This Is The Best They've Got?

Many Ontario residents of a certain age will be aware of the fact that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party ruled the province for forty-two years, from 1943 to 1985, a time during which the term 'progressive conservative' did not constitute an oxymoron.

That was then. This is now. A headline in today's Star reads: Tim Hudak best leader for Ontario PC party, poll shows.

How the mighty have fallen.

The Anti-Harper

I'd like to make it clear at the start of this post that I have by no means been converted to the belief that Justin Trudeau would be an appropriate choice to lead the country, for reasons that I will conclude the post with. However, I simply want to make a few observations about the striking contrast he presents to Stephen Harper.

By now, everyone that follows such things is likely aware of the stark and tight control Harper tries to extend over his entire regime. Parliamentary secretaries, M.P.s and others who speak publicly on the government's behalf are given very strict speaking points from which they cannot deviate. A recent Power and Politics panel on Trudeau's admissions about pot-smoking vividly attested to that fact whenever Conservative M.P. Blake Richards spoke, as do numerous past public discussions on other matters. Journalists, as we were reminded the other day, are limited to five questions of the Prime Minister on those rare occasions when he deigns to allow them access to him. Any attempt at deviation from that regimen is met with severe consequences, as was evident to the world when Chinese reporter Li Xuejiang was roughed up and ejected by Harper's staff and the RCMP when he tried to ask a question:

Everything about Harper bespeaks an overweening control of the message, disdain for the truth, and contempt for the electorate.

Trudeau, by contrast, projects the image of an honest and transparent politician. In today's Toronto Star, columnist Tim Harper makes some interesting observations about the nature of what he sees as Trudeau's strategy:

Since entering federal politics, the Liberal leader has taken a series of risks.

They’ve all been calculated risks, but risks nonetheless.

He’s surviving, even flourishing, with a combination of charisma, favourable treatment from a national press pack desperate [emphasis mine] for a little colour in a drab political landscape, mastery of social media — and a little luck.

Tim Harper characterizes Trudeau as a risk-taker:

He has taken mock pratfalls down a flight of stairs for the television cameras, he did a faux striptease in front of the cameras at a charity fundraiser, he stepped into the boxing ring against a then-Conservative senator.

He took a risk in coming clean to an Ottawa reporter about his personal wealth and the money he earned on the speaking tour...

Harper then turns his attention to Trudeau's recent admission, saying it is hardly news that someone has smoked a bit of of pot over the years. He says the real risk for him is the unsolicited details he provided:

Trudeau could have acknowledged he had fired up a joint, five or six times, as he did, but he took the risk in volunteering that he has smoked a joint since becoming an MP, an MP who was clearly thinking of federal leadership, and an MP who voted in favour of tougher marijuana possession penalties.

In a country tired of the mean-spirited, controlling and spiteful nature of its Prime Minister, this is likely a refreshing change. But columnist Harper makes a crucial observation toward the end of his piece which addresses the same deep reservations I have about Trudeau's leadership capacities.

But I’m not sure I have any idea where Trudeau stands on prorogation, the latest twist in the Senate spending fiasco, or the potential of a giant American player entering the Canadian wireless market.

It is all well and good to project an image of openness and honesty, but without any articulation of policy, Trudeau runs the real risk of reinforcing the other image he has as a political and intellectual lightweight, something that even a country desperate for change will not and cannot support.

My Second Surprise Today

Earlier today., I posted a brief piece on how, despite my reservations about Justin Trudeau's leadership capacity, I found his openness and honesty refreshing when it came to pot.

The second surprise I got today was the fact that he spoke quite candidly about his opposition to Quebec's proposed ban on religious symbols and clothing in public buildings.

As you will see see if you read the readers' comments following the first link, people are beginning to discern a difference amongst the three major party leaders, with Trudeau's assertiveness offering a sharp contrast to Thomas Mulcair's refusal to 'comment on something that has not yet been tabled' to the Harper regime's gutless 'it's a provincial matter' evasion of anything remotely representing a real stand.

Who Will Give Us Hope?

I recently wrote a post on the ailing Nelson Mandela and why he is so important a world figure. Last Friday Gerald Caplan wrote a piece in the Globe entitled The world will be poorer without Nelson Mandela. I hope you will take the time to read his thoughts on the importance of this iconic figure, a man of whom I think it would be appropriate to borrow Hamlet's tribute to his father and say, I shall not look upon his like again.

Caplan's last paragraph, which I am reproducing below for your consideration, sums up for me both the hope Mandela inspires and the despair over the realization that it is unlikely someone of his singular moral force will ever again grace our fractured landscapes:

I suppose it’s too much to hope there can ever be another Mandela. But could we not come just a little bit closer? Is there not one prepared to dedicate her or his life to the eternal struggle for social justice and equality? Is it too much to ask whether some, or even a few, or maybe just one, of today’s leaders might not look at this man and wonder what could be learned from his singular life? Or maybe the truth is that, revere him as we do, we won’t really know how much we have lost until we have to face the world without him.

Pondering Pandering Political Parties

I am long past the age where I expect very much from politicians of any stripe. While it is easy to target (and I frequently do!) the Harper-led Conservative Party as the party of the corporate agenda, it is also sadly true that both the Liberal Party and the NDP have as their greatest priority the acquisition of power, frequently at the expense of principle. For example, putative messiah of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, is shockingly shallow when it comes to policy pronouncements, the better, I assume, to form them closer to the next election according to perceived public preferences, the reflection of which could lead to victory at the polls. The NDP, with their frequent references to 'the middle class' and their middle-of-the-road policy orientations under Thomas Mulcair are no better.

There is an excellent piece by Glenn Wheeler in this morning's Star that reminds us of these political realities. Entitled Liberal party and the labour movement need each other; the author, a lawyer for the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and a member of the Liberal Party’s National Policy and Election Platform Committee, reflects on the fact that while the union he works for is trying to discourage the public from flying Porter Air due to the fuel-handlers' strike, the Liberal Party is pushing discount rates it has negotiated with the carrier for the upcoming Liberal Leadership gathering in Toronto.

This situation, he suggests, is emblematic of the abandonment/downgrading of union concerns by the aforementioned parties at a time when labour is under unprecedented attack both by the Harper regime federally, and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who are championing 'right-to-work' legislation that would essentially be the death knell of the union movement.

Because I am experiencing some Internet problems right now, I will end with a strong recommendation that you read the full article to see why Wheeler believes that strong unionism and a healthy political climate are complementary, not contradictory objectives. One can only hope that in their race/lust for power, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair bear that fact in mind.

Some Questions Leadership Aspirants Need To Answer

I have recently written some posts bemoaning the paucity of policy undergirding the campaigns of those who would become the next leader of the Liberal Party, both on the provincial (Ontario) and federal level. Substituting for substance are tired bromides and platitudes that, in an earlier, less cynical age might have been sufficient to inspire, but now fill the seasoned observer with ennui and suspicion.

I was pleased to see Martin Regg Cohn addressing the issue in this morning's Toronto Star. Lamenting the lack of substance in the provincial leadership race, his piece lists six questions he says aspirants need to answer:

1. With unemployment hovering at 8.3 per cent, what’s your concrete plan to not just create but keep well-paying jobs?

2. Should motorists pay for driving on congested roadways? (road tolls, congestion fees, etc.)

3. Can you make future pensions a present-day priority?

4. Do you have the political stamina to tackle welfare reform?

5. As a rookie premier, will you stay green?

6. How do you persuade people to back you, while you’re cutting back on what you give them?

While these are all excellent questions, I hope Mr. Cohn remembers that it is the responsibility of journalists not only to ask these questions, but also to ensure the politicos don't simply fob off non-answers in response.

From Platitude Central - Part 2

“This country has entered some very choppy waters. If elected leader, I will provide a firm hand at the helm to bring the economy safely back to shore.”

“Canada has a greatness that has barely been tapped. I am confident that I have the vision and the plan to mine that greatness.”

"Recognizing the forgotten middle class and the vital role it plays in a healthy economy is probably one of the greatest strengths that I bring to this leadership race.”

What do you think? Am I ready for prime-time politics? Need a bit more work, perhaps? Well, in all candour, I simply made up the above-three cliched platitudes about two minutes ago as I sat down to the computer. Presumably, those who are vying for leadership of the Liberal Party, either on the federal level or the provincial level here in Ontario, have given some thought to their positions and pronouncements before declaring their candidacy, yet their utterances have thus far not risen above the banal triteness of my three spur-of-the-moment declarations above.

In this second of what I hope will be a series of posts on the platitudes that plague our politics, I would like to take a closer look at what the leading Liberal candidate, Justin Trudeau, has been saying:

In his most recent public appearance, young Justin offered the following as he addressed the party faithful in Ottawa last evening (I have taken the liberty of highlighting the egregiously cliched parts:

While offering no specific policy plans to members of the Carleton-Mississippi Mills Liberals, Trudeau talked about it being easy to divide people into various socio-economic classes and regions; that it is much harder to unite a people. He frequently balanced oft-used conservative terms like “hardworking families” with protecting social programs coveted by progressives, sometimes reaching poetic heights of first-person oration.

“It was always the case that if you worked hard, you could make a better life for yourself in Canada. You could progress and have a chance if you left your persecutions and class divisions back home. That shaped us,” he said. “If you worked hard you could succeed. But when winter happens - as it often happens in this country - when winter happens: this country is too big to not lean on each other.” (Okay, the metaphor about winter is kind of nice, but its cliched sentiment breaks no new ground.)

He then went on to talk about young people no longer expected to have a better life than their parents and the ever-increasing wealth gap.

As an appetizer, maybe these words serve a purpose. However, if they are in fact the main course, I must confess to a deep and abiding hunger for something more substantial.

POSTSCRIPT: As an exercise in platitude-parsing and political rhetoric analysis, be sure to check out the text of young Justin speech in which he announces his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

From Platitude Central

Kim Campbell once famously said that  "an election is no time to discuss serious issues." Given the paucity of substance emerging thus far from declared candidates in both the Ontario and federal Liberal leadership races, I suspect that same 'wisdom' applies to leadership aspirants.

In the time leading up to selection of the next round of political saviours, it is my intention to track those platitudes regularly in order to chronicle the sad state of political discourse in this country; regrettably, it is a discourse debased not only by the ever-ready opportunistic attacks by opposition parties, but also by our own refusal as citizens to face up to unpleasant realities.

To begin this series, may I recommend perusal of Thomas Walkom's column in today's Toronto Star? In it, Walkom explores the utterances of young Justin Trudeau, the likely soon-to-be anointed next messiah to lead the federal Liberals out of the political wilderness (please forgive the cliche - it just seems so apt here).

The gist of Walkom's criticism is the platitudinous nature of Trudeau's utterances thus far, and of course it is a criticism that too readily applies to all current leadership aspirants on both levels of government:

Youth unemployment? Trudeau spoke firmly against it and said something must be done. It’s only when the reporter checked his notes later that he realized the candidate had never quite said what.

Medicare? The existing system, said Trudeau, is not sustainable. A serious conversation is needed. Otherwise medicare will die from benign neglect.

The most specific he got was in talking of the need for [m]ore emphasis on prevention. More home care. But all without more federal money.

And so the dance of triteness goes on, I suspect with more than a small cadre of media members and the electorate willing to have 'sweet nothings' whispered in their ears.

The Small-Mindedness of Rob Ford

It has been said that to be a great leader, a person has to have a great vision. I'll let you decide where Toronto May Rob Ford fits into this equation by reading this story about what he thinks people should be marching and demonstrating for.

Christopher Hume On Ignorance

As usual, The Toronto Star seems replete with thought-provoking articles and ideas. In a column by Christopher Hume entitled, If ignorance is no excuse, how do leaders manage to get elected? published yesterday, Hume reflects on the current crop of politicians for whom ignorance of facts and disdain for expert analysis is endemic.

He observes that Rick Perry, a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination "responded to devastating forest fires in his state by asking everyone to pray."

In a similar vein Michelle Bachmann muses "about whether America’s recent spate of natural disasters wasn’t really a sign from God of His great displeasure."

No matter what your view may be on the power of petitionary prayer, one does hope for something a little more from politicians than an infantile view of God as either a cosmic Santa Claus or a cosmic smiter.

Hume's piece, well-worth reading in its entirety, does not spare our Prime Minister from his withering analysis, describing him as one who "has made great strides pushing aside the facts to pander to Canadians’ lowest instincts and greatest fears." Hence the elimination of the mandatory long-form census with its hard data, the commitment to spend billions on prisons we don't need, and the gutting of environmental oversight when it is most needed.

Both Tim Hudak (he "won the race to the bottom long ago")and the Mayor of Toronto and his brother("Toronto’s great contribution to political vacuity") also come under Hume's scrutiny.

I hope people will find the time to read the entire column.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

The Failure of Political Leadership - Part 2

The other day I wrote a brief post called The Failure of Political Leadership, inspired by what is quickly becoming a national embarrassment for the City of Toronto in its choice of Rob Ford as mayor. Now quite openly betraying his promise not to gut services but only eliminate 'the gravy', he and his acolytes are considering all manner of service reductions which could affect, amongst others, library branches and hours, police services and transportation routes. That got me thinking about the current calibre of the people we elect, and without question, many of them are patently unfit to hold public office.

In theory, the people we elect are entrusted with representing our interests. Far too often, and I suppose I state the obvious here, they are instead pursuing their own lust for power and their own ideological agendas. Take, for example, those who are described as Ford allies on Toronto City Council. That they are allies of the mayor suggest that they support and take direction from him, either because they are ideologically aligned with his values or they enjoy or seek to enjoy the power conferred upon members of his executive committee, once more suggesting that the needs and interests of their constituents are, at best, a peripheral consideration.

And of course we see the same failure of politics playing out in the United States, where the ideological divide between the Republicans and the Democrats, and an extraordinarily partisan lust for power has brought that country to the brink of economic collapse, as epitomized in the current imbroglio over raising the debt ceiling. So ideologically opposed are the Republicans to even very modestly increasing taxes on the ultra wealthy that they are willing to sacrifice the struggling working and middle class, many of whom voted for them.

Is there a solution to this deficit of democracy afflicting the West? I don't know. But without question, some reforms are necessary before people completely lose faith and see democracy as simply a convenient label barely concealing some egregiously inconvenient truths.

Critical Thinking: Do We Get The Kind Of Political Leadership We Deserve?

In many ways, I suspect that we get exactly the kind of political representation that we deserve. A population that is either largely disengaged from the political process or lacking in fundamental critical thinking skills invites our elected representatives to treat us with disdain, safe in the knowledge that few will rouse themselves to object. The effects of this kind of passivity and lazy thinking are most evident when politicos are campaigning for our vote, making outrageous promises and guarantees that show how little they really think of us.

Take, for example, Rob Ford's successful bid to become the mayor of Toronto, based almost exclusively on the promise to “end the gravy train” that was, according to the mythology advanced by the true believers, sapping the Big Smoke of its monetary resources and bleeding the taxpayers dry. So, in a mass Pavlovian response, the people elected the big fellow, only to now learn that the putative rich diet of the metaphorical locomotive never existed.

In an excellent piece by Roy James in today's Star entitled Rob Ford's gravy train running on fumes, we learn that, after spending $350,000 on a consultant telling them things they already knew, the City spends most of its money on core services, nary a gravy boat in site (forgive me for mixing my metaphors):

As on many other files, the civic leader was missing in action. So, too, was the anticipated list of huge savings to be found in bloated departments. And the hit list of waste and gravy.

It turns out that if Ford is going to find “savings” from the city’s water, garbage and transportation departments he will have to convince city council to keep the blue box out of apartments and condos, reduce snow clearing, cut the grass and sweep the streets less often, and end fluoridation of Toronto’s drinking water — all politically explosive issues.

For that — and a list of nickel-and-dime, nip-and-tuck manoeuvres — Toronto could potentially, possibly, save up to $10 million to $15 million in departments that spend $1 billion, one-third of which comes from taxes.

City councillors didn’t need to pay a consultant $350,000 to tell them where to find those “savings.” Council considers them every year — and often recoils from implementing them.

The mayor has fed the general expectation that the consultants from KPMG would use their fresh eyes to uncover bushels of low-hanging fruit that nobody had identified before — the “gravy.”

They haven’t.

Can this reality actually come as a surprise to the voting public? I would like to say no, but sadly, for the aforementioned reasons, the answer has to be yes.

I hope you will take a few moments to read the entire article.

Michael Ignatief's Problems

The Globe and Mail's online edition (the only one I will henceforth have access to, given my termination of our subscription) today has an article by Bruce Anderson entitled 'Michael Ignatief faces daunting enthusiasm gap' offering a variety of reasons that the Liberal leader has failed to 'catch fire' with perspective voters. In my humble view, none of them fully explains his failure as leader.

As I have written before, I am convinced that Ignatief's failure to convey any semblance of integrity, given his repeated practice of ensuring an insufficient number of Liberals in the House of Commons when key votes occur, votes with the potential of bringing down the Harper Government, are at the core of the Liberal Party's problems. I am of the view that, even worse than contending with a government whose views and policies may run counter to one's core values, is contending with a political party that ultimately stands for nothing but the acquisition of power for its own sake.

Even though the electorate may at times be befuddled, apathetic, even misguided, I am certain that they can spot insincerity and hypocrisy very adeptly, qualities that the Liberal leader has displayed in abundance since his ascension to the leadership.

James Travers' Column Today

In his column today, Toronto Star political columnist James Travers insightfully addresses a situation that I have written about a couple of times, the fact that the Federal Liberal Party seems to stand for nothing, judging by its feckless opposition to Stephen Harper's harmful policies. I am taking the liberty of reproducing the entire column, with parts that I have bolded for added emphasis:

Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada
by James Travers


OTTAWA—This country has a problem. It has a ruling party that twists the truth and an Official Opposition that can’t, or won’t, straighten it out.

This summer’s oddly hot topic is one example. Gutting the census is nothing less than another Conservative act of public vandalism. Wagging an angry finger is nothing more than another empty Liberal gesture.

Opinion polls reflect that repeating pattern. For more than four years now Canadians have consistently told pollsters they don’t support Conservatives and don’t trust Liberals.

One unlikely way to end that impasse is for Stephen Harper to come clean about what he doesn’t like about Canada and how Conservatives are changing it by stealth and increment. Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.

Harper owes that explanation. Since taking control of a universally admired country in 2006, the Prime Minister has been altering Canada without a majority mandate or clear statement of ultimate purpose.

Ignatieff has a duty to oppose that strategy. Since replacing Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader has threatened elections and fumed at Conservatives while drawing flexible lines in this capital’s blowing sand.

Harper’s determination and Ignatieff’s vacillation are connected by opportunities seized by Conservatives and missed by Liberals. Without significant resistance or the debate democracy demands, the Prime Minister has consistently advanced policies that are at best controversial and at worst corrosive.

Too often Harper manages to tip-toe dubious schemes past a dozing electorate. While the nation slept, Conservatives grossly abused the budget process with an omnibus bill bulging with unrelated plans to sell the public stake in the atomic energy sector and, even more remarkably, to relax environmental regulations just when the world is reeling from the BP oil spill.

As always, there’s more. There was little discussion of military priorities and less outcry over public safeguards in the sole-sourced contract committing Canada to spend some $16 billion replacing CF-18 fighters. Much was muttered and nothing done to stop Conservatives silencing diverse civil society voices by attacking Montreal’s non-partisan Rights and Democracy and stripping core funding from the umbrella agency has advised federal governments on overseas development for more than forty years.

To Conservative credit, Harper routinely gets the best of a fissured Parliament and an Official Opposition in disarray. The result is a country being forced marched to an unknown destination.

To Liberal shame, serial leaders, with the notable exception of Stephane Dion’s quixotic defence of a carbon tax, have failed to find principled places to stand. In trying every which way to regain power they continue to fall far short of convincing Canadians that a once great party would now gladly risk its hegemony to protect the national interest.

No party or leader willingly commits political suicide. Instead, they lurk in the shadows, weighing odds and waiting for a promising moment to strike. Still, parties risk everything when what’s good for them is seen to be more important than what’s good for the country.

Ignatieff knows that Liberals have taken too long to discard the tattered cloak of Canada’s natural governing party. Liberals are proving equally slow in grasping that an opposition afraid to oppose is an empty vessel voters will fill with blame when the ruling party goes too far.

Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology. Liberals will go nowhere until they are willing to risk something straightening it out.