THOUGHTS ON THE LIBERAL PARTY

Professor Szostak sent me this piece and with his kind permission I post it.  The piece is lengthy but certainly worth reading:

 

 

Rick Szostak

Professor of Economics and Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Alberta

Liberal Candidate in both the 2008 and 2011 federal elections

May, 2011

 

As Liberals re-group after the 2011 election, it seems to this ‘radically reforming progressive centrist Liberal’ that a middle ground needs to be sought between those who think that there are no major problems with the Liberal message, and those who demand a radical re-structuring of the Liberal Party and what it stands for.

 

After all, nobody foresaw the NDP surge. Pundits who could not have predicted it should be wary of proclaiming that it represents some sort of sea-change in Canadian politics.  Before the surge, a very likely outcome of the election was a Liberal minority government. And that government would have been such an improvement in governance over its predecessor that Liberal political fortunes would have been assured for some time.

 

Looking forward, it is likely that both the Conservatives and NDP (surely one of them) will disappoint some of those who voted for them in 2011.  And those voters will inevitably then consider voting Liberal.

 

While neither the past nor the future need be viewed as bleakly as some pundits – both within and beyond the Liberal Party – have been doing in recent days, it would be sheer folly to not use the next years to do some hard thinking about what the Liberal Party stands for. 

 

The questions then arise of whether there are ‘Liberal values’ that can be articulated so that first Liberals and then all voters can have a clear appreciation of what Liberals stand for, and whether such values are likely to resonate with the Canadian electorate.  I will argue that the answer to both questions is a resounding ‘yes.’ Importantly these are values that have long been advocated by Liberals, just never in a coherent and visible fashion. So we need not re-imagine the Liberal Party, but rather more clearly state what it has always stood for.

 

I will make the following points:

 

1)      There is in fact a very clear difference in philosophical outlook between the Liberal Party and its competitors

2)      The Liberal outlook is one that can be embraced by a majority of Canadian voters.

3)      It may at times be more difficult to communicate our outlook in brief soundbites

4)      Nevertheless this can be done if we always explicitly tie our specific policy proposals to both one or more of our core values and to our philosophical outlook more generally.

5)      The problem with our 2011 platform was not its individual policies but that people did not readily perceive any guiding philosophy behind it.  It was thus too easily perceived as incoherent or as ‘Liberals throwing money at problems.’ People were not convinced that we had a clear vision for the future. We must thus articulate a set of core values that motivate our policies.

6)      Less obviously it can be argued that our guiding philosophy is more likely to attract quality candidates. The Liberal caucus, despite its reduced numbers, could still field a better cabinet than the other parties. Perhaps the best antidote to the attack ads that will inevitably greet our next leader is to emphasize that governance requires a team.

 

Point 1): There is in fact a very clear difference in philosophical outlook between the Liberal Party and its competitors

 

 

There are five ways that individuals can make any decision, including ethical decisions:

·        They can carefully evaluate the consequences of different choices they might make, and choose the best option.

·        They can follow their intuition, and do what makes them feel good.

·        They can do what they see others doing, or follow ‘traditions’ of the way things have always been done in their community or family or peer group.

·        They can try to act in accord with certain values they hold dear, and thus act courageously, or humbly, or in a caring manner.

·        They can follow certain decision rules that they have previously come to accept. These may be things like ‘always fear strangers’ or ‘always expect rain.’ In the ethical realm, likely rules include the Golden Rule and respect for some set of rights.

 

All political parties, like all people, rely on a mixture of these five types of decision-making.  But they differ in emphasis.  Liberals are predominantly consequentialist in orientation.  While we have core values (see below) we are generally willing to do whatever works best. There are two types of conservatism: one is rooted in an appreciation of tradition (and a fear that ignorant people are likely to make matters worse if they change anything), while the other stresses individual rights.  These two strains of conservatism fight for dominance within the Conservative Party.  The NDP is guided primarily by an appeal to certain values: fairness and compassion, most obviously.  The Green Party, more than any others, relies on an appeal to intuition: the (correct) feeling that we need to do more for the environment.

 

So the Liberal outlook is ‘consequentialist’ or ‘pragmatic.’  All other parties will also argue that their policies have good consequences, but these consequences are secondary. Perhaps the clearest example here is Conservative crime policy which flies in the face of expert advice on how best to fight crime but succeeds electorally due to not-too-subtle appeals to both traditions of retribution and to rights of victims (and some of our less laudable emotions, though also compassion for victims).

 

Point 2): The Liberal outlook is one that can be embraced by a majority of Canadian voters.

 

All individuals utilize all five types of decision-making.  We buy clothes that others buy. We follow intuition in dating decisions (but could often benefit from being more consequentialist here). We follow rules and values, in part because we simply do not have the time to carefully evaluate each decision we have to make in life.  But most people like to think of themselves as primarily making conscious well-considered decisions.  And thus if the Liberal Party is successful in communicating a message that we are naturally predisposed toward a more careful appreciation of consequences than other parties, this message will be welcomed by a majority of Canadians.

 

But we should not transmit an exclusively consequentialist message. The sage Liberal politician stresses consequences, but reaches out with appeals to other types of decision-making. Critically we need to proclaim that we are careful and humble (and importantly that we appreciate how wonderful this country is already), in order to alleviate the reasonable fears of traditionalists that change is more often bad than good. We need to embrace both rights and values by proclaiming that our goal is to allow all Canadians to live a productive and fulfilling life (for one cannot be a consequentialist without first deciding what consequences one seeks).  We need to appeal to Canadians’ justified pride in country, and appeal to their emotions in describing the future we seek.

 

A consequentialist message that appeals secondarily to other types of decision-making is quite feasible, and can prove popular.

 

Point 3): It may at times be more difficult to communicate our outlook in brief soundbites

 

The messaging is tricky.  It is easier to appeal to our emotions or values or rights or love of tradition, than to (primarily) make an argument from consequences.  To argue for the good consequences of Liberal crime policy in a ten second sound bite is difficult: few are as moved by ‘we will be guided by the evidence’ as they are by ‘criminals deserve to be punished.’ 

 

Point 4): Nevertheless this can be done if we always explicitly tie our specific policy proposals to both one or more of our core values and to our philosophical outlook more generally.

 

We can only overcome appeals to emotion by confronting them directly: ‘I am as angry as you when I hear of a savage crime, but as your government we think that crime policy cannot be grounded in an appeal to retribution but rather a cold-hearted calculation of how we can get the greatest reduction in crime for our spending on crime policy.’

 

Take this as our core message – that we understand and appreciate appeals to emotion or values or rights but always focus on what works best to achieve the goals shared by Canadians – and pound away at it issue after issue, and by the next election the Canadian

people will know what we stand for.  And they will vote for us.

 

And Canadians agree on much more than we might think.  There are important differences in emphasis: some Canadians want balanced budgets, but also quality health care; while others want quality health care, but also balanced budgets.  As CBC’s VoteCompass demonstrated, if we can get Canadians to reflect on the balanced approach they want on a host of issues, then they will generally find that Liberal policies achieve the sort of balance that they want.  The problem is that ‘balance’ is a hard message to communicate, and thus former progressive conservatives are too easily convinced that we are too loose with money, while moderate New Democrats fear that we are too concerned about business prosperity.

 

And thus our core message needs to be supplemented with a set of more precise values that Canadians can identify with.

 

Point 5): The problem with our 2011 platform was not its individual policies but that people did not readily perceive any guiding philosophy behind it.  It was thus too easily perceived as incoherent or as ‘Liberals throwing money at problems.’ People were not convinced that we had a clear vision for the future. We must thus articulate a set of core values that motivate our policies.

 

 

Can we articulate such a set of core values? And could we have tied our 2011 platform to these?  The answer is ‘yes’ to both.  This does not mean that the 2011 platform was perfect.  Indeed, one purpose in outlining our core values is to facilitate our efforts over the next years to outline even better policy proposals.  But the point to stress here is that we do not have to change what our Party stands for, just better communicate this, both internally and externally.

 

 

Ethics in General

I am very tired of hearing about the sponsorship scandal.  However, it is clear that the Liberal Party, especially in the West, suffers from an undesirable association.  To be sure, this reputation is exaggerated, and the Conservative government is even less laudable in its behavior.  But Canadians want and deserve something better than this.  Thus the clearest path to government is to make a credible commitment to ethical behavior.

 

The problem here is that many people claim to be ethical but then disappoint.  One can forgive the average Canadian for becoming jaded.  Liberal candidates, and especially the Liberal leader, need to identify their own unique ways of making a credible commitment to ethical behavior.  We must recognize the danger that citizens will be skeptical.  However, to give in to this fear and thus not confront the issue of ethics directly will invite even greater cynicism.  We must be willing to proclaim that we have a set of ethical beliefs, that we have reflected a great deal on ethical issues, and that we are committed to ethical behavior.

 

More specifically, we must move past generalities to speak to a set of values that are shared by the vast majority of Canadians: honesty, personal and social responsibility, caring, prudence, and respect.  If we do not do so, too many voters will assume the worst.

 

Voters think the Liberal Party takes power for granted.  We should not be shy about proclaiming our dedication to public service.  We are as horrified as anyone when politicians or bureaucrats abuse positions of trust, and should say so.

 

Last but not least we must institutionalize this commitment to ethics in important ways, including by strengthening whistleblower protection in the federal government so that civil servants feel free to expose wrongdoing by others. [At present, whistles are almost never blown; we very much doubt this means there is nothing to report.]. 

 

I mention whistle-blower protection here as an example because the strategy we must follow is to closely tie our values to our policies. As argued above, a set of policies not clearly motivated by a set of values is easily disdained by voters.  But a set of values not clearly associated with policies will be even more distrusted by voters.  The two must always be linked.

 

 

Personal Responsibility

The most important single ethical value that the Liberals need to celebrate, especially in Alberta, is personal responsibility.  Voters fear that Liberals just want to feel good by throwing (their) money at worthy causes.  They fear that we feel good by maintaining others on public support indefinitely.  We need to shout from the rooftops something like:

 

The Liberal Party believes that the primary goal of public policy is to allow all Canadians to live a productive and fulfilling life.  This should be the core standard by which all public policies are evaluated.  

 

Of all the elements of the 2008 Liberal platform, the one that resonated most with voters in Edmonton-Sherwood Park was the idea of tax credits for working Canadians.  The idea of leaving more money in the pockets of Canadians taking entry-level jobs is simultaneously sound public policy and good for social justice.  It encourages people to leave social assistance.  In entering the work force they become eligible for promotion into better and better jobs.  Many small businesses were at the time struggling to find entry level workers, and this initiative would have helped them too.

 

Voters liked the idea but were skeptical: it did not fit with their vision of what a Liberal would do.  We need to make the following sorts of statements repeatedly:

 

“Social and personal responsibility are complements, not substitutes. We all wish to take care of our families and ourselves.  Yet almost all of us recognize responsibilities beyond these.  Indeed I can hardly help my children to read without my heart going out to children who lack parents able or willing to help them.  Yet my goal in aiding others is to help get them to a place where they can look after themselves and their families and in turn contribute to the wider society.  How many of us can honestly claim that we have not been helped along the way by parents or mentors or friends or even strangers who gave us support or encouragement when we needed it?  Why then act as if there is something wrong with helping others?”

 

The trick, of course, is to provide just the right sort of help.  Government bureaucracies are often not nimble enough to do so.  Yet in our modern impersonal societies only government bureaucracies can potentially guarantee that nobody goes without the help they need.  Thus we need to move past blind ideologies to a pragmatic approach of ruthlessly evaluating programs to see whether they succeed in helping people to help themselves.  We should also be open to provision of services by non-governmental agencies as long as we can carefully monitor the quality of services provided.  We want to strike the best balance between fairness (which government bureaucracies can potentially provide) and innovation (which non-governmental agencies can better achieve).

 

My training as an economist leads me to focus on incentives.  We want to provide people not only with the ability but also with the incentive to look after themselves and their families: to reward individuals for working, caring for their children or parents, and volunteering, while penalizing them for shirking their basic responsibilities.

 

Policies that flow from this emphasis on personal responsibility include:

• tax credits for working Canadians
• reducing the clawback of in-kind benefits that are associated with moving off social assistance
• workfare rather than welfare
• expanded drug rehabilitation programs
• quality daycare so that single parents especially can support their families, while their children are cared for in a way that prepares them for a fulfilling life  
• providing the homeless with (small) homes and counseling tailored to their individual needs
• making it easier for aboriginal Canadians to move toward economic opportunities and/or start businesses on reserves
• supporting programs to offer low-cost banking services to the poorest Canadians
• a public education program to reduce the incidence of sexual assault (in part by increasing the rate of reporting of such crimes)
• increasing the tax credit for charitable donations

Often these programs can save more money than they cost.  Moving individuals off welfare into the workforce generates savings.  Treating the homeless in emergency wards or jails is much more expensive than providing decent if minimalist shelter for them.  Often, though, the benefits are in the future but increased costs are incurred in the short term.

 

Responsibility for the Future

 

One huge opportunity for an avowedly consequentialist party is to argue that we are most likely to prepare the country for the challenges of the future.  We need then to reflect on what those challenges are most likely to be, and what we should be doing now to meet them.  One critical message in this regard is ‘The earlier we start coping with environmental challenges the cheaper it will be.’ Such a message has potential appeal across all types of philosophical outlook.

 

Much of a future-oriented strategy must be economic in nature. There is no magic formula for maintaining economic prosperity but rather a set of useful strategies:

• Making sure we have a safe financial system that directs savings toward the most profitable opportunities. We should work (with the provinces if possible) to enhance our sorry international reputation in policing corporate fraud, while strengthening other aspects of financial regulation which do serve us well.
• Encouraging global trade liberalization in general, but respecting the need for environmental and labor protection
• Ensuring healthy competition within and between economies. We should be leading the charge to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers
• Facilitating the movement of labor and capital from declining to growing sectors
• Moving the unemployed into the work force
• Providing training options for all unemployed Canadians (not just those on assistance)
• Encouraging scientific research
• Encouraging certain types of technological research.  Subsidies for all research are too readily abused.  Subsidies for environmental technologies make both economic and environmental sense. 
• Ensuring that we have the necessary transport, education, and health infrastructure to achieve our goals.
• Ensuring that governments do what governments do best and markets do what markets do best
• Targeting infrastructure investment and other irregular forms of government spending on periods of downturn in the private economy
• Accumulating large surpluses during good times so that governments have fiscal flexibility during bad times.
• Urging the central bank to keep interest rates low, even after the present crisis ends

 

Progressive Prudence

 

Though I think that quibbling over the details of the 2011 platform is not the best way of moving forward, I would suggest that the first few pages of that platform – in which we discussed the Liberal record on fiscal responsibility and our future plans – should have been more central to our campaign.  As a candidate in Alberta, I am all too aware that the Conservatives were given excessive credit for economic management. But as frustrating as that was, we needed to hammer away at the simple fact that our record of economic management is far superior.  In particular, we needed to stress that we had found billions of dollars in cost savings the last time we were in government, and knew how to do it again. The point I would stress here is that we were not going to win that debate on the facts alone.  We needed to convince people that there is a reason why Liberals are more fiscally responsible than others. We needed, that is, to convince them that fiscal responsibility reflects our core values.

 

The battle against government waste is too often championed by conservatives rather than liberals.  An ideologue that dislikes government (like the present leader of the Conservative Party) has no real incentive to reduce waste; he would rather cut across the board and point to remaining waste as an excuse for further cuts.  An ideologue that thinks governments can do everything is likewise ill-equipped to trim waste.  It is Liberals, who believe pragmatically that governments can in certain situations be a force for good in the world, but fully appreciate that governments are not perfect, that should lead the attack on waste. Only we have the right incentives: by succeeding in trimming waste we will free up both funds and popular support for initiatives where governments can make a positive difference in people's lives.    

 

The real challenge of governance these days is first of all to put institutional structures in place that maximize the value taxpayers get for their money, and then convince them that their money is in fact well managed.  Liberals must see this as their task, and convince Canadians that we are devoted to that task.

 

Prudent policies include:

 

• Parliamentary committees should be mandated to review in detail all government programs.  Ministers and senior civil servants should be prepared to defend each expenditure.  Expenditures that cannot be defended should be eliminated.
• We need better score-keeping with respect to the reports of the Auditor-General.  Every year a host of inefficiencies are uncovered.  Have governments succeeded in eliminating previously noted problems? Canadians have no easy way of knowing whether this is so.  The Auditor-General should answer this question clearly and succinctly.
• External efficiency-experts should review government programs.
• In some cases, where expert opinion diverges, an unbiased panel should research the costs and benefits of the program, and propose whatever changes a dispassionate analysis of the numbers warrant.
• The incentives for Ministers should be changed so that these are encouraged to find cost savings rather than build empires.  A Minister that trims waste is a Minister whose voice should carry weight.
• The Parliamentary Budget Office should be made truly independent of the government.
• The work of civil servants should be celebrated.  A frontal attack on waste should not be confused with a frontal attack on those that serve us.  Every large bureaucracy, public or private, is wasteful for (virtually) no individual spends others' money as carefully as their own.  Yet the vast majority of civil servants are dedicated to the public good.  We need to highlight their successes as we root out their failures.
• Canadians should be provided with better information on how their tax dollars are spent.  Most Canadians do not fully appreciate how much of their tax dollars goes toward debt payments or transfers to provinces.  Lacking this information, it can hardly be surprising if they doubt they are getting their money's worth.
• We should experiment where possible with allowing citizens to directly determine government spending priorities.  Why have bureaucrats decide which sporting organizations or cultural activities to fund when citizens could make these choices on their income tax forms?
• We should regulate financial institutions so that among other things only a small proportion of their assets can be devoted to any novel financial instrument
• We need better information systems in health care.  These can immediately deliver better patient care as health care workers have ready access to a patient’s medical history.  They also create the potential for better identification of medical interventions that do no or little good at considerable expense.
• While we are attacking waste in government we should also alter our business regulations to increase corporate democracy, reform abuses of executive bonuses, and enhance competition

 

These policies free up not just funds but public support for new government policies. If we are credible in our evaluation of programs and attack on waste then voters who are now skeptical will be willing to entertain new programs such as:

• Pharmacare.  Not only is this a natural extension of Medicare but as with many other programs it contains important cost savings: patients without drug plans at present resist being discharged from hospital in order to continue getting drugs for free.  Moreover total expenditures in Canada should decrease with Pharmacare because the government can better negotiate with drug companies. Administration costs will also fall in total. The government should also insist that drugs only be prescribed when there is clear and unbiased evidence that the drug alleviates the patient’s condition.  Our drug approval process should in any case be improved to enhance consumer protection.
• Training more doctors and nurses, and ensuring these are available everywhere they are needed
• Workfare. In the short run it is more expensive to provide people with jobs than with handouts. In the long run this is likely not the case.  And note that workfare (if properly administered) immediately erases concerns that those on public assistance are abusing the system.  And it is not hard to identify work that needs to be done in our societies (such as various urban beautification projects). Workfare can be a powerful poverty reduction program.
• Other poverty reduction initiatives, such as the tax credits for the working poor proposed in 2008.
• Programs in the education area that increase high school completion rates and ease the financial burden of post-secondary education. [We can, for example, forgive student loans for graduates who either do not obtain high-paying jobs or who agree to take on designated jobs with a high social value.  We can also, as promised in 2008, delay the payback period for a couple of years.]  The long run benefits of a more educated population may again outweigh the short run costs.
• Early childhood education for at-risk children can provide them with basic literacy and numeracy skills so that they do not start school at a powerful disadvantage compared to children from more stable homes.  The long run benefits of such programs may be huge. They increase the productivity of our population, and also encourage better health outcomes.
• Subsidies for environmental technology development and use. While much environmental policy can have a positive impact on government revenue (by placing fines on polluters), we also want the financial freedom to be able to pay as appropriate for environmental enhancement (including increasing the budgets of our National Parks).
• Increased support for the disabled (disability benefits should be comparable to seniors benefits)
• Public art. Sculptures, mosaics, subsidies for architectural innovation, and public performances of music and dance: we can and should support artistic activities that are experienced by the whole population.

 

It cannot be stressed too much that the policies proposed above combine the best of ‘fiscal responsibility’ and ‘social justice.’ It is this combination that the vast majority of Canadians want.  And we are the only party that can credibly deliver it.  The present Conservative Party cannot credibly commit to social justice, and the present New Democratic Party cannot credibly commit to fiscal responsibility.  It is by doing both in concert that we win.  And by focusing on what it takes to win the West – where concerns with fiscal responsibility run deep, but there is still a solid interest in helping people to help themselves – we develop policies that will win everywhere.

 

Courage

Special interest groups often lobby against policies that serve the common good.  The political calculation is simple: a policy that gives a hundred people a million dollars each but costs 30 million Canadians a hundred dollars each is bad for the country but good for the politician that supports it.  The hundred that benefit will vote for her; the 30 million who lose will lose too little (and may not be aware of it) to change their vote.

A government with the courage to stand up to special interests in order to do what is right for Canadians can dramatically improve the beneficial impact of government expenditure.

Again the problem is that it is easy to promise such a thing but tempting not to deliver.  Canadians should insist on a more credible commitment.  My proposed commitment is this:

If the majority of experts and the majority of Canadians support a particular policy, it should be instituted over the objections of a vocal minority.

To be sure, the government must still evaluate the policy on its merits, querying the claims of experts, and seeking common ground that satisfies objections without sacrificing the public good.  Nevertheless, if the above principle is firmly established in the public mind, then the political calculation changes: some of those who suffer a little from bad policy will vote for the display of courage that good policy entails.  This result is particularly likely if packages of courageous policies are presented to the public. We may all find ourselves in the vocal minority from time to time, but can still appreciate the general advantage of policies that serve the overall public good. 

We will not win seats in Western Canada by throwing money at it but by credibly promising not to throw western tax dollars at others.

 

Courage is also called for in pursuing policies with benefits beyond the electoral cycle.  Early childhood development programs by their nature have benefits decades down the road.  Dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome is similar in this respect.  It may take many years before improved medical information systems yield financial savings.  In all these cases, political leaders need to raise public awareness of these future benefits.

 

Reason

To be a consequentialist is to carefully evaluate public policy options. This in turn means striving to dispassionately evaluate the strengths of competing arguments. And thus consequentialists are guided to appreciate reasoned discourse. Those who appeal to consequences only after arriving at policy positions by other means are much less likely to value reasoned conversation.

I was greeted with respect and kindness almost universally by the voters of Edmonton-Sherwood Park.  Constituents displayed (‘lived’ is an even better word) a commitment to respectful and open political discourse.  They often bemoaned the fact that our elected officials could not have the sort of reasoned conversation we had on their doorsteps.  We need to do two things.  First we need to advertise and justify a commitment to reasoned discourse, and then behave in accord with that commitment.  Second, we need to establish institutional structures in Parliament and beyond that will reward reasoned discourse.

 

Point 6): Less obviously but importantly it can be argued that our guiding philosophy is more likely to attract quality candidates.

What sort of people are attracted to run for each party? Clearly good people – sensible people who care about their country and want to contribute to public policy – can be attracted to any party.  But the Liberal party will have some advantages:

·        If it is accepted that careful evaluation of consequences is the best guide to policy, then an avowedly consequentialist party will naturally be most likely to attract candidates who will examine each policy on its merits.

·        If cautious evaluation of policy proposals, as opposed to following some simple concept of rights or values or emotion, forms the backbone of a party, then that party will naturally encourage internal conversation.  In turn, good people are more likely to run for a party in which their voice is heard. Parties that think they have a simple answer to every problem will be less likely to attract the thoughtful.

·        A party that loudly proclaims the handful of values outlined above will be most attractive to candidates who identify with those values.

As with the policies outlined above, we need to proudly proclaim the strength of our team and argue that there are good reasons why our team is strong.  As noted above, we can deflect much of the force of the inevitable attacks on our next leader if we stress that we take a team approach to government. 

A thought along these lines: Why did we not say things like the following loudly during the last campaign?: “Ralph Goodale ran a $13 billion dollar surplus in his last year as Finance Minister.  John McCallum chaired a cabinet committee that found billions of dollars in cost savings.  They are both running again…”

A Biographical Note:

Rick Szostak spent several months door-knocking as the Liberal candidate in Edmonton-Sherwood Park during 2008, and again in 2011.  He was repeatedly told that people liked what he said but could not vote for the Liberal Party.  This experience provides the genesis for the thoughts above.  Rick feels that with the careful articulation of the right set of “Liberal” values, the Liberal Party can do very well in Western Canada.  And he feels that the Liberal Party needs to do much better in Western Canada than it has in the last several elections if it is to form a solid majority government.

 

The following ideas undoubtedly also reflect Rick’s life experience as a professor of economics, writer of a book on ethics, and hard-core pragmatist.  As an economist, Rick is dedicated to fiscal responsibility and effective stewardship of government funds.  Yet he is also committed to a much cleaner environment, the steady elimination of poverty at home and abroad, and enhanced consumer and shareholder protection.  He met thousands of voters who share these values but mistakenly think of themselves as “conservative.”

 

Rick would like to hear from others about these ideas. Email your comments to rick.szostak@ualberta.ca and we will put these on the website (subject to a light-handed editorial control)

 

Rick’s proposals are grouped around core ethical values.  This reflects both his experience as an ethicist and his belief that too many people, especially in the West, misunderstand the core values that motivate today’s Liberal Party. 

 

Many of the thoughts expressed above were included in a speech Rick gave to the Senior’s Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta in October of 2009. The speech is on YouTube under Rick Szostak