Voter recall—known in political science as a citizens’ initiative—is best known for taking place in the basketcase democracy that is California.

In 2003 the “Dump Davis” campaign was launched a year into Gray Davis’ second term in office. Davis, who described the initiative as a “right-wing power grab,” was voted out after an electricity crisis, an ongoing financial crisis, and a public image crisis.

The $66 million recall — the second state-level initiative in US history (most are mayoral) — resulted in a snap election with many candidates including Arianna Huffington, Gary Coleman, and ultimate determinator Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Last year, Illinoisans did some legal fidgeting allowing them to do likewise after facing gubernatorial scumbag Rod Blagojevich. Angry Wisconsinites might follow suit.

Last week, in the run-up to Ontario’s election this October, one Progressive Conservative MPP floated the idea of implementing recall legislation. Although the proposal’s likely just a distraction in a campaign that’s had little substance, the idea has been gaining some traction. One candidate in Toronto’s recent mayoral campaign proposed a similar initiative.

While some commentators have shown interest, others have decried the proposal as an extra apparatus for the Tea Party’s populist toolkit. NDP MPP Peter Kormos dismissed the initiative as being among “interesting things that come from the right.”

Ballot recalls aren’t too popular in Canada. The Albertan government passed the Recall Act in April 1936 but rescinded it 19 months later after public support dropped. A bill to reintroduce the act had its first reading last year.

British Columbia is the only province where voter recall is an option. It was implemented in 1995 by the provincial NDP after a 1991 referendum, but it’s much more stringent than American legislation.

In California, a successful recall petition requires an number of signatories equal to a percentage of those who voted in the last election for the office in question: 12 percent for statewide offices and 20 percent for local senators. Because only half of registered voters actually voted in the 2003 election, only six percent of registered Californians were needed to oust Davis.

Luckily, a voter recall is much harder to stage in BC, where the required levee is 40 percent of all of registered voters — regardless of whether they even voted. Not that an actual recall is necessary. The threat alone can shake things up.

Last summer, anti-HST activists mounted a recall campaign in an attempt to oust Liberal MLAs in ridings with shaky support. What resulted was a premier’s resignation and a related NDP coup, described by one voter as an “internal recall.”

If it is implemented in Ontario, Alberta, or elsewhere, let’s hope voter recall produces better results for democracy than its antithesis.

That's a turnout: Election Night, June 8, 1908, on Bay Street, Toronto.

From the Second World War until the end of the 20th century, roughly 75 percent of eligible voters consistently cast ballots in federal elections. During the Jean Chrétien era, however, that number began to drop and has been declining ever since.

There are many theories as to why this is the case: the increased frequency of elections, less civic obligation, increased skepticism about government’s efficiency, proliferation of negative campaign advertisements, decline in socialization, and administrative changes, like the move from voter enumeration to a permanent electors list. Each exhibits empirical validity, but none entirely explains the downward trend.

It’s not just Canada—voter turnout has declined around the world, and it has been declining steadily by generation. This is particularly troubling because we know that voting is a life skill which needs to be learned early. Disengaged youth today become disenchanted taxpayers tomorrow.

Changing voting rules to allow multiple ballots, transferable ballots, or proportional representation are frequently advanced as improvements Canada should consider. Each has merits and each would improve voter turnout, but only modestly.

It’s time to consider a more drastic move: making voting mandatory.

During the 2000 election, when turnout dipped to 61.2 percent, the chief electoral officer was asked if he would consider proposing to Parliament that voting be made compulsory, as it is in several jurisdictions around the world. He said at the time that he did not support the idea, but if voting dropped below 60 percent he would reconsider his position. In the last federal election the turnout was 58.8 percent. It’s time for a public debate on the idea.

Voting is compulsory in a number of countries, including Australia, which shares our basic political system, constitutional framework, and colonial history. We already make a large number of civic duties obligatory, such as jury duty. So why not voting? There is no reasonable argument that a few minutes out of a citizen’s day every four years or so to make them visit a local polling station is an unfair burden for living in a democracy.

It needs to be clear that what is compulsory is not voting; only spending a few minutes at a polling station. Voters are free to destroy their ballot. In fact, in most countries with compulsory voting, there is a box one can check to state “none of the above”.

With the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, the turnout went from less than 60 percent to over 91 percent overnight.

Public opinion polls suggest Canadians do not currently support the idea of making voting compulsory (though there is evidence that resistance to the idea is lessening), but the majority of Australians also said they were opposed prior to its introduction. Now, a majority of Australians say they strongly support the law.

Nevertheless, Canadian politicians may be reluctant to lead public opinion. That is why, in 2002, I suggested an alternative: offering a tax credit for voting. Use a carrot instead of the stick.

This is a very Canadian approach, as we have a long history of using taxation to encourage behaviour, including the funding of political parties. A tax credit would provide an incentive to vote. More importantly, it would offset some of the costs associated with voting that disproportionately affect lower-income Canadians. It could be means-tested, and thus paid only to those whose income level is likely to be a barrier to civic participation.

Working people used to be paid to vote by their employers, who were obligated by law to give time off work on election day, but this obligation has been lessened due to the staggering of hours for polling stations. Even when it was provided, paid time off to vote never helped people whose employment was piecemeal, shift work, temporary, or casual—the least affluent members of our society.

There are tangible costs associated with voting, such as transportation, hiring a babysitter, and time spent collecting information and following the issues. These costs affect people differently based on their socio-economic circumstances. In the U.S. mid-term elections in November, for example, it was found that the economic situation had deterred a large number of low-income African-Americans from voting simply because of the administrative costs associated with registration.

To date, the Liberal party of Alberta is the only political party to adopt my idea of a voter tax credit, and no political party in Canada has endorsed compulsory voting.

It is probably a safe bet that the Conservative party of Canada will not introduce compulsory voting on its own, given its fear of all things compulsory (like the long-gun registry and the long-form census), or support a voter tax credit because it will be afraid it might benefit another political party. But there is no evidence that compulsory voting benefits either side of the ideological spectrum.

A higher turnout lends the elected political leaders legitimacy. Low turnout leads to divisive elections and a dissatisfied populace.

The turnout in U.S. mid-term elections is usually around 40 percent, one of the lowest for an industrialized democracy. The disproportionate impact of the right-wing Tea Party movement is only possible because of this low turnout.

In ancient Athens, voting was compulsory and people were financially compensated for taking time off to participate. This became the largest item in the government’s budget, but it was a new experiment in government in which they believed strongly—clearly more strongly than we do 2,000 years later.

“I’m Canadian.”

This became my opening for every interview at the tax day Tea Party rally at the Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC.

It seemed like the best way to distance myself from the camera crews and journalists who were swarming the interesting or outrageous among the two-to-three thousand ralliers.

“I’m Canadian and I just want to know what’s happening today,” I would explain. And It was true. I went to the rally because I really don’t understand what’s happening in the United States today. I read blogs, watch the news, and catch Daily Show highlights like anyone else, but it doesn’t capture the sometimes hopeful, sometimes intimidating, always ethereal sense of change happening in America.

I went to the Tea Party not to judge anyone or enforce misconceptions, but to try to figure out what is mobilizing people from across the country to take part in an undeniably influential grassroots movement.

What I learned first was that most of these people were skeptical of the media. They eyed me, recorder and camera in hand, with suspicion. Those who were talkative often used the interview as a platform to expose whatever bias they thought I had.

Those who were interested in talking talked a lot. Tom, for example, approached me and the people I was with seemingly out of the blue, and took a great interest in whether or not we were Jewish.

Once Rick and Sharon started talking, they had a lot to say. They commandeered the interview to interrogate me about the quality of Canadian health care.

Carolyn and Ryan, two of the few students at the rally, seemed reasonable, even if our politics don’t match up. And like the few young people I spoke with, stressed that there were a lot of young people present

Another important lesson I learned was that the “Fair Tax” movement is not the same as “Tea Party” movement. Fair Tax might organize Tea Party events, but, as Jabari explained, the two aren’t synonymous.

I tried to be as non-judgmental as possible and to allow the interviewees to speak for themselves. The question I most wanted an answer to was, “why are you here?” Here are some of their answers:

Caroline

Caroline from Arlington, Virginia

What brings you out here today?

I’m a conservative. I once was a Democrat, but the Democratic party was once conservative, too. It was once pro-life. And then I was a Reagan Democrat for years, and worked for Pat Buchanan–he’s a great conservative. I believe in following the constitution; small government; and right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–life number one. That is our most troubling issue. Three thousand, one hundred children will be killed today by abortion. Today. More than died on 9/11, died of abortion in the United States. That is such a huge problem. And the Democratic party is supporting it. It’s disgraceful. So that’s my number-one issue.

And I also believe in subsidiarity, distributes, small government. If it can be done in the family, it should be done in the family. If it can be done in the county level or the city level, do it there. If it needs to go to the state–and some things do–there. And the federal government is supposed to have a military to defend us, and not a whole heck-of-a-lot more. And we’ve just gone farther, and farther, and farther, and of course we have this terrific debt. And I’m upset that George Bush was involved in spending more money than he should have, although he has so much in the plus column. So supportive of the pro-life community. So you see how I got where I am.

And you look around here and you see authentic people. You see hand-made signs that tear your heart out. And you look at the protestors [that protest the Tea Party supporters] going by, I see them–I pray at Planned Parenthood five days a week–I see them at Capital Hill demonstrating. But they have signs that somebody handed them, and then they all leave at the same time because they’re all told to go. Their bosses told them to go, “You must go to the demonstration.”

Did anybody tell these people to go? No. This is not an engineered crowd. And a lot of us are saying, “Where do we meet? Is it 11? Is it six?” We’re trying to find out where to go, when.

Where do you get that kind of information?

Well, I got some in the Washington Times yesterday. And then on Fox news this morning they talked about [it].

It’s so authentic. It’s so real. It’s so American. These people here. [A man walks by, one of the many vendors selling flags an buttons, Caroline points at him] Now, he’s selling flags. He’s in business. He’s a small business man, God love him. So he’s here trying to earn money today, and that’s good. That’s good. That’s good. We love that!

We’re authentic. We’re for real.

Do you agree with everything the tea party believes in?

We don’t have a list of things we believe in. There is no membership card, there are no dues. It’s just people getting together. If I came down here and I saw something and I heard something I don’t like, I’d just leave. You look around and people are saying, “God bless you, I love you. What’s your first name? Where are you from?”

This is authentic. These are real people. They’re precious! And you’re precious. And I love you, and God loves you […] look around. Look around. This didn’t happen by a big bang or by accident. There was a cause, that always was, and always will be. And most of us call that cause God, call it whatever you like. But it’s… It’s… God. God love you, sweetheart.

Jabari and Marilyn

Jabari Zakiya, Washington, DC
Marilyn Rickert, Oak Forest, IL

A lot of people are talking about “authentic Americans” here today. Do you think the people here are “authentic Americans”?

Marilyn: Yeah, we’re all volunteers, we all pay our own way, nobody gets a salary, we have basically a nation-wide grassroots organization and there is maybe a handful of people that actually collect any kind of a salary at all.

Jabari: Well, you have to define. If authentic means “real”, then yeah, they’re real, but there is all levels of real. I mean, I don’t consider myself a tea party person, but there are elements of their concerns I agree with. I don’t agree with 100% of the political stuff. But one of the things that makes America America is that we can have all kinds of diversity in thought, but we can come together around a lot of common interests. I mean, the most right-wing person and I can cheer for the same sports teams, you know? And in the same way, that’s what our movement is about. We have a lot of different people from a lot of different movements with a lot of different ideologies, but we all agree on the fair tax. Even the tea party people that don’t agree 100% that the fair tax is the way, we’re trying to convince them that the reform is the fair tax.

Carolyn and Ryan

Carolyn Bolls from Washington, DC and Ryan Gilroy

Why are you here today?

Carolyn: Well, basically we’re sick of our government spending our money. We’re spending more to save more, that doesn’t make sense to us. We’re protesting this big government control of our country. We don’t want to end up with the government controlling every sector of our lives. It’s not just about taxes, it’s about government control of our personal lives.

Ryan: We’re tired of watching government spend, spend, spend. Honestly, both parties are spending so much money, they don’t realize that they’re stealing jobs away, they’re stealing our generation’s wealth. They’re robbing Peter, who isn’t even born yet, to pay Paul now.

Do you think anything like that was happening with the last generation?

Carolyn: I think it’s cyclical. I mean, we have elections, that’s why we have a democratic republic, we will be able to voice our opinions on November 2nd. That’s when we get to change, and I hope that’s the change that our country needs.

Ryan: It seems like we need it more than ever. The Republicans had control from 2000-2006 with a Republican congress, a Republican senate, and a Republican President. You figure taxes would go down. But no, it got ratcheted up even higher. That’s the problem: people want to be in power, so they try to get votes. They pass projects and say, “Hey look! If you help me get my vote, I’ll get your vote.”

Carolyn: Even with the last administration, with the George Bush administration, he spent–you know, No Child Left Behind, you had all these federal programs, the bailouts towards the end of his term as President. I don’t support that either. You know, I call myself a Republican, but I’m a Conservative first, and Conservative also insures fiscal responsibility.

Ryan: And also, you realize Medicare Part D is the tip of the iceberg. Then you got Obama and healthcare, which is putting another thing on top of another thing, and realizing […] it’s bi-partisan. Most people would hate to say, “oh, it’s the Democrats”. No, it’s both parties [that] like to spend a lot.

Are you proud to be representing young people with your politics? Do you think there should be more young people here today?

Ryan: I think there’s a lot of young people here. Look around you. there’s plenty of young people behind you. I think it’s a good mixture of everything, young, old, everything in between.

Carolyn: I agree, but I think those that care the most are the ones who are paying taxes, and so that will generally attract an older population. I’m definitely proud to be here. My generation has to stand up and speak for ourselves otherwise we’ll be in debt for the rest of our lives, and for the lives our children, and children after that.

Tom

Tom Wallin from Springfield, Illinois.

What religion are you?

I was baptized Anglican.

I’m just curious. I thought you might have been Jewish, and if you were I was wondering: do you support Obama or the people here?

Well, I can’t vote here—

I mean, but who would you support?

I don’t know, I don’t have all the information. I don’t live here.

Do you have a point of view on this event today?

I’m here because I’m asking people about their points of view.

Well I want to know who you are first, because you might distort what I have to say. I rode here 800 miles on my motorcycle to be part of it.

What kind of motorcycle?

A Yamaha FJR 1300. Yup.

Very nice.

It is. I hit a construction barrel coming in the other day, and it went off my bike like a ping pong, or a bowling pin.

Holy cow. So why are you here today?

I’m here because I think the government is out of control. I think it’s taking our tax money. And I think a lot of the stuff it’s doing is unconstitutional. I think they are ruining our medical system by changing something that was probably the best. [In the] the country there’s just a small number of people that needed to be insured. And they didn’t do things that would really cut costs.

I think president Bush–I love president Bush for many things that he did–but he was trying to befriend liberals, and he spent way too much money, and I think that made his government a toss up on whether he should go on Mount Rushmore or not. I think what he did to fight enemies of ours country, I think he should be respected like a Mr. Rushmore president. I mean, for eight years he fought against people trying to make him look bad. From the very, very beginning, the people that were trying to take over tried to make him look bad. And he didn’t have the courage to say “no” to the big spenders. But I think he’s a good, honest man, and I loved him for what he was, and I think the people who say he was dumb were just absolutely wrong. He was a very smart man. He’s countrified a little bit like I am, but that doesn’t mean he was dumb, that means that he didn’t appear to people like we used to establish-mentize.

What would you say to someone who wants to understand what’s happening in America right now?

It’s kind of like if you want to ask a motorcycle rider why he likes to ride a motorcycle. If you have to ask, you won’t figure it out.

I mean, this is the greatest country on Earth, and what they’re doing is just going to take it away. You know, you how to ruin a great country? You spend it to death. You know, people like Saul Alinsky, people that Obama likes to quote, all of his crowd, I mean–look at his friends. I don’t know who these young men were that were with you, but they were nice respectful guys. I don’t know what they do in their personal lives, but if they were anything like Obama’s friends, you would run for the hills, buddy. You would run for the hills, because his friends are evil. Reverend Knight, I mean, there’s the catholic priest…

What did you think of us when you saw us? You seemed really eager to talk to us.

I wanted to talk to you because, I wanted to ask—and I love Jews, Jewish country, Israel, I just totally respect [Benjamin] Netanyahu and everything he stands for—I wanted to ask you a question: how could you support Obama if you were Jewish? Because, 95% of American jews support Obama, and that’s one of the greatest things I don’t understand about this country.

Richard and Sharon

Richard and Sharon from Michigan

Richard: Do you like your healthcare up there? Have you ever used it?

Yeah.

Richard: Have you ever used it?

Yeah, of course. I mean, I’ve never had trouble with it. I’ve never been seriously ill, so I’m very thankful for that.

Richard: Well that’s a good thing.

We were in England in October. I came down with a kidney infection. And I got into their health system. And if Canadian health system is anything like English, you don’t want it.

I went into the emergency room, and the guy says, “oh I got some drugs that will do away with this.” Because we wrote on the little slip that I was passing blood in my urine. [He] never checked me one bit. Just read that little note that I wrote, or she wrote, on my admit.

Sharon: Didn’t check his vitals.

Richard: And he went to get the drugs and he came back and said, “It’s going to be a couple of minutes.” I said, “Well what about my fever?” And he says, “I’ll go see about the drugs.” Then he came back, to check my [temperature].

As soon as he checked that, he said, “Oh everything changed.” And they put me in the hospital. But he was going to let me go home, with a 100, 102 temperature without giving me anything for it.

Sharon: And he was supposed to be drinking water. They told him he was supposed to drink a whole lot of water while he was there. And the nurses would say they’d bring it when he’d ask them, and they never brought it. I’d have to go get it for him. That’s our only experience with government health care. That’s why we’re not happy.

Is that the reason you guys are here today?

Sharon: Well, we don’t like the spending.

Richard: We’re from Michigan. We don’t like the spending. We’re both—I’m retired, she never worked—

Sharon: [laughs] Well, thank you!

Richard: —well, outside, you know.

We have two kids. No grandkids. And we sit here, thankful, that we don’t have grandkids. Because of the debt that we’re putting onto our grandkids.

Do you think previous generations have left that kind of legacy?

Sharon: I think each generation has done better for a while now.

Richard: I think that after the war, we had such a baby boom that we could take care of our folks. But there’s too many of us now to put that debt onto our kids, you know? This year there’s less money coming in for social security than going out.

Do you think this will change things? The people here today?

Richard: Let’s hope.

Sharon: Well I think you gotta speak up and try. That’s why we’re here.

Richard: You got to try to stop it. I mean, look how much the government spent this year already, and last year.

Sharon: We’ve written to our congressman and the like. You know, doing what you can. There’s only so much you can do.

Has any other issue brought you to rally like this?

Sharon: a lot of the people here, it’s the same thing. They haven’t done this kind of thing before.

Richard: Back years ago we was too busy making a living. You know, going to work five, six days a week. Didn’t have time to do this kind of stuff.

Sharon: This is the fifth one we’ve been to. We went to two in Jackson, two in Lansing, and this one.

Where do you get information about the rallies?

Sharon: They have some information online. A lot of it is from there. TV.

What kind of TV do you watch? Which networks?

Richard: We watch Fox, because the other ones are so biased. I mean, we watch the other ones, I mean, I have CNN, and MSNBC. I look at all them, but they don’t bring up–like Brian Williams, you know, on NBC. He don’t bring up the tea parties. He just shows you what they want you to see.

Fox, you get mad at Fox because they don’t–they might spend too much time saying how great something is, but you don’t think it’s worth a damn. But they’re the best of the networks.

What would you say to someone who doesn’t understand this and just wants to know more?

Richard: I guess they could sit at the Ambassador bridge and watch the ambulance coming from over there to bring people to the hospital over here. They say there’s 40 to 60 ambulances bringing people from Canada over to here, because the health care is better here than there, you know.

Pronoblem

Pronoblem, from another dimension.

Why are you here?

That’s a pretty deep question, man.

Yeah, it is pretty deep. What do you think?

I don’t know. I try to do good, raise good kids. Be fair and honest.

What do you represent?

When people asked me that before, you know what I told them?

No, what did you say?

That I was Canadian.

Why did you come out here today?

I heard there was some good Ethiopian food in town.

What does your button say?

I bought that here.

Do you believe in the message?

Oh, no. not really. What does it say?

It says “Welcome to Obamunism”.

Okay, so that means Obama has a philosophy.

I guess that’s not too hard to believe. Is this an average day for you?

Actually, yeah.

With files from Ryan Briggs

Ann Coulter's Canadian tour T-Shirt.

Last night, I wondered whether it was worth writing about Ann Coulter. When I think of her at all — which isn’t too often, actually — I think of her as being a deeply vile but mostly irrelevant self-promoter. (It would be going too far to call her an ideologue, because that would imply ideas, whereas her shtick is hollow invective.) Either way, she’s deeply unpleasant but I don’t really want to be part of the problem by adding to the attention she craves. Progressives — real, honest-to-god Socialists and Marxists, some of them! — frequently tie themselves in knots trying to come up with the most colourful denunciations of her, and I find it disappointing. People’s hatred of her is central to her business model, and I’d rather not donate my labour to her bottom line by participating.

The thing that most alarmed me in reading some of the news stories about Coulter’s appearance last night in London, Ont. (to be followed by Ottawa tonight and Calgary on Thursday) is not Coulter herself, it’s her audience. We know there’s an appetite out there for her brand of racist nonsense, which is clear from reading any major newspaper’s website comment sections. But writing a semi-anonymous web comment is different from showing up at a public venue and cheering loudly when the speaker tells a Muslim audience member to “take a camel” because she shouldn’t be allowed on airplanes. For a section of the populace that claims to be interested in espousing traditional social values, they seem to place a pretty low value on manners and civil interaction in public. “Respectable people,” as the prime minister called them in his YouTube appearance recently, don’t behave this way.

The creeping Tea-baggification of Canadian politics got a thorough writeup by Paul Wells last week in Maclean’s, and if you haven’t read it yet, it’s worth your time. I don’t actually believe that social conservatives have as much traction as they appear to think they do, but you can feel their influence in the country as Wells accurately describes it — moving the centre rightward and often successfully defining the terms of engagement for centrist and leftish parties. It’s deliberate, it’s a long-term political play, and people like Coulter are still part of the strategy, despite their court-jester shenanigans. Dropping their explosive rhetoric at the extremes softens the ground for less outlandish — but unsettlingly similar — characters with actual influence.

All the papers last week were abuzz about an op-ed written by now-backbench Conservative MP Maxime Bernier. Writing how climate change is an unsure thing indeed, he said his party was on the right track by playing it cool in Copenhagen.

He was roundly criticized by Canadian media and bloggers. Globe contributor Robert Silver called him Canada’s Sarah Palin. The National Post’s article on the matter began with Environment Minister Jim Prentice stating that the Harper government did not share Bernier’s skeptical position on the science. And Sun Media writer Lorrie Goldstein’s article, Mad Max makes sense on climate change, stated: “The good news is Harper is better on climate change than the opposition parties. The bad news is, that’s not saying much.”

Wait a minute. Harper not strong enough on climate change? Sounds like something we’ve been saying for a while.

Goldstein, however, thinks he hasn’t rejected climate change enough. Even believing in the evidence is too much.
But that’s okay, who reads the Sun anyway?

Oh right, lots of people.

Sun Media Corp. is Canada’s largest newspaper publisher, having eaten up dozens of mainstream dailies and hundreds of other community papers. It reaches over 10 million Canadians.

Bernier’s view was echoed by Conservative bloggers and comments in online articles. There was significant talk of Bernier setting up a future leadership run for the Conservative Party.

Move over to provincial politics and Ontario’s Conservatives have already chosen their Bernier. Leader Tim Hudak, elected last year, is a right-winger through and through. The Party’s environmental platform is perhaps yet to be hashed out for the next election, but there are rumours that the Green Energy Act—a new staple of support for renewable energy projects in the province—might be something Hudak would repeal.

This would be made politically salable by the unexpectedly strong pressure from supposed grassroots organization, Wind Concerns Ontario, which has branches in towns across the province. Hundreds come out to environmental assessment meetings to oppose wind establishment in their areas. These people are finding a friend in Tim Hudak.

Similarly, the Ontario Landowners Association is one to watch. The organization is another collection of rural groups from across the province with a membership 15,000 strong who support policies that may appear radical or American to their urban friends. And though some are good stewards of their land, they may not be interested in hearing about climate policy.

Although Randy Hillier, first president of the Association, lost soundly to Hudak in the Party’s leadership bid, its strong anti-Liberal message of rural land rights and ability to bus people to meetings may give Hudak the desire to lean on it in the next election. Having been in a room of rural Ontarians during a presentation by climate change skeptic Patrick Moore, I know that there is a widespread desire to hear and believe in the other side.

Drilling down one more level to municipal politics, Rocco Rossi, former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada and inner-circle advisor to Michael Ignattieff has thrown his hat in the ring for Toronto Mayor, promising to ditch bike lanes and pause the city’s ambitious transit plan. After having taken Al Gore’s climate presentation training, this so-called “liberal” is looking to plan a city without the critical infrastructure necessary to support a safer method of travel for both cyclists and drivers, ditching a key urban carbon reduction measure.

But could it work for him? With commuting cyclists currently making up a very small proportion of residents, a move to make driving even appear more convenient, in a time when traffic jams clog Toronto morning streets, might be politically expedient in many Toronto neighbourhoods.

The United States is undergoing a strong movement of its far-right known as the Tea Party, described in a weekend article by Frank Rich. Rich warns to take the group seriously. The Tea Party has got people in the U.S. talking, and its mainstream conservative party getting nervous.

American writer Chris Hedges gives his answer to the movement and the weakness of Barack Obama (at Copenhagen and beyond), in a piece yesterday stating that the progressive left and the Democrats have succumbed to cowardice and have lost their energy. He urges a move back to third parties on the left, suggesting that a credible alternative to the state of the economy and society is what is most needed to bring the public onside, not liberals talking about policy all the time.

And so in the rural revolution and climate change deniers and their supportive media and blogs, Canadians may have our version of the Tea Party. While Americans, politics may be their hockey at the moment, we too may soon have an excited right which could pit itself against climate progress at a level that even Stephen Harper won’t touch. And whether that means bringing rural landowners in for climate consultation or starting a socialist revolution, it sounds like something worth planning for.