Whichever candidate says 9/11 the most wins

Remember that episode of Family Guy where Lois runs for mayor? Remember how all she had say was “9/11″ to get elected? I kind of felt like I was in the middle of that episode tonight.

Yeah, I went to the Thornhill candidates’ debate tonight. To my American friends who are unfamiliar with the Canadian electoral system, here’s a primer, courtesy of our friends at Wikipedia. The debate was, for the most part, enlightening in its boredom.

I’ll have a more detailed commentary on the debate tomorrow. For now, I’ll just share two things that I’m left thinking this evening:

1. If all community debates are similar to the one I attended, it’s no wonder voter turnout is so low. For the most part (with some notable exceptions), all the candidates did was egotistically tout their qualifications, attack each other, and spit out sound-bites (including Peter Kent using 9/11 as an ominous harbinger of the dangers lapping at Canada’s shores). To her credit, Karen Mock acknowledged that this was a reality of shorter debates and directed people to her and her party’s website for more details.

2. In Thornhill, if you don’t want to see the Conservatives’ Peter Kent elected, I now believe that there’s only one party to vote for, and that is the Liberal Party. I know (painfully) that many point to this as a sign of the unfortunate state of representative democracy in this country. It is sad. It is unfortunate. But the NDP and Green candidates just aren’t up to par. Only the Liberals are in a position to defeat the Conservatives in Thornhill, and this remains true on the Federal level as well.

More to come, tomorrow.

Steven Harper could learn a lot at Yeshiva

To my fellow Jewish residents of Thornhill, Ontario who will no doubt once again crawl back into bed with the Conservative Party through their votes on May 2:

It seems you are intent again to use a theo-political issue to trump your vote. Certainly, the Tories have done and are doing everything they can to convince you that this is a good idea.

Perhaps, then, it is time to study some Talmud. Some weighty, dense Talmud. If you’ll forgive me for dropping this tome on you, I think you’ll find some brilliant insight within it:

“Moses said: ‘I know that the Israelites are malcontents. Therefore, I will audit the entire construction of the Mishkan (Tabernacle)’. He began making an accounting: ‘These are the records of the Mishkan’ and he began reporting everything, the gold, silver and bronze, and the silver of the public census… He continued reckoning each item in the Mishkan in order, but forgot 1575 shekels from which the hooks on the pillars were fashioned, but which were not generally visible. He stood bewildered and said: ‘Now they will lay their hands on me, saying that I took it’, and he went back to recalculate. Immediately, God opened Moses’ eyes and showed him that the silver was used in the hooks on the pillars. He began to reply to them, saying: ‘and 1575 were fashioned into pillar hooks’ and the Israelites were immediately appeased. What enabled this? The fact that he sat and made an accounting…

…But why did he make an accounting?… It is only because he heard the cynics talking behind his back, as it says ‘And when Moshe left…they looked back at Moshe’. What did they say? R. Yitzhak said that people spoke positively. Then others would chime in: ‘Imbecile! He’s the one who controlled the entire enterprise of the Mishkan… gold and silver that were not counted, weighed, or numbered! Wouldn’t you expect that he be rich?’ When Moshe heard this, he said: ‘My word! When the Mishkan is completed, I will make an accounting’, as it says ‘These are the records of the Mishkan.’”

-Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 7

What’s going on here?

In short, the Midrash is teaching us that the fiscal cost of the Tabernacle – as a public project funded by the taxes of the Israelites – must be entirely accounted for in an open, transparent, and accessible way.

It’s also teaching us that Moses – as leader of the people – is answerable to the people. Even Moses, who speaks to God face-to-face in a way that no others do, must still face the people.

In a broader sense, it speaks about the virtue of transparency among leaders and the need to be open and answerable to the public.

Stephen Harper could learn a lot from Moses.

An egregious lack of transparency and accountability related to the purchase of military aircraft is exactly what led the Conservatives to be censured for Contempt of Parliament this past week. Of course, anyone with their finger on the pulse of Canadian politics knows that this specific issue is part and parcel of a greater patten of behaviour on part of the Tories; one that paved the way to the landmark ruling by (famed non-partisan) Speaker of the House Peter Milliken.

Certainly if we Jews acknowledge that Moses was expected to be held accountable to the people and to act transparently, we should bestow the same criteria upon Mr. Harper. Certainly if our vaunted Talmud teaches us the virtues of un-opaque leadership, we should value that in our national leader as well.

I challenge anyone to comment on how Harper and the Conservatives can be painted as an honest, transparent, accountable, and open government. Sure, there have been individual instances when they acted reasonable on these grounds. But the story of the Tories – as any learned political observer will tell you – is one of secrecy, opacity, avoidance of responsibility, centralized power, and tight-lipped relations with the Canadian people.

So to the Jews who will likely vote for the Conservatives on the grounds of their supposed dominance of the “support for Israel” (whatever that means) issue: if you value the Talmud’s instructions as much as you value the Conservative’s platform (which, remember, didn’t exist when you voted last time…), perhaps you should reconsider the value of your vote.

P.S.: Not convinced that the Tories have a national Jewish-vote buying strategy in place? It isn’t just happening in Thornhill, it’s also taking place down the 401 in Montreal’s Mount-Royal riding.

Identity Politics

Where was the Toronto Star three months ago, when I needed them to back me up? Now, after facing a small amount of backlash for my repeated arguments that the Conservative Party of Canada was able to win in my riding of Thornhill by attracting the votes of Jews who would vote for whichever party looked like they supported Israel more, Thomas Walkom – National Affairs Collumnist – has penned an article on ethnic voting and identity politics that backs up the very arguments I postited. Here’s an excerpt:

…In a world where no single party can command a majority of MPs, individual ridings become even more significant. And among some voters in some ridings, support for Israel is a make-or-break issue… Identity politics predates Confederation… In ridings where there is a significant Jewish population, this matters. Kent, for instance, may back Israel as a matter of deeply held principle. But if he did not, this might well hurt him in Thornhill, a riding that he narrowly won last year…

While this is pretty much a closed issue that I hadn’t intended on revisiting, the situation in the Israel and Gaza has brought it to light again. So thanks, Thomas. I couldn’t agree with you more!

Why I’m not Entirely Depressed, and Why I’m Entirely Depressed

Results at the time of writing

Why I’m fuming, and have been since the election was announced:

$300 Million dollars were spent on this election, and nobody has achieved their goals, including PM Harper. Fiscally conservative my ass. The only party leader who undoubtedly has job security is Duceppe, and as Rick Mercer slyly noted tonight, “and he’s a separatist!”

An odd night, indeed. But here’s why I’m not entirely depressed:

1. Nothing really changes. It’s still a minority government. And if Harper wasn’t able to gain a majority now given the “favourable” conditions for him, it’s quite clear that he will not be able to gain a majority at any foreseeable point. Canadians aren’t as Conservative as Harper would like you to believe.

2. Harper really loses the election in the metaphorical sense. He called an election (illegally) a year early. The only conceivable reason he would do that is with the hopes of gaining a majority. He didn’t.

3. Harper lost in Quebec – a region which was central to his focus and the key constituency he needed to get a majority.

4. Harper wasn’t able to successfully capitalize on a weak Liberal leadership and gain a majority. Moreover, he resorted to cheap, faecal-filled tactics to try and knock him down. Canadians saw through this.

5. The importance of arts and culture funding was brought to the forefront of the Canadian political scene. It became quite clear how detrimental Harper’s myopic ideologies endanger the Canadian cultural identity, and even he himself changed his policies after being pressured.

6. This illegal election will have had the worst voter turnout in Canadian history. Canadians are quite plainly pissed off at the current state of government in Canada. Harper won the election, but he certainly didn’t unite Canadians or win the hearts and minds of the majority.

* * *

I am, however, incredibly saddened, frightened, and disappointed by my fellow constituents in Thornhill who voted in Conservative candidate Peter Kent. By switching the colour of our riding to Conservative Blue after twenty years of being a staunch Liberal stronghold, Thornhill stands out amongst the Red blood of the GTA as a warning sign against the dangers of one-issue voting. Back home, voters were swayed by a “star” candidate who was able to win because of his “stance” on one issue – support of Israel. If I wasn’t so shocked, I could laugh at what I’m about to say…

I place the blame squarely on my fellow Jews. By and large, it is clear that Kent was able to win by duping many of Thornhill’s voting Jews into believing that he is more supportive of Israel than Liberal Susan Kadis. Just a drive through any of the Orthodox neighbourhoods in town is proof enough of where Kent’s support truly lies – blue and white signs adorn the lawns, and if you squint just enough, you might be able to convince yourself that you are looking at Israeli flags.

This is disastrous. It is a dangerous conflation of religion and politics.

I should make it patently clear that I’m not a sore loser. As a die-hard ENFP, I can at the very least respect the results of an election and the choices of the populous even if I disagree with the results. That’s democracy, folks. But I have little respect and great disdain for those who vote based on one campaign issue – let alone an issue that is a foreign affairs issue for parliament. Politics is a comprehensive thing. A government cannot govern based on one issue. Voters cannot vote based on one issue. Those who do have shirked their civic duty.

Even if you disregard that Canada is at best a minor player with regards to Israel in every way (at the UN, with the peace-process, with economic ties, etc…), and even if you disregard that Canada’s relationship with Israel has not changed substantially under any government, and even if you disregard that “support of Israel” is a highly tenuous and subjective term…

Voters still voted based on one issue, and a shady one at that. Shame on you.

I love Israel. I am an ardent Zionist, and I support Israel’s right to exist as a democracy even when I am vocal in criticizing some of her policies and actions. But this election was not about Israel, it was about Canada. It seems that Thornhill’s Jews have forgotten or ignored that.

So for the first time since I moved to New York, I am truly happy that I’m not in Thornhill. Watching from a distance is slightly less bitter. On that note, thanks are due to the CBC for unblocking their bandwidth and allowing us to watch the news live, from here in the States.