our own fault." Again, there is more than a bit about that attitude that is admirable. It also can prevent people from saying, "Well, there was nothing we could have done. So there's nothing that we can do now, either, I guess."

Yes, it is a good thing to be able to look in the mirror and ask tough questions. But that does not mean that people will always give themselves the best answers. Liberals need to stop beating themselves up in order to be able to think clearly about what has happened and what to do next.

Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton has figured this out. Even less surprisingly, people still want to yell at Hillary Clinton for things that she did not actually say or do.

Clinton's bottom line is quite simply that she and her campaign made a lot of mistakes, but those mistakes are not why she lost. Russia and Comey are explanation enough (as, we should recall, is the press's ridiculous treatment of Clinton throughout her career).

Even so, when Clinton says, "Here are the things that went wrong, here are the ones that I could control, whereas here are the ones that made the difference," what happens? She is faulted by a liberal writer for having "found plenty of non-Hillary Clinton things to blame for her 2016 loss." Sick burn!

Clinton is apparently supposed to have taken a public stance that says, "It's all me. I'm not allowed to blame anyone else, internally or externally. My fault. Sorry." That is not merely imposing an expectation on her that would not be imposed on anyone else, but it conveniently allows liberals to say that even their own supposed sins are really Hillary's fault.

A recent op-ed by a left-leaning law professor in The New York Times was titled: "The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension." To her credit, the author rightly rejects the idea that "identity politics" was the Democrats' problem last year. She even lays out a decent policy-driven case for winning future elections.

Even so, we quickly learn that the problem with liberals is that we are just so snotty toward working-class people. Examples? The author writes: "We hear talk of 'trailer trash' in 'flyover states' afflicted by 'plumbers butt' open class insults that pass for wit."

Flagellation of Saint Jerome dated 1476, tempera and gold on panel, Art Institute of Chicago. Art Institute of Chicago

In other words, this is the standard story in which Real Americans are supposedly so fragile that they will vote to put a lying, unqualified, bigoted, sexist threat to the planet in the White House because they cannot bear to be told that their states are uninteresting to outsiders. How is that not a condescending narrative?

I must say that after all these months of reading similar articles by self-flagellating liberals, I continue to be surprised by the mildness of the litany of insults that supposedly motivated Trump's voters. The fact is that adults are much less snowflake-y than many liberals seem to think.

The weirdest part of the op-ed, however, was when the author returned to the theme as follows: "In some cities, a construction boom is hobbled by a lack of plumbers. We might ameliorate this problem if we stopped talking about plumbers butt." Taken literally, that is laughable. Even as an attempt at something that would pass for wit, however, it is simply bizarre.

Perhaps the worst error that liberals continue to make is to reinforce the false narrative about Hillary Clinton's now-infamous comment about the "basket of deplorables" during the campaign. As I noted in the immediate aftermath of that comment, it at first appeared that the phrase would have a limited shelf-life and would soon become one of those phrases that political geeks use knowingly.

Instead, liberals have piled on and reinforced the false narrative that the Trump campaign (especially Mike Pence) used to portray Clinton's comment as proof of liberals' condescension.

For example, that law professor who is oddly obsessed with plumbers' posteriors added this comment: "This condescension affects political campaigns, as in Hillary Clintons comment about 'deplorables' and Barack Obamas about people who 'cling to guns or religion.'"

Maybe Obama's comment was evidence of condescension, and maybe not. It certainly did not cost him the election. But it is worth reminding ourselvesyet againthat Clinton's comment was in fact the opposite of condescension. In fact, she was doing exactly what her detractors from the left say she should have been doing.

Recall that Clinton coined her memorable phrase when she was trying to explain why Trump's campaign continually bobbed to the surface after multiple times in which it had appeared to have permanently been sunk by yet another of his many gaffes. Why, people had asked Clinton, was she not winning in a landslide?

Clinton sensibly noted that there are some people who are simply beyond reach. And anyone who thinks about this for even a second would understand that she is right. Does anyone really think that, if Clinton had been a more skilled campaigner, Steve Bannon would have decided to vote for her? Rush Limbaugh? Jeff Sessions? Betsy DeVos? The people who think that Clinton killed Vince Foster? The people who deliberately misinterpret the phrase "black lives matter" by pretending that it means " only black lives matter"? Who believe that women who are raped were asking for it?

Clinton thus turned a good phrase and said that there is unfortunately a large group, a basket of deplorables, who are not reasonably part of any Democratic campaign's outreach. This is not because liberals are too elitist, but because there is simply no common ground. If Clinton had tried to campaign in such precincts, she would have been rightly criticized for wasting campaign resources.

But Clinton quite forcefully and clearly said that she did not think that all Trump-leaning voters were beyond reach. She later apologized for calling it a 50-50 split, but given how fiercely the vast majority of Trump's supporters have continued to back him in light of everything that we have seen since November 8, Clinton might if anything have been too generous.

Again, however, the point is that Clinton did not condescend to the other basket of voters. She saidand I emphasize once again that there is no reading between the lines here, because she was as clear as possible about this in her remarksthat she sincerely believed that there were large numbers of Trump-leaning voters who should not be judged harshly and are non-deplorable.

I most definitely do not expect any Trump supporters or Clinton haters to be convinced by what I have written here. Instead, I am writing this to express my astonishment that liberals are so willing to believe bad things about themselves and their candidates that are simply not true.

As another example, consider a recent op-ed by Roger Cohen, who generally focuses on foreign policy in his writings for The Times . Turning his attention to the U.S. political situation, Cohen expresses concern about people's increasing inability to find common ground. He writes:

This is the chasm to which Fox News, Republican debunking of reason and science, herd-reinforcing social media algorithms, liberal arrogance, rightist bigotry, and an economy of growing inequality have ushered us.

Did you catch that? Wedged in among the list of obviously true explanations for what is happening, he adds "liberal arrogance." At first, I assumed that he had tossed that in as matter of false equivalence, to be able to say, "Well, I didn't only blame conservatives." Instead, he ended up devoting a large section of his column to this idea that liberals are to blame for their own fates.

The liberal complacency that holds that these people simply need to be 'educated' is self-defeating. If thats what the Democratic Party exudes coastal complacency it will lose, just like Ms. Clinton did last year.

As Abe Streep, a journalist and writer based in Montana, put it to me: Nobodys ever been convinced by being made to feel stupid.

So what, exactly, is the lesson for liberals? The reachable people who are voting for Republicans are basing their decisions on fact-free nonsense. It seems to me that voters need to be educated about the facts, and Cohen would appear to agree.

But if a liberal says, "There are more jobs in renewable energy than in fossil fuels, and the trend is entirely in that direction," we are apparently exuding "coastal complacency." If we say, "Trump is lying when he says that immigrants are pouring across the border," we are evidently at fault because the people who believe such lies are "being made to feel stupid."

Yes, obviously there are nice ways and nasty ways to say the same thing. Being nice is nice. But this whole notion that the non-Trump world is filled with a bunch of disdainful prigs is nonsenseor if it is true, the people who are complaining about it are certainly doing a terrible job of proving their case.

On the other hand, maybe I have just made Cohen feel stupid, in which case he can decide that the smart response is to start supporting Trump. But I doubt it.

Similarly, millions of Americans are capable of understanding that they are not at the top of the economic or social heap. The Democratsmost definitely including Hillary Clintonhave advocated policies that would make their lives better, yet many voted for Trump and the Republicans anyway. Some of them are beyond reach. Others are in play.

Liberals are right to try to figure out how to connect with skeptical voters. Democrats are dangerously on the wrong track, however, if they think that they are helping their cause by reinforcing the big lie that liberal condescension is a significant contributor to our political dysfunction.

"Vote for us. We promise to stop doing what we were never actually doing in the first place." Do we really think that this is what will win back voters?

Neil H. Buchanan is an economist and legal scholar and a professor of law at George Washington University. He teaches tax law, tax policy, contracts, and law and economics. His research addresses the long-term tax and spending patterns of the federal government, focusing on budget deficits, the national debt, health care costs and Social Security.

Read the rest here:
Neil Buchanan: Liberals Should Stop Flagellating Themselves - Newsweek

Liberals: Men Without Chests – Power Line (blog)

Men without chests is C.S. Lewiss great description in The Abolition of Man of the type of human soul that modern relativism would produce. The complete quote is: We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. Right now this applies to the increasing number of liberals who are wringing their hands over the fact that we have a problem on college campuses. Do tell!

Our first witness is Bari Weiss, an editorial writer for the New York Times, who wrote a piece on June 1 entitled When the Left Turns On Its Own, noting with dismay how the crybullies of Evergreen State College had turned so viciously on Bret Weinstein, a Bernie Sanders-supporting professor. Weiss even admits that Allan Bloom was right about the fecklessness of college administrators (which merely makes Weiss a very slow learner):

Watching the way George Bridges, the president of Evergreen, has handled this situation put me in mind of a line from Allan Blooms book The Closing of the American Mind. Mr. Bloom was writing about administrators reaction to student radicals in the 1960s, but he might as well be writing about Evergreen: A few students discovered that pompous teachers who catechized them about academic freedom could, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears.

Now administrations have become passive adjuncts to the student and faculty jackals, who will always be able to run circles around the lumbering administration bears.

Weiss concludes:

Liberals shouldnt cede the responsibility to defend free speech on college campuses to conservatives. After all, without free speech, whats liberalism about?

Apparently, liberalism is not about doing anything serious to remedy the sorry state of affairs on campus. Weiss nowhere makes any suggestion about disciplining or expelling students who act to stifle free speech or constrict academic inquiry, or shutting down the politicized departments that breed leftist intolerance, or closing administrative offices that incubate the entitled victim mentality. (Thats what Ohio State did last yearwhen it threatened to expel students occupying an administration office. It worked,and I havent heard of subsequent nonsense occurring in Columbus.) Weiss seems to think that a hard-hitting op-ed in the Times will suffice. Thisll show em!

Our second witness of another Timesman, Frank Bruni, who offered up his own handwringing on Friday in These Campus Inquisitions Must Stop. Here, finally I thought, well hear some suggestions for how to stop his madness, which Bruni correctly decries. But nope, Bruni offers nothing beyond his headline. His conclusion is as equally inconclusive as Weiss:

I asked [Evergreen president] Bridges about the epithets hung on Weinstein. He said that such terms are being deployed too readily and casually.

Using the word racist halts the conversation, he said. It just ends it. It doesnt explore the beliefs, the values, the behaviors that comprise individuals.

Isnt he, too, being characterized as racist?

Of course, he said. Its just the way discourse goes these days.

Of course? What a sad state of affairs. And what a retreat from anything that we could really call discourse.

A sad state of affairs that Bruni, like Weiss, offers no remedy for, because they lack the stomach, let alone a chest, to take any serious steps.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals: Men Without Chests - Power Line (blog)

Alberta Liberals elect David Khan as new leader – Calgary Herald

David Khan.

The newly elected leader of the Alberta Liberals says he will focus on rebuilding and re-energizing the party.

Calgary lawyer David Khan won the leadership Sunday evening with 54.8 per cent of the vote, defeating his sole opponent, Kerry Cundal. There were 1,671 total votes and 10 abstentions.

Its been a whirlwind, its been a really busy past two months, but Im so excited about the energy in this room, Khan told a room of supporters at Hotel Arts.

There are so many Liberals, old and new, that are part of our party now and Im really excited about moving liberalism forward in Alberta.

Khan served as the Alberta Liberals executive vice-president before entering the race. He ran as a candidate in Calgary-Buffalo in the 2015 provincial election and as a byelection candidate in Calgary-West in 2014.

His immediate focus is to unite liberals in Alberta and become a real force in the next provincial election.

Make no mistake, it is not Liberal ideas, it is not Liberal values and its not even the Liberal name that has held our party back. We need to stay true to ourselves and who we are and what we stand for, he said.

Theres new people, theres new energy, and we need a new vision and need to move this province forward for the benefit of all.

The only Liberal to be elected in the 2015 general election was Calgary-Mountain View MLA David Swann. Khan hopes to dramatically improve on that result.

That was a change election, that was an anomaly. Thats not the support that we have going forward, he said.

Khan said organizing, fundraising and electing more Liberals are the most crucial areas that need improvement.

Financial reports for the first quarter posted on the Elections Alberta website in April showed the Alberta Liberals and its constituency associations raised $47,959 for the period. For comparison, the governing NDP took in $373,060.

History isnt why we are here today, Khan said. We are here for the future, and it looks promising for Liberals and all Albertans.

Read the rest here:
Alberta Liberals elect David Khan as new leader - Calgary Herald