Thirty-five years ago the policies that now define democratic governance — or rather anti-democratic — in Canada were literally unthinkable. Voluntarily giving up, through reckless tax cuts, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue needed for running the country (and provinces); the fire sale disposal of some of the countries most valuable, efficient and productive crown corporations; the signing of corporate rights agreements like NAFTA that severely constrain elected governments from legislating on behalf of their citizens; the ruthless slashing of social spending; and the deliberate driving down of salaries and wages by government policy – all now commonplace and once unthinkable.

At the root of this disgust with Chávez’s repeated election victories is the consensus amongst the big media players and their commentators that democracy is fine so long as it produces the correct — that is, free market — results. Otherwise it is highly problematic and even dangerous.

Any euphoria accompanying Trudeau’s leadership bid is rooted in a convenient amnesia about just what the Liberal party is and what it has stood for over the past eighteen years under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

Stephen Harper’s no-longer-secret agenda to implement a revolution from the right and dismantle Canada has one major impediment that must really stick in his craw. He is constrained in what he can do by the constitutional division of powers which gives the provinces so much political authority.

When Jack Layton, newly minted Leader of the Opposition in Canada’s parliament, died on August 22, even politically indifferent Canadians took serious notice. Here was a political death that could dramatically affect the country’s future. What might the actual impact of Layton’s loss be, not just on the federal political landscape, but on the New Democratic Party, on Québec, and the “larger Left” in general? We asked observers on the front line to consider those questions.