All those in favor raise your right hand... those opposed... form a coalition!

Evaluating political leaders is a slippery slope. It is almost certainly laced with personal ideological prejudice. One way to remove or minimize oneself from personal prejudice is comparing behavior with history.

Today Cincinnatus is generally referred to as a mythical character. He was the Roman general that inspired George Washington and the “Society of Cincinnati” (in honor of which the city was named). It was the equivalent of today's American Legion or VFW. As the story goes, Cincinnatus defeated the Roman enemies and saved the city of Rome. After conquering Rome's enemies he resigned as “dictator” and went back to his farm fields. This story so inspired George Washington that after defeating the British he also resigned and went home, shocking and inspiring rulers, leaders and civilizations around the globe. George Washington was an intimate part of a social movement typifying the title “civil servant”. It was a society of self sacrificing noble characters. If there is another more honorable and inspiring illustration of civil servant leadership I do not know it.

I think this is an excellent place to begin when benchmarking political leaders. Stepping down for the benefit of the whole (or as Spock said “…the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…”) is a noble leadership philosophy. Today however, this “steeping down as leader” is thrown around the media and parliament as rhetoric of mere “political partisanship” greatly trivializing its noble and honorable origins. The words are no longer linked to honor and integrity but used as an emotional leverage in the meager conflicts of ideology. Having two vastly different political and economic paradigms are normal in modern day democracies. Demanding “resignations” based solely on difference of opinions and ideology is senseless arrogant gibberish. It’s intellectual trash.

Canada has been exposed to too many political opportunists rather than true civil servants (sometimes humility is hard to see in the presence of such wide spread arrogance). Unfortunately the current political format is the leveraging and muscling INTO power for the benefit of the few.

Harper’s denouncing of a coalition of the liberals with the Bloc/PQ is only a hypocritical refection of “what goes around comes around” referring to his own attempt at a Bloc/PQ coalition years ago. My words would be: “…you can’t denounce today what you accepted as a tactic years ago…” Either apologize for your prior behavior or “repent” of your denouncement of the Liberal attempt. Submit YOURSELF to democracy, however difficult that position becomes for YOU or your party!

That said, let’s flip the coin, Since Dion is on his way out, the attempt to form a coalition government smells of radical desperation! To the Canadian public, it’s somewhat embarrassing (unless your passion for Liberalism/NDP policy tampers judgment). It discredits individual party platforms. It waters them down and virtually reduces the participants (especially the Liberals) to a second class party. However, its the Liberal party's choice, and it is still within our democratic process (flawed though it may be). Unfortunately, the Canadian parliamentary system does not provide a whole lot of predictable functionality in a minority setting, especially in a pluralistic atmosphere.

But that’s not all… Ignatieff’s coalition to form a coalition must be one of the most unprecedented political grasps in Canadian history (A Cincinnatus Antithesis… Oooh look I invented a new phrase). Personally, I’m frustrated! I’d rather see Ignatieff’s ideology as opposition/coalition leader than Bob Rae’s. But now I’m forced to defend Bob Rae’s kick at the can! He… de…serves…. a Lib...eral... party... vote! (Phew I could hardly get that out). Without a respectable full party inclusion vote I think the front runner would be diminishing his respectability and ultimately repeating history by blowing his lead again. He would be painting himself as a demagogue. This coalition… to form a coalition… smacks of someone desperately trying to avail themselves of the democratic process.

Unfortunately for the Liberals they have spun themselves silly. If there is a gain to be made in this coalition (I refer to the later coalition not the former) at best it will be short. Imagine how much fun the Conservatives will have in the next federal election (something we will probably have again shortly). Will Dion/Ignatieff/Rae-Layton-Duceppe campaign together? What color would their platform book be? It sure would reduce GHG to have them all on the same bus. Would they have seporate podiums at the debates or share one? I have a suggestion, if they all campaign together and they’re shooting for a Liberal Minority and their slogan is “Really Strong!” they can be the L-M-N-D-P-Q-R-S Party! It flows nicely into a jingle and is easily remembered by the younger demographics.

The coalition would stand as the desperate opportunistic “bad guy”, while the Conservatives slide into the “knight in shining armor” seat. Partisanship aside, I think Canadians don’t have a lot of faith in the concept of a coalition. Therefore we may be stuck with perpetual annual elections until ideologies soften or one ultimately dominates. All those who agree raise your right hand… those who oppose… form a coalition.