Moderator nearly won debate

You can judge the nature of a political debate by the behaviour it induces in those who watch it. I’m about as proud of my behaviour last night as I am of my political leaders’ dreary rhetoric -- with the added insult that unlike me, they won’t be calling the Canadians they offended last night to beg forgiveness.

Someone during the debate should have pointed out that talking about national unity for a half-hour and the environment and climate change for no time was a dumb decision: a forward-looking democracy should focus on the future, not the past. Let’s focus less on keeping our political map united and more on keeping our landmass above water at sustainable temperatures! (Did you guess? I’m trying my hand at blog-bytes.)

And what about the rest of the world?! Jack Layton mentioned foreign aid once, and we heard plenty about the USA, but isn’t it strange to hear no more about any other place? Canadians donated unprecedented amounts to Tsunami victims and no Western democracy has a higher share of foreign-born residents than we do. And our international affairs are less important than provincial bickering?

It’s for these reasons that I insist last night’s debate was a draw. Had the lilac-tied moderator broached the poverty and potential of Africa OR climate change, I would have happily declared him the winner. (I'll point that I met a friend of the handsome moderator who begged him to point out that the biggest lump of discretionary spending in purely federal jurisdiction is foreign expenditures, over $5 billion worth spread through various departments. But alas, Mr. Moderator is just a pretty face: he claims he had no choice at over the questions.) He was certainly impressively nimble, despite the flat-top haircut.

Also, I should point out that I ought to eat at least a few of my words. My previous post argued that Jack couldn’t win the debate. Then today on CBC radio I hear the usually insight-allergic Keith Boag say that various mysterious opinion-trackers found that Layton alone among the leaders considerably exceeded the expectations of viewers -- though he was quick to point out that this didn’t mean that Jack actually won the debate or clearly improved his position.

I don’t dispute those findings. Jack was, in addition to being passionate and incisive, scripted and repetitive. But this was far more offensive to the minority who watched the whole debate (sadly, including myself) than to the majority tonly watched parts. It’s also plain that most reporters, while lamenting how Jack is tragically being squeezed out of view by the other leaders, curiously fail to note that unlike the democratic forum of a debate which gives leaders equal time, in the press (i.e., where the campaign mostly happens) it’s the self-same reporters who are doing the squeezing.

No one else is squeezing. Just you, Mr. Mainstream Media (MSM in bloggospeak). Squeezing away at the NDP orange, squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, then drinking the juice and wiping it off your chin, and looking up with a sad, sad face and going: “Oh, that poor orange, squeezed right out of the picture by some mysterious campaign force we’re all at pains to comprehend.” For a perfect example, see this report by Terry Milewski.

This point about the media essentially covering itself and claiming to cover the ‘campaign’ is one I’ve made before and on which Star blogger Antonia Zerbesias agrees.

I’ll also point out that because Jack insists on running on a patchwork quilt campaign (patches, really – we haven’t seen the quilt yet) of ‘doing better’ for Canadians, and on saying nothing more at all, he is forced to be very slippery when asked how he would react to various minority situations. This is dumb. Of all the leaders, Jack is the one whose campaign promises most closely reflect what he actually thinks and will actually try to do. He should capitalize on this happy coincidence -- as Duceppe more or less has on his own pretty honest pledges to be a dick -- by also being the most straightforward, least slippery of the politicians. Opportunity lost, Jack. Didn’t have to be that way. Squeeze.

Also, all the ranting about corporate tax cuts. Could be less simplistic. Just once in a while. To remind you actually have a PhD in globalization. It's okay to be thoughtful in public, right? That is, if anyone's paying attention. Squeeze!

Anyway, all this is a really a footnote next to the fact that Canada’s most conservative Liberal leader in ages and a very conservative Conservative leader are both campaigning like pink social democrats, a level of hypocrisy that should be declared a felony, with attendant minimum sentence and trial as an adult starting at age...two. It is absurd. But not new. Alas, we young ‘uns disillusion so easily.