On Polarized Politics

Well aware that the universe does not revolve around the City of Toronto, which is within an hour's drive of my abode, I rarely write posts that pertain to it. I make an infrequent exception today because of a greater truth that the risible antics of its mayor gives rise to.

It is hardly a revelation to say that we live in poisonously polarized times; for this troubling fact I lay the bulk of blame at the clay feet of the extreme right-wing. I have opined many times here that the Harper government is the most divisive in our history, reliant as it is on tactics ranging from demagoguery to name-calling to open contempt for our democratic traditions. And the results of that elevation of party politics over the well-being of the country is evident in many ways, including the recently reported loss of faith in democracy.

Nonetheless, I was reminded of how much I too have fallen victim of this polarization when The Mound of Sound responded to one of my posts about Mr. Harper:

I never much liked the Progressive Conservative party although there were some MPs I truly did respect and I held no enmity to most PC supporters. The Harper Conservatives are a different story entirely. I despise the party, its Fuhrer and its MPs and Senators. I don't feel much better about those who vote for it either. Harper has divided and shamed the nation and those who support him are responsible.

The Mound's comment made me remember earlier times in our political history when I felt little ill-will towards those who embraced a political philosophy different from my own, times when disagreements could be reasonably discussed and resolutions often found. One example would be the long reign of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, in part attributable to the steady hand of Bill Davis, the premier from 1971-85, one of a long line of Conservative premiers who governed with both moderation and consensus.

So how does this pertain to the ongoing sad spectacle of Rob ford and his thuggish brother Doug? In his column today entitled It’s time for conservatives to rescue the brand, Royson James, The Star's municipal affairs columnist, offers the following observation:

Reasonable, fiscal and progressive conservatives should be very concerned that the current city hall administration has damaged the right-wing brand...

They are red Tories and blue Liberals and practical New Democrats and they’ve managed to build a city with heart — an urban region that does such a good job balancing the interests of its people that this has become a brand admired and recognized around the world.

James has much more to say, essentially arguing that there are good and able people of moderation much more fit to help govern the city than the current administration, and that it is in the interests of those people to see the end of Rob Ford's reign, even if they identify themselves with the right. I hope you will take the time to read his entire piece.

For me, James' column is both a poignant reminder of the way things used to be on all levels of government, and an indication of what is still possible if both politicians and voters act out of concern for the collective good rather than the selfish advancement of their personal agendas. Without doubt, we have had enough of the latter.

Harper Strategy Succeeding

Here's the proof.

The Green Side of Tim Hudak

He must have one, since he recycles, recycles and recycless the same ideas at every opportunity.

An Odious Servitude

In its ongoing and odious servitude to a reactionary constituency, the Harper regime continues to use the heavy hand of government to target and harass those whose ideology differs from its own.

I have already written several times about Bill C-377, the private members bill designed to flame discontent with unions in this country. Apparently, anyone who seeks to challenge that bill now becomes a victim of one of the favourite tools of the Harperites, name-calling.

As reported by The Star's Tim Harper, this childish and manipulative tactic, a sad substitute for reason (never a strong point with Harper and his ilk), was used to 'answer' what most would deem to be a reasonable question about Bill C-377:

Opponents of the bill wonder why the government is not forcing the same type of financial disclosure upon doctors, lawyers and others who, like union members, pay tax-deductible dues to professional organizations.

The answer was provided by Ottawa-area Conservative Pierre Poilievre after the NDP filibustered the Hiebert bill at committee.

“The NDP’s attempt to block this union transparency bill and block workers’ rights only strengthens our party’s resolve to support that member’s bill and its amendments,” Poilievre said. “The reality is that never before has one party in Parliament been so dominated by a single-interest group.”

He told the Commons that a third of NDP MPs are “past union bureaucrats or union bosses.”

Yet this unwarranted and unprecedented attack on unions is not the only way in which government power is being misused. As also reported by Tim Harper, Conservatives sitting on the natural resources committee have summoned Justin Trudean and David McGuinty to explain their anti-Alberta remarks. How long will it be before we see show trials in Canada?

Finally in his piece, the star columnist points out the egregious hyprocrisy of a government that insists that the principles of accountability and transparency are its sole motivation:

As the Conservatives cast their light of accountability about the halls of Parliament, they have ignored their own lack of accountability — on the true cost of the F-35 fighter jets, on spending on the G20 summit, on the use of a discredited marketing agency to spread lies about Liberal MP Irwin Cotler or on its recent fun-with-figures budget numbers aimed at delivering goodies in the 2015 campaign.

So far, the Canadian public has given no indication that its appetite for the government's reprehensible behaviour is reaching the saturation point. Until it does, expect more of the same.

Unions Under Attack: A Star Reader Writes

In two recent posts, I discussed Bill C-377, a Harper-driven anti-union measure disguised as a private member's bill. Introduced by Conservative MPP Russ Hiebert, it is designed to require full disclosure of all union expenditures, including monies allotted for various causes; while its ostensible purpose, according to government propaganda, is to provide full transparency, a concept Mr. Harper seems only peripherally acquainted with, its real purpose is to stoke the resentments and jealousies some feel toward unions and their members. If that resentment reaches a critical mass, making union dues optional, a favorite Trojan Horse tactic of the extreme right to weaken and ultimately destroy unions, will be that much easier.

In this morning's Star, letter-writer Jenny Carter offers her insights on the bill:

Thomas Walkom talks of Russ Hiebert's private member's bill, which is, he says, ostensibly a plea for openness but actually an attack on the automatic check-off of union dues, or Rand formula.

It's a funny thing, but I, and everybody with a taxable income, also pay automatic dues, also supposed to provide services and benefits to those who pay.

Bill C-377 says the public has the right to know how unions spend their money. But the government refuses to tell the public how their tax money is spent. Even Members of Parliament seem no longer to have a right to this information, which is very strange because one of the main functions of an elected parliament has always been to oversee the way in which tax money is spent.

REAL Women may not like expenditure on “left-wing causes,” but many taxpayers may feel that it is not in their best interests to have government money spent, for example, on subsidizing fossil fuel companies, building unnecessary jails and buying attack fighter jets, while starving provincial governments of funds for health-care and essential social spending, and failing to provide public housing.

We need trade unions as a counterbalance to business. If the Rand formula is abolished, I really don't see why I, or anybody who objects to the government's lack of financial transparency and the way it spends our money, should be expected to pay taxes, especially since the tax system in this country is extremely unfair.

The proposed bill is undemocratic and unjust, and another indication that Big Brother is trying to take us over.

Jenny Carter, Peterborough

Thomas Walkom's Perspective on Teacher Unrest

On this blog I have written periodically about unions in both a favourable and a critical light. I have argued both for their necessity to mitigate the depredations that employers are sometimes given to, and I have pilloried them when cronyism or malfeasance have undermined their effectiveness.

In the latter part of my teaching career, I felt that my union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, had become far too political in the worst sense of the word, listening only to the privileged few in executive positions while largely ignoring the rank and file, i.e., the frontline workers. As well, becoming advocates for the Ontario Liberal government, I felt, was always a very bad idea because while governments and unions may sometimes have common goals, their interests are not usually congruent, a fact that has become egregiously evident with the McGuinty government's betrayal of collective bargaining principles when it comes to teacher contracts.

In this morning's Star, columnist Thomas Walkom argues that the current unrest, soon to erupt into strikes, is easy to understand, given that teachers have nothing to lose due to the absence of anything resembling free bargaining in the current climate:

For teachers, the choice given them by the provincial Liberal government amounts to no choice at all. The government urges the unions to bargain with local school boards. But it insists that the final results must fit a template that it has already pre-ordained.

Those that don’t voluntarily agree to this template contract — which includes wage freezes for some, cutbacks that amount to wage reductions for others and the elimination of some benefits — will, under extraordinary legislation passed this fall, have it imposed on them.

The unions are being told: “Yes, we have a gun to your head. But if you wish, you can pull the trigger yourself.”

It seems the teaching unions prefer that the government’s prints alone be on the weapon.

He goes on to say that the nature of the constitutional challenge being mounted to the legislation, Bill 115, will be undermined should too many teacher locals sign contracts under duress, leaving the government with the opportunity to argue that it can't be unconstitutional if groups have agreed to its restrictions.

Left unsaid in his piece, however, is another reason I suspect the federations are refusing to be a further party to this charade. Because of the grave mistake they made in allying themselves with a political party, much of their effectiveness has been compromised over the past several years, to the point that their relevance, especially to younger teachers, is not readily apparent. I remember in the latter part of my career hearing some young teachers question the need for unions in general, and OSSTF in particular, never having witnessed them in their finest hours.

At least now, with the federations finally showing some backbone against government abuse of power, they will have an inkling of what unions are there for.

Mature Discussion About The Fiscal Cliff

Mature, that is, until CNBC's Rick Santelli opens his mouth: