Our brain-dead election

Jack Granatstein expresses well the depression I feel about the conduct of Canadian politics:

The just-completed election had its interesting moments and its surprises. What it did not have was much policy content. The ongoing American election, by contrast, features candidates debating real policy positions. Sometimes the policies are less than coherent, but at least the American electorate has been granted the opportunity to choose between serious leaders advancing genuine plans.

In the United States, candidates talk about issues such as defence, foreign policy, trade and national security. Not in Canada. This country might be fighting a war in Afghanistan, but up until the very end of the election campaign, the war was barely on the radar. And when Afghanistan finally came up for serious discussion it was only because the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced a cost analysis that seemed to have more what-ifs than one usually finds in accountants' studies.

When it came to defence and foreign policy, none of the Liberal, NDP or Conservative statements offered anything more than platitudes. In a few sentences, the parties revealed that they have no ideas to advance for a department of national defence that spends some $20-billion a year, and nothing beyond bromides to indicate the direction they would follow in acting on the world stage.

Sure, the Liberals and NDP claimed that Stephen Harper was the second coming of George W. Bush, but where was the serious discussion of Canada's relations with our troubled superpower neighbour? There wasn't a whisper about Canada's need to keep the border open, NAFTA or the possibility of water exports.

And what about Canada's relations with NATO, the European community and China and India? Canada's political and economic future lies in working out a policy to deal with a changing world order, yet no party leader saw fit to say anything about these subjects.

Nor did the war on terror make it into the election discourse. All parties apparently were too sensitive to speak about how Canada should deal with militant Islam or the Tamil Tigers, let alone our own anti-terror laws.

...If Canada were a serious country, its party leaders would present policy proposals that sketch out Canada's national interests and advance their ideas for meeting them. They would talk about Canadians' values and how to secure them. They would explain their thoughts on how best to protect us against the threats to our nation.

A serious country deals with the big issues at election time. But in the 2008 election, Canada's politicians did not even try to do so. Instead, the party leaders seemed to follow the words of former prime minister Kim Campbell: Elections, she famously said, are no time to talk about serious issues.