LPC 2013: A Promising Start
Thu, November 22, 2012 at 6:52 PM 
Party infighting is not the same thing as a good policy debate. Just ask poor Mackenzie Bowell.Admit it: you thought the Liberal leadership race would amount to nothing more than a popularity contest, devoid of substance. Now that I’ve made this arrogant and sweeping assumption about you, I'll add that you were wrong: the race has kicked off with, get this, a debate over policy. I know, it's weird.
Justin Trudeau is in favour of the China-Nexen deal. David Bertschi is opposed. Both seem intent on explaining why. I’m inclined to agree with Trudeau on this one, but here’s the point: the race already looks like a real contest of real ideas, which is a very, very good thing.
Martha Hall Findlay and Deborah Coyne have come out early with interesting policy positions too. And we might expect Marc Garneau to join the foreign takeover debate by reiterating his ideas about the “net benefit” test.
This is what politics should be about, and what the LPC should be about, and what this race should be about: ideas, and discussions thereof. What a concept.
Some in the media may be tempted to portray the Nexen conversation as more Liberal Party infighting, mainly because they are drawn to “Liberals are fighting” stories like rats to a pile of trash. Even some Liberals will confuse this with party infighting, mainly because they are petrified of the press’ occasional rats-to-trash behaviour.
But, lo: a disagreement over policy in the context of a leadership race is reaaaaaaally not the same thing as a party kneecapping itself through infighting. The former is to the latter as David Lee Roth is to Sammy Hagar. In a word, different.
Party infighting is what Martin did to Chrétien; or Chrétien to Turner; or Turner to Trudeau Sr.; or Mulroney to Clark; or Dalton Camp to Dief; or a-bunch-of-people to Dion; or Charles Tupper to Mackenzie Bowell (“a nest of traitors,” he lovingly called his cabinet). I could go on - it’s a long and proud Canadian tradition.
But it's not what’s happening here. This looks a lot more like substantive policy debate, which implies occasional disagreement. It's easy to get jaded in our aggressive hyper-partisan political reality, but surely we can still tell the difference. Debate - make that respectful debate - is the the sign of a healthy party, itself a sign of a healthy democracy.
So props to JT for getting the policy ball rolling. Props to Bertschi for picking up on the cue. Future-props to any candidate who does the same, mega-props to anyone who demands more idea-driven debates, and meta-props* to those who sign up as supporters to get in on these debates with their own ideas, and help choose a leader.
* Props also to me for my relentless efforts to revive terrible 90’s lingo. Word to your mother.
Reader Comments (1)
Word... Props... You are such a geek pascal;) agreed on the policy discussion though.