I Come Not To Praise Flaherty

I have thus far avoided writing about Jim Flaherty's passing for a very simple reason; it is difficult, if not impossible to keep separate his family's personal loss with the man's record as a politician. Yet two pieces I read in yesterday's Star convinced me otherwise, and they allow me to offer my own views without disrespect for the dead.

The first, a fine piece of writing by Jim Coyle, is entitled Jim Flaherty gave up so much to serve us. His thesis is this:

...our politics would ... improve mightily if the Canadian public saw politicians as human beings much like themselves, often making very large sacrifices, rather than as contemptible cartoon figures of vanity, greed and corruption.

His column goes on to describe the tremendous sacrifices Flaherty made in his 25 years of service: forgone remuneration, which would have been likely totaled in the millions given the lucrative law practice he left upon entering politics, and more importantly, the precious time with his family that was never to be recovered.

Coyle states:

But let’s be honest. A life in politics, and especially in its higher reaches, is inherently incompatible with the everydayness and unpredictable crises of family life.

The job, more than most, is all-consuming. By necessity, it demands living away from home part of most weeks. Even when not in Ottawa, the travelling through ridings, the out-and-abouting, the constituency work is unrelenting.

But his piece, which ultimately is an effort to remind us of how politics can still be seen as a noble calling despite the widespread public cynicsm that currently prevails, omits something crucial to any evaluation of Jim Flaherty in particular, and politicians in general. The sacrifices Coyle discusses, while no doubt real ones, become tainted, cheapened and debased when they are made in service to a dark lord. And Flaherty had two such masters: the hideous former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, who did more than any other Canadian politician in memory to disseminate dissension, disunity and class hatred, all of which Flaherty was a willing part.

His second dark master was, of course, Stephen Harper, whose myriad measures to unravel our social, economic and political frameworks need no recounting here.

So without question, Coyle is right in reminding us that Flaherty sacrificed much to be a part of public life. But surely an honest evaluation of that life cannot be made separate from his and his masters' records.

Which brings me to the second piece I read yesterday, by Thomas Walkom, entitled CBC cuts show other side of Jim Flaherty. While acknowledging the grievous loss suffered by his family and friends, the writer makes this key assertion:

... it was under Flaherty’s watch as finance minister that the latest cutbacks in federal government funding to CBC occurred. ....he was also an integral part of a government determined to smash or cripple much of what makes Canada a livable country.

His death is a reminder that good people can do bad things for the best of motives.

Walkom broadens his perspectives beyond those cuts that will untimately destroy the CBC:

Flaherty’s various budgets have called for more than $5 billion in annual spending cuts. Successive parliamentary budget officers have noted that the vast majority of these cuts are to come from as yet unspecified public services.

On top of these, the federal government has decided to dramatically scale back spending on medicare.

Those health-care transfer cuts, announced by Flaherty in 2011, won’t kick in until well after the next election.

The cutbacks in employment insurance, the decision to raise the age of eligibility for old-age security, the reductions in transfer payments to Ontario, the lessening of environmental enforcement — all were collective decisions of the Harper cabinet.

All ministers bear responsibility for them.

But to forget that the former finance minister was a critical part of this ministry is to do him no favours.

And surely, it does no favours to Canada if we bury Flaherty's questionable record along with his earthly remains.

A Troubled Canadian's Mind

I have been a little under the weather the last two days, an illness that curiously began shortly after I had an unsettling thought about the federal budget. (I am sure there is no cause-and-effect between the two;)) Watching the numbers listed in the graphic, it occurred to me that for the average Canadian who pays little to no attention to our political environment, all must seem well, other than for the smokers who will be facing a tax hike on their poison of choice. The much greater costs of austerity remain hidden.

Although it was hardly a new insight, aware as I am that only a minority follow politics closely, I did find it a bit discouraging knowing it is the very fact of electoral disengagement that drives most of the disdainful and ultimately destructive policy initiatives of the current federal regime.

Then I read Thomas Walkom's column, found in today's Star, which offered a measure of solace.

Entitled Stephen Harper’s meanness may backfire, Walkom begins by observing how Harper's politics of division and demonization have worked so well for him up to this point:

Harper pushed through his law and order agenda by demonizing anyone who dared to contradict him.

Those who questioned Canada’s presence in the Afghan war were tarred as traitors who didn’t appreciate the country’s brave soldiers.

Those who fretted about government measures to monitor the Internet were labelled supporters of child pornography.

Indeed, the strategy is ongoing, as reflected in the 'Fair' Elections Act and reforms to the Citizenship Act; the former will make it more difficult for people to vote or ferret out election fraud; the latter offers the spectre of citizenship-stripping of those who don't quite toe the line. Both bills seem manifestations of the Tory mania for political payback against those it perceives to be its enemies, while at the same time throwing morsels to that part of their base given to Pavlovian salivation.

And yet, in Walkom's view, there may indeed be limits to the politics of meanness and division. Citing a history I am well-ware of as an Ontario resident, he says:

Look at history. [Mike] Harris’ tough, no-nonsense approach gave him back-to-back election victories in the 1990s. The voters loved it when he attacked welfare moms and shafted well-paid teachers.

But then the voters announced that they were sick of meanness and turfed the Tories from office.

Parenthetically, Walkom omits the fact that Harris, being essentially what all bullies are, a coward, resigned as Premier before he could be turfed out by increasingly disenchanted Ontarians who discovered there are some very real limits and spiritual costs to relentless hatred of 'the other.'

What is the evidence that the Harper strategy of demagoguery is losing its effectiveness? Walkom cites the growing popularity of Justin Trudeau, a popularity that cannot be explained by Liberal policy which, other than for Trudeau's announced intention to legalize marijuana, appears non-existent.

Says Walkom:

What distinguishes Trudeau is his sunny optimism. Who knows what he is like in private? But in public, he does not seem mean.

Harper, by contrast, does. No matter how many times he croons old Beatles songs, no matter how often he channels Neil Diamond, he comes across as a sourpuss.

That image worked as long as Harper was trying to portray himself as the no-nonsense accountant guiding Canada’s economy through recession.

But the Conservatives say the economic crisis is virtually over. If so, why vote for the accountant again?

While the political observer within is not entirely convinced of Walkom's thesis, the human being pining for a positive environment in which constructive and salutary policy can be enacted for the good of all Canadians is guardedly optimistic.

Guest Commentary: Why Tim Hudak Has Failed To Catch Fire

Yesterday I wrote an entry offering my opinion on why Ontarians are not embracing Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak as the economic messiah he purports to be. Fellow blogger ThinkingManNeil offered a concise and insightful comment on Hudak's problem, which I am posting as a separate entry here:

I think that another reason that Ontarians are reluctant to give Hudak the reins of power is that most most people who remember the Harris regime really remember seeing no tangible benefits from it. Hospitals were closed, teachers and nurses were fired by the truckload, the deregulation free for all (free fall?) gave us Walkerton, the riots at Queen's Park and the execution of Dudley George, workfare that promised job training but was more like punitive community service (aka forced labour litter collection), and seeing valuable provincial assets sold off such as the cash cow 407 highway. And all the while the only beneficiaries of these changes seem to have been the Bay Street set. Now in Sparky McAusterity we see someone even more doctrinaire than Harris, and short of Ford Nation or the Harper Reich I think most folks a pretty leery of seeing a "Common Sense Revolution" on steroids...

Why Tim Hudak Is Such A Failure As A Political Leader

I realize that the subject of Ontario politics is likely of little interest to those residing outside of the province. Yet I can't help but think that the dynamics at work here are not much different than anywhere else in the country, especially when one is talking about the qualities that make for an effective political leader.

In today's edition of The Star, Michael Taube, a political analyst and former speechwriter for Stephen Harper, offers his opinion as to why it is imperative that Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, should step down as soon as possible. The reasons he adduces for this position, in my view, miss the larger problem epitomized by people like Hudak.

Essentially, his indictment of the hapless Hudak revolves around the contention that he doesn’t have the personality, strategic skills or the common touch that [Mike] Harris cobbled together in two successive majority governments.:

Hudak flip-flopped on seemingly solid policy positions, including opposing the HST, eliminating human rights commissions and removing the health tax. His proposal for a public sex-offender registry should have been a no-brainer, but was sold poorly and turned out to be a negative factor. Opposition rivals claimed Hudak has similar policies to the U.S. Tea Party movement, and he just couldn’t escape the comparison. He even caused a communications nightmare for his party by using a loaded term “foreign workers” when opposing a Liberal plan for a $10,000 tax credit for first-time hires of immigrants.

Such an analysis strikes me as shallow and incomplete at best. While it is true that young Tim has failed to inspire confidence in the electorate, Taube's narrow ideological lens suggests that a good portion of Ontario is awaiting a leader who steadfastly projects the kind of right-wing values epitomized by Mike Harris, unquestionably the most divisive and, in my view, detested premier Ontario has ever seen. I give the electorate here a little more credit than that.

Judging by the fact that the NDP under Andrea Horwath has made some impressive gains in the province, and current Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne has inspired some respect for her willingness to raise difficult questions about transportation funding, my thought is that the voters of this province are more progressive and savvy than Taube gives them credit for. They are not looking for a return to the mean-spirited and ideologically-driven agenda so lustily embraced by Mike Harris; they are tired of the right-wing bromides that promise everything and deliver little more than misery for the masses and profligate perks for the privileged. They are hungry for policies that will be of use and relevance to themselves and their fellow citizens.

The fact that the Liberals were not trounced in all five recent by elections suggests that despite the many scandals they have been involved in, the electorate still regards them and the NDP as far preferable to the kind of anti-union, pro-corporate policies propagated by the province's right wing.

May I suggest that the time for reactionary political parties as represented by the likes of Tim Hudak is passing quickly?

A New Threat To Seniors

I think we are all aware, at least on an intellectual level, that the gift of a relatively long life comes at a cost: physical and sometimes cognitive diminishment, myriad aches and pains, both physical and emotional, and susceptibility to scams and unethical relatives.

Sadly, a new endangerment is on the horizon. Former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and his lovely and youthful third wife, Laura, have hatched a scheme to 'help' their aging fellow citizens. According to a report in today's Star, the duo

...announced Tuesday they are starting a home-care franchise called “Nurse Next Door” to help seniors — pointing out the over-65 crowd comprises 15 per cent of Toronto’s population.

“It’s about helping our seniors celebrate aging and getting them back to doing the things they love,” Harris said in a statement, noting his wife was a registered nurse before joining the business world.

Laura Harris, who will run the day-to-day operations, promised everything from “a few hours of friendly companionship through to round-the-clock nursing care.”

Given the massive hospital layoffs that occurred as a result of Harris's slash-and-burn policies during what was arguably Ontario's worst government, and the complete callousness with which Harris engineered and enacted them, this new venture would seem to be one in which caveat emptor takes on a new and urgent significance.

Liz Witmer's Political Karma

As a survivor of the Mike Harris years in Ontario, I have very vivid memories of what was undoubtedly the most mean-spirited and incompetent of provincial regimes I have ever lived through. Their economic 'strategy' of slashing and burning, selling key assets such as the 407 to foreign consortia to conceal their colossal fiscal ineptitude, and appeasing big business left a lasting legacy of discontent; as well, their divisive rhetoric pitted Ontarians against one another, much in the same manner as the Harper regime has done throughout Canada.

While she was Harris's Labour Minister, Liz Witmer set her sights on The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, slashing both the benefits paid to workers and the premiums charged to business. As Martin Regg Cohn points out in his column today, Ms Witmer, recently appointed head of WSIB, is about to experience some political karma as she contends with the results of her former intervention: the board currently faces an unfunded liability of over $14 billion.

No doubt Ms Witmer will bring her much-vaunted abilities to bear on the situation.