More on Liberal renewal

Following up on the previous post, for the Liberals to stand out clearly as an alternative, they need to quit fence sitting and take a clear stance on even issues that could alienate some voters.

Not doing so just costs them more, since voters clue in that they are not strong on certain policies but are simply attempting to dodge criticism from certain groups.

Here are f few examples of things that hurt Liberal credibility and pissed of more than a few long time supporters:

Ignatieff gave a good, clear answer on whether or not Canada should export asbestos.

"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware," Ignatieff replied. "But if asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else. So you have to be right, and our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."

Honest, responsible, right answer.  Unfortunately, he later backtracked on supporting a ban.

Ignatieff's dodge concerning Isreal's over-use of force against Palestinians.  Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but its on-going violations of human rights and excessive responses to attacks should be condemned clearly and without softeninng the condemnation.

Concerning the banning of the niqab when dealing with provincial services: if the Liberals as a party intend to support Charest's decision, then make it very, very clear that the ban is only in cases where a serious security concern trumps a woman's right to dress how she wishes.  Some of the arguments put forth in Quebec in trying to justify the ban go contrary to human rights, and do little to help women, muslim women in particular gain autonomy.  Telling a women she can't wear a niqab because it undermines her freedom is nonsense.  In Canada, all women have options, and it is far better to give them access to information and services that will allow them to make their own choices.

Columbia, and human rights:  Can't play both sides on this one.  If the Liberal party wants to stand up for human rights, then they shouldn't promote deals with countries who violate them.  Sure, Canada can have some impact on humman rights through certian partnerships, but let that be part of the deal.  Demand change first, assure themselves that the human rights actions have been taken, then make a deal.  This type of compromise for a buck is costing the Liberals, alienating their base.  Hard core Liberals don't like this kind of compromise on human rights.  Feels dirty.  Is wrong.  Takes away the right to object when others trade rights for dollars.

Canada 150 and where the hell do we go from here?

Some very good, thoughtful posts:

Red Libs vs. the Blue Dog and Bay Street Libs 

Expectations and other notes from Can150

Sober

Lots more on this at other sites as well, but I want  to write a bit about this.  Couldn't make it to our local Canada 150 meeting today as I have a nasty bug, but a couple of my co-pilots did and the same theme came up there as seems to be coming up everywhere this weekend with the Libs.

Far and Wide (linked to above) asks if we should take the hard line and tell the truth to voters.  Alison at Galloping beaver talks about the need to stop catering to the small c blue Libs.  Impolitical (read it!) says:

The bigger question seems to me is what Ignatieff put his finger on yesterday during his press conference, whether our political system can address the problems facing the country...All of this makes it tough, but not impossible, to be truth telling, to be legitimately inspiring, to break out and grab people's imaginations.

I am far less of a political analyst than those three bloggers, so here I have the advantage of offering more of an average Canadian perspective.

The Liberals can keep watching the polls, can keep trying to please as many segments of society as possible, can try to make things sound more positive than they are and shape unrealistic policies to go along with this just so they don't risk turning off voters.  However, by doing this, they will be what so many people complain they are lately: not a whole hell of a lot better than, or different from the conservatives.  Both parties are neck-to-neck, and that's a big reason why.  The Liberals aren't offering anything different.

In offering something different, they shouldn't go for the nice shiny toy, no matter how fetching it is.  Tricks are what Harper's party uses, and that's dangerous because it is short sighted, it is found out eventually, and - this is most important - it does not make for a healthy, informed electorate or democracy.

If telling the truth costs the Liberals the next election, and it may, it will most likely give them a good healthy win in the one that follows, and that is far, far more important because through telling the truth, they will not only be addressing issues in a realistic fashion, they will be educating the public and preparing them for the very difficult decisions that most of us who keep informed know are coming.

The Liberals need to take the hard line of truth not only to gain credibility, but to do what any political party acting responsibly should do: create a healthier democracy by informing voters so that we can start dealing realistically with much needed change in a rapidly changing world.