Identification and Advocacy for the "Great Middle"

North America - most notably the U.S. and Canada - have been, in many respects, an amazingly successful social experiment in the removal of class and the potential of democracy.

The history of most major cultures in the world has been a history of class struggle, and without minimizing the incredible mistreatment of our original citizens, our aboriginal cultures, immigrants to our two countries were largely successful in creating a less stratified society and a broad and successful middle class.. to a great extent, directly related to our free democratic system that allowed the middle class to influence decisions as the highest levels to assure that they did not fall into the traps of domination by the aristocracy seen elsewhere.

To no suprise, political success in our respective countries has essentially fallen to those parties who have been most able to identify and attract this "great middle", and the recent about-face in the U.S. has shown this most dramatically.

The great success of the Republican party has been its ability to do two things:

a) To assure funding of their machine, by maintaining a comfortable relationship with big business;
b) To assure votes, by wrestling identification of a party of the "great middle" away from the Democratic Party, whom they have branded as a party of "progressive" policies detrimental to the interests of the working man.

This delicate balance is the cornerstone of success of a modern democratic party - and when the balance is lost, the party will fall. Such is the case with the Republican party. They have become addicted to the "crack" of big business money and have lost their relationship, their identification with the "average guy". And Barack Obama has capitalized upon that like no Democrat since Kennedy.

In Canada - we are in a sort of stasis. A balancing. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been able to clearly stake their territory in the centre of this Country.. and who learns that lesson quickest, and best, will no doubt be the first to capture a majority.

Where are the weak links?

For the Liberals - it's probably on environmental policy. As Stephane Dion learned too late, it is one thing for Canadians to say, "the environment is important", but it's another thing to ask already stressed middle Canadians to reach into their pocket and pay to change it. As I discovered during a small debate last election, my conservative leanings were extremely unpopular, until I focussed on two or three audience members and asked a pointed question, "Would it concern YOU, if I told you you might lose a job and your friend might lose a job, but it would help the environment just a very little bit?" Turns out it did.

For the Conservatives, it's probably health care. Canadians are justifiably nervous about their health care. They can see, first hand, how a predominantly private care system treats the middle class in the U.S., and fear of $1,000.00 per month health care insurance creates a great sense of unease with a government that they still feel they don't truly know - and, for all of Stephen Harper's strength's, exuding warmth and trust is not one of them.

Personally - I think that the Conservatives will probably succeed next election, as the Liberals picked exactly the wrong sort of leader to identify with that middle. A man who is an academic, who lived outside of Canada for a good portion of his life, who attended private schools, who has a past suggestive of being dismissive of those "lesser" than he is.

Whether the Conservatives will take advantage of that mistake will be the million dollar question.