Political Inertia

Whenever our next election rolls around, I'll be ready - ready not to vote for the Conservatives. Ready not to vote for the Liberals. By default, I shall, in all likelihood, vote for the NDP. And it will hardly be an enthusiastic endorsement. 

Our political landscape, with few exceptions, has grown stale and complacent. Once it sets in, inertia is a hard force to break free from.  Journalist Justin Ling takes some lessons from the recent American presidential race.

In trying to paint Trump as a danger to democracy, the Democrats twisted themselves in knots to become guardians of the status quo. They avoided, even shut down, difficult conversations on pressing social issues because they are fearful of how bigots might weaponize those discussions.

Harris spent the campaign bombarding voters with tightly-messaged scripts about why they should vote against Trump. By election day, Americans had few good reasons to vote for the vice president. And yet it’s this strategy that Trudeau looks set to replicate.

Unfortunately, if the polls are to be believed,  Canada's electoral die has already been cast, and PP's simplistic, binary rhetoric is captivating many. Indeed, some of his barbs hit quite close to home, if one really examines them. Recently, for example, he gave a hard-hitting address to many of Canada's corporate elites, accusing them of "crony capitalism," saying they and Mr. Trudeau are too close and too dependent on lobbying and subsidies. If he wins, PP promises to change that, a promise that will undoubtedly resonate with many.

For example: longstanding Canadian law restricts foreign ownership in parts of the telecom, media, financial and transportation industries, which has resulted in a consolidation of power in a handful of companies such as BCE, Rogers Communications Inc., Air Canada and the major banks. Harper and Trudeau’s governments have tried at times to stoke more competition, but they’ve mostly stopped short of major reforms to liberalize protected sectors.

There is little doubt that the Trudeau Liberals have a too-close relationship with the powerful.

Poilievre’s “crony capitalism” charge rings true to people like [Jim] Balsillie, who has been critical of the close links between Trudeau’s government and some executives at big companies in highly regulated industries. He cites the example of Navdeep Bains, who was Trudeau’s industry minister, left politics in 2021, quickly landed at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and now works as a senior executive at Rogers — a job announced just weeks after the government allowed Rogers to acquire a large rival cable company.

The government has been slow to move on open banking, a regulatory framework that makes it easier for consumers to move around their financial information and use the services of new financial technology startups.

“Why after nine years do we still not have open banking?” Balsillie said. “Who’s had total keys to the throne on fixing that for nine years? It’s clear that the Liberals have been captured by Bay Street.”

I suspect those who entertain ongoing outrage over the high costs of wireless and the predatory, protected practices of the banking industry would find little to disagree with here.

Justin Ling is pessimistic about the prospects for change within either the Liberal or NDP leadership.

Trudeau is neither innovating new policy nor reaching out to unlikely places. Their most significant accomplishments of late, national pharmacare and dentalcare plans, won’t cover most working people and come as medicare plunges further into crisis.

The Liberals’ lack of vision or ambition ought to leave an open lane for the NDP to offer a bold, uncompromising, and ambitious agenda for change. Yet they are the architects of the dental and pharmacare plans, and now seem bereft of other ideas. Despite their anti-billionaire rhetoric, Jagmeet Singh’s most ambitious policy is to implement price controls for groceries (also a riff on a Harris policy.) Voters are, understandably, disinterested.

Singh and Trudeau and stuck in their scripts, damned by the anxieties, purity, and dourness of their parties. The only tactic left at their disposal is to compare Poilievre to Trump, unconvincingly and to the frustration of the Conservatives’ new-found working-class base.

Institutional stasis is an almost always-certain eventuality, demonstrated amply in the above. And time on the bench seems to be the only fix to the inertia that currently plagues our politics.Without new vision and new leadership, I suspect the next election will, unfortunately prove current polling to be correct. 

 

 

This Epidemic Is Widespread And Growing

On this blog I have never made a secret of my disdain for those who are willfully ignorant and mindlessly led. To allow someone else to do our thinking for us is unforgivably lazy and a complete dereliction of the responsibilities of citizenship. Yet in both the United States and Canada, that dereliction seems widespread and growing.

Consider the circus (a.k.a, the Republican National Convention) that so recently concluded in Milwaukee, site of Don Trump's presidential nomination and the quasi-apotheosis of J.D. Vance as his running mate. The embrace of cheap emotions, distortions and lies there was widespread. Witness this distasteful scene, which earned a rousing ovation:

Our movement is about single moms like mine .... Really? Past performance suggests something quite different, and apparently saying that your mom is now 10 years clean and sober is not cheaply voyeuristic and exploitive but inspiring. It is, if nothing else, certainly soap-opera worthy.

That Vance and Trump can get away with such nonsense did not escape the notice of Andrew Philips, as he notes this from Vance's speech:

“America’s ruling class wrote the checks [sic]. Communities like mine paid the price.”

“America’s ruling class?” A Democrat who used that kind of language would be scorched for waging “class war,” for promoting division and turning his back on the American dream of everyone rising together. Democrats are gun-shy about that. Even now, when under Joe Biden they’ve done more to create good working-class jobs than Trump ever did, they soft-pedal their message.

But Vance gets away with it. My favourite part of his convention speech was when he slammed Biden for supporting the “disastrous invasion of Iraq” and sending working-class kids off to fight and die in far-off deserts.

That is truly chutzpah on a grand scale. I seem to recall it was a Republican president, George W. Bush, who ordered that disastrous invasion and the even more disastrous attempt to pacify Iraq and the region that followed.

After recalling Vance's rank hypocrisy and opportunism (which I discussed in my previous post, Philips asks a pertinent question:

[H]asn’t Vance, a successful venture capitalist among other things, joined that same ruling class he now rails against? Isn’t the Trump-Vance project now backed by a coterie of billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel? Isn’t all the class-war talk just a smokescreen for traditional Republican policies that leave Vance’s hillbilly relatives scrambling for crumbs?

Maybe. But if you’re the kind of person who’s devouring articles in the New Yorker and the New York Times detailing all this, you’re already a lost cause from the Trump-Vance POV. And the evidence is those kind of attacks aren’t landing. It’s like going at Pierre Poilievre for targeting “gatekeepers” while spending his entire adult life as the ultimate gatekeeper — a career politician. True, but frankly so what?

A comparison with Canada's mentality is inevitable, along with the fact that the hard right has stolen from the Democrats and the Liberals/NDP the mantle of working/middle class champions.

The arrival of Vance is another big step in the Republicans’ campaign to displace Democrats as champions of the American working-class. Poilievre and, in his own way, Doug Ford, are managing the same trick in Canada, stealing that space from the Liberals/NDP. It’s astonishing, and disappointing, that progressives on both sides of the border have allowed conservatives to pull that off.

I'm not sure progressives could have done much about it. It is not often in their natures to rant, chant, hector, exploit and grossly manipulate those whose issues they advocate for. To lie wantonly and shamelessly would require a breadth of unscrupulousness that would make them no different from those they fight.

To conclude, while playing from some sort of reasonable playbook may now seem out of date, the alternative is far worse.

Genuflecting At The Altar Of Corporate Giants

For the longest time, I have been pondering the timidity of successive governments to be on anything but the good side of the corporate titans who walk among us. Certainly, we sometimes hear brave words that are scripted from the world of political theatre, but when the metal hits the pedal, as they say, the veil is lifted, and compliance to the corporate imperative is guaranteed.

Take postal banking, for example. Canada actually has a long history of postal banking that was ultimately brought to an end by the intercession of big banking interests:

This system began operating in 1868 with 81 locations and grew quickly. By 1884, there were 343 post office savings banks, with a balance of $13 million from almost 67,000 accounts. However, Canada's postal banking system confronted challenges from chartered banks by the 1890s. These banks, facing a recession, became interested in attracting the kind of small-time depositors who used post office savings banks and they actively worked to undermine postal banking. In 1898, the chartered banks successfully lobbied the government to reduce the interest rate paid on deposits at postal savings banks from 3% to 2.5%. They also worked to eliminate advertising by postal banks. 

Despite the fact that the services allowed anyone to have an account, it ended in 1969. Since that time, there has been increasing interest in bringing them back, largely due to the obstacles that poor, disenfranchised people have in securing an account with one of the big banks, whose onerous (and very lucrative) fees pose an insurmountable barrier to many. Indeed, a secret study was conducted by Canada Post that showed both the need for, and the benefits of, postal banking. Unfortunately, most of that report's finding were redacted.

The only alternative many Canadians currently have is the usurious pay-day loans and check-cashing services, which, through astoundingly high interest rates, cruelly bleed the hapless user. In a report done two years ago by Marketplace,, the rate for loans appeared to be an astounding 47%:

Lenders in Canada can charge up to 60 per cent interest, according to the Criminal Code of Canada. A rate of 46.96 per cent seems well under this threshold, but there are several ways of calculating interest. In fact, a 46.96 per cent APR (annual percentage rate) comes in at just under 60 per cent when using the calculation dictated by federal law. 

"So they all manoeuvre just below, just to make sure there are no [criminal] charges," said Ringuette. "Quite a good business plan for them. But what about Canadian consumers?"

Given that interest rates were at record lows until recently, that people would borrow/cash cheques at one of these businesses attests to their desperation, a desperation that could be alleviated by postal banking.

Unfortunately, our government overlords seem very loathe to permit the kind of competition that would unsettle not only payday loan services but, more importantly, the fat profits enjoyed by the big banks. Why? One part of the answer surely lies in the composition of our federal governments, including the current one. Most are hardly what you would call rank-and-file Canadians; the kind of money it takes to run for office and get elected is to be found largely in campaign donations from the moneyed, who will not back those wishing to upset the applecart. As well, the vast majority of our representatives move in circles that most of us only know about second hand. Not for us are the environs of the Bronfmans, the Rodgers, the CEOs of big business, all with vested interests in maintaining as much as possible the status quo that benefits them so richly.

None of what I have written should come as a revelation. However, with current levels of political disengagement, there would seem little prospect of (or need for) real change. Until Canadians start demanding better, our politicians will continue to worship at the altar of our Corporate Giants.

The Fairy Tale Factory

 

As children, we very much enjoyed fairy tales. Stories filled with wolves and innocent damsels, children led astray by heartless witches, princes and plotters, giants and giant-slayers, all combined to fill us with both fear and ultimately hope, as good prevailed over evil and the world was once more set aright.

It occurs to me that the summer of 2021 sees us in the midst of a fairy tale, only this one is entitled the federal election of 2021.

The identities of the heroes and villains depend largely upon where you are on the political spectrum. If a Liberal and swayed by manipulated media, you will see Erin O'Toole as the big bad wolf huffing and puffing at the house built by public healthcare, to name but one of his 'targets'. And while that wolf promises a tax credit for child-care, the Liberals are signing deals to bring about $10-a-day daycare, within five years. Writ large: Justin as middle-class hero.

If you are a Conservative, Mr. Trudeau and his gang are wanton spendthrifts heedlessly saddling Canadians and their descendants with unsustainable debt that ultimately spells ruin for old age security and health care, to name but two. The hero of this narrative? Erin O'Toole, who promises to balance the budget over a 10-year period and not raise taxes. Indeed, all the pressing problems of today, ranging from the opioid crisis to the cost of housing, will be met with swift and decisive action.

If you veer to the left, Jagmeet Singh is your man as he battles the neoliberal forces within our midst. One of his promises entails ending all subsidies for fossil fuels. Other goodies include universal prescription drug coverage, dental care and up to $5000 for families to cover their rent. Clearly he is the hero of the tale if exploitative and extractive capitalism, inadequate or unaffordable housing and runaway climate change rattle and rankle you.

We all know that fairy tales are unreal, and those who treat campaign promises as anything other than thinly-disguised fiction are either being naïve or have their ideological blinders firmly in place. One needs to take but a quick look at one aspect of the campaign to see the fictions being perpetuated.

Taxation. We have gone through an extremely difficult time this past year-and-a-half that has required extraordinary expenditures. Few would argue that they were unnecessary. The deficit has grown tremendously, but that isn't a part of the parties' narratives, for the most part.

Mr. Trudeau promises to hike taxes on the big banks and insurance companies, raising by three percentage points (from 15% to 18%) on all bank and insurance earnings over $1 billion to "support middle-class Canadians in their goal of home ownership." He has also announced something called the Canada Recovery dividend which, combined with the other measure, is supposed to generate $2.5 billion per year for the next four years. In my view, this timid measure is mere camouflage of neoliberal truths.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, are offering tax breaks and tax credits:

To help ailing retailers, a government led by O'Toole would implement a "GST holiday" — a month-long break on federal sales tax — sometime this fall. All purchases at a retail store would be tax-free for a month.

The Conservative government would scrap the $30-billion Liberal child care program...and instead convert the existing child care expense deduction into a refundable tax credit to cover up to 75 per cent of the cost of child care for lower income families.

Nary a word from either party of a sustained, realistic approach to taxation that would address either new program spending or the bourgeoning debt, but O'Toole has promised balanced budgets within 10 years. The roadmap, however, is non-existent.

Jagmeet Singh's NDP is the only party that seems more forthright about taxation, at least acknowledging the need for more revenue through a number of measures, including a wealth tax of 1% for those worth more than $10 million, raising the marginal tax rate for those making over $210,000, and restoring corporate tax rates to $18 from the 15% it had been reduced to by the Harper government.

Some, of course, might argue that he is playing to his base, but that base is rather large, given that 90% favour a wealth tax. But even here, the tax is a timid, given that a 3% rate would raise much, much more.

To give an order of magnitude of the amount that could be raised, the Parliamentary Budget Office published a report in July, estimating that a one-time wealth tax of three per cent on net wealth of more than $10 million and five per cent on net wealth over $20 million, could raise between $44 billion and $61 billion.

Kim Campbell once famously said that an election is no time to discuss serious issues. Judging by the willing suspension of disbelief  embraced by so many, she may indeed have been right.

The Upper Hand

 We certainly do live in strange times, eh?

H/t Theo Moudakis

This Speaks To My Cynical Heart

H/t Greg Perry

Whither Goest The NDP?

In his column today, Rick Salutin offers a withering assessment of the NDP that I fear is all too accurate. In a phrase, what most ails the party is what might be termed ideological abandonment:

You start noticing what they’re not, and haven’t been for a while. At their start, in the Depression of the ’30s, as the CCF, they knew they had the answer to the questions the country was asking: How did we get into this mess and how do we get out? The answer was something like socialism or co-operation.

The allure of power has corrupted that ethos:

They’re more like: “We’re a grown-up party too and dammit, we deserve our turn.”

That was the tone of Thomas Mulcair’s 2015 campaign. When candidates in the recent leadership race were asked what distinguishes their party from the Liberals, none said: We have the answer to what the country needs — as Elizabeth May surely would have. Their responses were pathetic. “We mean what we say … We follow through … We have principles … They just want power …” Pathetic, and laughable.

Then Mulcair, who vowed not to run deficits — at which point Liberals say they knew they’d won. It was crazy. The NDP’s main appeal had been their perceived fealty to principle — whether it was true or not. Leader Tommy Douglas even bucked many of his own members to oppose military rule in 1970.

On a personal note, when I attended an NDP rally leading up to the last election, what I noticed most about Mulcair was his use of a teleprompter (I know they all use one, but it does dampen any illusion of passion and spontaneity) and the way he worked the room - a rather plastic smile/grin on his face that didn't reach his eyes as he shook people's hands without looking them in the eye.

This is not to say that the party's ideological abandonment began with Mulcair. No, it was the revered Jack Layton who led the charge on that front:

He was serious about power, helping purge “socialism” from their constitution. His first three elections achieved little though the last, due to Quebec’s unique way of deciding to vote tout ensemble, made him opposition leader.

All of which amounts to a massively-missed opportunity:

The desertion of past principle is ironic since the “left” position has surged back, especially among the young. They aren’t prey to the mythos of private property for good reasons: they won’t have much. They don’t expect to own houses, cars or even bikes — and have decided it’s fine to share. Not just socialism but a “co-operative Commonwealth” — the CC in CCF — might make sense to them.

Mulcair's replacement, Jagmeet Singh, fails to impress. His late-stage advocacy for the environment, surely of vital concern to millenials, once again smacks of political opportunism. If the young are to be a force in the next election, my guess is they will go with the party that has been most consistent and has its eyes on the long-term, not just the next political cycle: The Green Party.

I know that's where my vote is going.

Trouble In The Principal's Office

H/t Theo Moudakis

On Short Attention Spans And Political Expediency

The climate catastrophe bearing down on us serves to underscore the fallibility of our species and the shortcomings of our politics, as these Star letter-writers ably point out:

The news cycle is a funny thing. The UN has issued a “life-or-death” report about the clear and present danger of climate change. The Star has given it front-page coverage. But we all know it’ll be gone by next week.

I guess it doesn’t matter. Ordinary people don’t get it anyway, or get it for about five minutes, then move on. Political and corporate leaders don’t get it either. In fact, they don’t want to get it.

So we wait for Trump’s next rant, the next oil leak or terrorist attack, the next royal wedding or sports spectacular, and watch them all disappear just as quickly as they brighten our screens.

Climate change? People running from coastal cities? Droughts, floods, wicked storms and broken food chains? Who cares. It’s a fantasy, just a flicker on the news channel and it’ll all be gone tomorrow.

Stephen Purdey, Toronto

The new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints a grim picture of what is in store if we don’t start to significantly reduce carbon emissions within the next dozen or so years. The consequences of climate change have beaten us over the head in recent years — from extended heat waves and drought to more intense wildfires and flooding. Yet many of our political leaders are merely paying lip service to the crisis.

Doug Ford says he “believes” in climate change, but is opposed to carbon taxes. Jason Kenney is sitting on the fence, but he knows that he doesn’t like carbon pricing. Andrew Scheer says he will have a “very detailed and comprehensive plan” to get us to our Paris commitments — without a carbon tax.

We know what they don’t want, but what are they in favour of? For Scheer, in particular, with an election a year away, the luxury of cheap talk is over. He needs to tell us exactly what he proposes and let us judge if it is better than what is currently on the table.

Richard Schertzer, Milton

Climate change is affecting Canadians as much as a buzzing fly in the room. It is annoying and in the back of everyone’s mind and yet ignored in the belief that it will eventually dissipate once some new technology comes along.

Many people do not have this luxury, however. Natural disasters are sweeping mostly impoverished, developing nations, including the recent Haitian and Indonesian earthquakes. These disasters are headed our way and that fly in the room will soon become a hungry lion. Yet politicians seem to be more concerned about wearing a headscarf to work or having beer cost a buck than the fate of our survival on this planet.

If we want to have any chance of keeping the increase in temperatures to a maximum of 1.5 or even 2 degrees C, we need to put pressure on those in power to shift their focus. We must stop pushing this under the rug and take greater measures than those we’re taking now.

Emma McLaughlin, Montreal

Politics And Climate Change

Sad to say, climate change and politics in the worst possible sense are inextricably linked. Even as we face the defining crisis of human existence, the question remains one of optics. The Star's Susan Delacourt wonders whether ordinary Canadians can be sold on climate change.

On the one hand are people like Stephen Harper who, in his new book,

warns that standing up for the environment makes for bad politics, especially in a populist age when parties are looking for the votes of “ordinary” people.

“Political parties, including mine, have won elections just by opposing a carbon tax,” the former prime minister writes in the newly released “Right Here, Right Now.” “The reason is simple. It is ordinary voters who pay carbon taxes.”

On the opposite polarity is Green Party Leader Elizabeth May:

In a speech to her party’s convention in Vancouver last month, May said ordinary Canadian voters are more than ready to hear the truth about the climate crisis in the 2019 campaign.

“We really do need to level with Canadians,” May said. “If the one issue is survival, it’s kind of the issue.” She intends to build her campaign around the idea that Canadians are ready, even eager, to have politicians telling the truth to them, and climate change is a perfect entry into that discussion.

Given the latest doom-laden but all-too-real Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, May says the time is right:

“We’re no longer talking about future generations,” May said in an interview yesterday. “We’re talking about the life span of our own children, who are alive right now.”

May wonders why the IPCC report cannot become the Dunkirk of the current generation — a call for citizens and government to work together for a common aim. In the “darkest hour” of the Second World War, she said, people came together to fight a common enemy. May believes that citizens are ready to hear the same message when it comes to saving the planet within the next dozen years.

May's historical allusion is a good one, but it ignores something vital: with Dunkirk, a sense of national purpose was instilled by a strong leader, Winston Churchill, in response to an immediate threat, a threat that was all too real to the British people.

So far, we haven't sufficiently personalized the threat posed by climate change. Will it take a series of Canadian catastrophes similar to what is happening in the United States and other parts of the world before our leaders, and our people, find that sense of purpose? Were the Western forest fires this past summer, the 2016 Fort McMurray conflagration and last month's tornadic destruction in the Ottawa area not sufficient foretaste?

If we are waiting for more dramatic destruction on our home soil to move us, it will, in all likelihood, be far, far too late, and the earth will continue on its current course of ridding itself of a good portion of its greatest affliction - the human species.

Manipulation 101

It is to state the obvious that politicians and their party apparatchiks are practiced manipulators. They target their demographic, employ experts to craft messages to that demographic and, sadly, seem to expend a disproportionate amount of time on the art of politicking at the expense of true democratic representation. Managing optics, not formulating principled policy, has become the raison d'être for far too many.

Combine this with an increasingly credulous and partisan populace, and you have a recipe for a decidedly unhealthy democracy. It is one in which increasing numbers of voters are forsaking critical thinking and the kind of challenge and critical analysis offered by traditional media for the much easier task of cheering on their favourite 'team' while embracing the animus directed at their opponents, skillfully cultivated by hired talent who see politics as a game to be strategized, with nary a thought for the public good. There are only Winners and Losers in this world of black and white, and the biggest loser is, of course, democracy's health and vitality.

Start at the seven-minute mark of the following news report, and you will see that the base art of manipulation is alive and well in Canada.

These Are Brave Ladies

When you are young, it is easy to find heroes, people whose daring exploits elicit awe and wonder. When I was a kid, Superman was my comic book hero. Although fictitious, he was an exemplar people could admire. Indefatigable, strong and incorruptible, Superman, although an alien, showed the best qualities humanity is capable of.

And that, to me, is the essence of a hero.

In my adult life, Nelson Mandela, about whom I have written on this blog, was my hero. His grace, dignity and refusal to compromise during all his years of imprisonment showed us the best that human nature has to offer.

Now that Mandela is gone, it is hard to find real inspiration in this fractured world, a world in which avarice, dissension, hatred and pettiness have seized centre stage, a world in which real leadership seems absent.

In Canada, our politics is one of opportunism and hypocrisy, something we were all reminded of during this past weekend's Conservative Party convention in Halifax. And the Liberal Party, despite the bright promise they seemed to present during the last election, have proven they learned nothing during their years in the wilderness. Justin Trudeau's betrayal of his environmental promise, in my view, was the coup de grâce to optimism about the future.

And yet ....

There are those brave and principled souls who refuse to be consumed by despair and yield to forces much bigger than themselves. People who know that their obligation goes beyond themselves and their immediate families. People who care about the generations that will come along after they are gone. People like the 'sinister seniors'. People like Charlotte Gyoba:

Gyoba was one of the protesters who broke a court injunction filed by Kinder Morgan that set limits on how close people could be from the gates. The protesters stood right in front of the gates at one of the Kinder Morgan facilities at the Burnaby Mountain tank farm.

Of the group of nine that faced initial jail time for convictions on July 31, the first to be sentenced was 70-year-old grandmother Laurie Embree. Indigenous elders have also been arrested at the gates.

Meanwhile, the penalties for defying the injunction continue to increase, with the people arrested this week facing a sentence of 14 days in custody from the B.C. Supreme Court.

Gyoba herself wound up spending four days behind bars with four other protesters, all over the age of 65, and she has no regrets:

“I won’t be here much longer, but I worry about what kind of planet the next generation will inherit from us,” the 74-year-old said. “People have to stand up when they see an injustice. If they don’t, then democracy doesn’t work for anybody.”

The thought of incarceration frightens the hell out of me. Am I capable of such courage? I don't know. But as long as there are people like Gyoba and the others profiled in the above-linked article, it is clear that heroism is not dead, and there is still some hope for humanity.

A Broad Canvas

If, like me, you are a retired senior to whom the fates have been reasonably kind, you have the luxury to contemplate the world around you at your leisure. If you are at all engaged in the larger world, however, that contemplation is rarely relaxing or enjoyable. You have seen too much in your lifetime.

A clear benefit and curse of advancing years is the context it confers. Without succumbing to mindless sentiment or nostalgia, I can remember earlier days when our society, although frequently roiled with major problems, was able to preserve and nourish something that now seems to be rapidly receding into the realm of the notionally quaint: the common good. People who ran for political office, it seems to me, more often than not, ran with a mind to represent the entire country or province, not a narrow or divisive constituency nursing some nebulous sense of grievance.

Today, that seems rarely the case. Nationally, of course, that 'narrowcasting' was most obvious during the foul reign of Stephen Harper, its main justification being to secure and retain power. His replacement, Justin Trudeau, while bearing the accouterments of a progressive populist, has disappointed deeply, purveying a neoliberal agenda and readily abandoning his election promises, an electoral reform that could have rejuvenated our waning democratic participation, and his pushing through pipelines without the 'social licence' he averred was sacred. Meanwhile, the Conservatives leader, Andrew Scheer, in true populist style in order to convince the electorate he is 'one of us,' dons a plaid short-sleeved shirt and bluejeans, while NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, courting the press, seeks to fashion himself as a Justin 2.0:



Here in Ontario, things are no better. We have a desperate Kathleen Wynne promising everything to everyone in a proposed spending spree which, should she be returned to power, would ensure at the very least another sale of public assets, the most likely immediate target being the LCBO. Her recent appointment of privatization czar Ed Clark as its chair was a barely concealed hint of a further implementation of the neoliberal agenda.

As a retiree, I am particularly offended at Wynne playing to the stereotype of the selfish senior by promising to remove the deductibles and co-payments under the Ontario Drug Benefit program, which provides seniors with free drugs. This will save the average person $240 per year. My vote really can't be bought, Kathleen.

Then, of course, there is the rise of the reactionary populist Doug Ford, promising to find 'new efficiencies' to save $6 billion with, wait for it, no job loss or government cuts! Shame on anyone who lived through the Mike Harris years for believing such patent malarkey.

Finally, we have the NDP's Andrea Horwath who, in a bald and venal play, gave up her balance of power leverage and triggered the last election, the same one that gave Wynne her majority, thereby allowing her to sell off 60% of Hydro One, a sale Horwath now promises to reverse by buying back the shares and lower hydro rates by 30%.

The contemporary canvas I contemplate is a bleak one. In Voltaire's Candide, Professor Pangloss avers "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds". Notably, the work is a satire. Perhaps it is time for a new generation of readers.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

As a retired person with no financial pressures, I realize that I am probably part of a comfortable minority. Many across a wide demographic range struggle with daily life, leaving little time for what some might call the luxury of reflection and critical thinking. However, there are also many others who simply don't care about the wider society and world around them, preferring to make a virtue of their ignorance. It is the latter segment for whom I reserve both my concern and my scorn.

The other day I wrote a post about the steady declines in readership and revenues confronting newspapers today; as I suggested in that post, this has very serious implications for the health of democracy. An ignorant populace is easy prey for the unscrupulous manipulations too frequently practised by those in power and those seeking power. In response to that post, Montreal Simon sent me a link, which I included in an update, to a Press Progress piece with these disturbing statistics:

According to Statscan, the number of Canadians who follow the news on a daily basis dropped from 68% in 2003 to 60% in 2013.

Meanwhile, over the last decade, the number of Canadians who "rarely or never" follow the news nearly doubled from 7% in 2003 to 13% in 2013.

Curious, I wondered how American statistics compare:



As you can see, over a period of 15 years, American newspaper readership has fallen drastically in each demographic, from young to old. This got me thinking, and from that thinking I offer a thesis I realize is hardly a profound insight: There is a relationship between declines in consumption of traditional media (newspapers, network news, etc.) and the rise of the politics of division and demagoguery that has plagued both Canada and the United States in recent years.

Consider the evidence. In the world we once inhabited, pre-Internet and pre-Fox News, people got their information from what used to be termed 'trusted sources': network news and long-established newspapers. Today, with those sources in decline, people are cherry-picking their information sources, sources that all too frequently merely reinforce prejudices and ignorance. Indeed, in this view online materials do not function as part of the great equalizing function many ascribe to the Internet, but allow for even more isolation from the larger world we are all part of. Climate denialism is one illustration that comes readily to mind, and no amount of reason will derail the skeptics thanks to their selective consultation of sources. For a further and more nuanced discussion of this notion, I recommend an excellent and thought-provoking essay that Kirby Cairo wrote the other day.

As we in Canada well know, the longer the Harper cabal remained in office, the more divisive, contemptuous and racist it became. The last election campaign, with its race-baiting and profound denigration of all those who remained outside the narrow tent of their exclusionary practices, reached an historical nadir in our country. Achieving social consensus under that regime was regarded as a weakness, and so it doubled down in appealing to its base.

The same, of course, is happening right now in the United States in the Republican race for the presidential nomination:





Ted Cruz is no better. Watch his thoughts on climate change:



Especially rich in the above is Cruz's suggestion that people question the professors who spout climate change and think for themselves, the last thing he really wants. If you would like to read a refutation of Cruz's posturing, click here.

One must always be wary of oversimplifications, and I realize that what I have discussed here is only one part of the explanation for the deterioration of contemporary politics. Another big factor, of course, is the increasingly large proportion of people who are becoming the modern-day dispossessed. Justifiably angry and estranged, they want answers to the causes of their discontent that today's demagogues are only too eager to 'provide' on their road to power. Ignorance is their coin of the realm, and antidotes are desperately needed.

Increased news consumption can be part of the solution, but only if we have the will not to revel in our ignorance.

Some Thoughts From ThinkingManNeil

In response to my morning post, ThinkingManNeil offered some passionate and very interesting comments. With his permission, I am featuring them as a separate post:

I was never really interested in politics until the mid-1990's. Up to then I felt like many that it was something that politicians, poli-sci majors, and pundits busied themselves with, and through glacially slow processes it worked its way into our everyday lives with little notice. I voted regularly - usually Liberal, though I did once vote for the PC's because Joe Clarke struck me as a decent man - but my votes were never party- or issue-driven.

Then, in mid-1996 after having had to stop working due to health issues, I decided to take a new tack in my life and I enrolled in college to study commercial photography with the idea of making a new career where I could work at my own pace while doing something I enjoyed immensely, thinking that both would contribute to my overall well being. It was during this time, after just having moved into new digs in the town where the college was that I heard then Ontario Minister for Social Services, David Tsubouchi, say in an interview that people on welfare who couldn't make ends meet should dicker with their local grocery store managers over the price of low-end tuna. When I heard that - something I'd never heard before in Ontario politics - I knew things had changed.

Of course, this was followed by other Mike Harris neo-con travesties and tragedies such as the Walkerton tainted water scandal, the fire sale of provincial assets such as the 407 highway, cancellation of rent controls. defunding of hospitals and the commensurate loss of doctors and nurses, cuts to education while corporations enjoyed grants and tax cuts, the OPP assault on OCAP protesters on the grounds of Queen's Park, and the murders of Dudley George and Kimberly Rogers.

It was during this period of the Harris regime that I finally realized that politics can, and does, have a very real - and sometimes devastating - impact on people's lives. I also realized I could not go on without paying closer attention.

Since then we've seen the horrors of the Bush-Cheney years, and that we now find ourselves in the midst of our own fascist nightmare with Stephen Ratfucking Harper, whose crimes against Canada, Canadians, and, by extension, the world are legion and so familiar to all of us here that they do not bear repeating.

I still fear, however, that the fix is already in for this "election". With a needlessly early call that will stretch it out weeks beyond normal, it's clear that Harper's dirty tricks are already at work, aiming to exhaust the opposition's funding and wear down the public. That and his Karl-Rove-ian gerrymandering of electoral ridings in predominantly Conservative districts shows that Shit Head's "take no prisoners" attitude is still very much alive and well. This bastard isn't going to let the inconvenience of such notions as elections and democracy undo all that he's worked to create (and destroy) in Canada since he came on the scene. The Canada Health Act, tattered as it is, has yet to have the life choked out it by a death of a thousand funding cuts, and the doors opened to a privatized, for-profit healthcare system. And there are still privatized super prisons for protesters, pot heads, and the indigent to be built and sabres to be rattled at ISIL and Putin.

I genuinely fear what what will be left of Canada if Harper takes the next election...or the next...or the next.

He did promise we wouldn't recognize our lovely home after he was finished with it, didn't he? We're already more than half way there...

N.

The Fascination Of Politics

It always astounds me that more people are not interested in politics. Far too many dismiss it as an arcane pursuit that has no relevance in their lives, apparently confusing the recondite measures involved in the development of public policy with the human dynamics at the heart of pursuing and maintaining power. Greed, duplicity, manipulation, nobility, passion and compassion, all this and much more is at play. To dismiss politics is to dismiss any interest in the human animal. It is to sit on the sidelines of life.

That being said, I'm not sure that even as ardent a follower of human machinations as I am is ready for an 11-week campaign. The messages will get quickly repetitive, and the attacks will grow increasing dark and dispiriting. I may take the odd break from this blog to recover my equilibrium.

But since Dear Leader saw fit to visit the Governor-General yesterday as the prelude to spending even more of our money to try to cling to power, I would be remiss not to offer a few of the media's early observations. The Toronto Star sees the call as a blatantly cynical move:

Although Harper positioned the move as “fair,” designed to level the playing field for all parties at a time when the leaders were already out drumming up votes, it’s anything but. As the Conservatives well know, only they are in a position to fully capitalize on the much higher spending limits that come along with a longer campaign. Both the Liberals and New Democrats will struggle to keep up – and that of course is exactly the idea.

This shameless move is yet more evidence – if any was needed – that the Harper Conservatives are long past their sell-by date.

Despite the tremendous spending advantages the Conservatives have, the editorial reminds us of a few facts that no slick strategy can conceal for long:

Over the next two and a half months, voters will have a chance to consider Harper’s record and decide if they want more. Among other things, they should keep in mind:

The Conservatives’ regressive social policies, pandering to their “base” at the expense of the least well-off.

Harper’s absence of national leadership on such crucial issues as health care, aboriginal issues and climate change.

The government’s misguided “tough on crime” laws that do nothing to enhance public safety.

The Conservatives’ divisive approach on national security and the dangerous measures in its “anti-terror” bill, C-51.

There’s much more, and thanks to Harper’s decision to call a vote so early, lots of time to debate it. The real issue is what’s the best alternative to this badly flawed government.

Here in Ontario, a key battleground, Premier Kathleen Wynne is wasting no time in reminding people of the contempt with which Harper is treating the province:

Voters should turf Prime Minister Stephen Harper for showing Ontario “blatant disrespect,” Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne urged Sunday in one of her strongest attacks yet on the federal Conservatives.

Wynne accused the Harper administration of naked partisanship over refusals to smooth a path for her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and for not doing more to help develop the rich Ring of Fire mineral deposit in northwestern Ontario.

She zeroed in on the pension plan, noting Harper’s government allows the Canada Revenue Agency to provide services to provincial pension plans in Quebec and Saskatchewan.

“For him to then turn around and say, ‘Yeah, well, we have agreement with other provinces through the CRA and we’re not going to do that for you’ … it’s blatant disrespect for the people of Ontario,” Wynne said. “That has to stop.”

There is much to consider in this election, and the fact that Thomas Mulcair is now leading in the polls is one indicator this will be a hotly-contested and vigorously-fought battle. But what is true today may not be true later in the campaign. Observes Tim Harper:

The test for the NDP this time is whether Mulcair has staying power — and the betting here is that he does — but the Conservative calculation is clearly that increased scrutiny will expose a leader of a party viewed with skepticism on the economy in uncertain economic times.

Finally, here is some good advice from Harper's main cheerleader, The Globe and Mail, about the campaign:

Be a part of it. Make sure to vote. Turnout in federal elections is inexcusably low in Canada: Almost four out of 10 people don’t bother. While the leaders are doing their jobs, make sure to do yours. You can’t control the weather, but you can choose your government.

The Sunday Scrum

Harper's moratorium on Senate appointments (the program's start). The likelihood of a federal deficit (10 minute mark). The increased universal child-care benefit (13 minute mark). A possible NDP-Liberal coalition (15 minute mark). Maclean's Magazine's Martin Patriquin and The Chronicle Herald's Dan Leger discuss these issues on yesterday's Sunday Scrum. You can access each topic at the respective time marks indicated above in parentheses.

"Is There A Poltician In Canada Who Will Simply Speak The Truth?"

That is the question Don Graves asks in his hard-hitting lead letter printed in this morning's Star. Enjoy.

I look out my window and see sunshine and vibrant signs of approaching spring. There’s even a Toronto sports franchise winning games.

But when I turn to the news media I read or hear about a glass half empty, half full, a glass smashed, a glass we can no longer afford because we are in so much provincial/federal debt and not to forget the growing number of Canadians who can no longer afford to buy a glass, full, half empty – or even chipped.

The Star last week carried these stories: A doctor who can’t get details about a drug for his pregnant patient; Ontario hospitals woefully unprepared to deal with a growing aging population; a federal government buying votes with our money and then telling us how lucky we are; and a fire sale of Ontario Hydro created by a consultant with no public service record and, gasp, a one cent increase on a bottle of beer.

This litany merely piles on the abuse mountain of veterans’ rights, a federal government that cannot deliver fresh water to our native Canadian population, a festering core of Ontario workers ready to strike and a quickly growing underbelly of people who simply cannot balance their books and play Russian roulette with rent, food, debt, education loan arrears.

And a pox on all the parties: opposition parties who offer nothing better than scare tactics instead of reasoned alternatives. Governing parties whose only true focus is maintaining a majority with a four-year formula of cut+cut+cut+buy votes. Repeat as long as you can con the voter.

Seems like I’m convincing myself that we have no glass but a mirage of political cracked mirrors. All of which has created one senior voter who wonders why it’s worth bothering to read about it or vote. The Star and other media don’t make the news. You do a good job of exposing the reality that our Emperors really don’t have any clothes.

Which leads to a simple question: somewhere, anywhere, at any level is there a politician in Canada who will simply speak the truth?

Don Graves, Burlington

Our Monochromatic Political Leadership

The images are graphic and heartbreaking - buildings reduced to rubble, maimed and dead children strewn among that rubble, families fractured, lives broken beyond repair. Were it not for the distancing effect that television news inevitably brings, the pictures would be overwhelming, leaving room for nothing but despair.

Thus is the reality of the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, a seemingly insoluble situation aided and abetted by a West that offers nothing but the staunch bromide of Israeli's 'right to defend itself,' an assertion with which few would disagree.

And therein lies the problem. That reflexive cliche whenever Israeli 'excesses' make the news relies on an uninformed and unsophisticated mode of thinking that sees the world only in terms of absolutes, where things are right or wrong, where you either stand with Israel wholeheartedly and unequivocally, or you are an anti-Semite who stands with the terrorists.

This is certainly the position of the Harper regime, and it is one held by Thomas Mulcair as far back as 2008, and by Justin Trudeau as well, as noted by The Mound of Sound on this blog.

Taking, as they say, a more 'nuanced' public position takes courage for the political risk it entails, and all three leaders of the major parties have shown themselves extraordinarily risk-averse. Unfortunately, their decision to play a safe and defensive game carries with it stakes far greater than their own political ambitions.

It is that cowardice that invites a withering assessment by Haroon Siddiqui in this morning's Toronto Star:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and, to a lesser extent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have fallen in line with Stephen Harper’s support of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza.

None question the Israeli killing and maiming of hundreds of civilians, including women and children.

All echo the formulation that, given the barrage of (ineffective) Hamas rockets, Israel has a right to retaliate (bombing by air, shelling from the sea, mounting a ground invasion, levelling houses, hitting hospitals, mosques and schools run by the United Nations, and disrupting electricity, water and sewage systems).

Siddiqui suggests there is great room for a genuine discussion that all three 'leaders' have no interest in initiating:

Our federal leaders do not ask whether there could have been a less lethal response to the rockets than a wholesale war on Gaza, the third in six years.

Indeed, they hew closely to the official narrative, refusing to allow facts to interfere with expediency:

They studiously avoid mentioning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, now in its 47th year. They never mention the Israeli blockade of Gaza that entered its eighth year last month, leaving its 1.7 million inhabitants destitute.

Nor is the writer impressed by their blanket absolution of Israel for the mass destruction its actions have wrought:

All three suggest that Israel bears little or no responsibility for what’s happening. It’s all the fault of Hamas, the terrorist entity. They ignore a parallel narrative that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu provoked this war in order to derail a recent unity agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, an accord that he saw as a threat to the status quo that he prefers.

Siddiqui disabuses those who hold out hope for change under young Justin Trudeau:

Trudeau issued a statement July 15 that “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.” He made no commensurate call for Israel to show restraint.

He condemned Hamas for rejecting an Egyptian ceasefire proposal and commended Israel for accepting it “and demonstrating its commitment to peace.” He did not say that the Egyptian military junta is not a neutral party, that it considers Hamas an extension of the banned Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood whose elected president Mohammed Morsi the army toppled in a coup last year. Hamas’ conditions for a ceasefire were rejected. It wanted, among other things, an end to the siege of Gaza.

There is much more in Siddiqui's column that merits reading, including the pushback from 500 prominent Canadians condemning the Harper regime for its uncritical stance on Israel, and condemnation by Canadians For Justice And Peace In The Middle East of all three federal parties because they have betrayed Canadian values.

All in all, much to disturb our Sunday equanimity.

Newsana: A News Aggregator To Help Keep People Informed and Engaged

“Our mission at Newsana, our goal, is ultimately to become the world’s arbiter of high-quality news, analysis, ideas and opinions” ... The biggest problem with the online news experience right now is there is just too much content.”

- Ben Peterson, Newsana co-founder

Those of us with a passion for a better Canada know that the key to achieving it lies in having an engaged citizenry armed with information, knowledge, and some critical thinking ability, none of which occur in a vacuum. Probably the biggest deterrent for most people in acquiring those tools is time.

To be sure, there are sites that aggregate the news, but foraging through the dross can still be time-consuming. Now there is a new kid on the block that may help address this problem.

A few days ago, The Toronto Star ran a feature on people to watch in 2014. One of those people is Ben Peterson, quoted above. In April of 2013, he, his partners and backers launched Newsana, a news aggregator with a difference - the stories it carries are those suggested by its members.

Here's how it works:

Newsana ... hand-picks news from members, highlighting the top five items in topic areas from arts and entertainment to business to the future of journalism, as voted on by members themselves. The top five can change throughout the day.

Members are also ranked: and if their pitches are well-received by others, they move up in the rankings of influence in chosen categories. The goal is to have members share ideas and debate issues.

Members must apply to join the site (to date, some have been rejected) or they must be invited by an existing member.

The blogs that I read on a daily basis are written by some very knowledgeable and passionate people who frequently lead me, with their insights and links, to information and perspectives that I would likely never have acquired on my own. Those bloggers have immeasurably enriched my understanding of the world we share.

So here is what I'm thinking. Having recently joined Newsana and become a contributor, mainly in the Canadian Politics topic, it occurs to me that the kinds of quality articles the organization is seeking could be very effectively provided by engaged bloggers. While there is no provision for writing one's own pieces, contributors are given the option of writing a lead-in to create interest, as well as the opportunity to engage in dialogue with those who comment on the articles provided, not unlike what we do on our own blogs. I also suspect that a news aggregator like Newsana will attract an audience of people who may not necessarily read blogs, but still want to learn more, which takes me back to my opening observation about the need for an informed and engaged citizenry.

So I invite my fellow bloggers to take a look at the site and consider helping it grow so that together, we can continue our efforts to challenge the sad status quo that currently exists in Canada and make positive change a real possibility.