I wanted to post this YouTube video before the debates.

It’s Marshall McLuhan commenting on the 1976 debate between U.S. presidential candidates Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I thought it was relevant to what was to come in our 2011 debates. It is insightful of course and hilarious. It still has an uncanny relevance even if Canadian debates are quite different from American debates. American debates are strictly scripted beyond the recognition of the word debate. One has to stay ‘on message’ regardless of the conversation. Canadian debates feel closer to me, a little more intimate and, though American style has crept into the works somewhat, I think we still observe the engagement that McLuhan advocates in the video above. Or at least some do.

Mr. Harper was in an American debate Tuesday night; Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe were in a Canadian debate. I say that because Harper droned on with his avuncular talking points at various times calling any kind of debate ‘bickering’ no matter its importance. It was as if he thought we should simply listen to him repeat his mantras for two hours and accept them as the truth and the way forward and, that the exercise of having the debate was what was wrong with our parliamentary process. He reminded us that he considers any kind of talking useless even childish. Mr. Ignatieff pointed out, to his credit, that actually talking, questioning was democracy not bickering. Layton, Ignatieff and Duceppe of course lapsed into what I call ‘the drone’ but only ever briefly. Perhaps they had a sense that they were required to do more. They gave off the feeling that they were a little closer to their subjects, not simply behind a glass case selling us image. In fact an interesting debate broke out among them on law and order — a humane debate actually and a logical one about gun control. Harper demagogued here for the rural vote. It irks me that politicians think rural voters might not understand a conversation about gun control beyond ‘don’t take away my gun.’ Canadians live more and more in urban areas where a gun can only be about causing human harm and I think rural voters just might get that. Throughout the debate Harper seemed numb to me, never looking at his opponents and never becoming engaged. The only time he seemed interested and animated was in the press conference after. Which tells me that he thought he had left something out inside.

Ignatieff did better than I expected, I think he shored up the Liberal vote that had deserted the party under Dion. He was very astute in addressing the questioners from across the country by name and by returning to their question when Harper ignored them for his drone. Ignatieff did all he had to do to reassure his base that he knew what he was talking about and that he wasn’t the outsider he’s been painted as by conservative ads. He only had to look and sound prime-ministerial and as if he was one of us. And because he looked no less so than Harper, he won that point. I don’t think they can use those ads again. A Canadian is a Canadian, he said on the immigration issue and that appeals to a lot more people among the people called ‘you people.’ Layton did all round well too. The ‘more crooks in the Senate’ comment was a beautiful stroke. I think he was the only person to mention the First Nations. Duceppe of course, as I said the last election cycle, I’d vote for the Bloc if they were running in the rest of the country. He took on the coalition issue, the law and order issue, aggressively. He spoke more candidly and directly to each of the others brushing away their politicians’ veneer with direct address — even on the immigration issue much as I think the nationalist question complicates this issue in ways trickily close to xenophobia. It occurred to me watching the debate with friends that the existence of the Bloc maintains a healthy tension in citizenship in this country — a tension that resists a homogenizing that would paper over all eruptions with a stifling one-dimensional nationalism. We are reminded daily that there is more to be done.

The pundits, at least those I watched on the CBC were themselves in an American debate, ably assisted by Mansbridge they were looking for image; Coyne was as he used to be under the glow of Mulroney. I had not seen him that way for a while. The usually reliable Chantal Hebert didn’t seem to know what to make of it so came down on Coyne’s side. Allan Gregg saw the debate that I saw. And I have no idea what those extra two lobbyists were talking about. Shouldn’t the CBC have had some labour reps, some women’s rights people, some teachers, some cops, some, dare I say, young people commenting on how the debate affected them or did I miss that?