It Doesn't Have To Be This Way

Should he find the federal leadership of the NDP not to his taste, I suspect that Jagmeet Singh has more than one career option to fall back on. He could, of course, return to his law practice, or he could embark upon an entirely new path and become a New Age life coach. He'd be a natural.

Consider the relentless positivity the man exudes. There was, of course, his much-viewed and much-praised response to racist heckler Jennifer Bush during a campaign rally in Brampton last September. Rather than engage her madness, Singh offered the following:

“What do we believe in? Love and courage,” he said. “We believe in an inclusive Canada where no one is left behind. We believe in building a Canada that ensures that there is economic justice for everybody.

“We welcome you. We love you. We support you … we believe in your rights,” he said, as the crowd chanted “love and courage” – a slogan used by Singh’s leadership campaign.

The encounter ended after several minutes when the woman decided to walk away.

Few except the irreparably bent would find much fault in his classy reaction. However, the fact that similar rhetoric was Singh's response to his party's defeat in four-recent byelections, as reported by Chantal Hebert, may be cause for concern:

On the morning after his party endured a quadruple byelection beating, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh had this to offer on Twitter: “Each and every one of us has an inherent self worth. Nurture and grow it. Give it time and love. Build a courageous belief in your own self worth and you will have the strength to overcome any challenge you face.”

Like two warring factions, the critical thinker in me says these two examples are insufficient to constitute a pattern, while the cynic within fears they may; in which case, style and platitudinous rhetoric threaten to overwhelm principled policy, a phenomenon not unheard of in contemporary politics.

But the pity is, it doesn't have to be this way.

While on holiday last week, I took some time to catch up on my Walrus reading and came upon an article that examines contemporary socialism. Entitled Socialism Is Back. Is the NDP Listening? the piece, written by Ira Wells, argues that the party can achieve victory by returning to its principles.

Citing the resonance of Bernie Sanders' message during his run for the Democratic nomination and the very impressive electoral gains made by Britain's Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn, Wells believes that the death-of-socialism narrative that has been promulgated over the years is overblown and inaccurate:

Over the past few decades, the assumed victory of laissez-faire capitalism over socialistic alternatives has been the sine qua non of Western economic policy. Austerity, de-regulation, de-unionization, trade liberalization, tax cuts—the free-market fundamentalism underlying these policies is not, we are told, a contestable ideological position, but rather economic reality. Anyone who dares challenge the essential wisdom of the market is labeled an irresponsible fantasist, unworthy of the people’s trust. In fact, partly due to Corbyn’s leadership, pollsters predicted a historic victory for the incumbent Conservatives (who were going into the election with a majority), saying that they could see their strongest electoral showing since 1979.

Far from the predicted ascension of right-wing nationalism, 2017 has seen a generational revival on the left. An increasingly educated electorate is capable of repudiating the atrocities perpetrated in the names of Marx and Lenin while also recognizing that specific, achievable goals—a livable minimum wage or guaranteed annual income, universal healthcare, reduced income inequality—are properly called socialist goals, and that their realization would enable better lives for more people.

Demographics and circumstances, Wells suggests, makes this the ideal time for the embrace of policies that truly and unapologetically serve the needs of the people:

As the dream of home ownership recedes further into the realm of fantasy, young, urban voters in Canada could be receptive to housing policy akin to Corbyn’s right-to-buy scheme, which would regulate rental markets and guarantee tenants the opportunity to buy their homes at subsidized mortgage rates. At a time when more young Canadians than ever are attending post-secondary education—and when more parents than ever are paying for that education—tuition relief policies, embraced by both Sanders and Corbyn, could also resonate here. And as the Trudeau government approves more pipelines and encourages further tar sands development, space emerges on the left for a more credible environmental policy.

The promise of Justin Trudeau's Liberals has proven to be more sham than reality. The NDP, if it is willing to bide its time and replace a lust for power with principled policies that will resonate with a wide cross-section of Canadians, it can once more become a real presence in this country.

I'm just not sure Jagmeet Singh is the person for the job.

UPDATE: Rosy Rhetoric Won't Get The Job Done

Those of us who pay even a modest amount of attention to the ever-increasing toll that climate change is exacting on the world know or sense that we have reached a reckoning point. People living in the Western Hemisphere see all too clearly the havoc being wrought by ever-more powerful storms hitting the Caribbean and the southern U.S. Looking farther afield, many parts of the world are afflicted by severe drought, raging wildfires, heat waves and monsoon floods of extraordinary dimensions. Yet to listen to Justin Trudeau and his sunny band of brothers and sisters, things are looking up.

Unfortunately, their rosy rhetoric will not save the day.

Several months ago Bill McKibben offered this piercing observation about our selfie-loving prime minister:

... when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange guy in Washington.

Not rhetorically: Trudeau says all the right things, over and over. He’s got no Scott Pruitts in his cabinet: everyone who works for him says the right things. Indeed, they specialize in getting others to say them too – it was Canadian diplomats, and the country’s environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who pushed at the Paris climate talks for a tougher-than-expected goal: holding the planet’s rise in temperature to 1.5C (2.7F).

But those words are meaningless if you keep digging up more carbon and selling it to people to burn, and that’s exactly what Trudeau is doing.

Ross Belot, writing about Trudeau's recent UN address, echoed similar sentiments:

”There is no country on the planet that can walk away from the challenge and reality of climate change. And for our part, Canada will continue to fight for the global plan that has a realistic chance of countering it,” Trudeau told the UN. “We have a responsibility to future generations and we will uphold it.”

Good words — until you notice what they’re not saying. Nowhere in his speech does Trudeau say Canada will hit its commitments under the Paris climate change accord. He says that Canada will “fight for the global plan.” He can’t say he’ll fight for the Canadian plan since … there isn’t one. Not one that suggests Canada can actually meet its targets, at any rate.

The most damning indictment of federal inaction comes from Canada's Environment Commissioner, Julie Gelfand, who leaves no doubt that the Trudeau government is whistling past the graveyard when it comes to mitigation efforts and preparations for an increasingly inhospitable climate:

In a blunt fall audit report tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Julie Gelfand said the government has failed to implement successive emissions-reduction plans, and is not prepared to adapt to the life-threatening, economically devastating impacts of a changing climate.

The government released the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change in December 2016, which was endorsed by all provinces and territories except Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

But instead of presenting a detailed action plan to reach the 2020 target for reducing emissions, Gelfand said the government changed its focus to a new 2030 target.

The government has also failed to adopt regulations to reduce greenhouse gases that could help limit the risks of pollution, natural disasters, forest fires and floods, the audit finds.

This is a damning audit, one that puts to the lie all of the social media and other propaganda efforts our government has engaged in to give us a sense of false security as disaster comes barreling toward us. It is a catastrophe that our increasingly vulnerable infrastructure will not be able to withstand:

In her report, Gelfand said measures to adapt to climate change can save lives, minimize damage and strengthen the economy, yet a 2011 adaptation policy framework was never implemented.

The federal government has not provided its departments and agencies with the critical tools and guidance to identify and respond to risks.

Only five of 19 departments and agencies examined by Gelfand's audit team had fully assessed risks and taken steps to address climate change. The other 14, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Public Safety and National Defence, had taken "little or no action" to address the risks.

The following interview with Julie Gelfand is most instructive:


We are long past the time when soothing words and platitudes are of any utility whatsoever; it is only the woefully under-informed and those slavishly devoted to Mr. Trudeau who will find something to celebrate under this increasingly hollow administration. For the rest of us, if things continue on as they are, those dark clouds on the horizon will become ever-more threatening and ever-more destructive.

UPDATE: Many thanks to The Salamander for reminding me of a video many of you have probably seen that shows the ripple effect any change to the environment sets in motion. As you will see, the very deliberate reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park has a largely beneficial effect. The trophic cascade that ensues is fascinating, but, more pertinently, it underscores how sensitive our natural world is to alterations.

As The Salamander wrote, in response to the Trudeau government's pallid efforts to combat climate change:

.. I'm left wondering what happens when politicians allow keychain species such as wild salmon or boreal caribou to be extirpated..

.. yes.. yes .. jobs jobs jobs.. the economy stupid.. we must grow the economy.. but what happens (forever) to the land, the water, the air ?

More Reflections on Leadership

The other day, in my post on political leadership, I chose Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as the figure to contrast what I consider to be the much more mature and thoughtful approach of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. My exclusion of the more obvious figure of comparison, Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, was intentional, given that I have written so much about him in the past, each post essentially observing the same thing: his addiction to ideological bromides as substitutes for real policy.

That dearth of vision was much in evidence in Hudak's fundraising dinner in Toronto the other day. Saying all the 'right' things to those for whom real thought on policy issues is not an option, young Tim trotted out the usual 'solutions' to all of Ontario's woes, including:

...bringing unions to heel, getting rid of “expensive gold-standard” public pensions, new subways, introducing performance levels for bureaucrats, freezing public-sector wages for two years, and giving tax breaks for employers.

“We will modernize our labour laws so that no worker will be forced to join a union as a condition for taking a job. And no business will be forced to hire a company solely because it has a unionized workforce,” he said.

To regard Hudak as anything more than a tool of the business agenda is difficult, and I am only taking a bit of time to even refer to him here because of a column in today's Star by Judith Timson on how we crave what she calls authenticity in our leaders, which she describes in the following way:

Authenticity does not seem to be about being someone voters want to have a beer with, or even one with whom people always agree. It is about being a leader who comes across as authentically in his or her own skin, not spouting platitudes or panaceas, but one whose words and actions, in a very cynical age, people can believe.

While I don't agree with all of the candidates she cites for their authenticity (Rob Ford, Margaret Thatcher, Justin Trudeau), her other choice, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, resonates with me, for the reasons I gave the other day.

Here is what Timson has to say about her:

Ontario’s new premier, Kathleen Wynne, has brought a different kind of authenticity to her office. For one thing, she has an extraordinary voice — one that is intimate and knowledgeable. Asked about public transit during a CBC radio call-in show not long ago, Wynne first launched into an affecting anecdote about riding Toronto’s brand new subway system back in the 1950s with her grandmother, wearing her “little white gloves.”

It was not only touching but brave, because Wynne dared to come across first as an ordinary person with memories others might share and not as a politician with a spiel about transit. Mind you, she’s also not afraid to deliver the bad news — if citizens want better transit, they will have to pony up in taxes.

So while others are content to talk about gravy trains, union bosses and the need for the euphemistic workplace democracy in their appeals to the passions and prejudices of the masses, Wynne is trying to set a higher standard for political discourse based on reason, fact and guilelessness.

Let's hope she succeeds.

From The Horse's Mouth

Actually, were I not committed to a certain level of decorum on this blog, the mouth is not the part of the horse's anatomy I would have chosen as the point of origin for young Tim Hudak's latest utterances that are simply a pathetic recycling of past demagogic platitudes that offer nothing in the way of enlightened policy.

Speaking to the Hamilton Spectator editorial board yesterday, the lad who would be Ontario's next premier had these 'visionary' insights to offer:

Hudak took aim at unions, saying a culture of entitlement on the part of union representatives has escalated McGuinty's conflict with teachers.

Hudak also hinted that his party's white paper will include some sort of privatization plan for the LCBO.

On balancing Ontario's books:

“I know the path forward. These decisions are going to be hard to do, but they're necessary if we're going to get out of the rut we're in as a province.”

“The best social program, I believe, as a conservative, is a job.”

On the Mike Harris legacy:

“Whether you agree with what we did or not, we did what we said we were going to do. We made promises we knew we could keep, and we kept them.”

So, nostalgia for a fictitious past, tired rhetoric about unions, and bromides about jobs seem to be at the core of Tory policy in Ontario. But to be fair to Mr. Never-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Politics, those vying for the leadership of the provincial Liberals have really said little to inspire hope either.

From Platitude Central - Part 4

For part 4 in my examination of political platitudes that substitute for substantive policy pronouncements, I turn to the Ontario Liberal leadership race to replace Premier Dalton McGuinty, a race that thus far has been 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' I don't expect that to change in the foreseeable future.

My source for this latest installment, Questions for the would-be leaders, is yesterday's print edition of The Toronto Star. Thus far it has not appeared online, so I will simply excerpt some of the 'gems' from the answers given by the aspirants. In this post, I examine their answers to the first question,

In the aftermath of Bill 115, what would you do to improve relations with Ontario teachers?

Sandra Pupatello, considered a frontrunner along with Kathleen Wynne, had this to say:

...I intend to do that by sitting down with teachers' federations and maintaining an ongoing conversation. One thing I would like to discuss is whether the current model for negotiations is the right one for the times.

Sufficiently vague and innocuous as to be above criticism, save for its lack of substance?

Kathleen Wynne:

I will sit down with our education partners to strengthen the bargaining process at both the provincial and, importantly, the local levels.

Dare I ask what it means and how one accomplishes this rather nebulous goal?

Eric Hoskins:

...If I'm premier, I'm confident we can rebuild our relationships based on mutual respect.

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, Eric.

Gerard Kennedy, the Energizer Bunny of politics, has what actually constitutes a policy statement, but can't resist tossing in a platitude afterwards:

I will restore full bargaining rights and I will not use the powers in Bill 115 ... Collaboration with our teachers is the key to helping our students succeed.

Glenn Murray, whose dearth of important political experience is really no excuse for policy vacuity, offers this:

I would build and maintain the same good negotiating environment as when I was recently minister of training, colleges and universities.

Charles Sousa:

... It is my sincere intention to re-establish trust and goodwill with our teachers.

Harindar Takhar, the latest and last to enter the race:

... Maintaining a positive dialogue with our public-sector labour partners is essential.

There are two other questions posted in this Q&A. Should it appear online, I will provide a link in an update.

Oh, and for the record, inspired as I am by the 'vision' of these leadership hopefuls, I would like to take the opportunity to announce that I am for world peace, the elimination of poverty, and truth and justice for all.

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.