Yet Another Opinion

You have no choice but to vote for us

Found this in a Scientific American interview of neurologist Robert Burton, author of On Being Certain:

I suspect that retreat into absolute ideologies is accentuated during periods of confusion, lack of governmental direction, economic chaos and information overload. At bottom, we are pattern recognizers who seek escape from ambiguity and indecision. If a major brain function is to maintain mental homeostasis, it is understandable how stances of certainty can counteract anxiety and apprehension.  Even though I know better, I find myself somewhat reassured (albeit temporarily) by absolute comments such as, “the stock market always recovers,” even when I realize that this may be only wishful thinking.

Sadly, my cynical side also suspects that political advisors use this knowledge of the biology of certainty to actively manipulate public opinion. Nuance is abandoned in favor of absolutes.

Posted in politics | No Comments »

We’re going to do it again

I have no idea what is going to happen next in Canadian politics. But here’s my guess: if the majority of the Canadian people are really opposed to the idea of a coalition government, Stephen Harper will want to dissolve Parliament at the first available opportunity. He’ll call an election and ask Canada to choose between a Conservative majority government and a government “supported by the Bloc Quebecois”. (Of course, these aren’t the actual choices, but that’s what the publicity blitz will claim.)

I guess we’ll find out whether it is possible to form a majority government with no seats from either Quebec or Toronto. If the result is another Conservative minority, things will get very interesting indeed.

While I’m here: the two things that bother me the most about the current Conservative government are:

• I’m from Toronto. I no longer want to be governed by a political party that hates/dislikes/envies the city that I live in, and that I love. (The Liberals and NDP don’t hate Alberta - they just don’t understand it very well.)
• The Conservatives’ continual negativity - and its seeming success - has made me more cynical about life.

What Canada needs is the equivalent of Barack Obama: someone with roots in both Alberta and Toronto, who loves all parts of the country equally and can bring the country together. I’m not sure any such person exists - but then who would have imagined that such a person existed in the U.S. before Obama arrived?

Posted in politics | No Comments »

Prorogued

Thanks to his successful prorogation of Parliament, Stephen Harper has bought himself and his government some time. What he does with that time is anyone’s guess. Possibilities include:

• Try to persuade enough people to cross the floor to give the Conservatives a majority. It’s not likely, but it’s possible.
• Try to persuade the Bloc to abandon the Liberals and NDP and prop up the Conservative government. This would be very difficult to sell, given that Harper has just accused the Liberals and NDP of betraying Canada to the separatists - but, in politics, anything could happen.
• Try to persuade the Liberals that they can’t afford to risk another election, or that a coalition government would cause long-term damage to their prospects.
• Form a coalition of their own with the NDP. It’s not likely, given their ideological differences - but would Jack Layton be able to resist a share of power?
• Launch a blizzard of attack ads to try to sway public opinion in their favour. This seems highly likely.

What I hope the Conservatives do:

• Actually come up with a budget that is acceptable to all parties involved.
• Refrain from trying to put the boots to their opponents.
• Not try to sneak more controversial legislation through Parliament. (Why were they so bothered about pay equity for women?)

The Liberals and NDP could put the time to good use, too. If they want to defeat the government and gain the public’s favour, they will have to come up with a budget alternative that is acceptable to more Canadians than whatever the Conservatives come up with. More people would be comfortable with a coalition if they had an idea of what the coalition would do if given power.

Posted in politics | No Comments »

More political thoughts

More thoughts on the latest political upheavals:

• I’m not sure why people are making such a fuss about the Liberals and NDP coming to an understanding with the Bloc. The Conservatives would need to do exactly the same to remain in power, as the Liberals are no longer willing to prop the Conservatives up by abstaining from confidence votes. And it’s not as if the Conservatives haven’t worked with the Bloc before.
• I will be very surprised if Stephen Harper resigns. He’s far more likely to do whatever he can to remain in power. If he doesn’t get to prorogue Parliament, he’ll try something else. At the very least, expect a blizzard of attack ads. (All this partisan spending might provide a stimulus to the economy, if only a small one!) One trick he might pull, that no one else has thought of, as far as I know: what if he resigned, waited until the Conservatives got back into power, and then took over as leader again? I don’t think there’s anything in the rules that says he can’t do that. (If he ever gains a majority, he will wreak revenge on his opponents, I suspect.)
• If Harper were to resign as leader, I’m not sure that much would change. He would still continue to wield influence behind the scenes. After all, the Conservative party is basically his creation.
• People who complain about “Western alienation” should remember that there are two sides to this. What about “Eastern alienation”, or perhaps “urban alienation”? Do the complaining Westerners realize that there are millions of us in Canada who have had to spend the last 2 1/2 years under a government that pretty much openly hates us?
• There are some pro-Conservative commentators who genuinely believe that the move to withdraw public funding from political parties is a good one: after all, if a party is better at fundraising than others, shouldn’t it be rewarded for its hard work? There are two problems with this, though. One is that parties that are supported by the wealthy, the fanatical, or special interests are likely to be better-funded than those that appeal to a broad majority. The other is that we, the voters, shouldn’t be expected to buy our government.
• It’s worth mentioning again: what the Liberals and NDP are trying to do is not unconstitutional. It’s a power grab, for sure - but it’s not an illegal or unconstitutional power grab. Coalition governments are common in other parts of the world.
• Now might be a very good time to implement proportional representation. For one thing, it would eliminate the association of parties with particular regions of the country: even now, there are still some Albertans who support the Liberals, and some Torontonians who support the Conservatives, but our political system doesn’t give these people a voice. (I suspect that Liberal Albertans and Conservative Torontonians are keeping very, very quiet right about now.) Sure, proportional representation would lead to an endless string of minority governments - but, hey, isn’t that what we are getting already? And proportional representation might lead to the development of a country-wide consensus, which is something we haven’t seen in Canada in a long time.
• Another election wouldn’t solve anything, assuming that first-past-the-post is still in use. The result would likely be yet another Conservative minority.
• And one final point: anyone who thinks that the “Eastern media” are biased in favour of the Liberals should note: the front page of Tuesday’s Toronto Sun featured pictures of Dion, Layton and Duceppe with the caption “NO! NO! NO!”

Posted in politics | No Comments »

Liberals versus liberals

I don’t understand why Stephen Harper decided last week to try to get rid of all funding for political parties in Canada. This would have effectively eliminated the Conservatives’ opposition, as the Liberals, NDP and Bloc do not have effective grassroots funding in place. (Of course, they should - but there just aren’t many people who are passionate enough about the Liberal Party to donate money to them. Centrist parties tend not to attract fanatical devotees.)

Is his goal really to create a one-party state? Even if the Conservatives manage to destroy the Liberals, it’s not as if people who voted for the Liberals would just shrug their shoulders and vote Conservative since there is nothing else left - they’d just vote for some other progressive party. The Tories can destroy the Liberals, but not liberals.

And you have to question Mr. Harper’s priorities and judgement. Political gamesmanship seems more important to him than running the country.

Posted in politics | No Comments »

Election thoughts

My thoughts on the last election:

• Canada seems to be divided into three parts, thanks to our antiquated first-past-the-post system: Quebec (which votes Bloc, mostly), urban Canada (which votes Liberal and/or NDP), and everywhere else (which votes Conservative). I am convinced that the Conservatives don’t particularly care whether they win any seats in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver; in fact, I think that they would prefer to obtain a majority without being beholden to any of these cities.
• Why are political parties allowed to spend money on ads when there is no election happening? Dion ran a poor campaign, but he was handicapped because the Conservatives ran attack ads that the Liberals couldn’t afford to counter. (Over time, the party that rich people like will gain a fundraising advantage - and that will likely continue to be the Tories.)
• The Liberals are in very poor shape, and will likely be in poorer shape after their leadership campaign. The first-past-the-post system has something to do with this: their seat base has been gradually reduced to mostly just Toronto and Montreal, which means their next leader will come from one of those two cities, which means that he’ll appear to be out of touch with the rest of the country, and so on and so on.
• I’ll be curious to see what Stephen Harper does now. Will he actually try to work with the opposition parties, or will he go back to playing hardball? He could, I suppose, attempt to ram his crime legislation through Parliament, making it a confidence vote and daring the opposition to do something about it. Since Dion is leading the Liberals until May, there is a chance that he might be in charge of the party during another election. That would be interesting, to say the least.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The credit crunch

I’m not an economist, so I don’t know much about the current financial meltdown and what is causing it. All I know about credit is that my bank was, at one time, desperate to offer it to me.

Last year, when I was out of work, I went into my bank branch to cash the last of my savings bonds. The bank employee I was directed to, a nice young man in a business suit, insisted on offering me an unsecured line of credit. He tried to give me cheques that I could write on this line of credit, and offered to allow me to put the line of credit on my bank card, so that I could access it from a banking machine. He talked about what I could do with the money, but he didn’t really emphasize the part where I’d eventually have to pay the money back.

I took the line of credit, once I found out there weren’t any maintenance fees; it might be handy in an emergency, as the interest rate is much lower than the rate on my Visa card. I haven’t used it yet.

But I’m wondering: at the time the bank practically forced the line of credit on me, I was unemployed and had only done intermittent contract work in the previous couple of years. I wasn’t exactly a great credit risk. Why would a bank be eager to lend me money?

I guess they figured that not many people defaulted on their lines of credit, and they make money whenever anyone uses one. And so the amount of consumer debt keeps piling up - and this is in Canada, where banks are relatively sane and sensible.

Posted in money | No Comments »

The Conservatives and Nuit Blanche

Last night was Nuit Blanche in Toronto - an all-night art and culture exhibit all over the downtown core. There were dozens of installations, paintings, performance pieces and other art-related things all around; my favourite was the windows of City Hall turning into a giant game of Pong.

Nuit Blanche is well-attended: last year, there were apparently 800,000 people wandering around the various events and exhibits, and I’d be surprised if there were fewer people out this year. That’s 800,000 people who are interested in arts and culture.

As I write this, the Toronto papers are reporting that Stephen Harper and the Conservative party are not likely to achieve the majority they are hoping for.  The main reasons for this are:

• They are struggling in Quebec, thanks in large part to their now-notorious cuts to arts and culture funding. Culture is, obviously, very important in Quebec, as it defines their identity as a (mostly) French-speaking enclave in a (mostly) English-speaking continent.
• They have no representation at all in urban Canada: they have no seats in downtown Toronto or Montreal, and their only seat in Vancouver is held by somebody who switched parties after the last election.

The conclusion seems obvious: the Conservatives can’t win a majority without accommodating the people for whom arts and culture are important. This is as it should be, of course: no party should be able to earn a majority without representatives from every part of the country.

Posted in culture, politics | No Comments »

The upcoming election

The English-language debate between the Canadian party leaders is on tonight. I might follow a liveblog of the event here and there, but I won’t be watching: all that a debate will prove is who is the most effective debater. It’s like trying to figure out who will make the best employee after a 15-minute interview: all you do is run the risk of being fooled by the Warren Harding Effect (which is Malcolm Gladwell’s term for being overly impressed by first impressions).

I wrote a long screed a while back about Stephen Harper, but decided that there was no point in posting it. Either you agree with Harper and his politics or you don’t, it seems, and anything I could write about the man would be unlikely to make any difference.

The biggest thing that scares me about him is that I can’t tell whether or not he’s just trying to manipulate the electorate. Is everything he is saying and doing purely tactical? What does he really believe? Some people think that his now notorious remark about rich taxpayer-funded artists whooping it up at fancy galas was the real Harper; who can say?

All I can say is this: I hope that he and his Conservatives don’t wind up with a majority despite having produced no platform to vote for (or against). (Actually, I don’t want Harper to wind up with a majority, period - but that’s another topic.) I don’t believe that it would be healthy for any one person - Conservative, Liberal or whoever - to be given absolute power without having told us in advance what he or she was planning on doing with it.

Posted in politics | No Comments »

“If you want it, pay for it.”

During the last few weeks, the Conservative government has been busily cutting arts and culture spending here and there. The reaction to this has been predictable. Progressive critics have noted that investing in culture provides a good return on investment and is good in itself. And pro-Conservative critics wonder why governments spend money on the arts at all.

One argument that always annoys me goes something like this: “Artists don’t need public subsidies: if art is any good, people will be willing to pay for it.” There are several things wrong with this argument:

• You can reduce this to absurdity: suppose you use this argument for athletics? “If an athlete is any good, people would pay to see him or her.” What about all the people who participate in sports for fun, or because it makes them feel better? Doesn’t this argument apply to the arts too? Or should governments cut all parks and recreation spending?
• Governments fund all sorts of things: for example, the oil sands development - that bastion of Conservative capitalism - is propped up by government subsidies.
• You don’t have to subsidize artists to provide financial support for the arts and culture: I believe that it’s better to subsidize venues (galleries, theatre spaces, training centres). This gives artists places to learn, perform or exhibit, and gives the general public a chance to develop their own artistic abilities and interests. (One thing that I believe very strongly: the division between artist and non-artist is an artificial one. Most people can do artistic things - of one type or another - if they want to.)
• Becoming an artist that people are willing to pay to see requires years of practice and/or training.

I wonder: do the Conservatives really want a world without art and culture? The sad part is: maybe they really do.

Posted in culture, politics | No Comments »