The High Price Of Populism

In this age of economic deprivation for so many, it is understandable that people seek relief wherever they can find it. Some do without, some shop at discount stores, some take second jobs. Unfortunately, some embrace whomever seems to be offering a helping hand. 

Here in Ontario, that 'helping' hand comes from populist politicians, most notably our own Will Loman ("Be well-liked and you will never want"), Doug Ford. Like the salesman he was through his Deco Labels business, which he still owns, Ford has never lost his appetite for public approval. And that propensity is leading all of us down a very dark economic road.

The province's latest budget, unveiled the other day, projects a tripling of the deficit to $9.8 billion, piling on top of the current debt of almost $400 billion. The government argues that it necessary to keep spending in these economically challenging times and making life more affordable for people.

And therein lies the rub. While the deficit and debt continue to grow, our populist premier is surrendering huge sources of revenue via an extension of the gas tax reduction, the ongoing elimination of auto plate renewal charges, massive subsidies to keep the price of hydro lower, and having the public pick up the tab for developers' charges, at the same time giving below-inflation increases to vital services like health care, education, etc.

Not everyone is fooled by this fiscal sleight-of-hand. Certainly, Toronto Star readers are not. Here are two of their letters

Perhaps if the Doug Ford government hadn't been so enthusiastic about shredding long-term stable revenue streams it wouldn't be in the deficit position it now finds itself. Since 2018 the province has lost approximately $1 billion a year each from the cancellation of the greenhouse gas cap and trade program, the elimination of vehicle licensing fees and reductions in the provincial gasoline tax. To this has to be added the billions in provincial revenues that are now having to be diverted to municipalities to pay for infrastructure needed to support housing, making up for the development charge revenues that were lost through Bill 23 — the infamous Building More Homes Faster Act. Then there is the ongoing $7 billion annual diversion of revenues to artificially lower hydro rates and hide the actual costs of nuclear refurbishments. In the longer term the costs of financing the government's "get it done" megaprojects, many of which, like the Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass and Pickering B nuclear refurbishment, have been previously assessed as uneconomic, unnecessary and destructive, has to be considered as well, in a context of increased interest rates. Beyond the long-term environmental and climate consequences of these choices, different decisions would have left the province far better positioned to make needed investments in areas like education and health care.

Mark S. Winfield, Toronto

Gas tax cut diminished government revenues 

The Ford government could handily have trimmed its deficit in this latest budget by cancelling its gas tax cut. By the government’s own admission, this tax cut has diminished government revenues by $2.1 billion over the past two and a half years. Might not all that money have been more helpful providing affordable housing, supporting public transit, and fixing our overburdened health-care system?

Kenneth Oppel, Toronto

For people like Doug Ford, life and politics are but a shell game, one that fools far too many people far too often. But in the end, we all wind up paying a very steep price.

Is Left-Wing Populism The Answer?

While I personally don't see anything on the horizon to resurrect the fortunes of the federal NDP, Avi Lewis thinks he has a winning strategy: embrace populism, something he thinks could galvanize Jagmeet Singh's leadership. The key, he says, is to keep things simple:

“Why go for something that you have to explain? What populism tells you is that there are simple truths about our economy that can be communicated with great power,” said Lewis, who co-authored the environmental and social democratic treatise, the Leap Manifesto, with his wife, author and activist Naomi Klein.

While populism today seems to be the purview of the extreme right, exemplified by Trump's presidency, it is important to remember that the left has had its own practitioners:

Jan-Werner Mueller, a politics professor at Princeton University, told the CBC last week that populists can come in different ideological shades, so long as they trade in a rhetoric of divisiveness that questions the legitimacy of those who don’t share their views. “It’s always about excluding others,” he said.

For that reason, Mueller considers Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuelan socialist strongman, a populist of the left. He doesn’t use the label for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn — politicians who rail against inequalities perpetuated by unbridled capitalism, for instance, but who don’t necessarily vilify their opponents as illegitimate contenders for power.

According to David Laycock, a political science professor at Simon Fraser University, the essence of populism is the division it sees in society:

He said one of populism’s central tenets is an argument that the fundamental division in society is “between the people and some sinister elite.”

For right-wing leaders, that elite tends to be heavy-handed government bureaucrats, a media maligned as progressive and out of touch, or groups that benefit from the largesse of state handouts, Laycock said. On the left, it is the corporate elite or the wealthy few who abuse their power at the expense of the wider populace.

Laycock believes Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives are gently experimenting with populist messages, including recent statements about how the media is biased against their party. He said the NDP could do something similar with more aggressive arguments for distributing wealth or slashing subsidies to big corporations.

Michael Adams, president of the Environics Institute, questions the enthusiam wth which such an approach would be met, given how different we are from other countries:

Canadians are more likely to be union members than Americans, for instance, while people here have universal health care and more generous social programs than south of the border, he said. At a time of relatively robust economic growth and low unemployment, all this could dampen the prospects of a left populism about a corporate elite ripping off the general population.

Avi Lewis' idea is a provocative one, but I find myself made uneasy by the prospect of left-wing populism. While the right under Harper and Scheer have not been shy about 'dog-whistle politics,' all-too obvious attempts to manipulate and control their base, the suggestion that the same techniques can redound to the left's benefit suggests to me the adoption of the same kind of political cynicism that the other parties are all too happy to practise, a politics that, at its heart, sees the electorate, not as people to respect and lead, but rather to be exploited for the sole purpose of acquiring power.

We have surely had enough of that already.

Putting Populism In Perspective

Martin Amis offers his acerbic assessment of the current populist mania:

Playing To The Lowest Common Denominator

...looks like this:

Some Low-Hanging Fruit - UPDATED

Feeling singularly uninspired this morning, I offer a tidbit of the obvious: 'Ford Nation,' that much vaunted segment of the population that stands by their man no matter what, is under-educated and from lower-income backgrounds. Since I am not one of those that the Fords and their right-wing fellow travellers like to contemptuously characterize as 'the elites,' I will quickly add that those two facts do not in themselves qualify them for membership in the PSC (Profoundly Stupid Club). However, their unwavering support of the big boy and his brother, no matter what outrages they commit, no matter what levels of ridicule they invite upon the city of Toronto, perhaps does.

A story in this morning's Star reveals some interesting information about Ford Nation based on data from a poll conducted Nov. 7-11 by John Wright, senior vice president at Ipsos Public Affairs:

His first surprise was that Ford Nation — defined as those who will vote for Ford no matter what — for the most part don’t live in Etobicoke.

In fact, Ford only enjoys 16 per cent support in Etobicoke, the same level of backing he has downtown.

The mayor is most popular in York and East York, where 30 per cent of voters say they’d support him. Next comes Scarborough, with 27 per cent, and North York, with 22 per cent.

Perhaps the following facts speak for themselves:

- They are predominantly people with lower-income and lower education levels. Some 44 per cent of respondents who don’t have a high school diploma support Ford

- People who make less than $40,000 per year are twice as likely to be part of Ford Nation than those who make $100,000 or more

- Some 22 percent of respondents aged 18-34 still support Ford, as do 24 per cent of those over 55. Only 20 per cent of voters in the 35-44 age bracket support Ford.

The data clearly indicate that while support for Ford is not the exclusive domain of the young, the uneducated and the working poor, they do comprise the majority of his backers.

Draw what conclusions you will.

UPDATE: Jeffrey Simpson has an interesting piece in The Globe on the many contradictions inherent in Ford Nation's ongoing support of their idol.