Paul Martin doesn’t deserve re-election, voters seem to have decided. No argument here. I can’t think of a thing in his record that merits a vote. His pride and joy, deficit elimination, was done brutally, by shredding social programs created by his dad and others. By the nature of those programs — health, welfare, education — they take decades to build and a few minutes with a calculator and no heart to savage. Big achievement, Paul. Along the way, he killed off the right to not be destitute, i.e. welfare, as a thing all people are entitled to.

When he scored a huge surplus and could have rebuilt in the wreckage, he instead handed out, he says proudly, the biggest tax cut ever, mainly, as these things always are, to the rich. Now he wants to restore what he devastated.

When he realized his dream of power, he sent his minions to make sure Sheila Copps would be pushed out of her seat. Petty vengeance was a priority. Gives you a look into a corner of his soul. He promised Bono, publicly and privately, to boost foreign aid, didn’t do it, yet says he did and seems to believe it. In other words, he can apparently lie and not know he’s lying. It’s a kind of honesty.

On the other hand, remember what the gut-shot sheriff dying on the barroom floor in Unforgiven said: “I don’t deserve this.” And Clint Eastwood answered, irrefutably: “Deserve’s got nuthin’ tuh do with it.”

Deserve’s got nothing to do with this election, in the sense that elections should not be a way of meting out moral payback. Karma works by other means, or ought to. If Paul Martin loses, as he deserves to, people will lose some things they deserve, like a real child-care program. It’s not perfect but it’s paid for, deals are signed with all the players and, once in motion, it’ll be hard to stop, as medicare was. They won’t get that with Stephen Harper. So they must decide whether to vote against what they want, in order to get rid of who they don’t want. Not an easy choice.

Imprinted by pundits: I saw Andrew Coyne on a CBC panel after Monday’s debate saying Stephen Harper looked prime ministerial. Peter Mansbridge didn’t ask why he thought so, or what it meant, or even if the phrase meant anything. He gets to say those things because he’s on a panel. Then, when ordinary folks call or e-mail to give opinions, they often use similar verbiage because they’ve learned it’s how political commentary on TV sounds. They’ve been imprinted by pundits.

Does this amount to democracy, everybody getting 15 seconds to mouth the same empty inanities? At the risk of appearing insane, let me suggest that democracy does not consist of everyone having a chance to bray their own unjustified ideas. Democracy consists of reasoning together to reach joint conclusions on difficult issues of common concern. It’s when people get to discuss a matter before issuing a judgment, listen to each other, and reach a decision better than what they would generate all on their own. But, uh-oh, that would mean . . . elections are the opposite of democracy?

Okay, you can take me away now. But as I fade, let me ask: When have you seen one of those panels talk with each other, ask questions and, especially, change their minds? And why don’t they ever let the ordinary or undecided voters have a little chat together, rather than register instant opinions with the interviewer? At least The Bachelor, which ran opposite the debates, takes a few moments to make up his mind before he hands out his roses. This is our perverse equation of elections with democracy: myriad echo chambers in which each citizen gets to hear only his or her own voice, much like, in fact, a voting booth.

Foreign matter: There was no hint of foreign policy, and I don’t mean softwood lumber, in the debates. So, did 9/11 never happen? What if the U.S. bombs or invades Iran, as it is seriously considering? There will be great pressure for Canada to join a new “coalition,” to help create an international model the U.S. wants to replace UN approval with. Couldn’t they have spared a few moments from the non-event of the sponsorship scandal?

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.