Wisconsin Passes Bill Taking Away Union Rights

What is up lately with all this weird political unrest? First it was the Middle East and now it is little old Wisconsin, a state in the U.S. mid-west. Typically a Republican stronghold, the state has recently come face to face with a $137-million deficit which led Republican leaders to look for solutions. Last Friday, Wisconsin Republicans took the first step in their plan to strip collective bargaining rights from most public workers. The vote ended at least three days of a political stand-off with protesters flooding the Capital buildings.

In an effort not to pass the final bill, the 14 Democratic Senators have fled to near-by Illinois to prevent the vote and will not return unless Governor Scott Walker agrees to discuss a compromise. Republicans actually sent out state troopers to look for the 14 but to no avail. Democrats see the measures as an attack on workers' rights and an attempt to cripple union support for state Democrats.

Police have had to resort to ear plugs as protesters shout and pound on drums while hundreds have taken to sleeping in the Capital building overnight. To justify their cuts, Republicans argue that it is needed to bring state spending under control. Conversely, Democrats and unions argue that the Republicans are trying to balance the budget on the backs of middle class people.

So, why does all this matter? Well, if I put it in context of the U.S. national political scene, one should note that next year is an election year (hard to believe). Union backing will be critical to Obama's 2012 re-relection effort and he and his Democrats can not afford to see organized labour further diminished, espeically in typically Republican strongholds like Wisconsin. Recent polls have shown that Obama's support has significantly dropped since he was elected in 2008 when hopes were high and faith was like fairy dust in the air. Today, the only thing in the air for most Americans is the harsh reality that fairy dust is only an illusion, magic if you will. Behind this is the harsh reality that problems do not magically disappear and that new ones appear almost as fast or faster than those that are solved.

Thus, Obama can't afford to lose any support whether it be from unions or middle class Americans. I predict the 2012 election will be even closer than the 2008 election and while Obama does seem likely to return for his second term, anything can and likley will happen in the next year and a half. On the campagin trail, Obama will have to face broken promises rather than making them. He will have to address his failures in the face of his opponet and admit he is not the God that he was percieved as. Of course, this is all subject to who the Republicans nominate to run against Obama. They have already had one strong swing at Obama and, with the right person, they could land the knockout blow. This is of course baring that Sarah Palin is nominated which would/should result in every person who has faith in the American political system to jump off a bridge ... might as well get it overwith before Sarah gets us all killed.

Changing the Arab Landscape Through the Power of Protest



As I read my local newspaper, The Record, I note that they can no longer fit a full cover story about each of the protests going on in the Arab world. Instead, they must fit them all into a single column only offering a summary of the previous day's events. In my opinion, this tells me two things:

1) The quality of our local K-W newspaper is really starting to suck and,
2) The Arab world is in more chaos than it was after 9/11....which is a good thing.

Is that too bold to say? I don't think so. The unrest after 9/11 from labelling all Arabs as "terrorists" by North Americans led to huge controversies and issues within the Middle East. 9/11 seemed to awaken the giant that is the Arab people and the way they handle politics in their respective countries. Of course, this lead to nearly 10 years of "unrest" with daily reports of suicide bombings and mass arrests. After the first 5 years, you really stop caring. I know I did. These types of reports became just another day in my life and will probably be the events that define my teenage years.

Today, unlike the past 5 or so years, we need to pay attention to what is happening in the Middle East as these protests have will major political repercussions all over the world and might even change the landscape of the Arab world. One could even argue (and I agree with this) that the recent fall of Mubarak in Egypt has single-handily changed not only the Arab world but the international landscape as well. Imagine what this will mean for oil prices or other goods coming from the region as Egypt controls the Suez Canal. Sure, oil prices may be up and people in the Middle East may be dying as a result of the protests but I believe this is only a small price to pay as we work towards a better world.

So, this brings me to my main point: Is a better world attainable through protest? Is protest the answer to our problems? There is no easy answer. I would argue that it depend where you live and how many people are actually protesting. As we have seen, there have been large numbers of people calling for change which increases the pressure on the government. Recent examples in Libya and Yemen serve as quick examples. The articles (or summaries) that I have read always begin with "Thousands of protesters flood/stream into the capital city's main square/gathering place calling for an end..." The key is that you need thousands of people to support a cause before any change is made. Protests, especially in Arab countries with dictators or authoritarian governments, with only small numbers will not and cannot be affective. I hope these protests continue to get larger and hopefully, we will see the liberation of these Arab countries in the coming weeks or months. Protesting has already been proven to work in Egypt...it only takes one brick to fall before the whole wall crumbles.

The Celebrity Factor: How Pop Culture Affects Political Behaviour



Perhaps nobody defines our current culture quite like Lady Gaga. Her music is everywhere, her image is everywhere and (most importantly) her message is everywhere. Gaga is known for promoting gay/equal rights for all through her music, image and public appearances such as when she attended the National Equality March (pictured) or when she held a rally in late 2010 for the repeal of the U.S. Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. As a result, the policy was struck down in late 2010. Should this be attributed to Lady Gaga and her power in American politics? No. However, she can be credited for raising the issue and bringing it into public attention.

This is the power of celebrities. They have the ability to bring issues they care for to the forefront of politics. Our personal ideology affects how we view these issues and, thus, whether we agree or disagree with their views. Ultimately, if an issue becomes strong enough (such as gay marriage in recent California state elections) it can have a strong impact on elections and a population's political behaviour. If we stay with the gay marriage debate (Prop 8) during the California elections, the majority of campaign activity placed some kid of focus on Prop 8 so that each candidate clearly stated where they stood on the issue. There were also protests that supported both sides of the issue (remain illegal/legalize). In the end, Prop 8 was defeated and gay marriage in California is still illegal (despite being legalized for a bit). This post-materialist issue is still a hot button issue moving forward in 2011.

(Another example of a celebrity affecting political behaviour could be Bono's Aids campaigns in late 90s/early 2000s)

Another way that celebrities affect politics is through endorsements. There are many examples that I could have examined for this but (to me) the most obvious one is Barack Obama's celebrity endorsements and the famous "Yes we can" video that featured artists such as Will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas. That video was everywhere in the fall of 2008 while there were also campaign commercials that featured celebrities telling voters why they should vote for Obama: "Change....Hope..." The power that Obama had just from these endorsements was unfounded as it persuaded many to think that "If so-in-so thinks that I should vote for Obama than I will." There's really no way to tell how this affected election results but I have no doubt it did. Plus, when you consider how close the 2008 Presidential Election was, the celebrity factor could have played a major role.

The Obama "Yes We Can" celebrity video. 

The Relevance of Political Cleavages

In Canada, we tend to be less involved in the political world and because of this very little conflict arises. In the United States, politics is a heavily debated issue that is influenced by a number of factors outside the trade including, as most recently documented in the 2008 election, race. This results in a number of conflicts arising from the political world which often highlight a number of political cleavages. The above picture was taken outside of a supposed "Christian" church in the U.S. and sheds new light on the classic "Church vs. State" debate that has long dominated American politics. In Canada, our government has typically stayed well clear of religion while generally accepting all that exist and creating policies that have minimal interference on religious beliefs.

Thus, the "Church vs. State" cleavage may not be the most evident in Canadian politics. Personally, I feel that two of the most relevant cleavages in Canada are the core vs. periphery cleavage and the material vs. post-material cleavage. In the core/periphery cleavage, there is a substantial distance between the centre of decision making as opposed to outlying areas. A current example would be the relationship between the Ottawa (the core) and Western Canada (periphery). Provinces such as British Columbia have always felt isolated from the decision-making process in Ottawa since their formation in 1858. This cleavage has lead to the formation of the British Colombian identity that we know today. A similar argument can be made for Eastern Canada.

The material vs. post-material cleavage is a conflict between economic concerns and other quality of life concerns. In the past 10-20 years, issues such as the environment and health care have become front-of-house issues in Canadian politics. These are post-materialist issues as they deal with our quality of life moving forward. Perhaps more recently due to the recession, we have seen a turn back towards material values to address our econmic concerns. The Conservative's "Action Plan" is a great example of this. While some post-materialst ideals were considered, the primary focus of the plan was to stimulate the economy and create jobs.( Jobs. JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS. This is probably the word of the year. If I here another sound-bite with Obama talking about jobs I might lose it.)

In my opinion, the most evident political cleavage facing Canadians and Canadian political parties is the material vs. post-material cleavage. How can we move foward ensuring our stable economic growth while continuing our growth in post-materialist areas such as the environment? Well, for example, the call for jobs has changed from any old job to "green jobs" that help to "stimulate the economy and create a healthier enviroment for our future." Many politicians believe that a balance is the way to move forward in the next few years. Until our economy has "fully recovered," I agree with this thinking. I would not be surprised if, within the next 3-5 years, the focus returns to the core/periphery cleavage as our material and post-material demands are continually being met.

Is a Conservative majority coming to Parliament?

Stephan Harper at a rally in 2008. Side Note- Having kids hold up signs that address issues much beyond their age is so stupid and only acts as a way to fill crowds. If you were to ask that kid "How are we stronger with Harper?", he would probably pick his nose and say "I uno. My mommy says he's the bee's knees." Idiots. End rant.

Well, this is no shocker at all. The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Policy (LISPOP) has predicted in their recent seat projections that the Conservative Party is 3 seats away from having a majority government. This is largely due to gains in Ontario, specifically the '905' area of Toronto. The projections are as follows:

Conservatives: 152 Seats

Libeals: 73 Seats

NDP: 30 Seats

Bloc: 52 Seats

(See this link for more info http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/feature20110215.html?p=99)

When compared to the 2008 Federal Election results, the Tories are poised to gain approx. 10 seats while the Liberals are about to lose approx. 4 and the NDP approx. 7. The Bloc seems to be remaining constant as they are only active in Quebec. Personally, I'd like to for the Bloc to dissolve. A lot of what they preach and fight for will never EVER happen. Frankly, I think its a waste of seats. It would be very interesting to see how seats/votes would be distributed across the other three parties if the Bloc was no longer around. My own personal prediction is that the voters would be split between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Tories have worked hard to make up ground in Quebec over the past few elections. Of course, there is always the "Trudeau" factor in Quebec so maybe this could swing voters towards the Liberals. As it stands now, however, the Tories are in second place behind the Bloc in Quebec. This is probably due to the Liberal blunders over the past few years and their lack of leadership (or anything really).

I think its interesting that the Tories have made significant ground in the '905' region because this area is largely made up of immigrants and is very multicultural. Traditionally, ethnics would vote for the Liberal party or the NDP. This just goes to show that the Conservatives have made positive gains in the area over the past few years while persuading ethnics that the Conservatives are here to make Canada a better place for them and their families. The Liberal party has tried to keep up but I don't know if they even have a solid platform right now. It seems like all they are saying is that "Harper bad. Liberal good. Vote Liberal." I'm not being biased since, as I have said before, I consider myself a fairly liberal person - it is just what I have observed especially over the past few weeks. Therefore, the Tories have done much better job of getting their message to Canadians over the two years that they have been in power.

Is a Conservative majority a good thing? No, it is not. I worry that the policies Harper and his government wanted to implement over the past two years but couldn't due to their minority rule will be coming to fruition such as a closer relationship with the US. We are already hearing talks of a security perimeter around the boarder of Canada and the US which I think is stupid because we're basically giving control of our security to the Americans. Also, Obama has been working very closely with Harper over the past few months so who knows what may be coming down the pipeline. Whatever it may be, I hope it benefits all Canadians and not just Stephan Harper.

Democracy in Egypt: A Slow Growth

It's been awhile since I had the chance to do a proper blog as I've been busy with midterms and work. I have not had an opportunity to blog about one of the biggest events in political behaviour and (so far) in politics this year: Egypt. On Friday, February 11, 2011, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down after 18 straight days of protests. The largest protest was held in Cairo's Tahrir Square where people built tents and vowed to remain until Mubarak stepped down.

What we have just seen in Egypt (and other, surrounding countries to a degree) is a combination of the power of the people and the power of the Internet generation. To force political change, there are many ways of going about it. The first, and most obvious, is to hold elections where people can choose the political actors they want to represent them. However, as we saw in Egypt over the past 30 years, elections were not effective at all. Were they free elections? No. Any form of free elections will never be free in a autocratic country.

Knowing this, the Egyptian people began to participate in community groups and forums calling for the removal of Mubarak and the implementation of democracy. These groups gained power over the past 5-10 years which lead to more people paying attention to their cause. Its the same principles that power politics all over the world: if enough people rally for a cause, it will get the attention of politicians. Unfortunately for the Egyptian people, these groups were largely ignored which elevated the movement to the final form of political participation: protest. The Egyptian protest was probably one of the largest in recent history (if you factor in post WWII Europe). It was very visible and a good deal of effort was required to organize them daily.

A lot of the organization was done through social media like Facebook. In Canada, we have already seen the power of Facebook to organize mass demonstrations such as the Tamil protests in downtown Toronto over a year ago. The power of Youtube was also harnessed so the entire world could have video of the happenings in Egypt at their fingertips. In the early days of the Egyptian protest, a lot of the videos shown on the news were Youtube videos as it was nearly impossible to get a camera crew into the protest.

There was obviously a much higher male population participating in the protests as Egypt is a traditional Muslim state. However, it was good to see Muslim women out in the streets and willingly shouting anti-government slogans at the police and military. Perhaps this is a sign of a much larger cultural movement in Egypt.

Now that Mubarak has fallen, many Egyptians claim they will now have a democracy. With the military now in control, many are questioning how Egypt's new supposed democracy will look. Many are celebrating like they already have a democracy. While I understand the enthusiasm they are expressing, democracy is still a lot of work and is something that will take a lot of time. Proper institutions must be established while also re-writing much of Egypt's national and foreign policy which could have a beneficial or adverse affect on trade.

Look how long Canada has taken to get the point that we are at today. Some may even argue that Canada still doesn't have a true democracy as not all are able to freely participate for a number of reasons. Perhaps the best thing is a liberal democracy which enlists limits on our rights. This is what I believe the people of Egypt should strive towards. It is something that will take a great deal of time but, based on their recent out-pouring of desire, it is something they are willing to work towards. There is no telling what this change will do to the entire area of Northern Africa. Perhaps protests and social media have yet to meet their full democratizing ability in that part of the world.

Who Am I? Values and How They Develop

Political socialization is the process by which people acquire political values, attributes, opinions and attitudes, information and opinions. So how are we socialized? What factors influence our political views? Well, one could argue that four factors are most prominent: family, school, peers and the media. In class when this was discussed, it was generally agreed that family was the most prominent. Families provide foundations such as race, class and gender. Within these boundaries, our political beliefs are set out. There is also the family indoctrination of political values ie. if your parents are conservative then it is more likely that you will be too.

I disagree that family is the most prominent/dominant factor in my life. It is probably the second most important as I've had a pretty messed up "teenage life" due to family issues. Growing up, we never talked about politics within the house. For me, my political values were much more influenced by the schools I attended and my peers. Usually, schools have pretty liberal learning teachers due the contracts they have and so on. I argue that these values come across when they each which influence what children believe is right which they carry with them until their later years. This is why the majority of voters tend to be left leaning when they are young and grow more conservative as they age or as Sir Winston Churchill put it:

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Also, my peers (friends) were a very heavy influence on me especially in my mid-to-late teen years. In high school, I would say that the majority of my guy friends were more conservative while my female friends were more liberal as is usually the case. I remember often getting into arguments with my guy friends over issues like health care or international relations. They would always tell me that my typically liberal views were wrong. While I never said anything, I did question my own values based off of these conversations. My high school also had a large immigrant population (mainly Middle Eastern) which always laid the foundation for conflict. A popular one seemed to be the classic Israel vs. Palestine debate. A lot of my guy friends took the side of Israel simply because the US supported them the most. To this day, I still don't think a bunch of cocky teenagers could possibly understand a topic like Mid-East relations. I still am skeptical over what is actually said to what my friends actually value politically. However, I have no doubt that this time influenced me in some form.

It is in one's teen years that one begins to fully understand who they are politically and where exactly you lie on the spectrum. As I just stated, your peers are very important but also so are events that occur in your life. For me, health care has always been an issue I will always lean towards the left on because of my family history of health related issues. If it wasn't for the system we have, who knows where I'd be right now as both my parents would likely be dead. I also think my mom's cancer diagnoses and recovery in my mid-teen years has had a strong political impact on me as well. I probably can credit this event as the most impactful in my life so far. Walking away from that experience, I suppose I just think people should always be happy and not be put down about who they are and what they believe and value. Sure, I joke and tease but I honestly believe people should just be able to do what makes them happy. You don't need much more in life than happiness. This is why I support things such as gay marriage and that whole movement. While I am not gay, who am I to stop two people from being happy? It's not my right nor should it be anyone else's (unless of course there is a risk that someones happiness is a threat to society). Those who think it's their business need to stop being so closed minded, religious or not. It's 2011 not 1911.

This post was intended to talk a bit about who I am and how I have come to be this way. My political values have been most heavily influenced by my schooling, peers and home life. I think by writing (and ranting) this, I have a new appreciation for who I am. If you don't agree with me, that's alright. I wouldn't expect you to.

Cheers for now. AM

To Click Or Not To Click....This Is My Answer (Part 2)



Tomorrow, the Wilfrid Laurier University Students Union (WLUSU) will conduct the first online election for WLSU President ever. This is in response to the past 5 years of low voter turnout at on-campus polling stations located in typically high traffic areas such as the Science Atrium, the Concourse and the SBE Atrium. Despite their location in these areas, the percentage of voters actually participating in WLUSU elections has been extremely low when compared to the nearly 15,000 possible voters.

The total cost of the online voting system is $16,425 with an annual fee of $2,625 payable to the hosting site. Last year, $7,500 was spent on paper ballots alone. When you factor in the added costs of promotional materials and extra staff hours to run the election, the cost would be almost identical to the cost of the entire voting system. Other features of tomorrows elections include:

- Holding the election over two days v.s only one
- Student infromation and votes will be stored on two separate internet databases to protect voter's identities
- Since any computer is now a polling station, campaigning on election day (public appearances, posting signs, etc... is now banned
-Candidate profiles will be available once a student logs in so the oppertunity is available to make an informed choice
-Students will have 45 minutes to vote once they log on

In my opinion, this is the smartest thing WLUSU has ever done and trust me, they've done some pretty stupid things (which I could probably dedicate a whole blog site to). So, why have I just ranted on and on about the features of WLSU's online voting system when I'm supposed to be talking about Canadian voting? Well, it's because I think this model could be applied to Federal elections. Thus, I am in favour of an online system for Canada for the 5 reasons I listed in Part 1.

However, the two most important reasons I feel are 1) Online voting would make voting easier and 2) Young Canadians are more likely to vote. Perhaps for security purposes, each registered voter would recieve their voter's "postcard" in the mail. Instead of having their polling location, it would list their username and password to log into a governemnt voting site. From the username, the site could create the correct ballot with the correct candidates running in the voter's area. The electronic form would only let the registered voter select one option for each "question." After completing the ballot (only the "questions" they choose to) they could submit it to Elections Canada which would then tabulate the votes. This would allow for quicker results.

In this format, young Canadians are more likely to vote as well. It is in a simple format and its something that can be done quickly. Perhaps reminders could be posted on registered voter's Facebook and Twitter pages reminding them to go and vote.

While I am fully aware of the negative aspects, I just feel like the good out weigh the bad on the issue of online voting. You think its stupid? Alright fine. You can go out to the polling station in the blizzard while I sit at home and drink my hot chocolate. Feel free to comment if you feel I'm wrong.

Also, if there is anything you'd like me to talk about, leave a comment as well. However, next time, I think I will be doing a post on how we obtain our political values and how and why they change as we age.

Cheers for now. AM