Apolitical Staples

Check out Andrew Coyne's latest. He has some good news and some bad news for the Liberal party. First the good news.

...I don't know whether any of the current or prospective candidates for Liberal leader would make a good prime minister, or even party leader. That is what leadership races, and elections, are for. But in the emerging "big five" -- Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, Gerard Kennedy, Bob Rae and Ken Dryden (assuming they all run) -- the party shows some impressive bench strength. Their positions on the issues, their political skills, their records -- these remain to be assessed. But as individuals, they are among the best our public life has to offer: thoughtful, eloquent and passionate.

Ah, but I said there was some bitter with that sweet.

...Little remains of the Liberals' once-mighty organization in Quebec, while large parts of the West are the same no-go zone they have been for nearly 60 years. Even Ontario is no longer the stronghold it once was. And they have lost their last remaining tactical advantage: the Conservatives are no longer divided, no longer unknown and no longer in opposition. The fear factor has lost its sway.

All of which amounts to something of an existential crisis for the Natural Governing Party. Others have commented on the threat posed by the loss of Quebec to the party's historic raison d'etre, as the bridge between English and French Canada. But it's worse than that. Since Laurier's time, whatever else the Liberal party has been, it has been the party of power, the conveyor belt into office for ambitious pols of all stripes, who weren't too hung up on questions of ideology or principle. If it is not going to be that any more -- if it can no longer be sure of winning three elections in every four, but must submit to the vagaries of two- or even three-party politics -- then what will it be instead? How will it define itself, having succssfully eluded definition for so long? What is a Liberal Party nowadays?

It seems to me that the Liberals have already decided to go to the left. Michael Ignatieff would have a chance to position himself on the right-side of the party but I don't think he has at this point. It seems to me that the prospective leaders are crowding around the same policies. I know it is early but I don't see this grand re-thinking of Liberalism. It seems to me that they are going the path of whoever can win will win the leadership. Like I said, it is early.

But I agree with Mr. Coyne, the field includes many honourable people. But I would add Joe Volpe to Scott Brison as people who should avoid the race, if just to the honourability quotient high.

Update: James Travers does the same Bitter/Sweet dance. The sweet is much the same - lots of candlepower in the front runners. The bitter?

...Missing from Liberal introspection is acceptance that the party has been declining for a decade. It ran dry of ideas sometime in the mid-'90s, narrowly avoided a 2004 defeat by savagely demonizing Stephen Harper and then only escaped humiliation in January when voters limited Conservative freedom to be truly conservative.

...Liberals haven't given much thought to what it means to be a progressive in the 21st century. They aren't certain where they stand — or where they are willing to fall — on everything from federalism to the mix of private and public health care.

Shall I say again that it is early? But from what I can see we are going to see the same old same old. Michael Ignatieff said yesterday that he is not running against his colleagues he is running against Stephen Harper. Two things, you may not be able to do the second without doing the first. And man, maybe Belinda Stronach was right (again) in channeling Kim Campbell - leadership campaigns are no place to talk about ideas.