Portents: What is the meaning of the election “triumph” (Toronto Star) that Ontario’s Liberals cruised (The Globe and Mail) or rolled (National Post) to this week?

1. Voters accepted a need to raise taxes in order to rebuild public health care and education. They did not revolt against the increase the Liberals brought in for health care. This contrasts with the mood in the 1990s that brought Mike Harris to power in Ontario as the “taxbuster.”

2. They endorsed the centrality of the public sector in health and education over privatizing proposals by opposition leader John Tory, who wanted more private clinics and funding for religious schools.

3. They don’t mind if politicians break promises, such as Dalton McGuinty’s vow last election not to raise taxes, if they do so for sensible goals.

The opposition campaigned heavily on the “broken promises” theme. This is a change from the moralizing politics that reached a height in the frenzy over the piddling amounts involved in the federal sponsorship scam. It all amounts to rejection of several pillars of recent politics, on both the left and right. Those included tax-cutting, privatization and lots of moral posturing about leadership. Mike Harris, for instance, was often lauded as someone who did what he said he’d do, even if you didn’t like what that was.

One other thing. None of the above can be true, since the Liberals got only 42 per cent of the vote, and 53 per cent of eligible voters showed, meaning they were backed by a mere one in five citizens. You could claim that a whopping 58 per cent (or 80 per cent) of voters failed to back them due to their broken promises and supported the opposition. This foolishness will continue in the near future, since those who did vote also “soundly rejected” (The Globe) a proposed electoral reform, to which 37 per cent said Yes — not far short of the 42 per cent by which the Liberals “triumphed.” Go (literally) figure.

Moral equivalence: Last week, a Minnesota university rescinded an invitation to Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu, because “he’s compared the state of Israel to Hitler and our feeling was that making moral equivalencies like that are hurtful.” This week, they restored the invite. I’m not surprised.

Moral equivalency is a confusing topic. I was accused of it, too, for saying George Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both qualify as buffoons. On the other hand, U.S. neo-con Norman Podhoretz and former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu each compared Iran’s leader to Hitler, and Iran to Nazi Germany. So, for them, the problem can’t be moral equating itself — it’s which terms you place on either side of the equation.

For the record, let me say I don’t think there is such a thing as moral equivalence, since human beings and situations are not mathematical entities. What I believe in, instead, is a complex moral continuum on which all people and societies are located, where they might be ahead in some respects and behind in others. Because of that, rankings are hard even if, in some cases, they can’t be avoided. One reason Hitler appears so often in these discussions is that he’s easily placed at one end of the scale. If you’re out there with him, there can’t be much debate.

Otherwise, it may be difficult. Iran, for instance, alongside its current authoritarian-ism and brutality, remains an ancient, rich culture. It has not invaded any other place in nearly two centuries, although it was attacked by Iraq in the 1980s and lost half a million people. The U.S. has invaded many countries and continues to.

The point, then, is not to make equations but to be aware of the complex continuum on which we are all located, thus sensitizing ourselves to everyone’s mixture of failures and successes so any judgments that must be made don’t fall into oversimplified categories of good on one side and evil on the other. That’s not even math, it’s housekeeping.

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.