In usual fashion, Paul Martin addressed last week's Kashechewan water crisis by pulling out all the stops and promising to get to the bottom of things immediately. Clearly, he is going to be very, very committed to improving the quality of life for First Nations in Kashechewan. Little did you know: his reaction to the Kashechewan situation was a perfect microcosm of his brand of asymmetric federalism. After the federal government announced a sizable wad of cash to evacuate and rebuild Kashechewan, I predicted that a number of other reserves would come forward requesting a similar deal. It smelled exactly like Martin's New Deal with the provinces; when the Kashechewan dust settled, I was absolutely correct in my prediction.
I'm not saying that other First Nation groups aren't in need of help. That's a whole other issue that I will not address here. However, Martin's asymmetric approach to Kashechewan represents a fundamental management style that I find extremely unattractive. Is Martin's asymmetric management part of his over-arching invisible hand approach to federal-provincial relations? Or, is it because reacting to public crises is just easier in the short term when approaching the problem asymmetrically? Further, is it because Paul Martin really has no grand vision of Canada and asymmetric management represents an easy way out? My guess is that it's a combination of the three.
Paul Martin has always been a fine manager. He has brokered deals with the provinces in many sticky situations. He has been thorny and unrelenting with the United States on softwood lumber. My problem is the severe leadership deficit in Paul Martin's government: instead of standing firm against the provinces and coming up with a New Deal that respects regional cleavages within a framework of a larger, federal vision, Martin chose the short-term easy way out and gave everyone exactly what they wanted. Likewise, instead of proactively architecting a series of changes to improve the quality of First Nations everywhere, Martin chose to react on a case-by-case basis.
Allan Gregg discusses Canada's current leadership deficit in June's Walrus in a piece called "A Return To The Politics Of Ideas." He attributes the deficit to a number of factors (ironically, he named the expanded role of public opinion polls in shaping party policy as a key factor), but I agree with him most strongly on his discussion that we are currently devoid of any politician with a grand vision of Canada and strong leadership capabilities. Paul Martin was supposed to be a leader, but he didn't deliver. He's nothing more than a manager. So, throughout the entire political spectrum, we are yearning for some "politics of ideas" and a real leader to follow up on those ideas. I'm not holding my breath.
7 Comments
1 Nicholas
Posted November 2, 2005 at 10:06 pmPermalink
Nice post man, I've been a little out of Canadaian politics lately but everything I read seems to point to a lack of political vision. It's been like that for years in Canada and I don't every remeber a person steering our country who got people excited and involved in our own future. I would like to see that person but I'm sometimes worried that those people are the types of George Bush's with idealistic and simplistic views of the world.
Maybe in another 4 years we'll get a chance for a new leader, comeon we all know the liberals are going to win again!
2 Jeremy
Posted November 3, 2005 at 12:42 amPermalink
It is true that the ones who have strong national visions can also be the most frightening. George W. is a pretty good example.
I guess what I am looking for is a leader with a strong vision that aligns with *my* vision of Canada
Now that would be ideal. I could have cake and eat it. Mmmm cake.
My home province will shudder when I say it, but I'm secretly awaiting the arrival of the next Trudeau.
3 kashies
Posted November 3, 2005 at 5:39 pmPermalink
i think what we need is a little jeremy in office! i know that's what you are getting at.
all hail prime minister jeremy (or would you change that to dictator for life, or worse, potato for life, that sorta rhymes)
please post an example of your platforms
oh, and i sorta tried to read the above post, but i couldn't really because my head is too full with political science stuff already--all i can take right now is celebrity gossip
k
4 kashies
Posted November 3, 2005 at 5:42 pmPermalink
what about gay marriage though? isn't that Paul Martin's legacy?
and we have to give him some leniency with respect to a vision for Canada, all that's in his vision right now is Stephen Harper in those terrible toddler sized leather vests. and don't forget that awful hat. oh, that's a awful hat.
just poking fun at a cowpoke
k
5 Jeremy
Posted November 4, 2005 at 2:14 amPermalink
Although Martin was ultimately responsible for equal marriage, I don't think I would credit his legacy with it. Martin was actually opposed to equal marriage for some time; it was only until after the provincial court decisions in favour started piling up that the Martin government realized they had no legal option to defend against equal marriage. I don't feel Martin led equal marriage into law like Jack Layton might have; Martin just managed it.
Anyway, you're right - those Harper kids in their awful leather vests are distracting. I remember those vests. Just awful.
6 kashies
Posted November 4, 2005 at 2:03 pmPermalink
good point
i love Jack Layton!
Have you seen the Nardwuar with Paul Martin? Nardwuar is trying to get Harper, Martin and Layton to do the hip flip with him and I think that Paul Martin is the only one that did it. check it out on his website! hilarious
check it out here:
http://nardwuar.com/vs/paul_martin/
lots oflove
kash
7 Jeremy
Posted November 5, 2005 at 12:30 pmPermalink
I love Jack Layton too! I also love Olivia Chow. I would like to have them over for coffee and cake.
That web site is fantastic... I must credit Paul Martin for his awesome hip flipping skills.