Monthly Archives: June 2024

Last January, members of the radical anti-Israel campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) filmed a video marking the end of their suspension from Rutgers University. At first look, the video strikes a dissonant chord: The visual aesthetic is a throwback to the Palestinian fedayeen and hijackers reading a communique after an operation. Yet the inflections and cadences, despite a detectable but faint accent, were jarringly American Gen Z.

Historically, the American Jewish establishment has portrayed SJP and its ilk as a foreign phenomenon, an import from the Middle East, fueled by Arab financing, radical Arab academics, and the influx of radical Arab and Muslim studentsa form of jihad, but with laptops and lattes. In contrast, a December profile of the group in The New Yorker, the Time magazine of progressive Ivy League graduates, presented a snapshot of a prototypical intersectional movement. SJP students and professors, some of them Jewish, were portrayed as embattled social justice prophets persevering in the face of oppression by a corrupt establishment, and the unreasoning hysteria of pro-Israel activists. The Anti-Defamation Leagues Jonathan Greenblatt was briefly quoted as making allegations that SJP provided and received funds from terrorist organizationsaccusations which The New Yorker author brushed aside as arbitrary and without merit.

The heroic-cartoonish slant of the essay aside, the author did capture a central fact about pro-Palestinian activism, including that which endorses Islamist genocidal movements, which many American Jews are still too quick to deny: Instead of being a marginal cause supported and funded by foreign elements, anti-Zionism is in fact the flagship foreign policy cause of the international left and the academic vanguard of progressive activism. A cause that was once regarded as fundamentally foreign is now mainstream across blue American cities and liberal elite institutions.

Whether wearing a hijab or a Star of David, SJP anti-Israel activists are not simply freaks who demonstrate in favor of Hamas. They are mainstream products of the monoculture of the academic left. They are similar, indeed identical, to the social justice, Black Lives Matter, climate, gender, decolonizing, and woke activists who have been wreaking havoc on the U.S. and tearing apart our institutions for years. The synthesis of causes, habits, mores, and aesthetics of the Middle East and of radical Western ideas has become part of the American elite vernacular.

American Jews found themselves under the same roof with elements that were antisemitic and anti-Zionist, but whose grievances had now been granted higher status.

Twitter

Facebook

Email

This vanguard of American progressivism harmoniously merges Marxism, intersectionality, Third Worldism, liberalism, Muslim identity, grassroots activism, and other elements of leftism in a way that is reminiscent of the stock rhetoric of the vanguard left in the 1960s and 70s. But whereas in the 60s and 70s, radical groups that espoused the Palestinian cause as part of a movement of international solidarity with Third World liberation struggles were generally outside the mainstream, and not under the umbrella of a major political party, the opposite is now the case.

Examples in The New Yorker essay included Jannatul Nila, a senior at CUNYs Hunter College who organized a rally to protest Israels response to Hamas terrorism. The students chants and slogans reflect a blend of Islamic, progressive, and theistic Marxist symbols, underscoring their alignment with broader progressive and intersectional causes. After chanting Allahu akbar and Free Palestine, they also shouted, We are the students of Frantz Fanon and We are the students of Edward Said, the two icons of decolonization and the seminal intellectual figures of postcolonial studies. While it is difficult to imagine anyone outside of academic hothouse environments being moved by such slogans, they in fact illustrate the centrality of the new academic politics within the larger political discourse, in which Third World academics have become aspirational symbols.

In perhaps the most telling part of the SJP profile, a member of the groups national steering committee, Carrie Zaremba, explained that the idea is to appeal to people who know nothing. After noting how these know-nothings are fed the updated version of old talking points, Zaremba points out that many join the movement because theyre looking for a leftist organizing space. The passage deserves to be quoted at some length:

The issue, then, is as much sociological as it is ideological. For contemporary college students, the Israel-Palestine issue is not a separate foreign policy issue referring to the struggles of people in a small spit of sand in the Middle East. It is a domestic issue of social justice that fits within a unitary and indivisible framework of global justice concerns and decolonizationon a par with BLM, the gender revolution, and climate justice. In fact, all of these separate slogans and causes are in a very real sense referring to the same thing, at least in the minds of the people who chant them. This is how intersectionality works.

The evolution in perception that is referred to by the term intersectionality signifies a more profound trend within American society and institutions. Leftist endorsement of groups like SJP as vanguards of social justice and progressive dogmas more broadly is not an exception. It is in line with support of anti-humanistic groups like BLMwhich was until quite recently held to be de rigueur by much of the Jewish liberal establishment. Even among students from Muslim and Arab backgrounds, this intellectual shaping, predominately under the tutelage of the American academic community, has largely sidelined Islamist or Arabist ideologies.

For years, opponents of movements like SJP or the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whether from Zionist circles or the world of anti-Islamist activism, have emphasized these groups reliance on Middle Eastern and Islamic ideologies, finances, and personnel. These critics argue that the adoption of Western progressive terminology by these groups is a strategic ploy designed to manipulate the well-intentioned but naive beliefs of misguided useful idiots. The anti-Israel zealotry of so many such progressives in turn is regarded not as proof of their culpability but of the innocence of their souls and the purity of their hearts, which are being manipulated by foreign villains. This viewpoint, a descendant of the post-9/11 jihad demonology, has become so ingrained that it could be considered a quasi-official stance among liberal Jews and Zionists to explain the current climate of antisemitism on college campuses.

None of this is to deny SJPs links to Palestinian terrorist organizations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Rather, the point is that by trapping themselves in outdated categories, and by wishing to imagine themselves as normative American liberals, many American Jews are blinding themselves to seismic changes in American society and politics. Of those changes, the shift in the Democratic Party, the traditional political home of American Jews, is arguably the most consequential.

The synthesis of causes, habits, mores, and aesthetics of the Middle East and of radical Western ideas has become part of the American elite vernacular.

Twitter

Facebook

Email

The Democratic Party of the 21st century is, by most traditional measures, far to the right of its 20th-century predecessors, having abandoned familiar social democratic struggles for higher minimum wages, housing subsidies, higher tariffs to benefit workers, and other economic measures. Instead, it has embraced comparatively low tax rates and global techno-capitalismwhile at the same time embracing a compensatory Third Worldist ethos. This ideological shift reached a pivotal point with the election of Barack Obama, whose own formative years were split between Cold War America and Sukarnos Indonesia. His presidency initiated a profound transformation within the structure of American institutions that reshaped the Democratic Party as the head of a political alliance of urban liberal technocrats, technology corporations, institutions of higher education, and activist grievance groups.

This reconfiguration of power dynamics within the Democratic Party in turn made it a natural ally for various groups sympathetic to and obsessed by the Palestinian cause, most of which saw and still see Jews and Israel as enemies. This domestic realignment mirrored Obamas foreign policy priorities and its approach to Middle Eastern affairs, namely the policy of realigning U.S. interests in the region with Iran.

As Obamas Democratic Party transformed itself into a big tribal sectarian tent, traditionally Democratic American Jews found themselves under the same roof with elements that were antisemitic and anti-Zionist, but whose grievances had now been granted higher status. There were now exigencies that demanded flexibilityintersection, if you prefer. Everyone would now pretend that anti-liberal progressive dogmas being incubated on campuses were the natural evolution of the liberal causes that many American Jews had long supported by way of achieving greater equality and liberation from prejudice.

Groups like the ADL and other American liberal Jewish institutions were often at the forefront of endorsing the same progressive ideas and intersectional jargon that are central to the current self-conception of the anti-Israel movement.Ironically, the ADLs Jonathan Greenblatt, who was quoted in The New Yorker as a token Jewish establishment hysteric, was perhaps the key author and implementor of this strategy of intersectional allyship, as Obamas yes man within the Jewish establishment.

If Jewish liberals were to maintain their position on the American left, further adaptability was required on their part: American Jewish identity needed to be defined by a commitment to social action and progressive theology. If Zionism is to have any legitimacy at all, it would be contingent on its interpretation as a movement aligned with progressive social justice and national liberation idealsnamely, as the handmaiden to establishing a Palestinian state. This ideology, including the false consciousness it fosters, is what still prevents many American Jews from comprehending the growing wave of antisemitic activism as a social justice causeone being pushed and protected by the political party most American Jews still regard as their home.

When reality is too frightening to contemplate, often the response is either to deny it or to assert that whats staring at you in the face is merely a facade. Hence, its common to see progressive and seemingly liberal movements that endorse anti-Zionism dismissed as fringe or fleeting phenomena. The result is the further obfuscation of an increasingly obvious political reality: The Democratic Party is openly courting the most antisemitic forces in America and the world.

This mystification also helps affirm Zionisms own authentically liberal, even progressive identity: On one side are the prestigious and glamorous Western forces of liberalism, equality, and progress, of which the liberal Jewish establishment is part; and on the other, the forces of religious fascism, exotic fanaticism, and foreign barbarism on which the anti-Israel activists live.

Young American Jews have often shied away from facing the prospect that other liberal Americans of their generationincreasingly indoctrinated into left-wing ideologies and seeking a leftist organizing space for the struggle against racism, colonialism, and imperialismare much more likely to align with pro-Palestinian activism than with Jews. One of the reasons is that many young Jews go to the same schools, where they are indoctrinated into the same ideologies, and are often unlikely to critically question whether there is something inherently distorted and dangerous in them.

Cries of intifada and from the river to the sea are not bugs in the new politics; they are features. There is no version of social justice politics without them. And as long as American Jews persist in ignoring that reality, they will continue to feel shocked and alone. The American Jewish establishments hope that it could overlook this reality and instead impress its erstwhile friends with allyship and stories of its contributions to the civil rights movement, feminism, and other progressive causes was a profoundly mistaken strategy that squandered whatever communal power they might have retained within the Democratic Party. The result is that the American Jewish establishment is increasingly disposable, both to Jews and to those who hate them.

Read more here:

Liberal Jews Deluded Themselves on Palestine - Tablet Magazine

1. Justin Trudeau digs in after Liberal drubbing in Toronto by-election - POLITICO  POLITICO
2. Canada's Liberals suffer major upset in Toronto special election, raising doubts about Trudeau  The Associated Press
3. Canada's Conservatives Win Liberal Stronghold in Blow to Trudeau  Bloomberg

Follow this link:

Justin Trudeau digs in after Liberal drubbing in Toronto by-election - POLITICO - POLITICO

Written by Maureen Brakke

MONMOUTH, Ore. Western Oregon University officially joined the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC) this month after a rigorous application process. COPLAC advances the aims of its member institutions and drives awareness of the value of high-quality, public liberal arts education in a student-centered, residential environment. Western is the only public university in Oregon to hold membership currently.

Established in 1987 and now consisting of 30+ colleges and universities in 28 states and 1 Canadian province, COPLAC represents a distinguished sector in higher education. Some campuses have received designation from state legislatures or public university systems as the states public liberal arts college or the public honors college for the liberal arts.

We are thrilled to welcome Western Oregon University to COPLAC. It was clear from our site visit interactions with members of the WOU campus community, the materials submitted as part of the application process, as well as your leaders engagement with members of the consortium, that WOUs institutional values and commitment to a 21st-century liberal arts education perfectly align with COPLACs, said COPLAC President Tuajuanda C. Jordan. We look forward to working in partnership with WOU to enhance the accessible liberal arts educational experience consortial members provide to students across the U.S.

Executive Director of COPLAC Cole Woodcox agrees with Jordans assessment of Westerns commitment to its role as a welcoming, supportive undergraduate-serving institution. Woodcox shares, We believe WOU will contribute substantially to the COPLAC community and will particularly strengthen the network of public liberal arts institutions in the Western region. We look forward to working with WOUtogether we can be better universities with one another.

Becoming a member of the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges underscores our commitment to academic excellence and innovation, said Western Oregon University President Jesse Peters. This affiliation offers opportunities for collaboration, access to shared resources, and the exchange of best practices. It enhances our ability to prepare students for successful careers and engaged citizenship, reaffirming our dedication to excellence in liberal arts education.

Prospective membership criteria include university commitment to the mission and values of COPLAC and to collaborative work that supports the public sector of higher education, representing access, affordability, and community engagement while providing students with a holistic and integrative liberal arts and sciences undergraduate experience that prepares students for lifelong learning and civic engagement in a democratic society. See the complete list of criteria.

About COPLAC

COPLAC serves both external and internal constituencies. It communicates to state and federal policymakers the vital importance and benefits of providing students with comprehensive public higher education in the liberal arts and sciences. It collaborates with major national higher education organizations like the Association of American Colleges and Universities to advance the aims of liberal learning in a global society. The COPLAC office is located on the campus of the University of North Carolina Asheville. The staff works actively with member institutions to improve the quality of liberal arts and sciences education on member campuses.

###

About Western Oregon University

Western Oregon University, established in Monmouth in 1856, proudly stands as Oregons oldest public university. Hosting around 4,000 students, Western embodies a mid-sized, NCAA Division II institution, with approximately 80% of its students hailing from within the state. Notably, its diverse student body comprises individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, veterans, and non-traditional learners. Western stands as the preferred campus in Oregon for those pursuing an enriching education within a nurturing, student-focused environment, characterized by faculty-led instruction. Where You Belong.

Read the original:

Western Oregon University joins the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges - The Journal

In reading Paul Fanlunds latest diatribe on rezoning and transportation issues, my emotions varied from disbelief to anger to a general feeling of tiredness with this whole rigmarole.

Fanlund (and his co-writer, former Mayor Paul Soglin) have reduced what should be an important and nuanced policy debate on accommodating our surging population to a matter of personal grudges, pettiness and accusations that the other side is playing the race card. Its disheartening to see this discourse devolve into the same name-calling and insubstantial posturing that so often poisons our state and national politics.

I am tired of the ceaseless attacks on our mayor, alders, city staff and activists for taking the necessary action to ensure Madison has the housing, infrastructure and services to support our future populace. But I am also infuriated that Fanlund and Soglin have wrapped their opposition to progress into the progressive legacy of our city. Not only does their patronizing tone belittle the valid points of pro-housing advocates, it betrays the liberal ideas that make Madison so special.

Since Fanlund and Soglin are so concerned with the idea that they are being personally attacked, vilified and god forbid called racist for their inequitable positions, I want to be very clear. I dont think their opposition to more housing and transit in our city is secretly driven by racism or an aversion to diversity. But they insist that the citys primary duty is to uphold the wishes of longtime homeowners at the expense of the well-being of renters and future residents. That belies an apathy to the larger moral and political issues at the heart of this fight.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the discussion of rights. As Fanlund wrote, he believes pro-housing policies are designed to take rights from residents, mostly longtime homeowners. I will set aside the question of what rights are under attack (A view of the capitol? Four lanes of traffic?) and instead ask this: What about the rights of everyone else?

As a Democrat, I believe everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living, which includes a right to quality, affordable housing. Even if we believe Fanlund and Soglins claim that some unspecified rights are under attack here, we should consider whose rights the city should prioritize.

We can find that answer in philosopher John Rawls books A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness, which provide the backbone of much modern liberal thought, as well as my own political philosophy. He argues that in cases like these our aim should be to do the greatest benefit for the least advantaged members of society. I would hope that in a city as enlightened as ours we could all stand behind that principle.

So let me ask, who is more historically disadvantaged in this debate? The retirees and longtime homeowners who have paid off million-dollar houses? Or the tens of thousands struggling to keep up with out-of-control rent increases driven by our citys shockingly low vacancy rates?

Soglin gripes about those charging injustice and racism, but are we not charged as a liberal society to view issues through a lens of racial equity? Do these critics of housing policies dispute that the burden of high housing costs are unduly borne by our communities of color? Or do they simply not care, since these are not the neighbors thanking Fanlund for his brave defense of the status quo, nor the ones who have lived in Madison since Soglin first ran for office over half a century ago?

Our duty as Democrats, as compassionate, liberal, caring people, does not start and end on Nov. 5. It must be embodied in the actions of our day-to-day lives and the policies that govern our own communities.

I admire the work of Soglin and other leaders of the past who helped create the progressive haven I lovingly call home. But to use their legacy to dismiss the challenges we currently face or shirk our responsibility to uphold those ideals for future generations is a betrayal of that same work.

Noah Lieberman was a City Council candidate in 2023. He is also on the executive board of the Dane County Democratic Party and chairs Madisons Landlord Tenant Issues Committee.

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Originally posted here:

Opinion | Fanlund, Soglin's views on housing betray liberal values - The Capital Times

The Conservatives have won the unwinnable: electing Don Stewart as Member of Parliament in the Liberal stronghold of TorontoSt. Pauls with 42 per cent of the vote.

This result is nothing less than dramatic, not only demonstrating the Conservative Party of Canadas organizational capacity, but signalling the impending demise of Justin Trudeaus Liberals.

Although Trudeau can remain Liberal leader, its increasingly difficult to justify a leadership that cannot rely on winning the safest of safe seats.

Compared to the 2021 federal election, the byelection consisted of a 19 per cent overall swing in the vote. The Liberals dropped from 49.22 per cent to 40.5 per cent according to preliminary results.

Although this doesnt indicate a total collapse in support, in a riding where the party reliably wins over 50 per cent, its cause for serious concern for the Liberals. It mirrors their performance of 40.6 per cent in the dismal 2011 general election.

But this is perhaps not as significant as the increase of the Conservatives showing from 25.3 per cent in 2021 to 42.1 per cent last night, the greatest performance of a centre-right party since 1988 in Toronto-St. Pauls.

The results were otherwise bad for all additional parties, including the 84 Independents on the ballot. The New Democrats vote dropped to just under 11 per cent and the Greens received a mere 2.9 per cent, deeming both, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Toronto-St.Pauls, as is increasingly the case in the rest of Canada, was a two-way contest.

The byelections results can be effectively interpreted as a referendum on Trudeaus leadership and the effectiveness of the Liberal administration he manages.

Read more: A byelection to watch: What the Toronto-St. Paul's vote means for Justin Trudeau

Both the Liberals and Conservatives framed the vote this way, positioning themselves as the representatives of either continuity or change. As such, they demonstrated the scope of Canadians growing discontent, pervading sense of malaise and desire for change.

The result suggests that even the Liberal partys most reliable base of voters urban, wealthy, educated and socially progressive were themselves prepared to signal the need for something new.

The reality is the Liberals have struggled to inspire public confidence when it comes to a range of economic and social problems that affect the day-to-day lives of Canadians, including those in cities: stagnating economic growth, unaffordable homes, inflation, a difficult cost-of-living environment, growing unemployment, open drug use and an increase in violent crime.

Trudeaus unpopularity pertains not only to the governments actual management of these issues, but the fact that the Liberals have been unable to articulate convincing reasons about why they should stay in power for the foreseeable future.

Many of their recent policy initiatives including a national pharmacare program, increased capital gains tax and a Renters Bill of Rights have failed to capture public attention.

Similarly, the governments cascading range of attacks on the Conservative opposition its own limited policy solutions, inevitable austerity, problematic stances on womens rights and associations with the alt-right, to name a few examples have failed to slow the Conservative Partys momentum.

However, the Conservatives also won the byelection through their own efforts, particularly when it came to an incredibly effective local campaign.

The byelections higher-than-average turnout could indicate that a decisive factor was as much as the depth of anti-Liberal sentiment the Conservatives ability to ensure their supporters got out to vote. That would suggest the Liberals not only lack momentum among their own core supporters, but face an emboldened Conservative party with enough resources to actively contest areas that are conventionally seen as non-competitive.

The results dont necessarily mean that once strongly Liberal urban areas are all bound to flip to the Conservatives. Byelections are unique events, and it is unlikely the Conservatives will be able to invest the same amount of attention and resources into similar ridings in a general election.

Instead, the real implications of Toronto-St Pauls are summed up this way: If the party can gather this amount of support in midtown Toronto, what can it do in must-win suburban swing seats?

All indicators suggest the Liberals are headed towards a generational seismic defeat, repeating their performances of 1958, 1984 and 2011. Canadian political history indicates that this isnt the end of the line for the Liberal party itself but, rather, the low point of a cycle.

As with its other historic defeats, the party could tap into its remarkable flexibility, engaging in a process of organizational and policy renewal that will return them to power in short order. The fact, however, is that Liberal Party support has been in gradual decline since the 1970s, and the party has less of a regional base of support to rebuild from.

Other than a general election loss, there is no formal way for other Liberals whether cabinet ministers, MPs or individual members to remove a sitting leader. Trudeau stays if he wants to stay.

But given the current absence of any clear direction away from absolute defeat, the prime minister is bound to face increased pressure from his own party to resign. While these would not force a change, they could still make the task of governing difficult and personally draining.

Several prominent members and staff are likely to depart, and the partys caucus concerned theyll lose their own seats could grow more unco-operative or disagreeable.

Prime ministers have come back from periods of sustained unpopularity. The 1980 return to power of Trudeaus father, Pierre Trudeau, for example, may be on the top of his mind. But, if successful, Trudeaus comeback would be unprecedented: there is no successful case of reversing approval ratings as few as 28 per cent.

If the Liberals delay an election for another year, a leadership change may adjust their fortunes. But this is unlikely: eight years of incumbency is hard to reverse, and while many similar changes have been attempted before Brian Mulroney to Kim Campbell or Pierre Trudeau to John Turner, for example none has been successful at evading defeat.

Excerpt from:

Byelection shocker: Is this the end of the road for Justin Trudeau's political career? - The Conversation

Open this photo in gallery:

Several of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet ministers are promising to listen to voters in the aftermath of a crushing Toronto byelection defeat in what was considered a safe Liberal riding for decades. Trudeau prepares to speak at a news conference in Vancouver, on June 25.ETHAN CAIRNS/The Canadian Press

Toronto-St. Pauls isnt really one of the safest Liberal ridings in the country. Safe it certainly is, having voted Liberal in every election since 1993. But 19 other ridings are as safe or safer by that measure.

Vancouver Quadra has been electing Liberals since 1984. The Toronto riding of Humber River-Black Creek, the former York West, last elected a candidate from another party in 1958. Mount Royal, on the Island of Montreal, has been solidly Liberal since 1940. Ottawa Vanier has been a Liberal riding since its creation, in 1935; in its former incarnation as Russell, since 1887.

What distinguishes Toronto-St. Pauls is more what it used to be: a bellwether. It was one of those ridings affluent, educated, metropolitan that historically could vote either Liberal or Conservative, depending on the prevailing political winds, but which, since the collapse of the Mulroney coalition in 1993, have remained alien territory for the Tories.

It wasnt so much a matter of ideology, I think, as culture: The generation of Conservatives that grew out of the old Reform Party harsher, less compromising, more populist was almost literally incomprehensible to the genteel professional classes that populated these ridings. If they are now willing to give them a look, something genuinely is up.

It isnt the Conservatives that have changed under Pierre Poilievre they are if anything more remote from metropolitan sensibilities than they were under Stephen Harper. It is the growing disaffection of these voters with the governing Liberals.

Its easy to say that it was just a by-election an opportunity for voters to take a free kick at those in power, without risk of actually bringing down the government. But the results in Toronto-St. Pauls are hardly a one-off. They confirm a trend in the national numbers that has been clear and constant for the past 12 months.

A significant percentage of former Liberal voters, that is to say, have turned on the Liberals. They want the Grits out so much so that they are willing to hold their nose and vote Conservative to get it done.

And not only former Liberal voters. Look at the results in Toronto-St. Pauls. The Conservatives turned a 24 point deficit versus the Liberals in the 2021 election into a near two-point margin in their favour. Yet only a part of that swing was due to movements between the two parties. The Liberal vote fell nine points, yes, but the Conservative vote rose by 17.

Much of the difference came from the NDP. The Liberals lost the riding in Mondays by-election with a larger share of the vote than they won it with in 2021. It was the collapse of the NDP vote and its apparent swing to the Conservatives that did them in.

Still, the implications are obvious. If Toronto-St. Pauls is within reach for the Conservatives, then so are dozens more ridings like it. The Conservative vote has grown so large, and spread so wide, that the greater efficiency of the Liberal vote is no longer enough to save them. If the trend holds, they are headed for catastrophic defeat in the next election.

How did we get here? More important, where do we go from here? Im struck by the universal pundit consensus that the only possible response to the Toronto-St. Pauls disaster must be the resignation of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister and party leader as if the results could simply be put down to his personal unpopularity; as if the Liberals unpopularity were all about messaging, image and leadership.

No doubt that is part of it. It was evident 11 years ago, when the Liberals, in the devastating aftermath of the 2011 election, seized on the son of a former prime minister as their saviour, that they were leaving themselves exposed. Rather than address any of the fundamental weaknesses in the partys appeal that had seen its average share of the popular vote fall from over 40 per cent in the last half of the 20th century to barely 30 per cent since then, they bet the farm on the dynastic principle and sunny ways.

It worked for a time. But popular infatuation, so easily sparked, is as easily dissipated. All the little things the smiles, the simpering poses, the ostentatious progressivism that people found so charming in the first couple of years were bound to grate after a while.

But good gracious: the record of the Liberals in office must surely also have something to do with it. The notion that the Liberals woes can all be remedied just by jettisoning Mr. Trudeau as leader is the same quick-fix mentality that elected him.

As Prime Minister, he must of course accept a large share of the blame for the governments current odium, the more so given the near-total centralization of power in the Prime Ministers Office by all accounts greater now than it has ever been.

But these are nevertheless decisions for which the government must be held to account, no matter who leads it:

So yes, the public has ample reason to want to toss the Liberals as the Liberals, in hopes of avoiding that fate, have ample reason to want to toss the Prime Minister. Before doing either, however, it is important to ask: what is the alternative?

There will be time enough to consider whether the Conservatives, or any other party, would represent an improvement over the Liberals. For now, the question is what strictly from the standpoint of Liberal self-interest to do about the Prime Minister?

Or rather, what can be done about him? He shows no willingness to go, even after Toronto-St. Pauls. (His response: I hear peoples concerns and frustrations, but my focus is on your success and thats where its going to stay.) And there is no mechanism to remove him if he does not. The Liberal Party constitution provides for a mandatory leadership review after an election defeat not before it.

The party did not sign onto the provisions of the Reform Act that allowed the Conservatives to dispatch Erin OToole with such ruthless efficiency. The prospect, rather, is for an endless shadow war, between those terrified at facing the electorate with Mr. Trudeau as leader and those terrified at facing them without him, with no rules of engagement and no clear criterion for deciding the matter.

Suppose they do force him out. What then? Late-term leadership races, held in the shadow of impending defeat, are divisive, debilitating exercises. All the cracks in the coalition, so long suppressed under the former leaders rule, start to show. All that money spent, all those fingers pointed, and for what, in the end? Quite probably, to see the shiny new leader mowed down in the general election. See Campbell, Kim; also see Turner, John.

Not only is there no obvious alternative to Mr. Trudeau, no prohibitive front-runner around which the party could rally. There is also no one offering the party clearly superior prospects of holding onto government. Unpopular Mr. Trudeau may be his approval rating is now negative 26 per cent by one measure, negative 38 per cent by another but a recent Angus Reid poll showed even less public enthusiasm for any of the most commonly mentioned potential candidates.

If you are going to go down to defeat, it is arguably better to do so under the old leader, and let him wear it, rather than taint the new leader as a loser. Defeat may be more certain under the old leader than the new, but it may also be less catastrophic, with less risk of fragmenting the partys existing base. Put it this way: had Brian Mulroney stayed on, the Tories would still quite probably have lost the 1993 election. But they would not have been reduced to two seats.

So heres a suggestion for the Liberals, as an alternative to panic and regicide. Why not try, in the time you have left, governing better a more pragmatic government, and yet a more principled one, with less focus on optics and more on outcomes; one that makes a serious effort to correct its past mistakes, starting with the public finances, economic growth and national security.

It probably wont save your government. But you will have more to rebuild with afterward: more seats, yes, but also more integrity and more dignity.

View original post here:

Opinion: Dumping Trudeau won't save the Liberals - The Globe and Mail