Podcast (attitude): Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Part One:
We speak with Steve Paikin, the anchor of Canada’s TV-Ontario flagship current affairs program, the Agenda, about developments in his native country. Canada has an election coming up in just a few weeks – on October 21 – and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to be having a tough time. Although he came into office as somewhat of a “golden boy,” he has failed to keep many of his enticing campaign promises which have diminished his popularity. A far-right populist party has arrived on the scene, winning many supporters and threatening Canada’s mainstream parties (although the Conservatives stand to lose the most votes to the populists.
On top of everything, a scandal has swirled around Trudeau because he revelations that he used to dress up in blackface and brownface. That isn’t the kind of respect that Canada’s young liberals want to portray toward their fellow citizens.
Part Two:
Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern returns to the show. He addresses gerrymandering (and Justice Kagan’s compelling dissent) in a more local context. Both houses of the New Hampshire Legislature had passed a law creating an independent, non-partisan election redistricting commission, in order to put an end to partisan gerrymandering (by either party). Although the law received broad bipartisan support (including a number of Republican sponsors and unanimous affirmative votes out of committee), Governor Chris Sununu decided to veto this “good government” law. Last week, the Republican leadership managed to change the votes of almost all of the Republican supporters in the Legislature, and Sununu’s veto could not be overridden.
Our guest discusses this local result in the context of the broader, national debate surrounding partisan gerrymandering and its deleterious effect on our country’s ability to function as a democratic republic. This discussion is intertwined with the democracy issues that are highlighted by the breaking news: Nancy Pelosi has initiated an impeachment inquiry against President Trump.
How will this drama play out – in the short term and in the longer term? Will Democrats stick to their guns and stop the President from abusing his power and undermining our democracy (even in the face of significant political fallout that we can’t predict)? How will the Republicans react during this process? Several Republicans, like Lindsay Graham, have already spoken out — on *both* sides of the issue. Others, like Mitt Romney, seem quite concerned and may, finally, split away from Trump and McConnell and base their actions on what’s best for the country rather than on pure partisanship.
