Books I Read: Where Men Win Glory

Remembrance Day in Canada, and Veterans Day in the United States is this Wednesday. With on-going wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this day takes on greater resonance.

A couple of weeks ago, I read Jon Krakauer’s compelling new book, “Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman“. Tillman was a starting safety for the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League and a rising star, who, in the spring of 2002, declined a contract extension and instead walked away from the NFL to enlist in the military. He became the first and only athlete from a major professional sport to do so. Two years later, he was killed in Afghanistan in an incident of friendly fire.

The title of the book only tells part of the story. The life of Pat Tillman is certainly a big part of it. Tillman, his younger brother Kevin (who enlisted alongside him, and served in units with him right up until his death), and Pat’s wife Marie are central characters in the book. Through them (Pat wrote religiously in his diary), we get a glimpse into the life and mindset of a soldier, and of how it affects their loved ones as well. The book also covers the history of Afghanistan, starting in the 1970s. Early on, the book alternates between sections about Tillman’s life and the developments overseas, leading up until the decision to enlist. As much as the book is about Tillman, it’s also about Afghanistan, and how American decisions over the previous three decades contributed to the present day situation.

The two stories converge in 2002 with Tillman’s enlistment. From then on, the story focuses on three angles:

- The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on a macro level
- The Tillmans’ involvement in those wars
- The mindset of Tillman, mostly as told through his diaries, with some focus on Kevin and Marie as well.

Krakauer pulls no punches when examining the wars and the actions of the pentagon. He investigates and criticizes their attempts to spin the Jessica Lynch capture and Tillman’s death into good PR. He is critical of their strategies, offering that the leadership ignored advice of their subordinates which would have greatly increased the chances of an early, decisive victory. He goes into painstaking detail to try and recreate the precise series of events of the day where Pat Tillman perished.

He continuously draws on Tillman’s writing, both to frame situations, and to better understand Tillman. This aspect of the book is fascinating. It gives the reader a glimpse into Tillman’s thoughts, and how they evolved from enlistment (he felt a sense of duty) to the frustration of being away from his wife, and of having to serve in Iraq (which he felt was an illegal war). Reading it, I wondered if it could serve as a reasonable proxy for how other soldiers feel and think as well? I’m interested to see how it compares to “The Unforgiving Minute” once I’ve read it.

If you like feel-good books, this is not for you. While fascinating and well written, it’s ultimately also pretty depressing. There are protagonists, but no winners. The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq don’t resolve themselves in this book, and they likely won’t for years after. In all likelihood, both will result in stalemates at best, with lots of damage done to all parties involved. The Tillmans enlisted for the honourable reasons, Pat’s life was ended, and Kevin’s and their family’s was devastated on that fateful day in April 2004.

All this being said, if you want to read more about these on-going conflicts, and about how soldiers think and how their lives are affected, this is definitely worth a read.

Also worth reading: Drew Magary’s review.

State of Alberta: At a Crossroads

Let’s dispense with the drama of this coming weekend. Premier Ed Stelmach will almost certainly survive the leadership review at his party’s convention. I’m guessing he’ll earn 75-85% support, and that’s the last we’ll hear for about leadership challenges for a while. For the reasons why, I will point you to Duncan’s blog. He does a much better job than I can of explaining what will likely happen (and why) this weekend.

There is, however, one factor Duncan didn’t cover that I feel will help the Premier this weekend – there’s no obvious successor in the party. The Premier would find himself in a more difficult predicament if the party had someone else to turn to. In this case, the options are Ted Morton (does he appeal to moderates?), Dave Hancock (does he appeal to conservatives, and to anyone outside of Edmonton?), Brett Wilson (is he serious, and is he electable?) and, beyond that, well, it’s a tough question. Within Cabinet, there don’t appear to be many options that scream “leadership material”.

Successful governments tend to have strong ministers surrounding the first minister, many of whom seem capable of taking over the reins some day. In the early years of the Tory dynasty, Lougheed surrounded himself in Cabinet with what was seen as many of Alberta’s best and brightest. In the Klein cabinet, there were always Ministers seen as potential successors. Some of them were felled (Mar) or damaged (Norris, Oberg) by the time the race to replace him actually happened, though it didn’t stop the latter two from running. In Premier Stelmach’s cabinet, the strong ministers seem to be missing. Maybe they’ll develop over time – first-term MLA and Minister of Justice Alison Redford is highly regarded, and Parliamentary Assistants such as Doug Griffiths, Janice Sarich, Diana McQueen, and Raj Sherman have the pedigree for leading cabinet positions. But at this moment in time, there is a lack of depth at the top ranks of the party in terms of potential leaders.

So where does that leave the Tories? They’ll get through this weekend without any maor infighting. But they’re immediately faced with continuing public frustration over their handling of the H1N1 vaccine rollout, and with, for the moment, a surge in support for the Wildrose Alliance Party. Factor in that the Alliance surge seems to be coming mostly at the expense of the Tories, and there is cause for concern.

It’s too early to tell if support for the Alliance is firm, but I think we can say that, for the time being, the Tories’ free ride is over. They have a party that appears willing and quite possibly able to challenge them. Recently, I outlined what I think the Alliance needs to do to cement their support, and how the centre-left can make a stronger push for government. Both of those scenarios depend on the Tories continuing to lose touch with voters, opening up space for a challenger (or two) to move in and occupy on the political spectrum. Governments, it is said, tend to defeat themselves. This normally happens through scandal, atrophy (and losing touch with voters), or a lack of ideas. The Tories seem okay on the first one, veering towards potential problems with the second, and in trouble on the third.

Another challenge they face is one faced by all parties in power – particularly those who have been in power for a long period of time – is that it’s tough to gauge how committed their supporters are. Certainly, there are lots of committed Tories in Alberta, but it’s likely that a good number of supporters were attracted to the party and stuck with them because, to put it bluntly, it’s better to be on the winning side (the Liberal Party of Canada is faced with this problem as well). If the Alliance continues to poll well, and to look like a real alternative, that will test the level of support from more conservative Tories. If the centre-left picks up steam, that will test the commitment of more moderate supporters, particularly those in more urban ridings. Can the Tories continue to hold the middle, or will they be pulled in one direction or another? More importantly, how long will voters continue to give them a chance? I suspect that much of the support you see for the Alliance in polls at this moment is an expression of frustration with the status quo (be it the governing party itself, or the overall political climate). The Tories can probably win most of these voters back, but the longer they wait, and the more comfortable voters get with the idea of supporting someone else, the more challenging it will be to win them back. There will be a point of no return when a given voter decides they’ve had enough, and will either stay home or vote for someone else. When that happens, only something dramatic (think trading in Getty for Klein) can swing them back. I don’t think most voters have reached that point, but they’re getting closer every week.

So that’s where I see Alberta politics at this moment. We’re at a crossroads. In the coming months, and couple of years before the next general election, something will give. Maybe the Alliance will fizzle, or maybe it will continue to establish support. Maybe the centre-left will regroup and start to build momentum, or maybe it will continue to in-fight, eat its own, and further splinter. Or maybe Paul Wells’ first rule of politics will hold, and the status quo will assert itself. I’ve been wrong before, but I think we’re rapidly approaching a point of no return where the status quo will crumble. It will depend on a number of factors – some out of our control (oil and gas revenues), some within our control (do progressives or conservatives put forward the stronger vision for Alberta?) In any case, I think we’re heading for a realignment of some sorts in Alberta over the coming two elections, and 5-10 year time frame.

Worth Reading on This Topic:
Daveberta: Stelmach Tories Diving; What’s Going to Happen at the PC Leadership Review?
Chris LaBossiere: Running up the Middle…to the Right of Centre
Ken Chapman: Is Alberta About to Enter an Empire of Illusion Stage Politically?

State of Alberta: What’s the Matter With Progressives?

In 2004, American writer Thomas Frank published a much-celebrated book, titled ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas?‘ The book focuses on how the once populist, progressive state morphed into a bedrock of conservatism, and why, in the author’s view, people voted against their own economic self-interest to support a Republican Party whose economic policies did little for struggling individuals, and a lot for big companies who don’t need a hand up.

I think of my home province of Alberta whenever I think of Frank’s book. The conventional wisdom, both inside and outside the province, is that Alberta is a really conservative place. But do the facts bear it out? On the surface, yes. Albertans vote for Conservative parties, and have since the Great Depression. But do they really endorse conservative policies? What follows are some of my thoughts on the subject. My first State of Alberta post examined the challenges facing the Wildrose Alliance. Today, I try to make sense of the centre-left, and offer some advice.

How to Describe Alberta Politics?
I won’t dispute that the myth of Alberta being conservative is well-entrenched. If pressed, most Albertans would likely identify as such. But is it really conservative? As prominent conservatives Tom Flanagan and Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledge, it differs from the Tory tradition that we generally associate with conservatism. Certainly, Alberta’s penchant for suddenly throwing out a government in favour of a new, unproven alternative, is just about as un-Tory as you get.

Alberta politics is, and has traditionally been, more populist than Tory. The initial success provincially of the United Farmers and the Social Credit Party were based on populist sentiment (as was the Reform Party federally in the late 1980s and 1990s). Flanagan and Harper summarize the Alberta position when discussing Albertans and Quebec Nationalists:

They are nationalist for much the same reason that Albertans are populist — they care about their local identity and the culture that nourishes it, and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life.

I would agree, and say that “populist” is a better definition than “conservative”.

Do Albertans Endorse Conservative Policies?
Not really. First, our provincial government spends more on average than other provinces (most of whom are led by ostensibly centre-left governments), and in 2008 the government was rewarded with an increased majority after bringing in a record-sized budget the year before. Industries such as agriculture and oil and gas are, or have been, major beneficiaries of government subsidies.

Also, Tory government prior to the Klein years pursued a big government agenda that could at most be described as “Red Tory” if not downright “Liberal”. Understanding that politics overall were more centre-left in that period, they still pursued crown corporations, strong government investment in areas such as education, culture, and the arts, and the Getty government intervened in the private sector at a rate that would shock the Obama administration.

Most positions Albertans hold are not incompatible with centre-left ideas. A good template is found south of the border. Gary Hart, the former Colorado Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, wrote a memo outlining how the Democrats should target (and can win) the west instead of focusing attention on the south. Most, if not all, of the points in the memo are applicable to Alberta, and would form the basis of an agenda people could get behind.

Is the Liberal Brand Beyond Repair, and Totally Unelectable?
Many people think so, and probably with some justification. A lot of Albertans, when asked, would probably say they will never vote Liberal. They may believe that at this exact moment in time, but politics (and people) change. Six years ago, many people would have said they’d never endorse the new Conservative Party of Canada, or vote for a party led by Stephen Harper. Many of those people also likely voted Conservative in 2006 and/or 2008. 10 years ago, many Nova Scotians would have balked at the idea of giving the New Democrats a majority government. Earlier this year, they did precisely that with no hesitation. In 1987, the Progressive Conservative government in New Brunswick was wiped out – they lost every seat, and were being outflanked on the right shortly thereafter by the Confederation of Regions Party. They went up to 3 then 6 seats in the subsequent two elections before winning a commanding majority in 1999. We could continue with examples, but I hope the point is made: parties and voters change. What is the case now will not always be so.

Certainly, the Liberal brand (and party) has issues it needs to overcome if it wants to challenge for and form government. Here are a few that I believe are not insurmountable, but also don’t receive the attention they deserve. In most of these cases, you could also use the term “New Democrat” for “Liberal” as an appropriate proxy.

The Tories Have Owned the Centre
Like most parties that win and hold on to government, the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta has been pretty adept at holding the centre. In practice, they have been more of a “governing” party, the way the federal Liberals were for years, than a “conservative” party. Many of their urban MLAs would not be out of place in the Liberal Party. There has not been, quite simply, a lot of space on the political spectrum for the opposition parties to occupy.

Liberals Move Away
Andy brought this point up when we were discussing the issue a while back, and I think it’s well founded. It was based on anecdotal evidence more than anything, but it seemed to us that a disproportionate number of active Liberals we knew from University had moved away. Instead of working to build up the provincial party (and the federal party in Alberta), they were plying their trade in Ottawa, or Toronto, or in a couple of cases, the United States. It’s understandable in some cases, as there are a lot more opportunities for a Liberal wanting to work in politics there than here, but it’s kind of a circular problem. Liberals leave because of opportunities elsewhere, hurting the effort to build a bigger base here in Alberta.

They Haven’t Separated Themselves From the Actions of the National Party.
While the National Energy Program didn’t kill the oil boom (oil prices collapsed worldwide in the 1980s), it certainly didn’t help the situation and almost certainly made it worse. Would it kill people to admit this was a bad idea? Also, provincial Liberals and New Democrats should push back any time their national party leadership demonizes Alberta. The federal Liberal party has been especially bad for making Alberta a punching bag at different times. Where have Liberals, especially the provincial leaders, been in standing up for their province? People are unlikely to support a party they don’t see as representing them.

Fiscal Responsibility Has Been Conceded to the Right
The term “fiscal conservative” has become synonymous with good financial management. This sends the message that Conservatives are to be trusted with budgets (and government), and that progressives are somehow not up to par. Progressives need to push back against this. I, for one, support government being “fiscally responsible”. That means balancing the books when possible, but it’s not adverse to Keynesian spending, or preserving social programs. It’s about what’s doing best for everyone; true fiscal conservatism doesn’t allow for that flexibility, so I for one would like to brand myself as a “fiscally responsible”, not “fiscally conservative”.

Progressive Keep Looking for a Miracle Cure
This Toronto Star editorial, “Ailing Liberals Keep Looking for a Miracle Cure“, also applies to progressives in Alberta. For some, it’s the thought that creating a new party will cure all that ails the centre-left (I find proponents of this to treat the perpetual, inherent unelectability of a Liberal or New Democrat party as self-evident, and ignore any diversity amongst voters who are disenchanted with the current government). For others, it’s the idea that a charismatic leader will come along, and dramatically transform politics in Alberta. Well, it’s not that simple.

An idiom I heard more than once a year ago was that we needed “our Obama” to shake things up. A charismatic leader helps a lot, and may even be necessary. But it’s not sufficient in and of itself. People forget that Obama for America was a long-term campaign. It was functioning for about a year before the first caucus in the primary, and had been running for nearly two by general election day. More importantly, the progressive movement in the United States had been gathering momentum for a number of years. Organizers and other volunteers cut their teeth on Dean for America, bloggers rallied around Ned Lamont’s primary challenge against Joe Liebermann, and the 2006 mid-term elections saw a Democratic surge. Obama’s campaign was in many ways an extension of the work already happening. It took it to a new level, and brought in new tactics, technologies, and people, but it by no means emerged from the abyss. Progressives were already beefing up their organizations across the country by 2007. Progressives, Liberals, New Democrats, would be well served to spend their time building a base of support and establishing roots throughout the province if they wish to win government some day.

Some lessons on movement-building, and how it disappeared in Alberta after the second World War, can be found in Alvin Finkel’s history of the labour movement in Alberta.

This is, of course, to take nothing away from the Albertans who have worked or volunteered their time for the Liberals or the NDP. Almost all of the ones I have the pleasure of knowing are talented and committed people. But it’s hard to win a battle with a small army.

It Wasn’t That Long Ago That the Alberta Liberal Party Was the Government-in-Waiting
I was too young to really understand politics in the late Getty/early Klein years, but even into the 1993 election, the Liberals were thought to have a chance to win. The old adage seemed to be true, governments defeat themselves, and a mistake-prone Getty government, further constrained by falling resource revenues, seemed to be a spent force.

So an interesting happened. The first party to see a resurgence, in the 1986 general election (Getty’s first), was the New Democratic Party, who with 16 MLAs formed the largest opposition since the Social Credit in 1971. In 1988, Edmonton Mayor Laurence Decore took over as Liberal leader, and his party’s vote surged (ahead of the New Democrats) in 1989. Decore saw his party’s standing surge afterwards, largely because he had keyed in on an issue that mattered to people – the mounting provincial debt, and the importance of fiscal management.

Now, it’s important to digress for a minute. The conventional wisdom is that parties have formed government in Alberta from the right. That is simply not the case. The United Farmers and SoCreds both came to power as populist movements, pushing many issues associated with the left (the UFA even co-operated with the Labour Party in urban ridings). Similarly, in 1971 Lougheed’s party was more progressive than the governing Social Credit. Decore resonated not because he attacked from the right, but because he found the centre. Deficit-fighting and balanced budgets became the norm in this period everywhere – even centre-left governments (Roy Romanow’s NDP in Saskatchewan, Bill Clinton’s Presidency, Tony Blair’s “New Labour”) embraced it. Just like the Alberta Tories have generally held the centre (and therefore government), so too did Decore position himself to win by grabbing the centre, until the Tories took it back. It took the emergence of populist, centrist Ralph Klein (and a major Decore gaffe) to turn the tables. Take away those two things, and the Liberals probably win in 1993. Disenchanted with the governing party, voters turned to two established parties, not a new party. Even more astounding to the conventional wisdom, they turned to two centre-left parties, not a right-of-centre one.

Recent history shows that voters will give centre-left parties a chance, and the Liberal brand is not by definition toxic. This is good news for progressives. There is reason to think that Alberta is not nearly as conservative as it would appear to be on the surface, and there is room for a progressive movement to be built and to grow.

The bad news, of course, is that there is much work to be done to realize the movement’s potential.

Diversifying One BioMile at a Time

I’m a big proponent of economic diversification, so naturally I was interested in this story coming out of Drayton Valley, Alberta. The city has secured the commitment of CLIB 2021, a German collaborative, to open an office as part of the BioMile, an initiative to create a biotechnology park.

It’s worth reading the full background on the BioMile, but here’s a bit I really like:

Rather than view the closure of the Weyerhaeuser’s Drayton Valley OSB facility as a detriment, we have been working to create new opportunities in using the wood bio-mass in new and innovative processes. Despite the loss of tax revenue and jobs that resulted from the OSB closure, we believe that the Bio-Mile will pull our community through these hard times.

Oil and gas, along with forestry, is still a big part of the local economy. These industries may yet prove to be drivers of the economy in the coming years, or they may not. Drayton Valley, and the Grande Alberta Economic Region of which it is a part, are playing it smart by reaching out to emerging industries, and finding ways to turn potentially bad situations (such as the Weyerhauser closure) into opportunities. I especially like how many of the BioMile initiatives tie into the forestry industry – using the present to build a stronger future. The BioMile is by no means assured to be a success, but it’s a positive step. The successful communities going forward are going to be the ones that invest in emerging and successful industries, and that have a diversified base to work from.

Meanwhile, in Edmonton, we will be welcoming a new City Manager in January. Simon Farbrother, whose career started in the region, has served as Chief Adminstrative Officer for the City of Waterloo since 2005. In his time there, he was one of the drivers behind the Intelligent Waterloo initiative. The city has become a hub for technology and innovation, notably as the home of Research in Motion (RIM). This has been driven in part by the presence of the University of Waterloo, which is recognized for its strong math, physics, and computing science programs. Having been involved in Waterloo’s success, I’m optimistic that Farbrother can help spearhead similar initiatives in Edmonton.

Now, this is not to say that Edmonton (or any city) should necessarily strive to be a tech hub, or a hub for bio-industries. Those strategies may be right for Waterloo and Drayton Valley (respectively), but every city is different. The lesson is to use your existing strengths, whatever those may be, to work at diversifying your local economy and ensuring you are better prepared for the future. I’ll be watching Drayton Valley with interest, and hoping to see other communities follow suit.

Recap: George W. Bush Speaks in Edmonton

Last night, I attended George W. Bush’s talk in Edmonton, courtesy of Chris LaBossiere. Bush was speaking at an event titled “A Conversation with George W. Bush”. Like most events involving a current/former President of the United States, there was much spectacle surrounding it. Here is a short recap, and some of my thoughts on what the 43rd President had to say.

“This is What Democracy Looks Like”
Protesters gathered outside the Shaw Conference Centre, and across the street in front of Canada Place. They chanted, shouted displeasure at attendees, and at least one person was hit with candy. As I waited in line to get in, a protester repeatedly shouted “shame on you! shame on you!”, pointing at those of us in line. I found it amusing to think that, in almost every situation, I likely agree with their end goals; I just disagree on methods and means to get there. I wondered what the protesters were hoping to accomplish. Protest is a valid and valuable form of social action, but I think it loses its effect when overused. What was the point of protesting here? We all know Bush led the US into Iraq under false pretenses, that under his watch the government tortured prisoners. We know that he mismanaged the economy, running up increasing deficits while also cutting taxes, especially for the highest income earners. So again, what is a protest going to accomplish in this situation?

Protesters outside the Shaw Conference Centre.

As we stood there being shamed, another part of the crowd chanted “This is what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!” I found this entirely appropriate. Some people exercise their democratic right to dissent and protest peacefully, another chooses to listen to a former leader speak about his time in office and his views on the world, regardless of how they perceive and judge his deeds and words.

Protesters remained until after the talk.

“Rational Discussion” on Historical Events
President Bush spoke for about 40 minutes, saying he wanted to have a “rational discussion on historical events”. He started with a few paeans to Canada, and some folksy, self-deprecating jokes. I was immediately reminded why, once upon a time, many people liked him. He seems very down to earth, and easy to relate to.

Bush talked about some of the major events from his two terms, framing them in the context of lessons. For example, he stressed the importance of how you handle the unexpected – using 9/11 as an example from his time in life. He said that he never wanted to be a wartime president – “no one should”, he wanted to be the “education president”. Instead, he was forced to turn to foreign policy.

He also talked about the economy, particularly how they responded to the financial crisis of 2008. In his view, the actions they took “saved the system”. I will note that he made good points about the importance of trade, and the dangers of retreating into protectionism when times get tough.

Foreign policy was a central part of his speech. He talked also of the importance of staying engaged in the world. As proof that countries can change, he gave the example of Japan, who 60 years before 9/11 was at war with the United States. In present times, Japan is a strong ally. He spoke of individual rights, especially women’s rights, and mentioned that he’s setting up a mentorship program for women in the Middle East through his new institute at SMU. He also spoke about the importance of hope – that when people become hopeless, they are susceptible to join terrorist groups. I actually agree with this, to a point – I see extreme poverty (and a corresponding lack of education) as being major drivers for recruiting terrorists. Poverty anywhere drives people to extreme conditions – crime, gangs, etc. Bush didn’t hone in on the specifics, but in broad terms, he was on to something.

Which brings up a really interesting point. If I knew nothing about him or his time in office, his speech would sound pretty good. Speaking not to the methods of how to achieve them, many of the broad themes and goals Bush spoke about would resonate with most people – even progressives. The importance of giving people hope, of not seeking out war, of supporting young democracies and individual freedom. Unfortunately, much of what he did in office contradicts or works at cross-purpose with these stated ideals. I felt a real cognitive dissonance as I listened to him speak.

He was also disingenuous at times. After his 40 minute talk, Bush was joined on stage by Kelly Hrudey, who sat down to ask him a few questions, mostly about the Iraq War. Bush stated that the US was in Iraq “at the invitation of a democratically elected government”, which ignores the fact that this government was installed (before later winning an election) by the Coalition, and that the US went into the country before anyone invited them in. He also made some tenuous claims about his treatment of prisoners, claiming that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detention facilities were treated very well, and arguing that the US is not bound by the Geneva Convention when dealing with those who attack them but aren’t uniformed combatants. He defended the use of certain interrogation techniques, which I assume most would consider torture (he didn’t specify which techniques), claiming they only used it three times, and they got valuable information that saved American lives. Based on what he said, I’m assuming the “three times” meant “three prisoners”, and he was talking about waterboarding, since he gave the example of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. President Bush’s last statement, about the use of these “interrogation techniques”, drew a standing ovation, which prompted a protester in the audience to shout at the crowd for applauding torture.

What Do I Make of All This?
Unlike many of the audience, I wasn’t there because I am a fan of President Bush (I saw pretty much every young Tory from my university days in the lineup to get in). Rather, I was curious to see what he had to say, as I feel it’s worth listening to anyone’s view, and I hoped he would shed some insight into some of the major issues from his term.

I wasn’t sure what to make of President Bush at times during the speech. Certainly, I agree with Chris’ summation that he is an idealist. He talked in broad ideals, and as mentioned before, most would agree with them. Rather, it was knowing how his term played out, and some of the specific examples he gave (such as the comments on torture) that I fundamentally disagree with.

One of the instructive parts came towards the end. When asked for lessons he’s learned, Bush stressed the importance of “surrounding yourself with capable people”, then delegating. I have heard this characterized of Bush from a couple of political insiders. Bush is very much a hands-off leader, and likes to delegate. I think this could explain a lot of his presidency, at least in terms of foreign policy. He surrounded himself with people he saw sharing his broad goals, and from his comments on delegating, you could infer that he relied on them for the means to get there, especially since his circle of advisers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) were more experienced that he was.

Nothing in his speech made me think higher of his actions of president, but it was instructive to listen to his speech. Hearing someone’s perspective is never a bad thing, and gives you a better feel for why he made some of the decisions he did.

More coverage:
My Flickr set of the protests
Graham Thomson: Edmonton Gives Bush Warm Welcome
Unlimited Blog: Democracy Wins as George W. Takes Edmonton
Steven Dollansky: Thought George Bush was fantastic.

Also, if 1200 words on this isn’t enough for you, please ask me questions.

State of Alberta: Wildrose Blooms

This is part one of a three part series on the state of politics in Alberta I’m running this week.

Danielle Smith was elected leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party on Saturday. Earning over 75% of the roughly 8300 votes cast, Smith takes over the fledgling party with a strong mandate.

Smith and her party have been on the receiving end of a lot of publicity, mostly positive, since their surprise win in the Calgary-Glenmore by-election last month. In polls released over the past few weeks, the party finds itself second only to the governing Tories, having lapped the Liberals and NDP before electing a leader or putting forward policies.

Four months ago, Danielle Smith first caught my attention, after she delivered what I thought was a very savvy speech at her party’s AGM. She subsequently performed well throughout the campaign, and at the one forum I took in.

Things are going pretty well for Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Alliance right now, but they could also quickly go off the rails. Here are some key issues and questions I see that need to be addressed between now and the next election.

Will Danielle Smith Try to Get Into the Legislature Before the Next General Election?
The next general election is likely to be held in 2012, and will be held no later than the spring of 2013, 3 1/2 years from now. That’s a long time for a party leader to be out of the legislature, and it will be a challenge for Smith to stay prominent in the public eye until then.

With only one MLA, who was only elected a month ago, the chances of Smith running for a seat appear to be in the hands of MLAs from other parties. She would likely run for any opening in Calgary, but will she run outside of her home city if the opportunity presents herself? I see the argument for her trying to win a seat, but I also see an argument for her spending her time criss-crossing Alberta while selling her party’s message, and focusing efforts on the questions that follow.

Can Smith Surround Herself With Talented Candidates?
The party can’t succeed if it’s perceived as a one woman show. It’s imperative that Smith surround herself with capable candidates.

A cautionary tale can be found in the story of Mario Dumont. Dumont, leader of the right-wing Action Democratique du Quebec (ADQ), came within a whisker of forming government in Quebec in 2007, instead forming the official opposition in Quebec’s first ever minority government situation. It was assumed by many that he was the Premier in waiting. Instead, 18 months later his party was decimated, returning to third place status, and 2 1/2 years later, he is out of politics and hosting a talk show.

Of the many problems that plagued Dumont, one was the perceived lack of quality MNAs and candidates surrounding him. Smith could fall prey to the same problem if she can’t attract strong candidates. Smith’s team could in large part make or break her attempt to challenge the Tories.

Can They Build an Organization in Time to Compete?
Smith and other WAP boosters have talked about challenging for government in 2012.

As of right now, they have constituency associations in about half of the ridings throughout the province. I imagine many of those are rumps. It’s going to be a significant challenge for the party to build strong constituency associations across the province in a matter of a couple of years. This might be worth watching as a sign of party strength. If we see a grassroots effort from people setting up and participating in constituency associations, it’s a sign that support for the party is real, not just a passing fad.

What Do They Stand For?
The million dollar question for a party with limited policy currently on the books. Smith’s overwhelming win gives her the mandate to pursue a big-tent conservative agenda. Had social conservative Mark Dyrholm done better, there would be more pressure on her to give social conservatism a prominent role. In any case, I see both sides as needing the support of the others – Smith needs them as part of her big tent, and social conservatives probably still see the party as the best avenue for their issues. What will Smith be willing to give them, and what do they want to stay in the tent?

As for other policies, Smith’s campaign website might provide some insight.

The Road to 44?
If the party is serious about forming government, where do they find the support to do so? Are there enough disenchanted Tories (or even Liberals, New Democrats, or Greens) willing to come over? How much appeal do they have for the 60% of voters who stayed home.

A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep?
I feel like Alberta politics is in flux right now. I’m not convinced the support for any party is firm, especially the Wildrose Alliance. I do think they are well-poised to firm up and continue to attract support in the coming months, but their success will depend in large part on how they respond to the questions listed above. It will also depend on the actions of the other parties, but those are topics for another day.

Related:
Daveberta: A Wake Up Call For Alberta’s Political Establisment
Ken Chapman: Smith Wins Wildrose Leadership: Now What?

Change Camp Edmonton: Evolution, Not Revolution

I attended the first ever Change Camp Edmonton yesterday.

I wrote about Change Camp on Friday, ahead of the event. What follows is my post-event reaction and thoughts.

Justin Archer introduces Change Camp and provides an overview at the start of the day.

The day got started around 9am, with an overview of the event concept, process, and “rules of engagement”. I was impressed with the level of turnout at the very start – there appeared to be 100 people or so there by the start, and people trickled in throughout the day. I’d say around 150 people participated throughout the day, but I haven’t seen an official count. There was a pretty good balance in gender, and good mix of ages, which I was pleasantly surprised to see. There wasn’t, however, much ethnic diversity. That’s nobody’s fault, but this is something we’d ideally see more of at future events, especially given that Edmonton is a city with growing immigrant and visible minority (especially aboriginal) populations.

Following the introduction, the floor was opened up to participants to suggest topics for the day. You can see the result of that in the Grid that was developed. This is one of the things that I enjoyed about Change Camp. In many situations, people like to use the expression “you get out of it what you put in”. This expression is, in fact, true at Change Camp. The agenda for the day is completely up to the participants to set. I was impressed by the number of participants willing to put forward topics for discussion. As you can see from the Grid, the schedule for the day filled up.

Wendy Andrews leads a session titled “Depolarizing Community Conversation”.

There were three morning sessions, followed by a lunch break and two more afternoon sessions, then a wrap-up session and a short opportunity to talk about action items. This was all followed by an excellent after-party at Original Joe’s.

There were a number of interesting topics, I was disappointed I was unable to participate in some of them, particularly the sessions on “Using Technology to Elect More Women“, “Cultivating Albertans’ Ingenuity“, and “How to Encourage Power Sharing“. I did participate in the sessions on “De-polarizing Community Conversation“, “Urban Design“, “How to Create More Engagement” (which I had the privilege of facilitating), and “Preserving Accountability Journalism“.

Participants discuss ideas at a session titled “How to Create More Engagement”.

In Friday’s post, I said the following in anticipation of the event:

I’m not sure what to expect in terms of outcomes, but I see the process itself as being valuable. It’s the kind of get-together I suggested here (in paragraphs 6-7) needs to happen more often; citizens coming together to discuss, learn, and collaborate. One event or idea likely won’t change the world, but many in aggregate may bring about large-scale change, or plant the seeds for future changes.

After the event, I feel that this statement accurately sums up my feelings. I found the whole day to be very beneficial. Towards the end of the day, one of the event organizers used the term “political revolution” to describe the event. This is, in my opinion, an exaggeration. The event was hardly revolutionary, rather it was an important event in a series of other events or avenues for dialogue and participation that will improve the civic and political situation in Alberta. I don’t say this to diminish the event’s value. Change is largely incremental; every event or action that makes up a part of it is immensely important.

Change Camp organizers Alain Saffel and Jason Darrah drop in on the “Accountability Trust” session about a new model for journalism.

I hope the event happens again in the future, for a couple of reasons. First, because of the value of the event in and of itself in encouraging dialogue, participation, and thought. Second, because I think the event would be even more productive now that the concept is better understood, and many people have been through it once already. Done a second time, Change Camp will be more effective.

The best thing from the event was seeing the willingness from people to participate, and the quality, and thoughtfulness of the comments that people contributed. This is even more impressive when you consider that the format was new to most participants. Three weeks from now, there will be a follow-up event, and I hope to see as many people in attendance as possible. The follow-up event has the potential to lead to more engagement, and to action.

Change Camp organizer Mack Male leads a discuss about next steps for pursuing open data in Edmonton.

To be fair, there was a session at the end to discuss ideas participants had for actions coming out of the day. Three such ideas were proposed – one dealing with open data, and two others that I can’t remember.

The challenge with seeking out action items immediately following the session was articulate well by Raffaella at the after-party. She made the case that there was a lot of ideas and information to take in throughout the day, and people need time to think about it, absorb it, and make sense of it. I agree with this. I hope the follow-up event can provide structure for this; if it doesn’t, some mechanism for doing so should be addressed for future Change Camps. I also believe that focusing on “action items” is a narrow definition of actions stemming from Change Camp. For many, the impetus for change may lead them to get (more) involved in community organizations, government, etc. In other words, to become more active citizens, rather than pursuing a single specific initiative.

In summary, I see this event contributing to many other positive trends that will increase civic participation and engagement in Edmonton. I’m happy I was able to participate in Change Camp, and I send my thanks to the organizers and participants for making this a good event. I look forward to doing it again.

More on Change Camp:
My Flickr Set from the Event
Change Camp Edmonton Flickr Pool
Chris LaBossiere: A Great Day for Future Democracy. A Sad Reflection on the Current One
Sirthinks: The Empires of the Future Are the Empires of the Mind – Change Camp Edmonton
Daveberta: 5 Items from Changecamp Edmonton
Global TV Edmonton

Weekend Reading and Entertainment: 10/18/09

Here are some good stories I’ve come across in the past week.

- The great Barbara Ehrenreich writes about Americans’ eternal optimism.

- A great photo essay by Peter Van Agtmael about his time with a Marine unit in Afghanistan, titled ‘Two Weeks in Forever‘.

- More photos: A Corbis Images gallery to mark the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling.

- In the Globe & Mail, Lawrence Martin writes about Canadian foreign policy in his piece ‘Canada Used to Be the One with the Global Conscience‘.

- Roger Martin’s cover story in the new issue of The Walrus, ‘Who Killed Canada’s Education Advantage?‘, is a must read.

- The new blog ED-Vocate, by Edmonton educator and activist Susan O’Neil, has some interesting stuff about education and budget cuts.

- I’m excited for the release of ‘SuperFreakonomics‘ on Tuesday, though this piece points to some problems in their section on global warming. Ezra Klein has more criticism here.
(Update: Stephen Dubner responds to criticisms)

- Recommended to me, and on my to-do list today is to read Lawrence Lessig’s essay “Against Transparency, the Perils of Openness in Governmentt”.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Be the Change

That’s me, sporting my FDR t-shirt. I was incredibly excited to find this in Portland a couple of months back. FDR is one of my political icons; while he was far from perfect, his accomplishments in ushering in the New Deal, and in guiding the United States through most of World War II (he died in office in April 1945, about 4 months before the war officially ended) rank up there with any other President before or since. If he is not the greatest president, he is certainly near the top. I’ve always admired his dedication to helping everyone, especially the less fortunate, and the courage he showed in bringing in dramatic reforms to American society.

The lessons of FDR are useful now. Not only are we facing significant upheaval in our economic system, but we are a society in flux. Additionally, dissatisfaction with, and cynicism about, government run high.

If you’re concerned with any of those issues above, and live in or near Edmonton, Alberta, then you should come to Change Camp on Saturday. The idea, in a nutshell, of Change Camp is to get citizens in a room to discuss their concerns, and hopefully to come up with some ideas about how to go forward. It’s a citizen driven initiative; participants throw out topic suggestions at the beginning of the day, and “vote with their feet“, choosing sessions based on what interests them. For more specific details on the event, I suggest checking out the official website, as well as Daveberta’s post, along with the slideshow/audio contained within.

All the above sounds great on paper, but what should we really expect? Well, that’s a good question. As a participant-driven event, most of what we get out of it will depend on what we’re willing to contribute in terms of topics and discourse about them. Don’t let the weighty slogan of “how do we re-imagine government and citizenship in the age of participation?” discourage you. At the root, Change Camp is an event about bringing people together, and talking about their ideas and concerns. I picture it more “college kids in a dorm discussing the world” – informal, broad, and collaborative – than “Kingston Conference“. Sure, there will be people in attendance with a specific agenda, but I suspect most people are attending because of a general interest or concern regarding citizenship, government, and politics.

I’m not sure what to expect in terms of outcomes, but I see the process itself as being valuable. It’s the kind of get-together I suggested here (in paragraphs 6-7) needs to happen more often; citizens coming together to discuss, learn, and collaborate. One event or idea likely won’t change the world, but many in aggregate may bring about large-scale change, or plant the seeds for future changes. Change will only come about when citizens take the initiative, and get involved to bring it about. Being passive or dropping out of the system won’t get us anywhere.

If you’re interested in government and citizenship and want to connect with others who are, I hope you’ll join the 170 other citizens who have already signed up, even if it’s just to stop in for a bit.

If you do, feel free to come find me; I’d love to chat. I’ll be the guy in the FDR t-shirt.

Event Details:
ChangeCamp Edmonton
Saturday, October 17, 2009 from 9am to 4:30pm
Registration at 8:30am
Maple Leaf Room, Lister Conference Centre, University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Follow on Twitter: #yegchange

I’ll also be writing intermittently throughout the day on this site.

Blog Action Day: Embracing Post-Modernism

Today is Blog Action Day, an annual event whereby bloggers around the world are encouraged to write about a single topic. 2009’s choice is climate change.

I want to write something about the topic, particularly since this is a topic I feel passionately about. I believe we have a responsibility to, as best as we can, leave the world in a better place than we found it. Stewardship of the natural environment is a major part of this. Anthropogenic climate change threatens to transform the natural environment in ways that man never has through history before. Additionally, it brings great threats to our economic system and our social fabric – millions of citizens could be uprooted, industries dependent on the land could be devastated if the worse case predicted scenarios come to be.

I spend a lot of time thinking about why sustainability and the environment, despite polling high as an important issue to citizens, hasn’t seemed to spur a major shift in people’s behaviour. Some of it is practical – our society is geared towards consumption and fossil fuel use, and alternatives can be hard to access. Some of it is social – sustainable lifestyles, particularly in terms of transportation, haven’t been normalized in most of the world. And to be fair, the smug self-righteousness that some transit/cycling advocates approach their cause with is off-putting to some people (as much as I support public transit and cycling, I recognize some advocates are as obnoxious as the worst neo-conservatives in pushing their agenda). Some of it is the lack of imminence – global warming doesn’t just happen overnight, making the threat seem abstract. Some of it, I believe, is also the scope of the issue. If it seems so large, so impossible to tackle, why even try? The fatalistic reaction, I fear, is going to become more common.

I think there’s also a larger dynamic at play. Our world is in transition, even putting aside global warming. We are transitioning to what I will call the era of post-modernism.

You’ve probably heard the term postmodernism before, likely applied to the arts. Wikipedia runs down all the various definitions and uses, most of which figure as a reaction to modernism (from the late 19th century on).

I think you can apply the general principles of modernism and post-modernism to society, at least as far as the west goes.

For most of history, humanity faced significant limits. Technology and social norms and systems limited our capacity to communicate, to migrate, to prosper. Beginning with the Enlightenment period and accelerating with the Industrial Revolution, these traditional barriers began to break down. The printing press and eventually radio and television altered the way we communicate. The discovery and settlement of the new world discovered new resources and opened up a continuing stream of land (at the expense of indigenous peoples), to settlers. Old feudal and hierarchical systems began to reform or break down; that, combined with technological innovation, allowed people to achieve greater prosperity. We kept innovating, using up land and resources, and prospering. Run out of space? Why, there’s a new suburb being built just down the road. Oilfields run dry? Head west to the vast untapped terrain.

The modern world, for all intensive purposes, has been an age of abundance. There was always more land, more natural resources, more consumer products.

So if the modern world is an age of abundance, what is the post-modern world? Is it a world of scarcity? Not necessarily. It is, however, a world of limits. We must recognize that we can’t continue to grow and consume without regard for the resources we are consuming.

Fundamentally, post-modernism will be about doing more with less. It’s about responsibility – the responsible stewardship of natural resources and land, the responsible use of public resources.

Certainly, technology has a role to play, whether it’s in creating and making practical the use of renewable and clean energy sources, and in finding new ways to reduce emissions. But there are no magic technological fixes on the horizon at the moment, and hoping for a deus ex machina ending to our predicament is foolish at best, ignorant at worst.

Until such time as technology catches up to our demand, we may have to make sacrifices, doing without at times or doing with less. This is the last thing that people want to hear, but as Jimmy Carter said, “a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.” In any case, the sooner we start to stress stewardship, not consumption, the less likely it is we will have to make major sacrifices. Smart use now increases the likelihood of continued use later.

This ties into another paradigm – modernism often stressed the individual. Post-modernism may have to stress the needs of the community – we see signs of this already through things like the Me to We movement. People seek out community and connections, and the presence of these can have powerful effects on one’s motives and beliefs.

I have a lot of optimism in the future, and in mankind’s ability to overcome problems. A necessary precondition, though, is understanding the circumstances and challenges we face. The dynamics of the past few centuries are on their way out; embracing a new paradigm to face new challenges is the first step to success. Responsible stewardship, coupled with continued innovation, can ensure that the post-modern era is more prosperous than the modern one.

Are we up to it? I think so.