Jack Layton

July 18, 1950 ~ August 22, 2011

Many articulate pieces have been written about Jack today. Seek them out and read them.

I'd also offer, that if you have not read Jack's letter to the nation, you should.

I'll say this about Jack Layton and his legacy.

If each of us spent just one day feeling and acting on the passion for justice Jack experienced throughout his life, the world would be a different and better place.

Sactimony Unbecoming

Michael Ignatieff wrote an interesting op-ed today, presumably prompted by a recently published report and article examining expatriates. In it Ignatieff shares his less than pleasant experience on the subject, thanks to the political games employed by the Conservative Party of Canada, but he speaks to the broader issue and what it might mean for the future.

The general thrust is the impact of attacking people who choose to live or study abroad when they return home and offer to contribute. It's a conversation worth having in my view and he simply shared some of his thoughts.

That seems to have bothered the predictable suspects. Snide comments on Twitter appeared this morning, then I caught Tim Powers contribution. I have to say, I did not expect it from him. Now, we know that Powers is often called on to be the Conservative talking head on TV panels, but this isn't that.

This is nothing more than a cheap shot by someone I thought had more decency. He not only implies that Ignatieff believes that his being an expat was the reason for the election results, he distorts what the Conservatives actually did do to his reputation.

Tim suggests that Ignatieff played into/fit the Conservative narrative perfectly. No, he did not. The narrative was designed and all the material they used to support it was contrived. Quotes taken out of context, juvenile photos and all nuance expunged. Those lies fit the narrative and were torqued. Tim then goes on to say that this particular political calculation was sophisticated. Again, no. It's old school, good 'ol boy, nasty politics, but then again, perhaps that passes for sophistication in certain circles.

The fictional picture that the Conservatives drew of Ignatieff, did indeed have an impact on voters. If you knocked on doors or did any work during the election, you'd know that, but that isn't really Michael's point.

To continue to attack him as if he is still a political opponent is crass in my view. He's now a private citizen who has the right to express his opinion and actually contribute to an important discussion. That opinion, can of course be debated, but sitting on high horse tossing out sophistry does not qualify as debate.

In Tim's case, it's both surprising and unbecoming.

Me, Myself and Aye

While it has been interesting to read the various post-mortems of the election and the pages and pages of advice being offered to the Liberal Party, my mind keeps drifting back to some reading I was doing pre-election.

It started with some of Susan Delacourt's writing, (and her links to others) on politicians and political parties shopping for votes. More specifically what she often refers to as Value versus Values. It's not only an interesting look at contemporary politics, but in my opinion a vital one.

While this is a simplistic overview, my interpretation of some of what I've read is this. Over time some political parties or machines, have developed methods of segmenting populations, examining their needs, producing a product/policy to fit that small segment and selling it to them. Not just selling it to them actually, but actively convincing them that they are right to want it, thereby validating their choice. Boutique politics providing value to that specific tax payer. Some argue that this kind of political marketing is just a natural evolution that fits into our 'consumer society'. Maybe, but I think it goes further than that. I think it's a strategy that feeds itself, encourages segregation/isolation of specific groups and discourages citizens from feeling part of the 'whole', or even a need to.

People end up voting for narrow issues that affect them without regard, or perhaps a realisation, of the impact elsewhere. Me, myself and aye, at the expense of the country as a whole, or at least a vision for it.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with a certain amount of individualism, but not in the classical sense that excludes any form of communal responsibility and regard. That, I believe, is both unhealthy and unwise in a society.

So, why have I been thinking about this? Well, I believe that the Conservative party excels at 'value' politics and while the Liberal party is at the rebuilding stage, I'd hate to see us go in that direction. Furthermore, I think the crux of the 'value v. values' argument can be made within the party at this stage and may be a place we can focus on as we move forward.

It's clear that most members have no interest in the top telling or feeding it's members the goodies they perceive we want. The argument has been made by many that the desire now is to work collaboratively for the common good. That is complex, painstaking and requires compromise in order to arrive at that broader vision, one that ultimately serves all. It's an open process that moves from the traditional, 'let's find out their problems, then go away for a while so we can come back and give them the solution.' The onus is not on one person, nor one entity. It's up to all involved to work together on an ongoing basis, each playing a vital role, each with something at stake.

So, not only do I see this as an important discussion for the country, I think it may have some applications to the Liberal party as it moves forward to rebuild and clarify it's values.

It's Friday so....Promises, Promises

Read whatever you like into this choice.

(via ~ Jian Gomeshi)

REFLECT ~ RENEW ~ REBUILD ~ RETURN