Now that we've got Halloween out of the way, let's think about something really scary!
The Toronto Star informed us recently: "Massive storm moving towards Toronto." I'll say!
Granted, I haven't lived in Toronto for more than 20 years, but the election of Rob Ford as mayor looks to me like an unmitigated disaster for one of my favourite Canadian cities. The immediate question is: What's the appropriate response for progressive people and politicians, supporters of public transit, those of us who are dubious about car culture in big cities, those of us who believe in the value of public service jobs?
The answer: Fight him every step of the way. Every inch. Burn the crops. Kill the cattle. Poison the wells.
I know, I know. There will be plenty of knucklehead "progressive" advocates for being reasonable, co-operating, striving to reach "the only possible compromise." Yadda yadda.
To hell with that! With people like Rob Ford, compromise is surrender. Resistance is not only not futile, it is the only strategy that will work with these clowns.
Democracy? Did someone say something about democracy? Since when is it democratic to impose a huge amalgamation of disparate interests on a great city, confident in the knowledge that the Tory-led voters of the 905 Belt would overwhelm and destroy what was wonderful about the city for their own short-term gain?
Advertising
We play a version of that game at the provincial level here in Alberta, where gerrymandered rural ridings set the urban agenda with the result that many of our cities -- especially "Redmonton," which is always unpopular with small-town conservatives for its city slicker habit of electing progressive politicians -- resemble Pyongyang in December, only without the epic buildings and quality snow-clearing services.
Surely the election of Ford was precisely what that unlamented Ontario premier, Mike Harris, had in mind when he stuffed amalgamation up Toronto's nose in 1998.
Ask yourself: What would the right do in similar circumstances. Their playbook is well understood, and known to be effective. They obstruct everything. They let no good deed go unpunished. They do it because it works.
Since when did the right ever surrender to us on those rare occasions when our guy won an election? When those guys lose, outright sabotage, international badmouthing, lies and vicious push-polls -- all backed up by an enthusiastic mainstream media chorus -- are the order of the day. And it continues every day until their non-union band in the Styrofoam boaters gets to play Happy Days are Here Again.
Just look at the history of business groups in British Columbia on the Prairies over the years whenever -- quelle horreur! -- an NDP government managed to deke past the media defamation campaign and slip into office. They'll badmouth "the socialists" from Hong Kong to Johannesburg, even at the risk of economic loss to their own businesses, to get their cronies back into power as quickly as possible. The payoff comes later, of course.
Indeed, we can see this scenario playing out before our very eyes next door in the United States, with the billionaire-plutocrat-financed "Tea Party" assault on President Barack Obama -- who is hardly a raging socialist. We will know the results of part of that campaign tomorrow.
Well, when it comes to Rob Ford and his claque, I say rip a page from their book, because it's the only reasonable response under circumstances like these. To paraphrase someone rather to the right, whose name escapes me just at the moment, fight them in the fields and in the streets. This being Toronto, you can fight them in the Beaches, too. Fight them with growing confidence and growing strength. Never surrender … no matter how picayune each battle seems.
And don't forgive and forget the actions of our supposed allies who opt for compromise, for collaboration, either. To hell with them too!
As I told my daughter when she returned from Germany last summer agog at how university students there filled the streets of the city she was living in to protest a tuition fee increase that was minuscule by Canadian standards: “That, my dear, is how you keep tuition low.” Do you think the French unions will get a worse deal because they're prepared to take to the streets to protect their pensions? C'mon! That’s not how it works, and you know it.
Oh, and did I hear someone say, "we're better than that"? Well, to hell with that too! "Nice guys finish last" may be a stereotype, but it's a stereotype for a reason.
Fight them every day because nothing else will work.
Fight them every day because, after three years of disruption and division, voters will want an end to the discord.
Fight them every day because they wouldn't surrender to you in the same circumstances and it is the only thing in the end that will save your city.
Fight them every day to prove Canadian progressives still have some spine!
This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.
Yes yes fight against the evil "democratically elected" mayor of Toronto who wants to control the out of control spending. How dare he rail against the 7 years of waste and foolish spending. Yes yes lets all fight the system and stop Rob Ford from achieving any of his goals, just like the right did to Miller. But wait, did Miller not get everything he wanted? Did Miller not use his executive to remove items from council to push them through at his leisure? Did Miller not find one hundred million dollars for street cars out of thin air? Where was the right in stopping any of that? This blog proves to me that the left love democracy, as long as it is their democracy. When will the left realise they do not have a birthright to be in power?
At the risk of being labelled 'unprogressive,' I disagree. I am definitely frustrated with what I see as a right-wing backlash in Canadian (and US of course) politics, but poisoning the wells is abhorrent and pointless. Yes you must fight Ford and people like him, but you don't do it by being as dogmatic as they are. This is still a democracy we live in, and I have a hard time believing it will ever be anything less (and maybe I'm wrong and some people are correct, that a Ford in office is just a slippery slope to fascism and civil war... but I doubt it). So what we do is remember. And then, in a year to a year and half, when we talk to the people who voted for Ford and they complain about the mess they're in, we point out that we're in the same mess, and that we tried to choose a different outcome, and here's why. And some of them will get, and some still won't, and that's democracy. There will always be conflicting elements in any society, but the only time a democratic society truly collapses is when lines are drawn in the sand. The right does it, and the left has to be better than that (until things collapse, of course). It's always the left that has to allow for freedom of speech, for dissenting opinion and for compromise.
PS I'm kinda looking forward to my future conversations with Ford voters, after all sorts of muck hits the fan. ;-)
Ford may yet turn into a Ralph Klein (porkbarrel infrastructure spending, the massive Olympic debt), but he WAS democratically-elected, by a huge margin. You can't sneer, in an elitist, paternalistic, 'progressive' hissy-fit at the majority. Actually, Rob Ford and Naheed Nenshi's elections were manifestations of the same phenomena: voters turning against established politicians, in favour of chubby newcomers who promise fiscal restraint. There were horrible examples of gross overspending (the $25M 'Peace Bridge,' $70M 16th Ave widening) and outright corruption (Druh Farrell and Joe Ceci being particularilly odious examples) that Calgary voters were incensed at; I'm sure Toronto also had its examples under Miller.
And enough of this urbanist BS about rural 'gerrymandering' of districts. Have a look at Ward 7, drawn to encompass everything from (downtown) Chinatown to (suburban) Brentwood--an oddly-shaped exemplar of 'gerrymandering' if there ever was one. And something truly odd happened in Wards 7, 11 and 14, with recounts in the last one. The recound showed that ballot counters somehow mistook stacks of 20 ballots as stacks of 50... The margin was wide enough in Ward 14 that the incumbent was beaten in a landslide, anyhow, but 7 and 11 should really be investigated for possible ballot fraud. Druh Farrell has been shoving her Transit Oriented Development plan--pushed by her developer donors, like Knightsbridge--down the throats of her constituents. Most people in these areas don't want to see their communities bulging with infills and highrises, but the Smart Growthers ('progressives' working for condo and apartment developers, like Knightsbridge) scream "NIMBY!" The same cry comes up when people are opposed to halfway houses for violent sex offenders in their communities. Apparently, local democracy is only a good thing if it doesn't interfere with 'progressive' plans for high-density and social housing, at which point 'community opposition' and 'populism' become euphemisms for 'hick buffoonery.'
And 'progressive' local politicians have thrown low-income constituents under the bus on many occasions, as favours for the developers who fund their campaigns. Joe Ceci (a former youth social worker, once sued for sexual misconduct) neglected to inform low-income residents of a trailer park in his ward of plans for their eviction and the property's rezoning and redevelopment--he knew about this for a YEAR. The reason was simple: preventing his constituents from mounting opposition to the project, to be undertaken by his developer donor (Alison Karim-McSwiney, International Avenue Business Revitalization Zone). Corporate money rules, even in 'progressive' circles.
@DDM1967 & Paul Bassick
Let's do some quick math to see just how "democratic" these (or any) elections were - putting aside the lies, PR, propaganda, etc., that trick people into voting certain ways, often against their own best interests and in favour of policies and candidates that have a great investment in preserving the status quo, for just a moment.
Actually, we'll also have to ignore the fact that, in the first place, voters don't have any say in developing the narrow range of policies that are represented by the slate of candidates they're allowed to select between. (E.g. did any mayoral candidate run on a platform of free public transit, or on a serious social housing plan, or on increasing taxes on the richest properties and businesses to pay for such ideas, or drastically cutting police force budgets, or put forward proposals for advancing gay rights, immigrant rights, etc., etc.? All policies that many who didn't vote at all would absolutely have turned out to support.)
Oops, one more! Once the winning candidate becomes mayor, we'll also have to turn a blind eye to the lack of any formal mechanism for actually making sure that person does what they've said they'll do, much less do what we want them to.
Whew! Ok, now we're ready for some math, although it really doesn't seem like it matters much anymore, does it? Anyway, the Toronto Sun reported that 52% of voters turned out, which was about 807,000 people, meaning there are about 1.5 million eligible voters in total that could have voted in this election. Ford won 47% of the vote, so that's about 380,000 people. In essence, that means 25% (380k of 1.5m) of all eligible voters got what they wanted: Rob Ford. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's nowhere near the majority, so we're not even talking about "democracy" in the "majority rules" (simply >50%) sense. (Which really isn't that fair in the first place... maybe two-thirds would be more fair? Three-quarters? Consensus? That could be argued, too.)
I don't know, something just seems wrong about that to me, that one-quarter of voters (not to mention a far lower percentage of the total population of Toronto - about, what, 10%?) choose a candidate and then that person gets to set policy and make decisions for not only the minority of people that voted for him, but also for the vast majority that didn't, in this case 75% of eligible voters and almost 90% of the total population!!! How is that democratic? For me, at least, the problems start waaaaaaaaaay before the Rob Fords of the world start showing up, because the truth is, we don't have a truly representative system of democracy in this country. Oh, sure, it is representative of other things besides the general population: representative of business interests (in Toronto, largely the development sector), of power, of wealth, of privilege and comfort and complacency, of those tricked by the PR into voting against their own interests, etc., etc. I doubt that, when looked at seriously and honestly, many people think the current system is any good or that whoever gets installed in any way represents their interests, unless they're wealthy and/or conservative and/or run in powerful circles. (And anyone can easily confirm this for themselves, just go out and talk to people, or look at the voter turnout numbers.)
Then we get to Ford himself: a racist, heterosexist, classist bigot - at the very least. Yes, exactly what we should strive for in our "leaders": intolerance and short-sighted self-interested. There's not much to say about him, except to expect more of what's going on across the country in general, a tangible shift to the right in the elite political/economic/foreign policy realm.
So, no, I don't "love" democracy, especially not the kind we have; and it's not something to love, but something to strive for and to live out, a continual process of actualizing self-management, of freely making our own decisions about our own lives, of making choices, together, about how we provide for ourselves and for each other and for future generations. I don't mean that rhetorically at all, either - I mean it in very concrete ways, which I absolutely believe we can figure out and put in place (many people have many great ideas, and are doing it already!), and do it now.
(And just curiously, why wait a year and a half, Paul, really? Why not talk to people now? It seems like you want to wait until they see the effect of their decision and feel terrible about it, which I have to say it kind of a strange tactic. People get this stuff, they really do. It's just about talking to them rationally, reasonably and respectfully - like you would do with anyone, I'm sure. But there's definitely no reason - or time - to wait!)
andre_g: You raise excellent points. FPTP sucks, but we don't have any kind of PR and until we do we have to work with what we've got. And in case I mistakenly gave you the impression that I like Rob Ford, let me apologize. I don't. I've had some heated arguments about him, I think he will make a terrible mayor.
But I think I understand why people voted for him, and I do believe it was about anger. Until that anger subsides and/or reality starts to set in, I'm not going to have any constructive conversations with Fordites. I've tried, they just ignore me or get angrier, no matter how respectful I'm trying to be. Must be my 'elitist' stink-vibes.
The people who agree that Ford was a bad choice hear and understand what you are saying. Time and reality are the only things that will get through to everyone else. And that's what I'm trying to allude to when I mention democracry. We as a society are going to make some bad choices. Our duty is to try not to repeat those mistakes (easier said than done, I know. Ford feels a lot like Harris to me.)
Proportional voting, for obvious reasons, is problematic in a non-partisan system like municipal councils. And Condorcet systems are easy to monkey with. Geeks here may have heard of allegations of this, with the Condorcet system and the Debian Project. A simpler system is the run-off vote method. To take the Calgary election as an example, voters would have had to chose between Nenshi vs McIver, Farrell vs Kevin Taylor, etc., in the second round of votes. This also has the advantage of weeding out 'vote-splitter' candidates. There were unsubstantiated allegations that Stelmach injected Barb Higgins into the Mayoral race, in order to split the vote with McIver (reasons cited as 'proof' include large donations made to Nenshi's campaign, by prominent PCs, like Jim Dinning). At any rate, vote-splitting would be less likely.
People advocating proportional voting should be careful what they wish for. Look at the Knesset, where the two main parties are held hostage by the likes of Shas--the reason the settlements keep being built, the ultra-orthodox enjoy outrageous perks (no taxes, or conscription) and why the Knesset will never authorize a peace deal with the Palestinians. It's too easy for the same dynamic to emerge: two centrist parties, forming coalitions with extremists. And Condorcet systems (single transferable vote and such) are not transparent in their outcomes, along with being easy to rig. BTW, a Condorcet system is what got Ed Stelmach elected as PC party leader...
As for "elitist stink vibes"
, the majority IS always right. It's their city/province/country, after all. Again, Ford may yet turn out to be a Ralph Klein, and Nenshi an Al Duerr, but people had logical reasons for picking them. Mostly, the eye-popping corruption and wasteage at city hall, which these 'fresh' candidates seemed more likely to address than the Smithermans, McIvers, etc. This is also why, the less than amusing pleas of stupid Comedy Central personalities notwithstanding, the Democrats are going to suffer massive losses today, mostly at the hands of a lot of 'green' Tea Party Republicans. 'Progressive' types, unfortunately, like to think that they are always the enlightened ones, and that the majority of people's frustrations and concerns with their precious 'progressive' policies (e.g., that pedestrian bridge in Calgary, social housing, densification, taxes, inefficient public services) are irrelevant NIMBY-ism, cheapskate-ism and other hick-isms.