The upshot of my last -- none Jays -- post is general and specific. General: democracy as now practiced works in a way that creates a disjuncture between reality and image. Specific: in the case of health care in the US, this leads people to (a) see problems where their might not be, (b) draw the wrong conclusions about the character and nature of needed reforms, and (c) believe that they can "get something for nothing." What I'd like to pick up on in this post is to look at the idea of getting something for nothing and how it is presented in contemporary public discourse. How is this idea -- that you can get something for nothing -- presented to people during election campaigns? How is it organized in public discourse? And, what is the effect?
"There is no free lunch." We've all heard the expression but, as my last post suggests, we don't actually understand what it means. If we use the concept of "opportunity cost" (see my last post), then we understand that it does not mean that you did (or, did not) pay cash for the lunch you just ate. It means that you paid something. The person buying you lunch may have wanted your time. They were willing to shell out for a lunch for you and you were willing to accept it because, heck, it was just an hour but that was the cost. You had to listen to them for an hour or could not take a nap or paint the shed or whatever else you were going to do. In other words, everything has a cost, whether in cash or time or annoyance or incurred obligation or whathaveyou. Costs are not bad. They are part of life and, as adults, we recognize this. As kids, we might not. I remember my daughter saying "just go get more money out of that machine" when I explained to her I could not buy something because I did not have enough money. To her, at that age, money was magical. It came out of a machine and it was free for the asking. As adults, we know this is not true ....
And, yet, we let a bunch of people tell us it is true, at times on the basis of shockingly little evidence. Think about health care and premiums or taxes as an example. Politicians running for election fall all over themselves to try to say "I have found a free lunch for you." They don't use precisely those words but that is the import of what they are saying. Every time someone says "waste is the problem" or "unneeded tests" or ... lazy doctors or nurses ... what they are saying is this: I have found a way for you to get something for nothing. They say "we have to eliminate the waste" or "this is a case of government mismanagement" or "it is those sick people's fault that they are sick and so we should not really pay for them." Or, whatever stock line you prefer.
The key thing to note about this line of argument is that it is not new. I've been listening to "waste is the problem" my entire life. Governments have been "cutting the fat" (aka eliminating waste) as long as I can remember. In Canada, I remember Mulroney campaigning on it, Chretien, Harper. They don't always use precisely this language but this is the substance: the other guys have allowed too much waste, too many people feeding from the trough, and the like. Just about every provincial election carries the same discourse. Sometimes people say "this is typical state mismanagement" or something like that: "the private sector is more efficient." But, the substance is the same and the message sent to the electorate is the same: you can get something for nothing or, you are not getting something for nothing because someone else is ripping you off. (This discourse often takes on nasty xenophobic dimensions when immigrants or Mexicans or Blacks are blamed for economic malaise as if, if there were not so many Mexicans going to school, school would cost less.) And, again, it is not new. In fact, it is old.
I make the point about its age because ... well ... history is against this argument. Those governments that were most effective at controlling the debt (Chretien in Canada and Clinton in the US) tended to make less use of this discourse than their political opponents and tended to focus on other means to address the provision of state services (Chretien's government, for instances, downloaded a lot of them). History is against this argument because people keep saying it despite the fact that repeatedly the great plan to address waste and make us all rich comes to naught. Real wages are not rising and have not been for some time, for example. Thus, for those interested in an empirical test, the idea that "waste is the problem" runs into an empirical problem. It does not seem to be true,
And, yet, people believe it. Or, perhaps, they want to believe it because the answer "you can get something for nothing" sounds preferable to "you have to pay for what you want." There is, I think, a reason why no one campaigns on the "vote for me and your taxes might actually increase" line. If given a choice, people will vote for the person promising the free lunch, even after they recognize that that lunch is not free ... because they keep hoping that it will be ... one of these days.
If waste is not faulted for the problem, mismanagement, immigrants, women, ethnic minorities, etc. are often faulted. Here in NB, about once a year someone will say "if we did not have bilingualism, we could save money." AKA, what they mean is that if French-speaking citizens were not treated equally, well, that would be cheaper than equality (because, I guarantee, none of the opponents of bilingualism are thinking about getting rid of English as an official language). Said differently, the argument is always that there is a free lunch if we just reign in women, immigrants, Muslims, whoever ... trans-gendered soldiers. In my last post, I noted that this discourse periodically resorts to unabashed metaphysics when they start talking about things like "entrepreneurial spirit." The private sector will save us money ... how? Asking this question, btw, is not irrational, socialistic, lefty or whatever. It is democratic. If I am going to vote for you or your party, I have the right to know how your policies are going to work, particularly if you are asking me to stake my health and that of my family on something as vague as "spirit". If someone cannot explain their policies to you ... I'd argue that you should reconsider voting for them because their policies might not be explainable.
Where does this leave the health care debate in the US? There are may reasons why health care costs money and saving on waste, limiting super-profits and the like are likely ethically sound and good policies to follow. I'd recommend them. But, they will not by themselves limit health care costs enough to make a difference. It is like getting rid of welfare bums, something else all political parties promise to do and something else I've been listening to my entire adult life. Yet, getting rid of welfare bums does not really help the bottom line of the state's budget does it? We've been getting of them for 30 years and governments are still running in the red.
And, I would argue, Republicans in the US know this. They know that the problem is not waste, state involvement, or Obama. They know that the reason there there are health care costs is sick people. That sounds simplistic, I know, but think about it. What causes medical costs? By and large: illness. I go to the doctor (incur a cost) because I am sick. I don't go to chat about our kids badminton team. Better preventative medicine will help, too, but that is an immediate cost designed to save money long-term. It is not white and black, this will save money. There are costs involved.
Republicans know that they cannot save money through "entrepreneurial spirit," or better management or free markets, etc., in their hearts of hearts and this is why they are trying to de-insure people -- about 35 million at last count. They are trying to de-insure people because they know that this is the only way to limit health care costs: limit the number of sick people. And, in the US, the only way to do this is to deprive these sick people of health insurance.
Let me illustrate what I mean with an example. Imagine you serve sandwiches for lunch. There are 100 people and each sandwich costs $1.00. The total you need, then, is $100.00. Now, imagine you raise this $100.00 via taxes. It is election time and the opposition says "$100.00 is too much. We will do it for $90.00 and you good taxpayers will get $10.00 back. You will get something for nothing. No service will be lost." And ... the opposition wins. They get into office and discover that there are reasons -- other than the previous government's mismanagement -- that sandwiches cost $1.00. They cost $1.00 each because that is what they cost. The bread costs so much, as does the cheese or jam and the people who make the sandwiches need to be paid. So, try as they might, they can't find a 10% saving on labour or resources. So, how do they solve the problem? Well, there is only one way: lower the number of people eating sandwiches. If they can get the number of people eating sandwiches to drop from 100 to 90 ... well, they save the 10%. This means 10 people go without sandwiches ... that is: are de-insured.
This is what is going on with Republican health care policy. The only way to get costs down is to cut people's access to health. This is why every Republican proposal for "reform" is also a proposal for cuts, or de-insuring.
Having a section of the population, in effect, without health care is the price of lowered costs. There are further implications to this. For instance, Republicans, I am sure, expect more people to use "free clinics." That is, they plan to off load costs because sick people will seek out medical care even if they are de-insured. They might rely on the charity of doctors: that is, to see how many people there are out there who will work for free or below market costs. But, make no mistake about it, sick people are the repressed and the repressed will return. Any proposal to reform Obamacare in the US will involve some cut, some section of the population that will go uninsured and, hence, without health care. It is not just Republicanism but simple economics.
Don't believe me? ... watch.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 03, 2017
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Smoking Crack
Should anyone be concerned that Rob Ford smoked crack and lied about it? Yes. And, for a whole bunch of reasons. There is, on a first and most important level, concerns about Mayor Ford's life because at least some of the behaviour in which he has been engaged is, quite simply, dangerous. On a second level, there is the issue of governance and whether or not Mayor Ford is fit to govern (and I don't mean in a moral sense but in a practical one: can he actually make the decisions that a mayor needs to make in his current condition?). There is also the issue of Toronto's public image. It has clearly taken a black eye from the soap opera that has become Toronto politics.
But, there is another reason voters should be concerned. The reason relates to why they voted for him in the first place. In fact, that is a question. Why did those of you who voted for Rob Ford … vote for him? Again, it is possible that there are a bunch of reasons but one of the big ones was his tax policies and his promise to end the "gravy train" at city hall. In fact, I heard an interview on CBC where a middle class voter basically said that everything else in the Rob Ford administration was a sideshow. He got a tax but and he was happy about that and so would vote for Ford again. In addition, of course, there is Ford's tough zero tolerance stance on crime, drugs, and gangs.
What those people who voted for Ford need to ask themselves is this: how did I get taken in by a crackhead? Is that too blunt? Sorry. These are not just rumours. The police investigation is fairly damning. Even putting the best spin on it -- the spin Ford, in fact, is offering -- you got taken in by a drunk who occasionally smoked crack.
People who voted for Ford need to ask themselves some serious questions:
- What does the fact that you were taken in by either a crackhead or a drunk say about your judgement?
- What does the fact that you voted for a rank hypocrite say about your judgement?
- Would offer Ford up as a role model for your children? If not … why would you vote for him? In other words, are you willing to set such a low bar for leadership that you'd actually pick someone who you would tell your children *not* to emulate? If so, what does that say about your conception of proper leadership?
Sound harsh? It should be because the election of Rob Ford was silly to begin with. Its now been made even sillier by virtue of the truth. People who voted for him were, in effect, duped by a con man and at least a good hunk of them (to judge by public opinion polls) are saying they will let themselves be duped again.
What about the line "at least I got my tax cut." In effect, this is the same as selling your vote. It is just a legal way of doing it. For the record, I'd argue that before we implement tax cuts, we need to think about the services they provide -- police, fire, EMT, etc, -- and whether or not we want those services but that is a discussion for another day. A failure to consider these things is a failure to consider policy, the public good, the effective functioning of the city, security, among other things. All of which are cast aside for a few bucks. Moreover, think about the message you are sending (say, to your kids): as long as you get a few extra bucks in your pocket you'll vote for a person and not look into his character, not consider whether or not he;'s a criminal. In fact, even knowing he's a criminal is OK … as long as you get your tax break (aka bribe).
Why be concerned about Rob Ford? Because of what it says about those people who voted for him.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Video: Guergis v. Harper heads to court - The Globe and Mail
Yet another example of really bad reporting:
Video: Guergis v. Harper heads to court - The Globe and Mail:
At one point the anchor asks the report "just between us, is this going to get juicy?" By which, he meant, are we doing to hear about backroom conversations?
There is an important story here and the story is about how the Harper Conservatives have gone about politically organizing a new "governing party" (aka, historic bloc). A responsible journalist, for instance, could explore the types of politics that functioned in the first decade of the twenty-first century to put together a political machine that could take and hold power. What does it entail, for instance, in terms of "dirty tricks?" What does it entail in terms of PR? Who is the CPC willing to sacrifice and why on their road to electoral victory?
We already know a big part of this story. We know, for instance, that governing coalitions are forged through a variety of means, one of which is only tangentially democracy. We know -- and the long run of the Liberal Party in power demonstrated this -- that victory went to the largest minority; not the majority. We know (and knew) that not all constituents are created equal (political parties focus on some voters -- middle class, university educated, say -- and ignore others -- say, youth or regions where their base support is limited). We know that governments -- despite their rhetoric -- do not govern in the interests of "all Canadians" but that governing in the national interest usually means specific things (such as, for the CPC, the transfer of resources from the poor -- via cuts to the welfare state -- to the military) that reflect specific visions of the country and its future.
What this trial might show us is that governing is not about a soap opera. It is not about "juicy" details in the manner of a daytime drama, but about how a party functions under the light of public scrutiny: who is expendable and why? And, we might learn how they will defend themselves from attacks from within their own ranks. What prompts those attacks (Guergis is, by all accounts, a loyal conservative)? Harper's defence, for instance, is really interesting if teamed with the drama going on regarding voting irregularities in a variety of riding in Canada and the arguments before the supreme court.
In effect, the CPC has argued that the rule of law is not all that important. An election was held and this is the "people speaking" and whether or not the people spoke or it was rigged does not seem to matter. Once the people speak (even if the people who spoke did so illegally and tricked others so they could not speak), the die is cast and the courts should not become involved even if the law was broken.
This is, in my view, a very interesting position from a government the styles itself as a law and order government. To argue that violations of the law are not important is, surely, a contradiction from those people who want to build superprisons. For the record, I would argue that the rule of law is a characteristic of democracy, not something that stands in opposition to it.
In Guergis case we have another interesting contradiction. Harper, coming out of a Reform background that urged decentralization and constituent control, is arguing that the PM alone has the right to determine who runs for the party. This might be the way things actually function. I have no doubt it is. But, surely, the populism on which Harper supposedly cut his political teeth demands a different type of response. It demands at least the pretence that local riding associations have some say in who runs under their banner. The fact that Harper and crew do not feel compelled to even make this pretence, say, I think, something about their mounting confidence in office and this begs another set of questions that swift journalist (one more interesting in public good and the operation of power in society then "juicy" details) might ask. Why are is the CPC confident? Do they have reason to be? Should the lingering Reformers in the CPC not be "called" on this issue since they once stood for the polar opposite of what they claim to now stand for?
Alas ... mainstream Canadian journalism being what it is, I suspect we will get no answers to these questions but a lot of "juicy" details, perhaps even descriptions of what people wore to court.
Video: Guergis v. Harper heads to court - The Globe and Mail:
At one point the anchor asks the report "just between us, is this going to get juicy?" By which, he meant, are we doing to hear about backroom conversations?
There is an important story here and the story is about how the Harper Conservatives have gone about politically organizing a new "governing party" (aka, historic bloc). A responsible journalist, for instance, could explore the types of politics that functioned in the first decade of the twenty-first century to put together a political machine that could take and hold power. What does it entail, for instance, in terms of "dirty tricks?" What does it entail in terms of PR? Who is the CPC willing to sacrifice and why on their road to electoral victory?
We already know a big part of this story. We know, for instance, that governing coalitions are forged through a variety of means, one of which is only tangentially democracy. We know -- and the long run of the Liberal Party in power demonstrated this -- that victory went to the largest minority; not the majority. We know (and knew) that not all constituents are created equal (political parties focus on some voters -- middle class, university educated, say -- and ignore others -- say, youth or regions where their base support is limited). We know that governments -- despite their rhetoric -- do not govern in the interests of "all Canadians" but that governing in the national interest usually means specific things (such as, for the CPC, the transfer of resources from the poor -- via cuts to the welfare state -- to the military) that reflect specific visions of the country and its future.
What this trial might show us is that governing is not about a soap opera. It is not about "juicy" details in the manner of a daytime drama, but about how a party functions under the light of public scrutiny: who is expendable and why? And, we might learn how they will defend themselves from attacks from within their own ranks. What prompts those attacks (Guergis is, by all accounts, a loyal conservative)? Harper's defence, for instance, is really interesting if teamed with the drama going on regarding voting irregularities in a variety of riding in Canada and the arguments before the supreme court.
In effect, the CPC has argued that the rule of law is not all that important. An election was held and this is the "people speaking" and whether or not the people spoke or it was rigged does not seem to matter. Once the people speak (even if the people who spoke did so illegally and tricked others so they could not speak), the die is cast and the courts should not become involved even if the law was broken.
This is, in my view, a very interesting position from a government the styles itself as a law and order government. To argue that violations of the law are not important is, surely, a contradiction from those people who want to build superprisons. For the record, I would argue that the rule of law is a characteristic of democracy, not something that stands in opposition to it.
In Guergis case we have another interesting contradiction. Harper, coming out of a Reform background that urged decentralization and constituent control, is arguing that the PM alone has the right to determine who runs for the party. This might be the way things actually function. I have no doubt it is. But, surely, the populism on which Harper supposedly cut his political teeth demands a different type of response. It demands at least the pretence that local riding associations have some say in who runs under their banner. The fact that Harper and crew do not feel compelled to even make this pretence, say, I think, something about their mounting confidence in office and this begs another set of questions that swift journalist (one more interesting in public good and the operation of power in society then "juicy" details) might ask. Why are is the CPC confident? Do they have reason to be? Should the lingering Reformers in the CPC not be "called" on this issue since they once stood for the polar opposite of what they claim to now stand for?
Alas ... mainstream Canadian journalism being what it is, I suspect we will get no answers to these questions but a lot of "juicy" details, perhaps even descriptions of what people wore to court.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Corruption and Politics
Corruption and Politics
So, the Conservatives are involved in an election scandal. For a great many Canadians, this is hardly shocking. Canadians, we know, are amazingly skeptical about their political leaders and believe they are all corrupt. I’ve argued against this position in this blog on at least a couple of occasions. I doubt, too, that Conservative electoral shenanigans will come as any surprise to Liberals, New Democrats, or Bloquistes because they are predisposed to believe that there must be some reason – other than themselves – that the Conservatives won the last federal election and they lost.
Even more seasoned observers are likely far from surprised. The Conservatives had been playing fast and loose with the Elections Act – and likely violating it – in the past. The fact that they appear to have stepped over the line in a serious way this time, was just one more step in their no holds barred approach to winning elections (about which I’ve also blogged in the past).
For me, this corruption raises a different issue and one that I have only really begun to consider. I’ve argued that people vote for specific political parties (and support those parties) because, generally, they agree with what the party stands for: its vision of Canada. I know that people don’t always vote for a specific party out of a commitment to it, but perhaps 95% of those Canadians who vote do.
For me, what this latest scandal indicates is that I might need to take corruption more seriously as an aspect of political life in Canada. I will confess that I don’t want to. I’d like to treat Canadian public life with a high degree of dignity and, I suppose by disposition, I prefer to treat it philosophically: to discuss visions and platforms and policies. Sure, I argued, there was corruption but it was not grave and it did not – expecting significant scandals – play a role in the historical processes that define Canada. Heck, corruption is just not the kind of things I can work in easily to a lecture on a Conservative historic bloc or civic nationalism.
Was I wrong? So, where does electoral corruption fit into this discussion? I have no hard and fast ideas but it appears that I need to take corruption more seriously. The Tory historic bloc, for instance, is being created, in part, on the back of the First Past the Post electoral system (single member plurality) that transforms pluralities into majorities. This same system upheld the long Liberal/civic nationalist government and the class, social, and economic forces it represented. It is hardly surprising that Conservative supporters, looking to build their own historic bloc, would abandon the democracy promoted by the Reform Party back in the 1980s as ineffective in so doing. After all, the neo-liberal economic policies and social conservatism represented by the Conservative Party are not about democracy. They are about specific policies (tough on crime, opposition to women’s rights, retrenchment of the welfare state), whether these are democratic or not. Canadian historic blocs, then, are built gratis the First Past the Post system that alleviates the need to win majority support.
The Conservatives, it seems, have taken this built in systemic bias one step further. Perhaps the Liberals did before them, as well, but I have some other thoughts on that issue that I’ll get to sometime. It appears that the Conservatives decided that even with this built in bias, even with their huge electoral war chest, and even with disorganized opposition parties, that they could not win a general election or at least could not garner a majority in Parliament.
This would have left them vulnerable and likely would have derailed key elements of their vision of the country. It is unlikely that their re-militarization of Canada could have proceeded at the same pace. Their commitment to increasing incarceration would have died on the order paper. And the cuts to the welfare state that are coming down the tubes would have had to have been negotiated with political parties committed to the welfare state. In other words, the full realization of Conservative policy needed a majority and that majority was not to be found even with all the advantages the Conservatives had. In this situation, they turned to the only thing they had left: dirty tricks.
The key question here is this: is corruption an inherent element of building and sustaining an historic bloc? If you want to use more a more liberal language, a governing political coalition? If one were more leftist, one might ask the question this way: does one need corruption to build and maintain a capitalist historic bloc since this historic bloc cannot win majority (or, unconditional) support?
I have no easy answer to this question but I am starting to think that I, at least, need to take corruption more seriously. I don’t think we should fall into a “one lot is as bad as the next” or “all politicians are corrupt” type of discourse. I think what we need to do is to interrogate the rise and maintenance of governing coalitions (historic blocs) to find out what role corruption has played in them. I suspect, then, that when this interrogation is done, I might discover that corruption is an inherent element of politics in a Canada precisely because it is an effective tool to building and maintaining an historic bloc. however distasteful it might be to those of us who want to talk politics as policy and vision, we might need to look at corruption as a technology of power.
So, the Conservatives are involved in an election scandal. For a great many Canadians, this is hardly shocking. Canadians, we know, are amazingly skeptical about their political leaders and believe they are all corrupt. I’ve argued against this position in this blog on at least a couple of occasions. I doubt, too, that Conservative electoral shenanigans will come as any surprise to Liberals, New Democrats, or Bloquistes because they are predisposed to believe that there must be some reason – other than themselves – that the Conservatives won the last federal election and they lost.
Even more seasoned observers are likely far from surprised. The Conservatives had been playing fast and loose with the Elections Act – and likely violating it – in the past. The fact that they appear to have stepped over the line in a serious way this time, was just one more step in their no holds barred approach to winning elections (about which I’ve also blogged in the past).
For me, this corruption raises a different issue and one that I have only really begun to consider. I’ve argued that people vote for specific political parties (and support those parties) because, generally, they agree with what the party stands for: its vision of Canada. I know that people don’t always vote for a specific party out of a commitment to it, but perhaps 95% of those Canadians who vote do.
For me, what this latest scandal indicates is that I might need to take corruption more seriously as an aspect of political life in Canada. I will confess that I don’t want to. I’d like to treat Canadian public life with a high degree of dignity and, I suppose by disposition, I prefer to treat it philosophically: to discuss visions and platforms and policies. Sure, I argued, there was corruption but it was not grave and it did not – expecting significant scandals – play a role in the historical processes that define Canada. Heck, corruption is just not the kind of things I can work in easily to a lecture on a Conservative historic bloc or civic nationalism.
Was I wrong? So, where does electoral corruption fit into this discussion? I have no hard and fast ideas but it appears that I need to take corruption more seriously. The Tory historic bloc, for instance, is being created, in part, on the back of the First Past the Post electoral system (single member plurality) that transforms pluralities into majorities. This same system upheld the long Liberal/civic nationalist government and the class, social, and economic forces it represented. It is hardly surprising that Conservative supporters, looking to build their own historic bloc, would abandon the democracy promoted by the Reform Party back in the 1980s as ineffective in so doing. After all, the neo-liberal economic policies and social conservatism represented by the Conservative Party are not about democracy. They are about specific policies (tough on crime, opposition to women’s rights, retrenchment of the welfare state), whether these are democratic or not. Canadian historic blocs, then, are built gratis the First Past the Post system that alleviates the need to win majority support.
The Conservatives, it seems, have taken this built in systemic bias one step further. Perhaps the Liberals did before them, as well, but I have some other thoughts on that issue that I’ll get to sometime. It appears that the Conservatives decided that even with this built in bias, even with their huge electoral war chest, and even with disorganized opposition parties, that they could not win a general election or at least could not garner a majority in Parliament.
This would have left them vulnerable and likely would have derailed key elements of their vision of the country. It is unlikely that their re-militarization of Canada could have proceeded at the same pace. Their commitment to increasing incarceration would have died on the order paper. And the cuts to the welfare state that are coming down the tubes would have had to have been negotiated with political parties committed to the welfare state. In other words, the full realization of Conservative policy needed a majority and that majority was not to be found even with all the advantages the Conservatives had. In this situation, they turned to the only thing they had left: dirty tricks.
The key question here is this: is corruption an inherent element of building and sustaining an historic bloc? If you want to use more a more liberal language, a governing political coalition? If one were more leftist, one might ask the question this way: does one need corruption to build and maintain a capitalist historic bloc since this historic bloc cannot win majority (or, unconditional) support?
I have no easy answer to this question but I am starting to think that I, at least, need to take corruption more seriously. I don’t think we should fall into a “one lot is as bad as the next” or “all politicians are corrupt” type of discourse. I think what we need to do is to interrogate the rise and maintenance of governing coalitions (historic blocs) to find out what role corruption has played in them. I suspect, then, that when this interrogation is done, I might discover that corruption is an inherent element of politics in a Canada precisely because it is an effective tool to building and maintaining an historic bloc. however distasteful it might be to those of us who want to talk politics as policy and vision, we might need to look at corruption as a technology of power.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Bloc
A lot of English-speaking political pundits don't like the Bloc or anything that keeps it winning seats in Quebec. The story in the Globe is a case in point. Here, the blame has been spread around so that the provincial Liberals are also under fire. The host of sins laid at the feat of the Bloc are many. Extreme comments paint them as a treasonous, and suggest that they should be dealt with in that way. Less extreme but still fairly strong views suggest that if only Quebec's political elites didn't play with separatism to get what they want out of federalism, the Bloc would have withered and died. John Ibbitson in Open and Shut goes so far to suggest that Canada cannot get a majority federal government as long as the Bloc is about and that maybe a test -- say, an oath of Loyalty to the constitution -- should be brought in for MPs.
My view is that this perspective is more an ill-considered expression of frustration that severely misses the mark in terms of what might be wrong with Canadian democracy, then it is a reasoned critique of the Bloc. Let me be clear: democracy is not about electing majorities. Democracy, as Rosa Luxemberg once said, is democracy for the other. It seems really easy and almost reasonable to limit other people's choices so that they might support yours. It is undemocratic. The people in Quebec are Canadian citizens; they have every right to form political parties like any other Canadian and vote for whom they please like any other Canadian. The fact that someone may not like their choices .... has little to do with anyway. To deny them their choices is to deny democracy. Or, to put this slightly differently, to cast aspersions on their choices or to try to find a sneaky way to eliminate their choices is no more democratic than to suggest that the folks in Saskatchewan are somehow doing something wrong by electing the Saskatchewan Party.
One can have reasoned disagreements with Saskatchewan Party policy (or, say Wildrose policies if one is in Alberta) and that is fair enough. Reasoned debate is the stuff of democracy. But, to suggest that a choice is illegitimate because one does not like it or because it impedes the abilities of one's favoured choice to gain a majority is not.
And, let us be clear, the Bloc is not a radical party. I don't support their aims. Anyone who has read this blog knows I'm a federalist. But, the Bloc's policies do not include ethnic cleansing, say, or something revolutionary. Indeed, in some ways, their policies are pretty staid, if one compares them to other ethnic or language based separatist movements in other parts of the world. They are responsible; do their job in Parliament, and play by the rules of the federal political game.
Finally, blaming the Bloc also misses the point. The Liberal majorities of the Chretien era were, potentially, artificial because of the nature of the first past the post electoral system. The Bloc did not stop the Liberals, however, from winning three straight majorities. The Conservatives have not been able to gain a majority because the majority of Canadians don't like their policies and don't want to see them in government. The same might have been true of the Chretien Liberals -- although I am less certain about this -- but what we can say is that a larger majority of Canadians don't like the Conservatives then did not like the Liberals. Canada, in other words, does not have a majority Conservative government because something close to 2/3rds of Canadians -- depending on which poll you read -- don't want the Conservatives in office. That is their problem; not the Bloc.
My view is that this perspective is more an ill-considered expression of frustration that severely misses the mark in terms of what might be wrong with Canadian democracy, then it is a reasoned critique of the Bloc. Let me be clear: democracy is not about electing majorities. Democracy, as Rosa Luxemberg once said, is democracy for the other. It seems really easy and almost reasonable to limit other people's choices so that they might support yours. It is undemocratic. The people in Quebec are Canadian citizens; they have every right to form political parties like any other Canadian and vote for whom they please like any other Canadian. The fact that someone may not like their choices .... has little to do with anyway. To deny them their choices is to deny democracy. Or, to put this slightly differently, to cast aspersions on their choices or to try to find a sneaky way to eliminate their choices is no more democratic than to suggest that the folks in Saskatchewan are somehow doing something wrong by electing the Saskatchewan Party.
One can have reasoned disagreements with Saskatchewan Party policy (or, say Wildrose policies if one is in Alberta) and that is fair enough. Reasoned debate is the stuff of democracy. But, to suggest that a choice is illegitimate because one does not like it or because it impedes the abilities of one's favoured choice to gain a majority is not.
And, let us be clear, the Bloc is not a radical party. I don't support their aims. Anyone who has read this blog knows I'm a federalist. But, the Bloc's policies do not include ethnic cleansing, say, or something revolutionary. Indeed, in some ways, their policies are pretty staid, if one compares them to other ethnic or language based separatist movements in other parts of the world. They are responsible; do their job in Parliament, and play by the rules of the federal political game.
Finally, blaming the Bloc also misses the point. The Liberal majorities of the Chretien era were, potentially, artificial because of the nature of the first past the post electoral system. The Bloc did not stop the Liberals, however, from winning three straight majorities. The Conservatives have not been able to gain a majority because the majority of Canadians don't like their policies and don't want to see them in government. The same might have been true of the Chretien Liberals -- although I am less certain about this -- but what we can say is that a larger majority of Canadians don't like the Conservatives then did not like the Liberals. Canada, in other words, does not have a majority Conservative government because something close to 2/3rds of Canadians -- depending on which poll you read -- don't want the Conservatives in office. That is their problem; not the Bloc.
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Problem with Politicians
Canadians don't like politicians. We've all heard the standard lines: they're all corrupt, once elected they don't pay attention to constituents, they're sheep who vote the party line. This generalized cynicism about politicians is so common that it is truism. One can say these things -- or things very much like them -- without fear of contradiction. Certainly, some recent events might give Canadians cause for pause with regard to politicians, but generally I think this perspective is completely unfounded. Moreover, it belies other concerns and illustrates, at the very least, serious misunderstandings about the political system. I don't want to say people who look on politics (and politicians) with a cynical eye are wrong. There are, as I hope to explain, good reasons why such ideas circulate in contemporary Canada. These reasons are, however, something different than many people might at first pre-supposed. Let's look at this cynicism and think about the merits of this perspective, before turning to why it has become so pervasive.
Are all politicians corrupt? Is one as bad as the next? Do politicians forget their constituents the minute they are elected and become beholden to a party and Ottawa elite that ignores voters? Perhaps: I don't think anyone assessing this viewpoint should ignore the fact that there is some truth to it. Party disciplines imposes conformity on elected representatives (ask Bill Casey). But, this is not the only thing going on. MPs or MLAs don't "vote the party line" in legislatures and the federal Parliament simply because of some nefarious party machine. The truth of the matter is that with only a limited number of exceptions, most MPs and MLAs (or MNAs, MHAs, MPPs depending on the province), are elected under the banner of a political party. They are a membeer of that party and run as a its representative. This is not a secret but it bears a level of emphasis it does not normally receive in public discourse. If one is a party member, running as a party member, often with a long history of involvement in that particular political party, then the fact that any given MP (or provincial member) votes according to that party's line should not be surprising.
Take my local riding as an example. Federally we are represented by a Liberal, Dominque LeBlanc. The reason Mr. LeBlanc is a Liberal is because he supports the Liberal Party. He agrees with their ideology (say on the role of the state in society or gay marriage or regional economic development) and may even have had a hand in fashioning party policy. If he did not support Liberal policy, he would not be a Liberal. If he were a socialist, for example, he'd run as a member of the NDP. If he were conservative in his views, he'd try to win the Conservative nomination. He didn't. He ran as a Liberal. The fact that he then supports the Liberal Party line on any given issue should not at all surprise us. In fact, if we are to believe that he takes his politics seriously and is sincere in his commitment to specific philosophical and ideological perspectives, we'd expect nothing other from him. The opposite is what would be surprising: if he jumped all over the place, supporting Liberals one day, Conservatives the next, the NDP the day after. In point of fact, I'd find an MP who jumped all over the place cause for concern. It would illustrate that they only thing they cared about is following the polls and trying to be on the winning side of issues X or Y. It would illustrate to me that they were not committed to a particular philosophy of public life or a particular vision for the country. Instead, their political behaviour was purely self-interested. I wonder if this is the kind of representatives most Canadians really want to have? Do we want representatives who take principled stands -- knowing it could cost them votes -- in the sense that they follow a clear and consistent and knowable ideology (and vision of Canada) or do we want someone who will change stripes every time the wind blows in a different direction, who is more interested in keeping their job in Parliament then in presenting options, choices and policies to voters?
Now, someone might say: OK, this is true. I'd prefer principled to self-interested leaders, but surely representatives job is to represent "the people" and if they are just following the party line they can't do that. Following the party line serves only to corrupt democracy. Voters have a right to expect their voices be heard through their representative and if that representative is only following the party, he or she can't do that.
This is a good argument but it is also intensely problematic. Its problematic because we need to ask "which voters?" In any given riding, there are all kinds of different views on any given subject. Some voters support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan; some don't and want to end it; some want it redefined; some want a time-line to leaving with specific objectives that allow (theoretically) Canadians to measure the success of the mission. These different perspectives are not compatible with each other. One can't want to immediately withdraw our forces from Afghanistan and want them to stay there at the same time. How does an elected MP represent both sides? They can't and on most issues there are a lot more than two sides. On many issues, in fact, as I tried to indicate above, there can be a range of views. My point is this: in representing his or her voters (by voting a certain way on a specific bill), the elected representative has to not represent others. The nature of democracy, in this case, will ensure that some voters will be deprived of their voice regardless of what the elected representative does.
OK, this same person might now say, what the MP should do is represent the majority opinion in their riding. This would be democratic. Again, this is a good argument, but one of the odd things about public life, and the reason this becomes complicated, is that most people think their view is the majority. The vast majority of Canadians favour gun control. The numbers, in fact, in support of gun control might even be down a bit from where they were a number of years ago. I mention this because I remember very clearly a party to which I was invited about five years ago. I was the only male at that party in favour of gun control. Every other man opposed it and was absolutely certain that only a small clique of lefties were in favour of it. I offered my polling data n support of my argument but they would have none of it: polls can say anything, they told me. Everyone they knew opposed gun control and so who could support it?
I'm not trying to rehash the gun control debate but to make another point: most of us associate with people whom we get along with. We talk to our friends daily and so convince each other of particular views. I'm a Christian and I spend a lot of my time hanging out with other Christians. The result is that we come to share certain views either through self selection or dialogue. There is nothing wrong with this, by the way, we just need to remember to keep our views in perspective. We need to understand how diverse social, political, and economic perspectives are in Canada. We need to understand that there is not one or two perspectives on any issues but many. In our own circles of friends, it might not seem like that and that is what we need to remember. My point: because we hang out with like-minded people it seems to us that there are majorities "out there" (and, they happen to agree with us), but there really aren't.
Moreover, even if there were majorities and minorities on specific issues, another issue is raised. In a democratic society, can a majority deprive a minority of its voice? If we had elected representatives who only spoke for the majority on any given issue, then this is, in fact, what would happen. Alternatives perspectives would be silenced. I'd be so bold as to say those alternatives perspective not only deserve to heard but need to be heard. Differing views are what drive democracy. Good ideas sometimes emerge from the margins (like environmentalism, equality for women and gays and lesbians, and further back: ending child labour, universal education, and civil rights for Native Canadians, for instances). The basis of a democracy is that a minority can use reasoned dialogue to become a majority (to convince people through argument in reason that there are better ways of doing things). If minorities are silenced this aspect of democracy is lost. Consider the irony: in the name of democracy one of the basic conditions of democracy (the right of minorities to be heard) is abrogated. Is this what we want?
Let me recap my points: (1) people run as Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats, etc., because they are Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats and they ask us to vote for them -- to elect them -- on that basis. The fact that a Conservative ends up being ... well, a Conservative after they are elected should not shock people and, what is more, no one has lied about it. The elected representative, in fact, campaigned on that basis. (2) Having an elected representative change their allegiance on every vote in conformity with what they think the majority of voters in their riding want might not be all its cracked up to be. Rather than being a sign of democracy, it might actually be a sign of a lack of sincerity, of self-interest over principle. I asked what type of people do we want as leaders: those driven by principle or those driven by self-interest? (3) Even if we want representatives to follow the wishes of the majority, we need to pause to ask if there really is a majority "out there." Our own views are coloured not just by our perspectives but by the fact that we usually associated with people who share our own views. This can lead us to believe that there is a majority (that just happens to think like us) but is there? Certainly, the currently fragmented character of federal politics would lead me to suggest that there isn't. (4) Even if there was a majority, it is very important for the health of democracy to ensure that minority views (whatever these might be) are not silenced. If they are -- and they could be if a representative just went with the majority flow -- then something important to the state of democracy would be lost.
Where does this, then, leave us? Is this an argument for the status quo? I hope not. I hope it serves to explain, in part, why we still have an intensely problematic and deeply troubled political system: simple solutions (like "representatives should vote the way their constituents want") are not implemented because they either won't work or will create new and potentially more far-reaching problems then the problems they seem to solve. In the face of solutions that are, then, not really solutions, the status quo is maintained. I also hope it illustrate why at least some measure of the cynicism that currently surrounded politics and politicians is not merited. It results from misunderstandings (of the merits of simple solutions, of the nature of party politics, of a consideration of the different options facing voters, of the nature of Canadian society). If we begin to think concertedly about the nature of the Canadian political system, about principle, about reasonable expectations, and the pre-conditions of democracy, then at least some part of the cynicism that infuses much public discourse begins to dissipate.
This is, of course, not all there is to say on this subject. In my next post, I'll begin to address a couple of other key issues related to public distaste of politicians: the roots of cynicism and solutions to it. I'll try to suggest that blaming politicians, in fact, obscures what is the greater problems and the real root of contemporary political malaise.
Are all politicians corrupt? Is one as bad as the next? Do politicians forget their constituents the minute they are elected and become beholden to a party and Ottawa elite that ignores voters? Perhaps: I don't think anyone assessing this viewpoint should ignore the fact that there is some truth to it. Party disciplines imposes conformity on elected representatives (ask Bill Casey). But, this is not the only thing going on. MPs or MLAs don't "vote the party line" in legislatures and the federal Parliament simply because of some nefarious party machine. The truth of the matter is that with only a limited number of exceptions, most MPs and MLAs (or MNAs, MHAs, MPPs depending on the province), are elected under the banner of a political party. They are a membeer of that party and run as a its representative. This is not a secret but it bears a level of emphasis it does not normally receive in public discourse. If one is a party member, running as a party member, often with a long history of involvement in that particular political party, then the fact that any given MP (or provincial member) votes according to that party's line should not be surprising.
Take my local riding as an example. Federally we are represented by a Liberal, Dominque LeBlanc. The reason Mr. LeBlanc is a Liberal is because he supports the Liberal Party. He agrees with their ideology (say on the role of the state in society or gay marriage or regional economic development) and may even have had a hand in fashioning party policy. If he did not support Liberal policy, he would not be a Liberal. If he were a socialist, for example, he'd run as a member of the NDP. If he were conservative in his views, he'd try to win the Conservative nomination. He didn't. He ran as a Liberal. The fact that he then supports the Liberal Party line on any given issue should not at all surprise us. In fact, if we are to believe that he takes his politics seriously and is sincere in his commitment to specific philosophical and ideological perspectives, we'd expect nothing other from him. The opposite is what would be surprising: if he jumped all over the place, supporting Liberals one day, Conservatives the next, the NDP the day after. In point of fact, I'd find an MP who jumped all over the place cause for concern. It would illustrate that they only thing they cared about is following the polls and trying to be on the winning side of issues X or Y. It would illustrate to me that they were not committed to a particular philosophy of public life or a particular vision for the country. Instead, their political behaviour was purely self-interested. I wonder if this is the kind of representatives most Canadians really want to have? Do we want representatives who take principled stands -- knowing it could cost them votes -- in the sense that they follow a clear and consistent and knowable ideology (and vision of Canada) or do we want someone who will change stripes every time the wind blows in a different direction, who is more interested in keeping their job in Parliament then in presenting options, choices and policies to voters?
Now, someone might say: OK, this is true. I'd prefer principled to self-interested leaders, but surely representatives job is to represent "the people" and if they are just following the party line they can't do that. Following the party line serves only to corrupt democracy. Voters have a right to expect their voices be heard through their representative and if that representative is only following the party, he or she can't do that.
This is a good argument but it is also intensely problematic. Its problematic because we need to ask "which voters?" In any given riding, there are all kinds of different views on any given subject. Some voters support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan; some don't and want to end it; some want it redefined; some want a time-line to leaving with specific objectives that allow (theoretically) Canadians to measure the success of the mission. These different perspectives are not compatible with each other. One can't want to immediately withdraw our forces from Afghanistan and want them to stay there at the same time. How does an elected MP represent both sides? They can't and on most issues there are a lot more than two sides. On many issues, in fact, as I tried to indicate above, there can be a range of views. My point is this: in representing his or her voters (by voting a certain way on a specific bill), the elected representative has to not represent others. The nature of democracy, in this case, will ensure that some voters will be deprived of their voice regardless of what the elected representative does.
OK, this same person might now say, what the MP should do is represent the majority opinion in their riding. This would be democratic. Again, this is a good argument, but one of the odd things about public life, and the reason this becomes complicated, is that most people think their view is the majority. The vast majority of Canadians favour gun control. The numbers, in fact, in support of gun control might even be down a bit from where they were a number of years ago. I mention this because I remember very clearly a party to which I was invited about five years ago. I was the only male at that party in favour of gun control. Every other man opposed it and was absolutely certain that only a small clique of lefties were in favour of it. I offered my polling data n support of my argument but they would have none of it: polls can say anything, they told me. Everyone they knew opposed gun control and so who could support it?
I'm not trying to rehash the gun control debate but to make another point: most of us associate with people whom we get along with. We talk to our friends daily and so convince each other of particular views. I'm a Christian and I spend a lot of my time hanging out with other Christians. The result is that we come to share certain views either through self selection or dialogue. There is nothing wrong with this, by the way, we just need to remember to keep our views in perspective. We need to understand how diverse social, political, and economic perspectives are in Canada. We need to understand that there is not one or two perspectives on any issues but many. In our own circles of friends, it might not seem like that and that is what we need to remember. My point: because we hang out with like-minded people it seems to us that there are majorities "out there" (and, they happen to agree with us), but there really aren't.
Moreover, even if there were majorities and minorities on specific issues, another issue is raised. In a democratic society, can a majority deprive a minority of its voice? If we had elected representatives who only spoke for the majority on any given issue, then this is, in fact, what would happen. Alternatives perspectives would be silenced. I'd be so bold as to say those alternatives perspective not only deserve to heard but need to be heard. Differing views are what drive democracy. Good ideas sometimes emerge from the margins (like environmentalism, equality for women and gays and lesbians, and further back: ending child labour, universal education, and civil rights for Native Canadians, for instances). The basis of a democracy is that a minority can use reasoned dialogue to become a majority (to convince people through argument in reason that there are better ways of doing things). If minorities are silenced this aspect of democracy is lost. Consider the irony: in the name of democracy one of the basic conditions of democracy (the right of minorities to be heard) is abrogated. Is this what we want?
Let me recap my points: (1) people run as Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats, etc., because they are Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats and they ask us to vote for them -- to elect them -- on that basis. The fact that a Conservative ends up being ... well, a Conservative after they are elected should not shock people and, what is more, no one has lied about it. The elected representative, in fact, campaigned on that basis. (2) Having an elected representative change their allegiance on every vote in conformity with what they think the majority of voters in their riding want might not be all its cracked up to be. Rather than being a sign of democracy, it might actually be a sign of a lack of sincerity, of self-interest over principle. I asked what type of people do we want as leaders: those driven by principle or those driven by self-interest? (3) Even if we want representatives to follow the wishes of the majority, we need to pause to ask if there really is a majority "out there." Our own views are coloured not just by our perspectives but by the fact that we usually associated with people who share our own views. This can lead us to believe that there is a majority (that just happens to think like us) but is there? Certainly, the currently fragmented character of federal politics would lead me to suggest that there isn't. (4) Even if there was a majority, it is very important for the health of democracy to ensure that minority views (whatever these might be) are not silenced. If they are -- and they could be if a representative just went with the majority flow -- then something important to the state of democracy would be lost.
Where does this, then, leave us? Is this an argument for the status quo? I hope not. I hope it serves to explain, in part, why we still have an intensely problematic and deeply troubled political system: simple solutions (like "representatives should vote the way their constituents want") are not implemented because they either won't work or will create new and potentially more far-reaching problems then the problems they seem to solve. In the face of solutions that are, then, not really solutions, the status quo is maintained. I also hope it illustrate why at least some measure of the cynicism that currently surrounded politics and politicians is not merited. It results from misunderstandings (of the merits of simple solutions, of the nature of party politics, of a consideration of the different options facing voters, of the nature of Canadian society). If we begin to think concertedly about the nature of the Canadian political system, about principle, about reasonable expectations, and the pre-conditions of democracy, then at least some part of the cynicism that infuses much public discourse begins to dissipate.
This is, of course, not all there is to say on this subject. In my next post, I'll begin to address a couple of other key issues related to public distaste of politicians: the roots of cynicism and solutions to it. I'll try to suggest that blaming politicians, in fact, obscures what is the greater problems and the real root of contemporary political malaise.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Revenge of the Outs
There is an old novel in which named political parties have disappeared. In their place are two broad groups: the ins (who hold office) and the outs (who forever campaign against the ins but never win). In Canada, one could argue that the ins of the twentieth century were the Liberals; the outs, conservatives of various sorts. Only periodically have conservatives been able to displace Liberals. And, they have done this only when they have been able to build a coalition across ideological lines that, in effect, unites a broad section of the outs behind them.
This is what Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s. His coalition was broad, including Bay Street conservative capitalist, western populists, social conservatives dismayed at Liberal support for gender equality, the welfare state, Charter rights, etc., Quebec “soft nationalists”, and Atlantic Canadian Red Tories, among others. Mulroney’s triumph was that he got this coalition to work for nine years despite the fact that these different groups of people don’t have a great deal in common, aside from their status as outs. Red Tories had little love of the Bay Street agenda; social conservatives did not see eye to eye with Quebec nationalists. Neo-cons were almost hyper individualists who maintained an unbounded faith in “the market”; Red Tories and social conservatives distrust the market and look to intervene in it for their own reasons ... and on down the line. Mulroney’s failure was that he could not transform this coalition of outs into a cohesive body. Ultimately, fractures on Quebec nationalism, free trade, social issues (like abortion and capital punishment), the democratic agenda so near to the heart of populists, scuttled the coalition.
Why is this a failure? It is not a failure just because the conservative party lost office. The Liberal party was out of office for nine years and in those nine years their commitment to their ideals did not waver. Intellectually, they responded to Mulroney coalition and its agenda with powerful re-assertions of the philosophical precepts underlying their policy agenda. Impressive bodies of work developed that defended the welfare state, multiculturalism, Charter rights, and a “progressive” conception of Canada. Liberals returned to office armed with a cost-cutting agenda but also armed with an ideology that allowed them to defend federalism, support diversity in society, accept advances in gay rights, and deflect the worst excesses of a waning neo-conservativism. In other words, the Liberals did not just get lucky in 1993. Indeed, their own political activism helped rip apart the Mulroney coalition. They were ready to take office. They had ideas and a vision of Canada that they could take to the Canadian public. You can like these ideas or dislike them (I’m no fan, to declare my bias) but that is what got the Liberals elected.
By contrast, Mulroney and his crew could never wield their coalition of outs into a coherent counter-vision of Canada: an alternative to the Canadian liberal project of nation. What held them in office was power. Disagreements will usually be blunted by the lure of power and one’s hold on it can soften most disagreements. What was the conservatives economic vision? Put Canada on a sound financial basis? If so, they failed miserably. What was their constitutional vision? A modified two nations? If so, they failed miserably. And, we could go on down the line. What is important here is that they did not fail just because they did not get their way. They failed because they did not convince Canadians that the had a vision of a future Canada that was worth accepting. By Mulroney’s second term, discontent was so rife it was ridiculous. The real problem was that Mulroney could not even convince disparate elements of his own coalition that he had a vision into which they should buy. Western populists rejected his efforts to accommodate Quebec distinctiveness and campaigned actively against it. Red Tories rejected his conception of continental integration and fought a civil war within Canadian conservatism -- that ended only recently -- against free trade. Bay Streeters were never willing to buy into the intolerance that seemed to come with the social conservative agenda.
Why write about this? Why tell us this history? Because this is precisely the same issue that Stephen Harper confronts today. Harper has been given an unusual opportunity. The Martin/Chretien civil war within the Liberal party combined with the sponsorship scandal and the intellectual exhaustion of the Quebec independence movement open up a space for the articulation of an alternative conception of Canada. (Personally, I would like the NDP to articulate that vision and I think they will have to, but that is the subject for another blog.) There is some indication that Harper and some conservatives (particularly provincial conservatives in Quebec) are willing to do this. Without some coherent ideal of Canada, some vision into which Canadians can buy, Canadian conservatives will be little more than a collection of outs held together by power. Their different and constituent basis of support of different sectors of his coalition will collapse into hostile factions. It might take a year, it might take three months, it might take four years, but it will happen if Canadian conservatism aspires only to “good government” and a “balanced budget” (to which, of course, all political parties in Canada aspire). This is the task before Stephen Harper, conservative leaders, and conservative intellectuals in Canada: they need to transform the Conservative Party of Canada from a collection of "outs" to a party tied to a social constituency that accepted a defined conservative vision of the country.
Will they do this? I don't know because the forces rending conservatism asunder are particularly strong. Moreover, the conservatives are vulnerable on certain policy areas where they shouldn't be, such as the environment (ideologically oriented conservatives should be able to mobilize the ideal of a collective public good that transcends individualism in support of an environmental policy that does not toady to big business). We have also, already, seen a break with the Newfoundland premier that will almost certainly cost the Conservatives their federal seats in that province in he next election. The real problem, however, is what a conservative vision actually means for Canada. So far, it is not clear but Harper seem to be assembling something akin to a go-easy liberalism and that, combined with the problems the Liberal Party is currently going through might be enough to keep him in power. I doubt, however, it will be enough (in the longer run) to satisfy the members of his own party.
This is what Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s. His coalition was broad, including Bay Street conservative capitalist, western populists, social conservatives dismayed at Liberal support for gender equality, the welfare state, Charter rights, etc., Quebec “soft nationalists”, and Atlantic Canadian Red Tories, among others. Mulroney’s triumph was that he got this coalition to work for nine years despite the fact that these different groups of people don’t have a great deal in common, aside from their status as outs. Red Tories had little love of the Bay Street agenda; social conservatives did not see eye to eye with Quebec nationalists. Neo-cons were almost hyper individualists who maintained an unbounded faith in “the market”; Red Tories and social conservatives distrust the market and look to intervene in it for their own reasons ... and on down the line. Mulroney’s failure was that he could not transform this coalition of outs into a cohesive body. Ultimately, fractures on Quebec nationalism, free trade, social issues (like abortion and capital punishment), the democratic agenda so near to the heart of populists, scuttled the coalition.
Why is this a failure? It is not a failure just because the conservative party lost office. The Liberal party was out of office for nine years and in those nine years their commitment to their ideals did not waver. Intellectually, they responded to Mulroney coalition and its agenda with powerful re-assertions of the philosophical precepts underlying their policy agenda. Impressive bodies of work developed that defended the welfare state, multiculturalism, Charter rights, and a “progressive” conception of Canada. Liberals returned to office armed with a cost-cutting agenda but also armed with an ideology that allowed them to defend federalism, support diversity in society, accept advances in gay rights, and deflect the worst excesses of a waning neo-conservativism. In other words, the Liberals did not just get lucky in 1993. Indeed, their own political activism helped rip apart the Mulroney coalition. They were ready to take office. They had ideas and a vision of Canada that they could take to the Canadian public. You can like these ideas or dislike them (I’m no fan, to declare my bias) but that is what got the Liberals elected.
By contrast, Mulroney and his crew could never wield their coalition of outs into a coherent counter-vision of Canada: an alternative to the Canadian liberal project of nation. What held them in office was power. Disagreements will usually be blunted by the lure of power and one’s hold on it can soften most disagreements. What was the conservatives economic vision? Put Canada on a sound financial basis? If so, they failed miserably. What was their constitutional vision? A modified two nations? If so, they failed miserably. And, we could go on down the line. What is important here is that they did not fail just because they did not get their way. They failed because they did not convince Canadians that the had a vision of a future Canada that was worth accepting. By Mulroney’s second term, discontent was so rife it was ridiculous. The real problem was that Mulroney could not even convince disparate elements of his own coalition that he had a vision into which they should buy. Western populists rejected his efforts to accommodate Quebec distinctiveness and campaigned actively against it. Red Tories rejected his conception of continental integration and fought a civil war within Canadian conservatism -- that ended only recently -- against free trade. Bay Streeters were never willing to buy into the intolerance that seemed to come with the social conservative agenda.
Why write about this? Why tell us this history? Because this is precisely the same issue that Stephen Harper confronts today. Harper has been given an unusual opportunity. The Martin/Chretien civil war within the Liberal party combined with the sponsorship scandal and the intellectual exhaustion of the Quebec independence movement open up a space for the articulation of an alternative conception of Canada. (Personally, I would like the NDP to articulate that vision and I think they will have to, but that is the subject for another blog.) There is some indication that Harper and some conservatives (particularly provincial conservatives in Quebec) are willing to do this. Without some coherent ideal of Canada, some vision into which Canadians can buy, Canadian conservatives will be little more than a collection of outs held together by power. Their different and constituent basis of support of different sectors of his coalition will collapse into hostile factions. It might take a year, it might take three months, it might take four years, but it will happen if Canadian conservatism aspires only to “good government” and a “balanced budget” (to which, of course, all political parties in Canada aspire). This is the task before Stephen Harper, conservative leaders, and conservative intellectuals in Canada: they need to transform the Conservative Party of Canada from a collection of "outs" to a party tied to a social constituency that accepted a defined conservative vision of the country.
Will they do this? I don't know because the forces rending conservatism asunder are particularly strong. Moreover, the conservatives are vulnerable on certain policy areas where they shouldn't be, such as the environment (ideologically oriented conservatives should be able to mobilize the ideal of a collective public good that transcends individualism in support of an environmental policy that does not toady to big business). We have also, already, seen a break with the Newfoundland premier that will almost certainly cost the Conservatives their federal seats in that province in he next election. The real problem, however, is what a conservative vision actually means for Canada. So far, it is not clear but Harper seem to be assembling something akin to a go-easy liberalism and that, combined with the problems the Liberal Party is currently going through might be enough to keep him in power. I doubt, however, it will be enough (in the longer run) to satisfy the members of his own party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)