Some Thoughts On the Munk Debate

The only debate I had managed to watch during this election cycle.  Hence one I can finally comment on with an informed mind.  At first I thought, Foreign Affairs, eeh Gad! This is not a bread and butter topic. I had missed the pertinent debates before.  I think many would agree. According to this CBC Power and Politics poll, Foreign policy is not high on the minds of your average voter. According to this poll, 44% said it was “not very important”.  I guess the obvious exception of course would those Jewish voters who will vote for Harper because he loves Israel more than anyone else.

For openers, the video feed kept crapping out on me so I lost a few bits and pieces but I think I saw enough to form an opinion.

Also, I have to say that while the moderator did an excellent job, the translator was terrible.  She had a heavy accent, spoke shrilly and loud so you couldn’t hear anything else and I was convinced that she did not have an adequate grasp of the English language, so whenever the leaders would break into French, something, I’m sure got lost in the translation. However, most outside of Quebec don’t understand a word of French, so perhaps the loudness of the translator did not matter that much. Though, according to what I was seeing on Twitter, many agreed with me regarding the translator.

Boys n girls, for the last 3 weeks of the campaign, I will be playing Devil’s advocate and getting into the mind frame of your average voter– Jane and Joe Six-pack much of the time in my commentary. This, based on various conversations or attempt at political discussions with a-political acquaintances.  Largely in part, because most of my progressive friends are tangled in partisanship, we preach to our own choirs and often wonder if we step out of our comfort zone often enough. It’s a large part of the reason we progressives are losing the messaging war, hence why far right politiicans like Stevie Harper get elected time after time after time.  Folks, please do try to talk to Jane and Joe Six-pack, they’re really not hard to find. They’re your family members, coworkers, neighbours, friends, etc. You’d be surprised at what comes out from people you thought you knew. I know I’ve been.

After reading commentary from news pages and social media, there are quite a few who gave the debate to Justin Trudeau, including Michael Harris and yes, the Conservative writer who usually has nothing nice to say about the Liberals, Tasha Kheiriddin. Then there those like Michael Den Tandt, who thought he did well, but his foreign policy planks were weak.  To the average a-political voter who may have tuned into last night’s debate would probably agree.

A few moments stuck out for me.   One being that Harper, using his usual strawman arguments to bring up a point or set a trap, asked Trudeau point blank if he really was against revoking the citizenship of terrorists and went on to say that we had already revoked the citizenship of convicted war criminals.  This in reference to Harper’s Bill C-24  where there are second class citizens, namely those with dual citizenship can have their Canadian citizenship revoked.   Zakaria Amara, one of the Toronto 18 was convicted of terrorism and is the first to lose his Canadian citizenship under Bill c-24. It’s not that Harper laying this trap that got to me– we’re all used to seeing ol’ Stevie use strawmen. It was the fact that Trudeau, after all this time, should’ve known better than to fall into it.  Hell, Thomas Mulcair was smart enough not to go near that one with a 10 foot pole.  He already may have taken a beating in Quebec by standing up for the rights of women to wear niqabs while it is a most unpopular position.  All Trudeau could say was something along the lines of a Canadian citizen is a citizen. Fairly weak, if you ask me.  While Harper continuously berated him, Trudeau uttered that we send them to jail (in reference to terrorists or others who commit a crime). In the mind of  Jane and Joe Six-pack, who actually love tough on crime measures to make them feel safe, this would likely have not flown. The first thing that came to my mind when I heard that particular exchange was ‘Trudeau, you sure this is a hill you want to die on’? Perhaps an unpopular view amongst my politically aware progressive friends, but not to Jane and Joe Six-pack.  I seriously doubt that many would lose sleep if Zakaria Amara lost his citizenship. Sure Bill C-24 is a slippery slope, (personally, a legitimate question would be where does it stop? Would someone who was nailed for smoking a joint in a public place or who shoplifted to feed his/her family also risk losing their citizenship) but again, most do not see that.  Even immigrants who have been swayed to Harper’s camp would likely keep their votes with him. Remember, despite Rob Ford’s anti-immigrant and bigoted rantings, many of those immigrants in Toronto voted for him for mayor in 2010.  I’ll be looking at the polls later today and this week to see how much this may have hurt Trudeau. He did, however, maintained his position without wavering and held fast to his convictions on that score.

Below, the exchange:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau: You devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anybody … we have a rule of law in this country and you can’t take away citizenship because you don’t like what someone does.

(My analysis):  While Harper would have a penchant for severe punishment on people who do things he doesn’t like (he’s proven it time and time again),  Trudeau didn’t really hit the mark.  At least not to someone who is scared of terrorists hiding under the bed.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper: The individual in question, Mr. Trudeau, is convicted of planning the most heinous …

Trudeau: … And should be in jail.

Yes, indeed he should be in jail, but that really goes without saying, now doesn’t it?  However, in the case of someone who is not originally from here who commits such crimes, your average voter would prefer that the individual be sent away rather than have their tax dollars incarceratring him.

Harper lands the knock out here:

Harper:  A few blocks from here, (he) would have detonated bombs that would have been on a scale of 9/11. This country has every right to revoke the citizenship of an individual like that.

The audience appeared to agree with that and that was the end of that exchange. Sure it’s hyperbole, but to a scared individual, it works its’ magic. Yes, Harper is getting his money’s worth with the Lizard of Oz.

On Bill c-51, no knock out punches here. Same ol’ same ol’ sniping between Mulcair and Trudeau. I have always said that Harper’s launching of Bill C-51 was a trap for both Mulcair and Trudeau and both jumped in head first.  Remember, Harper always had those slogans : Taliban Jack and Hug-a-thug Liberals. They resonated and still do. Trudeau, in an effort to shed that image, I imagine, voted with the Harpercons on that one. Mulcair and the NDP had voted against and continued to hammer Trudeau more than Harper, even though the bill was Harper’s and Harper’s alone.  Truth is that Harper had a majority in the House of Commons; he had the votes. He really didn’t need the Liberals or anyone else’s votes. It passed anyway. The Munk Debate was no exception. The two were sniping at each other while Harper watched gleefully.

Mulcair got a great line in though: “If you can’t stand up to Mr. Harper on Bill C-51, how can you stand up to Putin”? It was genius.  Sure most support C-51 (a reality that needs to sink in), however, Mulcair managed to get the point across that Trudeau may not be ready for the world stage.  Even Jane and Joe Six-pack like tough leaders who can stand up to world leaders or anyone else for that matter.

Thomas Mulcair invoked Tommy Douglas who brought medicare and yet still balanced the books while premier of Saskatchewan in reference to NDP provincial government’s balanced budgets. Mulcair’s zinger of the night, I thought was when he mentioned an exception– Bob Rae when he was NDP premier of Ontario.  Thomas Mulcair said something along the lines of but he  (Rae) was really a Liberal.  It worked. The audience burst into laughter. It could (though I doubt it will) resonate with Ontarians who have not forgiven Bob Rae’s time at Queen’s Park.

However,  a chill ran down my spine and according to audience response, they must’ve felt the same thing when Mulcair started bringing up a 45 year old war measures’ act and started slamming Papa Trudeau for that. It was uncalled for.   It was a known fact that the night of this debate was also the 15th anniversary of Papa Trudeau’s death. When Trudeau was saying how proud he was to be Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s son, for that moment, I didn’t see a politician; I saw a son remembering his father.  I imagine many who watched the debate observed the same thing. I would expect this kinda low blow from Harper and his cheerleaders. Conservatives know no empathy. Mulcair, the leader of The NDP, on the other hand, the party that would know empathy, should really have known better. Mulcair could’ve and should’ve picked events from more recent history.  Someone with his skill should’ve been able to bring his point across without having to slam a son’s memorial to his father.

Much to my annoyance, they talked about the now dead Keystone XL pipeline.  Why oh why? President Barak Obama had already nixed it, so it’s moot now. It’s possible that the next administration could be Republicans who would be more sympathetic to the Keystone XL cause, but that election is not set to happen in over a year from now.  We can’t really speculate what the next administration would do.  Therefore, Keystone XL should be left with the burial it deserves.

Speaking of President Obama and the White House,  many chortled when Harper said with a straight face that he has a great relationship with Obama. Oh my! Harper is capable of attempting comedy.   Whenever I think of Obama and Harper, I think of that cartoon sketch from Bugs Bunny when a big ol’ bull dog and a small cute little dog walking on the sidewalk when the little dog would pester the big dog and the big dog would respond by slapping him saying “Nah!” Yeah, Stevie, continue to dream.

The usual Mulcair v Trudeau took place, much to my chagrin,  I found that they attacked each other more than they attacked Harper. As we’ve seen in the 2011 election, this proves to be a fight for the keys to Stornoway and not take away the big prize– 24 Sussex.  Yes, I know there were plenty of 2 on 2 formats during the debate, but still, I am honestly tired of the squabbling amongst Liberals and NDP and their supporters.  It’s counterproductive.

On climate change, any debate would become particularly tricky. Again, put yourselves in the mind frame of Jane and Joe Six-pack.  To some, climate change may well be real, but it’s not a top priority on their minds. Others flat out don’t believe in it and/ or don’t want to believe in it. I have seen for myself folks to this day having a hissy fit over paying a nickel for a plastic bag at a store, so does anyone realistically think they would want to make sacrifices for the better of the planet?  This is another piece of messaging we keep losing at.

Those in the audience last night couldn’t help but chuckle at Harper when he said basically that they were trying real hard to reduce Green House Admissions. I and many others, I’m sure, would just simply like to hear Harper come out and say outright, I don’t care about the environment. He like so many of his corporate friends along with many cheerleaders in the media have already hammered home that you can’t have a good economy and deal with climate change at the same time. Jane and Joe Six-Packs have for the most part, bought into that.  While the two are not mutually exclusive, we as progressives, along with parties like the Liberals and the NPD (I don’t include the Green party here because in reality, they will never win government and they’re not doing such a great job with that messaging neither) need to do a better job with hitting that message home.

On the fight against ISIS, Mulcair had the line of the night:

It is important to remember that this is not a NATO mission. This is not a United Nations mission.

When it was a question of going into Libya, under the United Nations duty to protect, the NDP voted for those airstrikes because it was a UN mission. When that started to morph into something completely different, we withdrew our support.

So, the answer to your question is we understand that there will be times when we have to, either under the NATO Charter or under our international obligations at the UN, to use force and we won’t shy away from that. But the real question here is that the only thing that we can do?

Indeed. Following the pictures of young Alan Kurid on a Turkish Beach, many called for doing something more for the Syrian refugees. Harper in all typical Harperness, said that the only way to deal with the refugee crisis is to continue bombing the hell out of them. Right. Because we’ve seen how well that is working out, right?

The fact is we used to be a peace keeping nation, known for providing humanitarian aid for those victims of war.  No more we are. Under Harper we must always punch above our weight.

What I would’ve liked to have seen was Trudeau and Mulcair somehow find a way to point out Harper’s support for Saudi Arabia by selling our Wheat Board and weapons to them. Saudi Arabia, a country not exactly known for human rights and where much of Al Qaeda originated. Apparently, the Saudis have been financing groups like ISIS. I was disappointed that Harper’s blatant hypocrisy on this file was not pointed out.

All in all, I saw no winners here.  Perhaps my standards for winning a debate are high, but to me,  someone who wins a debate would be the one to knock Harper off his script and sending him running for the nearest washroom or closet would’ve been better.  No one has ever been able to manage that feat. Harper is the incumbent, thus, he has a record to defend.  It has been said that this election come October 19 is a referendum on Harper’s continued governance, thus, it should’ve been Harper on the defensive at all times. He wasn’t.

Still, overall, it was a great debate. Lively discussion. The moderator did an excellent job.  One more leaders debate to come. Here’s to hoping!