Ten...Nine...

...days left to go, and then I'll be boring the snot out of everyone blogging the political aftermath of what looks certain to be a Tory victory.

Before I get started, a quick one question survey of my readers is in order.

The question: should I open up another blog for strictly political musings?

I don't want to--I think that if I did that, one or the other of my blogs would wither and eventually die. I am in awe of all you blogspotters out there who maintain two (or even more!) separate blogs. I'm not in a position to write full time right now...I have a full time job and a full time marriage.
But I can't deny that the Breadbin has been getting more and more political lately, and it may be turning some of my readership off. I work in retail; I'd rather redirect a reader to a NEW AND IMPROVED fine bloggery product (also owned and managed by Ken Breadner Enterprises, etc) than lose him or her. Your call, folks.

Now, on to the meal.

APPETIZER: a steaming bowl of none of your damned business

Warren Kinsella is one of the biggest trees in the Canadian blogforest--he got more than two hundred thousand hits on his site in one day last week. I suspect that's more than most newspapers get. Kinsella is a former Liberal advisor and strategist who did a lot to earn Chretien his consecutive majorities. He's not a Martin fan. (Isn't this Liberal civil war interesting? You so rarely see this rancour in a governing party.)
At any rate, he mentions in passing that people have been asking him how he'll vote. He first says "it's none of your damned business" before grudgingly admitting he will vote for his local Liberal MP, adding in haste that a Stephen Harper minority is "a-ok" by him.

I've never understood the mentality that how one votes is "none of your damned business". I think voting is important...important enough to put serious thought into, important enough to discuss with friends and family, important enough to indulge in a little good-natured proselytizing. I'm not suggesting we should jam our voting preferences down each other's throats, but recruiting votes for your party of choice can only be a good thing, if you believe in the vision they have for the country. I'm not ashamed of my vote. If I was, I'd be even more inclined to justify it unto others..."yes, I'm voting Liberal--I know all about the scams and the incompetence, but I don't want to see the second coming of Dubya up here in Canada". How you mark your ballot in the privacy of the voting booth is, indeed, your own business. But the truth soon outs. It always amazes me how many people claim not to have voted for Dalton McGuinty here in Ontario last time out. You'd think he didn't get any votes at all. And yet he's our Premier.

ENTREE: Roasted Political Behavior in a Closed-Minded Sauce

I've been talking politics with all sorts of people lately, asking them that dreaded question.."how will you vote?" I must work with a more politically aware subset of youth. For many of them this is their first national election as eligible voters, and most of them do intend to vote. This heartens me.
(Actually, one of the few who told me she has no intention of voting also gave me the one good reason I could think of for not voting: she not only has no interest in matters political, she has next-to-no knowledge of same. She avoids all news, and while she could name our Prime Minister, she had no idea what party he leads. Her non-vote gets my sincere blessing.)
It's the older people at work--people who have had time to set their minds in cement--who baffle me and occasionally rile me up. One of them said she wasn't sure how she would vote, but it wouldn't be for Harper, because of his "beady little eyes: he gives me the creeps, he does". "Why, K", I said half in jest, "I had no idea you were so shallow, voting for somebody based on what you think they look like." "Well, that's all we've got to go on, isn't it?" she practically yelled at me. "Everything else is promises, and that's all lies to get elected!"
That's Canadian political reasoning for you. And what most of these people don't seem to get is that much of it derives from the actions of Liberals. Paul Martin, who never met a priority he couldn't hump. Jean Chretien, who made an art of saying one thing and doing another. Dalton McGuinty, who famously intoned "I won't cut your taxes, but I won't raise them, either"...and then whacked us over the heads with the largest tax increase in decades.
I'll say this for Conservatives: they had plans, they told us what their plans were, and then they acted on them. Mike Harris is the best example. He told us exactly what he was going to do, people voted for him, and damned if he didn't do most of it. That seemed to piss off a great number of people--proof that in politics, you can't win for winning.
Mulroney was another case. This most vilified of Canadian leaders professed not to care what the polls said--he had an idea about what was good for the country and he acted on it.
Both Harris and Mulroney won back-to-back majorities before complacence and corruption set in (a strong argument, in my mind, for an American-style two-term limit).
I suspect Stephen Harper actually is of the Harris/Mulroney ilk, much as that may terrify some folks. He says what he means and he'll probably do what he says.
It frightens me when I hear people say that Harper (or, for that matter, Layton or even Martin) will "destroy" Canada. The only person who would destroy Canada is Gilles Duceppe--and he thinks Quebec leaving us would actually strengthen Canada. No matter either way, since Duceppe can never become Prime Minister.
So can we put away our little bugaboos about how if so-and-so is elected, the country will go to hell? Please? We still have dessert to get through here.

DESSERT: a slice of "don't worry, be happy" drizzled with Canadian maple syrup

Whatever a Prime Minister may say, his first priority upon getting the keys to 24 Sussex is to keep them. You can call that a lust for power if you want; God knows most of us have it. Should Harper win this thing, he'll be no different. Ergo, he won't do anything radical that will kill his chances of re-election. He won't gut the health care system, even if he wanted to (and he doesn't). He won't make abortion illegal no matter how many times people try to get him to say he will. He may indeed drift us a little closer to the orbit of the United States, our largest trading partner, but given how much antipathy exists between our two nations right now, that can only be a good thing. But we won't become the 51st state. Not until Washington says so.

So concludes our political meal.