For the 2004 U.S. election, The Economist — one of my favourite magazines — gave a heavy hearted endorsement John Kerry in their editiorial, The Incompetent or the Incoherent?. For the 2006 Canadian elections, they endorse Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in an editorial titled Those Daring Canadians [you can read the article if you’re willing to sit through an advertisement], which is subtitled “And why they should vote Conservative this time”.
Here’s the meat of the article:
On the face of it, the sacking [of the Liberal Party] seems perverse, and ungrateful. The Liberals have given Canada a long period of stable politics,
enlightened social policy and economic growth, boosted lately by the
world’s growing appetite for Canada’s plentiful energy and natural
resources. Although the prime minister, Paul Martin, has had the top
job only since the end of 2003, he gave a stellar performance as
finance minister in the years before that, restoring order to public
finances the Tories had left in chaos. By comparison, his Conservative
challenger, Stephen Harper, is an unknown quantity, untested by
previous high office and until recently written off as a not especially
competent leader of the opposition. In short, barring a last-minute
reversion to type as they enter the polling stations, Canadians seem to
have decided to take a gamble. Gambling will be out of character. It
will also, on this occasion, be right.
The Liberals have done many good things over the past 12 years, but
have lately succumbed to the three familiar vices of a party that has
been too long in power. The first of these is sleaze. Mr Martin would
not be holding this unpopular mid-winter election at all but for the
unearthing of a decade-old financing scandal under which public money
intended to promote the federal cause in Quebec was diverted to the
Liberals and their cronies. The second is fractiousness. Mr Martin
became prime minister only after mounting a palace coup against his
predecessor, Jean Chrétien. Instead of uniting around the new leader,
the party thereupon coalesced around two sullen and unforgiving camps.
The last is directionlessness. However stellar his performance as a
finance minister, Mr Martin has failed as prime minister to convey a
sense of policy priorities to his demoralised civil servants or of
national purpose to Canadians at large.
The West’s Turn
The vices of prolonged incumbency might be enough to persuade voters inalmost any democracy that it was time for a change. But Canada has
another reason on top of this to welcome a Conservative victory. Over
recent years, many people in western Canada, where the Conservatives
are strongest, have come to believe that their part of the country does
not get a fair hearing in Ottawa, where national politics is
traditionally dominated by Ontario and Quebec, and the latter’s
constant talk of secession. Westerners ruefully note that since 1968
Canada has spent 36 years under prime ministers who come from Quebec,
or represent constituencies in Quebec, and a mere 15 months under prime
ministers from the west. As an adopted westerner, Mr Harper might
therefore be in a good position to inject new unity into a federation
under strain.
