When Ibsen's Peer Gynt is lured under the mountain and into the Hall of the Troll King, he is offered a simple eye operation-a mere scratch with glazier's tools-that will confer on him troll-vision. Cows and pigs and hideous goblins will show their true form as beautiful maidens, while all things of human beauty will appear monstrous and vile. When he learns that the procedure is not reversible he declines the Troll Kings hospitality and returns to the world of humans. As Canada reels out of 2008, it is hard to resist the notion that the Prime Minister and most of his caucus have been under the mountain but, unlike Peer, they have emerged with a transformed vision that they are ready to impose on the country.

On the morning after last month's American election, 2008 Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote a brief essay in the New York Times in which he characterized the previous decade of American life as "the monster years." His monsters were Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and their like, men who blamed school massacres on the teaching of evolution, who portrayed liberals as willing dupes of terrorists, and who used Islamic terrorism as an opportunity to launch profitable military adventures while discarding constitutional protections against torture and unwarranted arrest. What particularly concerned Krugman was that for a decade Americans had considered it "shrill" to point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters. The public naming of monsters was a major component of the atmosphere of hope and relief in which most Americans have lived during the past weeks.

Few Canadians would identify our federal politicians or political operatives as monsters. Monsterhood requires a combination of power and evil intent, the ability and the will to cause havoc on a massive scale, and such power is scarce in the realm of Canadian politics. Even our current Prime Minister, who may command enough of the requisite power, is saved from monsterhood by the glassy eyes, wooden hair and immobile face of a marionette. The aura of monsterhood hangs about him but it comes from somewhere behind the curtain, perhaps from Washington, or more likely from the petro-towers of Houston and Calgary. The front-man is no monster, but he and many of his cohorts do resemble the annoying little creatures that have long been known as goblins. Goblins are monsters manqué, possessing the will but lacking the power to undertake actions that cause world-scale disasters. They are small, mean, angry, and can do considerable harm if left unchecked.

Goblins were apparently in charge of the last Conservative election campaign, which focused most of its energy on the fear-mongering and personal smears that they had learned from the monsters in charge of the dying American administration. In their goblin-vision climate change is a hallucination of ivory-tower professors, and if it does exist it is certainly not the fault of the oil industry. Canada is shamed by the Liberal's refusal to support George Bush's war in Iraq. Governments suck tax-money from the hard earned profits of honest businessmen and waste it on artists and the poor. From the CBC to the Supreme Court, the self-appointed intellectual-homosexual elite that has grasped control of the public service, the courts and the media distorts the moral outlook of the country. The goblins are angry, they are going to take the nation back in the name of Christian capitalism, they will use any means at their disposal, and the rest of us are going to learn to live according to their rules.

Do these people truly represent the attitudes of the Canadian population, as they insist that they do?

This autumn saw national elections held in Canada and America. Despite enormous differences in the size, structure, history and political outlook of the two nations, both the themes and the results of these elections were remarkably similar. The citizens of each country were presented with the same basic question: did they wish to replace a government dominated by an ideology of libertarian economics, social and environmental policies founded in the beliefs of Christian fundamentalism, and attitudes to foreign relations that were based in American exceptionalism? Each country was offered an alternative that combined pragmatic economic strategies, a shift of taxes from lower to higher income earners, progressive social policies based in humanist values, serious attempts to deal with environmental problems, and multilateral approaches to foreign relations.

A majority of the voters in both countries rejected their Conservative/Republican governments, by margins of 53% to 46% of the presidential popular vote in America, and 62% to 38% of the popular vote in Canada. Because of differences in the electoral systems on either side of the border, this similar voting behaviour produced very dissimilar results. The U.S. Electoral College system magnified the Democratic lead into an overwhelming win for presidential candidate Barack Obama, a triumph that was reinforced by Democratic gains in congressional representation. In Canada, the splitting of progressive votes between four distinct political parties allowed the survival and even the expansion of the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. In the idiom of the election campaigns, the citizens of both countries voted for change but only one country achieved it.

In the weeks since the American election, the triumphant celebration of "change" has pervaded political and media discussion in both countries. The simultaneous slow-motion crash of the American financial system, taking with it significant parts of the economy and casting the importance of social programs in a better light, has discredited the economic policies of past Republican administrations. This collapse has guaranteed that political and economic change will occur in America, and has provided the opportunity for the new government to rebuild according to its own ideas. The expectation of renewal has effectively countered the economic fear with which Americans view their future. The mood of optimistic hope is brightened by a widespread sense that the election marked the defeat of a version of America that focused its energies on greed, intolerance, anger, suspicion, and disregard for the rule of law. The monsters have been banished, and the outbreak of relief has reminded many Americans of a country liberated from a foreign occupying power. The sensation of being governed by an alien administration has become familiar to many Canadians during the past few years.

The winds of political optimism, like those carrying smoke from the generating stations of the American Midwest, sweep effortlessly across the Canadian border. Expectations of a more progressive America are probably more widespread in Canada than they are at home, since fewer Canadians are susceptible to Republican fear-mongering that paints Obama as a secret socialist with an Arabic middle name-most Canadians probably know a few socialists as well as a couple of guys named Hussein, and aren't particularly afraid of either. If the Canadian election had been held after Obama's triumph rather than a few weeks before, Conservative votes would have fallen far short of the 38% that were cast in October.

This effect is apparent in a poll published by Nanos Research on Canadian opinions a week after the American elections. National support for the Conservative party had dropped to 32% and was in a statistical tie with support for the Liberal party. The biggest surprise was in the Conservative homeland of Western Canada, where support dropped from 52% to 38% while all progressive parties showed gains. Stephen Harper's much-touted aptitude for political maneuvering probably led him to preempt this situation by calling the unnecessary election on a date before the expected Obama victory. But will the gambit save his government from the desire for political change that is reflected in the October vote, and even more clearly in the mid-November poll?

This poll contradicts Harper's recent assertions that the political mood of Canadian citizens is "shifting to the right", and that his Conservative government represents the new political centre. Republicans have been spinning the results of the American election in the same way, portraying America as a "centre right" nation despite the victory of a progressive president and congress. Robert Borosage, in a column published in The Huffington Post shortly after the election, notes that this conclusion is forged by simply adding the proportions of people who identify themselves to pollsters as "conservatives" or "moderates". He reports an election eve poll undertaken by the Centre for America's Future in which self-identified moderates responded to questions on national security, the Iraq war, government regulation, taxes, acceptance of homosexuality, and concludes that "On issue after issue, moderates stand with liberals, not conservatives. This is a center-left nation." If America is a centre-left nation, then it seems very likely that Canada remains one.

The situation in Canada changed dramatically with the Economic Statement presented by the Conservative government on November 27. This document assured all Canadians that despite the progressive mood of America, the goblins were still fully in charge of the Canadian government. The last Thatcherite administration left standing wasn't going to follow the weak sisters of America, Europe and Asia in providing assistance to failing industries, or giving help and hope to the millions of citizens who are either unemployed or expecting to be out of work. The economic crisis of late 2008 would be met with true troll-measures: prohibiting civil servants from striking for wage increases, putting a roadblock in the path to gender pay equity, and revising the election laws in a way that would undermine the major funding source of all opposition parties. These actions might repeat the mistakes of the 1930s politicians who sought to cure an economic depression by tightening government's belt. However in recompense, the measures would contribute to Harper's campaign to reduce the effectiveness of the federal government, would insult women and unionized labour, and would cripple any effective opposition to his future plans.

The action was so bizarre, so totally devoid of principle and benefit to the country, that Harper's true goblin nature finally stood revealed. His vaunted intellect and tactical brilliance was in reality no more than the limited vision and thirst for personal power. The impression was confirmed in the following days, when he shut down parliament for two months in order to avoid the inevitable vote that-following normal parliamentary procedure-would have stripped him of power and replaced his government by one led by a coalition of moderate parties. Addressing the nation on television he stared glassily at the camera and rolled out a series of appalling lies, successfully persuading many Canadians that the replacement of his government would be a disgraceful flaunting of democracy, and that it was his and their patriotic duty to protect the nation against Quebec separatists. The dishonorable appeal to national disunity had its expected effect on his western power base, and solidified his hold on the portion of the country west of the Ottawa River.

Stephen Harper may have exposed himself-to both confederates and opponents-as nothing more than a power-hungry fool, but can we rid ourselves of him as Paul Krugman hopes that America has purged itself of monsters?

Despite the power granted to the Conservative party by the Canadian electoral system, the enthusiasm for political renewal that is now flowing across our borders may provide the conditions necessary to do just that. The will to do so was apparent in the extensive, though unsuccessful, efforts to elect a progressive majority through selective voting during the October election. Following the election, that will was expressed through repeated calls for a merger of progressive parties in order to overcome the problem of vote-splitting. Liberal elder Lloyd Axworthy's October 28 piece in the Ottawa Citizen refers to the Liberal instinct to shift right (or perhaps more accurately to reveal their conservative intentions) in order to capture the ideological centre, as a "death wish". Instead, he calls for a progressive parliamentary alliance to effectively oppose Conservative legislation, and to form a partnership that will provide Canadian voters with a credible alternative come the next election. In the same week, long time NDP operative Les Campbell used the Globe and Mail to make public a call for New Democrats to undertake intense policy renewal and to spearhead a "unite-the-centre-left" movement.

The idea proliferated in progressive publications and blogs, but was consistently opposed by representatives of the Liberals, NDP, Greens and (naturally) Bloc Québequois.

The coalition that was quickly flung together by the Liberal and New Democratic parties in response to Harper's late November power-grab was an improvised attempt to counter the problem, but at this writing (a week into its existence) it is unclear whether it can survive the splitting-wedges of party alliance. Despite their support of this temporary coalition, the Liberals appear to have convinced themselves that the coronation of a new leader will return them to their normal position as rulers. New Democrats delude themselves into believing that they still have the unwavering support of unionized workers, the leftist intelligentsia and political activists. The Bloc is increasingly alienated from its separatist support, but refuses to accept that it presents a policy platform that is practically indistinguishable from that of its Liberal rivals in Québec. After the October election the Greens must realize that their development into an influential political force will be the work of decades. A temporary coalition is only a temporary solution to the problem of progressive politics in Canada. The leadership of these parties have too much historical baggage invested in their party organizations, and their personal careers in those organizations, to seriously consider the sort of realignment that is necessary to confront and overcome the last stronghold of neo-conservative goblins in the western world. None have the will to recognize the essential similarity of several supposedly unique party platforms.

Who is going to tell our moderate political parties that they are central to the problem of challenging the goblin forces? Is there a progressive force in Canada that can undertake this task? There are precedents. One recent example of a home-made attempt to renew progressive politics is the Euston Manifesto, drafted (in an Irish pub across from Euston Station) by a small group of Londoners, and now rolling across the internet as it gathers support from a swelling number of concerned individuals throughout the democratic world. Although written by leftists, the ideals and goals outlined in this document explicitly discard many touchstones of the doctrinaire Left, and are meant to appeal to "egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment".

It is exactly 75 years since the Regina Manifesto was crafted, in a period of social and economic distress that has not been experienced since. It served as the founding document of the new Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, continued to influence the thinking of its NDP daughter-party, and eventually influenced the adoption of public healthcare and other important elements of Canada's social policy. Stripped of its 1930s rhetoric on the destruction of capitalism and the efficacy of centralized planning, as well as of its unwarranted faith in the social sciences, the manifesto still reads as an inspiring attempt to create a better world. Proponents of a political realignment of the kind that is desperately needed could do worse than revisit this historic document, and consider the usefulness of redrafting it for the contemporary world.

What would moderate Canadian politicians do with the fact of widespread public agreement on a clear statement of the principles and ideals that citizens wish to see enshrined at the core of their national government? Could any but entrenched Conservatives reject it as incompatible with individual party platforms? Would some be tempted to discuss its adoption? Could this be the tool that is needed to expose the fiction of party uniqueness, and to pry down the walls separating self-cancelling pools of voters?

At a time when a recurrence of the Great Depression is a distinct possibility, and when our neighbours across the border are equipped to meet it with a wave of political renewal, Canadians may be willing to go beyond their traditional reliance on party politics in order to obtain the humane and rational government that they desire. It seems the only way that we are going to rid our house of its infestation of goblins.

- Robert McGhee

Let us know what you think! Send us your feedback...