1. The Real Problem of Homelessness
While we tend to see homelessness as an economic problem, it is an ethical and spiritual problem long before it is an economic problem. It is a problem of how we see, and treat, one another, as human beings and fellow citizens of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, and the World.
The simple truth is that we all have same basic human needs -- food, shelter, clothing, health, community, meaning, etc. If we don’t eat, we die. If we don’t have shelter (at least here in Canada), we die (particularly in the winter). But even if we don’t die, we have health problems. Former Senator Michael Kirby, now the Chair of Mental Health Commission of Canada, speaking in Vancouver recently, said that up to 50 per cent of the homeless have mental health problems. (That simply confirms what I have known since the 1970s.) I know that these include low social skills, which make these people “hard to house” (to quote one person who had worked with them a lot). Add to that the physical health problems such people experience, in common with all people living in poverty, and the human burden mounts rapidly. These health problems are well-documented, even in Saskatoon.
2. The Real Problem of “The Market”
We need to remember that the faceless phantom called “the market” is of limited value in solving spiritual and ethical problems, which underly the economic problems.
The saying goes, “A rising tide lifts all boat.” Which is true; but it is meaningless, if you cannot afford a boat.
“The Phantom of the Market” takes no account of -- indeed, ignores -- those who cannot “play “ in the market; those who are economically, physically, or emotionally disadvantaged and marginalized. Simply put, “The Market” does not know how to deal with basic human needs, except in terms of money, as opposed to terms of humanity. "The Phantom" deals with everything on the basis of supply and demand; those who cannot meet the demands of the market are simply cast aside. Or to put it in the most direct terms, if you don’t have the money to pay what a landlord is demanding, you don’t have a place to live. And when the supply of housing is short, and thus “in demand,” (as it is now), those who control the supply (i.e., the landlords) will raise their prices to “whatever the market can bear” -- when there are many who do not have the resources to reach “whatever the market can bear.”
For example, a single worker in Saskatoon earning the minimum wage of $8.60 per hour, earns about $1,500.00 per month before taxes. Given that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) says people can reasonably afford to spend about 30% of their income on housing, this single worker can afford an apartment whose monthly rental would be about $450.00
3. Solution
If we are going to house people who cannot afford “boats” we need to look at solutions which work for all people.
We need in Saskatchewan, in Canada, an effective national housing policy, which will provide a robust stock of housing available to people at all income levels. “The Market” will look after those who have money; we need something else which care for and serve those who do not have the money which "The Market" demands.
This means “affordable housing” for all people. In a recent conversation with an official of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, she expressed to me CMHC’s concern that not only low-income people (i.e., people the low-income cut off, or LICO that Statistics Canada notes) but middle income people as well, are having problems finding suitable housing in Saskatoon (and other places). Another representative of CMHC warned Saskatoon City Council recently that unless a city has a good supply of apartment housing, it cannot expect to attract new people to the community. (This, at a time when City Council is allowing so may apartments to be turned into condominia, thereby creating a shortage of apartments, and inflating the rents for apartments.)
There are all kinds of models available for the building of housing -- publicly funded housing -- funded jointly by federal and provincial governments. I personally favour a co-operative kind of housing, where the ongoing decisions are made by tenants, staff, and government representatives (since the government is “footing the bill” for building such housing), working together. Nonetheless, the money for the construction of such buildings can only be provided by governments, since "the private sector" will claim (with some justification) that it cannot make enough money on "low income housing" since tenants cannot afford the rents which private-sector landlords would want to charge.
Conclusion
To simply rely on "The Phantom of the Market" to meet the housing needs of citizens with low incomes has not worked, is not working, and will not work in the future. We need intervention on the part of the whole community (represented in this case by the federal and provincial governments) if we are to find appropriate solutions to the needs of many citizens, including low-income and moderate-income citizens. But we also need direct citizen engagement, too!
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, 26 July 2010
Friday, 5 February 2010
DEMOCRATIC WELL-BEING
Just as money can’t buy happiness, Gross Domestic Product doesn’t tell us how well we’re doing as a nation. (Gross Domestic Product is the overall measure of our nation’s economic activity; it came to be regarded, erroneously, as the sign of how well a country was doing.)
Protests across Canada on January 23rd, against the lengthy shut-down of Parliament, are one sign things aren’t going an well.
But that’s no surprise to Canada’s Institute of Wellbeing. The Institute (an independent, non-partisan body) recently released its report on the “Democratic Engagement” Domain, the first report of its kind done in Canada, perhaps in the world. (This one follows reports on “Living Standards,” “Healthy Populations,” and “Community Vitality.”)
The central note in this report is that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.” That’s seen in the fact that fewer people are voting, or are participating in formal political activities. Likewise, about half of Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy, while very few believe federal government policies have improved their lives.
This “democratic deficit” didn’t surprise to me, either. During our last federal election, only 3 out of 5 eligible voters cast ballots. Stephen Harper was returned as Prime Minister with the support of merely 23 per cent of Canadian voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement. That number highlighted for me the increasing malaise I’ve seen among among urban and rural citizens — a kind of resigned indifference — a feeling that government doesn’t work for them, or represent their concerns. Their response, to paraphrase Shakespeare: “A plague on all your political parties and governments.”
Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore of Saskatoon’s Prairie Wild Consulting saw that, and a lot more. Together with Holder and Associates, they developed the report for the Institute. Their work was based on historic studies of Canadian attitudes, plus their own research with Canadians from coast, to coast, to coast, as well as international studies.
They considered not only voter turnout but interest and participation in political activities, as well as representation of woman and minorities in Parliament, and Canada’s commitment to international development. We’re promised to put 0.7% of our GDP into Official Development Assistance; we actually spend about half of that most years, putting us in 16th place among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Our government is way behind Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, though it is twice as generous as Japan and the U.S.)
That doesn’t fit my perception of Canadians’ overall caring and generosity. Consider how much we’ve raised for relief in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and you can see how generous Canadians are. I think many see the mis-match between what they do and what our government does. The report reflects that visible mis-match.
How can we build a Moral Economy, which reflects the needs, concerns, and values of Canadians, and to which political parties and governments see they must align themselves?
The time has come for us to see this situation for just how bad it is, and do something about it. "Politics" as a whole has become far too insular and entrenched; I really doubt that the current system in Canada can reform itself. If you've ever compared parties election platforms with the priorities set in party policy conventions, you'll see the gaping canyon that separates the two. There's an appearance of democracy, of consultation; in reality, parties are run from the top down. Same for governments.
The report provides some broad recommendations.
• Create opportunities for meaningful engagement;
• Seed a culture of engagement in government;
• Ensure more accountability and transparency in politics;
• Invest in civic engagement;
• Make voting easier
• Increase diversity in politics;
• Use technology better;
• Invest in civil society; and,
• Engage Canadians about our place in the world.
It also calls for more research, and closer monitoring, which are important.
The problem, of course, is that the current political ethos, our political context, is dead set against all those principles for action. Canada isn't the only nation facing this; most "democracies" in our world are having the same problem.
Perhaps ordinary citizens, of varying ages and backgrounds, using internet connections, will be able to repeat the events of January 23rd, at different times and in different places. Maybe they will become the Democratic Engagement which the report anticipates. Frankly, I don't see an alternative to the "huge democratic deficit" that Canada faces.
This post is based on my "Moral Economy" op-ed column which appeared in The Western Producer on Thursday, February 4, 2010.
√
Protests across Canada on January 23rd, against the lengthy shut-down of Parliament, are one sign things aren’t going an well.
But that’s no surprise to Canada’s Institute of Wellbeing. The Institute (an independent, non-partisan body) recently released its report on the “Democratic Engagement” Domain, the first report of its kind done in Canada, perhaps in the world. (This one follows reports on “Living Standards,” “Healthy Populations,” and “Community Vitality.”)
The central note in this report is that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.” That’s seen in the fact that fewer people are voting, or are participating in formal political activities. Likewise, about half of Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy, while very few believe federal government policies have improved their lives.
This “democratic deficit” didn’t surprise to me, either. During our last federal election, only 3 out of 5 eligible voters cast ballots. Stephen Harper was returned as Prime Minister with the support of merely 23 per cent of Canadian voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement. That number highlighted for me the increasing malaise I’ve seen among among urban and rural citizens — a kind of resigned indifference — a feeling that government doesn’t work for them, or represent their concerns. Their response, to paraphrase Shakespeare: “A plague on all your political parties and governments.”
Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore of Saskatoon’s Prairie Wild Consulting saw that, and a lot more. Together with Holder and Associates, they developed the report for the Institute. Their work was based on historic studies of Canadian attitudes, plus their own research with Canadians from coast, to coast, to coast, as well as international studies.
They considered not only voter turnout but interest and participation in political activities, as well as representation of woman and minorities in Parliament, and Canada’s commitment to international development. We’re promised to put 0.7% of our GDP into Official Development Assistance; we actually spend about half of that most years, putting us in 16th place among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Our government is way behind Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, though it is twice as generous as Japan and the U.S.)
That doesn’t fit my perception of Canadians’ overall caring and generosity. Consider how much we’ve raised for relief in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and you can see how generous Canadians are. I think many see the mis-match between what they do and what our government does. The report reflects that visible mis-match.
How can we build a Moral Economy, which reflects the needs, concerns, and values of Canadians, and to which political parties and governments see they must align themselves?
The time has come for us to see this situation for just how bad it is, and do something about it. "Politics" as a whole has become far too insular and entrenched; I really doubt that the current system in Canada can reform itself. If you've ever compared parties election platforms with the priorities set in party policy conventions, you'll see the gaping canyon that separates the two. There's an appearance of democracy, of consultation; in reality, parties are run from the top down. Same for governments.
The report provides some broad recommendations.
• Create opportunities for meaningful engagement;
• Seed a culture of engagement in government;
• Ensure more accountability and transparency in politics;
• Invest in civic engagement;
• Make voting easier
• Increase diversity in politics;
• Use technology better;
• Invest in civil society; and,
• Engage Canadians about our place in the world.
It also calls for more research, and closer monitoring, which are important.
The problem, of course, is that the current political ethos, our political context, is dead set against all those principles for action. Canada isn't the only nation facing this; most "democracies" in our world are having the same problem.
Perhaps ordinary citizens, of varying ages and backgrounds, using internet connections, will be able to repeat the events of January 23rd, at different times and in different places. Maybe they will become the Democratic Engagement which the report anticipates. Frankly, I don't see an alternative to the "huge democratic deficit" that Canada faces.
* * * * *
This post is based on my "Moral Economy" op-ed column which appeared in The Western Producer on Thursday, February 4, 2010.
√
Thursday, 22 October 2009
PITY POOR SASKATOON
We're getting close to our civic election. It comes in less than a week -- October 28th.
A lot of people are saying things are pretty good in Saskatoon. Yes, a lot of fancy things have been done along the river in the downtown. But where are the items of substance?
Where is Lake Placid's "River Landing" development, which should be close to finished now, but hasn't even been started? It's supposed to be the "anchor" of our city's downtown redevelopment. (See my earlier post on "Fort Gathercole.")
Where is "Station 20 West" -- the grocery store and service centre for the people in one of our poorest neighbourhoods, who desperately want and need a grocery store? The Provincial Government originally promised significant financial support to the project. They we had an election, and a different party formed the government. The new party canceled the deal with the poor, the old, the sick, and citizens in general.
Where is the long-promised childrens' hospital that we need for our province?
Where in the new Oliver Lodge -- a long-term care for seniors in poorer health? The provincial government promised money about 20 years ago for that. So far the only thing that has been accoplished is the demolition of the oldest wing of the existing building.
Why has our city council incorporated a new art gallery, instead of fixing the existing one? The new building will be much more expensive (if memory serves correctly).
(Mendel Art Gallery)
A lot of people are saying things are pretty good in Saskatoon. Yes, a lot of fancy things have been done along the river in the downtown. But where are the items of substance?
Where is Lake Placid's "River Landing" development, which should be close to finished now, but hasn't even been started? It's supposed to be the "anchor" of our city's downtown redevelopment. (See my earlier post on "Fort Gathercole.")
Where is "Station 20 West" -- the grocery store and service centre for the people in one of our poorest neighbourhoods, who desperately want and need a grocery store? The Provincial Government originally promised significant financial support to the project. They we had an election, and a different party formed the government. The new party canceled the deal with the poor, the old, the sick, and citizens in general.
Where is the long-promised childrens' hospital that we need for our province?
Where in the new Oliver Lodge -- a long-term care for seniors in poorer health? The provincial government promised money about 20 years ago for that. So far the only thing that has been accoplished is the demolition of the oldest wing of the existing building.
Why has our city council incorporated a new art gallery, instead of fixing the existing one? The new building will be much more expensive (if memory serves correctly).
(Mendel Art Gallery)On top of all that, the mayor and his associates on Council have driven the City deep into debt, and have raised the tax rate 20% in the last 6 years.
And the number and value of building permits this year is way down.
The saying is that, "Saskatoon Shines." To me, Saskatoon has a dull glow at the best. Maybe "rot" better describes what's beginning to show.
√
And the number and value of building permits this year is way down.
The saying is that, "Saskatoon Shines." To me, Saskatoon has a dull glow at the best. Maybe "rot" better describes what's beginning to show.
√
Saturday, 10 October 2009
IN PRAISE OF COALITIONS
What Canada needs is a reasonable and effective coalition government. We need a government where people can work together, to solve the problems and build on the strengths of our nation.
Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen, because of the personalities involved.
Coalitions are normal in many countries -- Israel, India, Germany, France, and Italy, to name a few. In Britain, right after World War 1, Prime Minister David Lloyd George led a coalition government from 1918 to 1922. Britain again had a coalition government (including Conservatives, Labour and, Liberals) from 1935 to 1945 (there was no election during World War 2). That coalition was led first by Neville Chamberlain, then by Winston Churchill. Canada even had an elected coalition government -- the “Union Government” of Prime Minister Robert Borden, from 1917 to 1920.
There is nothing new, strange, or illegal about coalition governments. They have been, and can be, very effective.
Coalitions represent a wide range of thought, much like the thinking of Canadian people. That’s a good thing: we all don’t always think alike agree on everything. If we did, life would be pretty boring. And there would be no chance for change. However, we do think differently; we see situations differently; we see varying opportunities for the future. I think this diversity of thought is good.
As I have written before, much of Canada was built by people from very different backgrounds working together to solve common problems. They knew that if they didn’t work together, they wouldn’t survive, individually or collectively. That reality hasn’t changed.
On the other hand, single-party majority government’s don’t have the same sensitivity to the wide variety of thinking among Canadians voters.
Of course, we almost had a second coalition government in Canada last December, involving the Liberals and New Democrats, with the tacit support of the Bloc Québecois. That would have been a bit different, in that coalitions are usually formed at the request of the ruling Prime Minister. But Stephen Harper recognized the problem, and ran like a dog with his tail between his legs -- to the Governor General. It apparently took a fair amount of convincing, but Michael Jean bailed him out.
But that tells us why we are not likely to have a coalition government.
We have adult men and women in our Parliament who are content to play “king of the hill” like little boys and girls. Stephen Harper is lusting after a majority government, so he can enforce radical change on Canada -- until the country no longer resembles what it has been (to paraphrase one of his more “interesting” statements). We have Michael Ignatieff, brighter and more experienced than Harper, but less politically seasoned, lusting after the same job. We have Jack Layton dreaming of more power. So these personal ambitions prevent the collaborative, community-building approach that our country needs at a difficult and challenging time. Which is not at all helpful.
Canadians-- young and older, rural and urban -- need something better than that, and deserve something better.
(This was originally written for The Western Producer, a Canadian newspaper, and published October 8, 2009. It speaks of a number of British parallels.)
√
Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen, because of the personalities involved.
Coalitions are normal in many countries -- Israel, India, Germany, France, and Italy, to name a few. In Britain, right after World War 1, Prime Minister David Lloyd George led a coalition government from 1918 to 1922. Britain again had a coalition government (including Conservatives, Labour and, Liberals) from 1935 to 1945 (there was no election during World War 2). That coalition was led first by Neville Chamberlain, then by Winston Churchill. Canada even had an elected coalition government -- the “Union Government” of Prime Minister Robert Borden, from 1917 to 1920.
There is nothing new, strange, or illegal about coalition governments. They have been, and can be, very effective.
Coalitions represent a wide range of thought, much like the thinking of Canadian people. That’s a good thing: we all don’t always think alike agree on everything. If we did, life would be pretty boring. And there would be no chance for change. However, we do think differently; we see situations differently; we see varying opportunities for the future. I think this diversity of thought is good.
As I have written before, much of Canada was built by people from very different backgrounds working together to solve common problems. They knew that if they didn’t work together, they wouldn’t survive, individually or collectively. That reality hasn’t changed.
On the other hand, single-party majority government’s don’t have the same sensitivity to the wide variety of thinking among Canadians voters.
Of course, we almost had a second coalition government in Canada last December, involving the Liberals and New Democrats, with the tacit support of the Bloc Québecois. That would have been a bit different, in that coalitions are usually formed at the request of the ruling Prime Minister. But Stephen Harper recognized the problem, and ran like a dog with his tail between his legs -- to the Governor General. It apparently took a fair amount of convincing, but Michael Jean bailed him out.
But that tells us why we are not likely to have a coalition government.
We have adult men and women in our Parliament who are content to play “king of the hill” like little boys and girls. Stephen Harper is lusting after a majority government, so he can enforce radical change on Canada -- until the country no longer resembles what it has been (to paraphrase one of his more “interesting” statements). We have Michael Ignatieff, brighter and more experienced than Harper, but less politically seasoned, lusting after the same job. We have Jack Layton dreaming of more power. So these personal ambitions prevent the collaborative, community-building approach that our country needs at a difficult and challenging time. Which is not at all helpful.
Canadians-- young and older, rural and urban -- need something better than that, and deserve something better.
(This was originally written for The Western Producer, a Canadian newspaper, and published October 8, 2009. It speaks of a number of British parallels.)
√
Friday, 4 September 2009
ELECTION FEVER
In Saskatchewan, we may be hit by three (count 'em, three) elections in quick succession this fall.
1. In the Saskatoon Riversdale Provincial (as in State or County) Riding, the by-election is set for mid-September.
2. In late-October, we have elections for Saskatoon City Council (like other urban and rural municipalities in the province).
3. Now, there's a chance we may have a Federal (national) election as well -- the key issue being programs of support for workers who lost their jobs in the recession (such as Employment Insurance).
I think elections are a good thing. It is actually a chance for people who want to think, to think about the issues that effect their lives -- political or more-than-political.
But three in a row in a few months? Let's get serious!
Yes, there are significant issues we have to deal with in our community, province, and nation. But to try to tackle all the problems at, effectively, the same time, is to invite being overwhelmed -- politicians and voters alike.
`
1. In the Saskatoon Riversdale Provincial (as in State or County) Riding, the by-election is set for mid-September.
2. In late-October, we have elections for Saskatoon City Council (like other urban and rural municipalities in the province).
3. Now, there's a chance we may have a Federal (national) election as well -- the key issue being programs of support for workers who lost their jobs in the recession (such as Employment Insurance).
I think elections are a good thing. It is actually a chance for people who want to think, to think about the issues that effect their lives -- political or more-than-political.
But three in a row in a few months? Let's get serious!
Yes, there are significant issues we have to deal with in our community, province, and nation. But to try to tackle all the problems at, effectively, the same time, is to invite being overwhelmed -- politicians and voters alike.
`
Thursday, 7 May 2009
IF SWINE REALLY 'FLU, WE'D HAVE A LEVEL 6 PANDEMIC BY NOW
Fortunately swine don't fly, though people can and do (in airplanes).
I promised you about a week ago that I would try to help you stay abreast of what's been happening with the H1N1 Influenza. But my ethics work here has kept me sidetracked. (So I've been a dreadful failure in keeping you informed -- official numbers are only part of the story.) I just sent another memo to a colleague this morning, raising issues about the health and safety of people who work during a pandemic. In the SARS outbreak in Toronto a few years ago, a significant number of deaths were among health care professionals. (Just as in 9/11 in Manhattan, a lot of police and firefighters died in the line of duty.)
One of the major concerns in any pandemic relates to the number of health care professionals who will show up for work. There are research numbers which suggest that about 50 per cent would stay home. Talk about a health care system being overwhelmed by that loss of employees!
One of the challenges of emergency work is protection of workers. Back in the days when I was a firefighter, I sometimes had to work above the fire (a particularly dangerous place) looking for people who might be trapped or injured, so we could get them to safety. Back them I had a heavy canvas, rubber-lined "turnout" coat, boots, a helmet, and self-contained breathing apparatus. And given that level of protection, I was reasonably confident doing what I had to do, even thought I was in a risky situation.
The biggest fear in a pandemic is that health care workers will not get the protective gear they need in order to do their jobs safely. That puts them, and their patients, and families, and, ultimately, the community, at risk. How much risk? I'm not sure. But at least in principle, this is a significant problem.
So we have a legitimate ethical challenge. Workers say, "Yes, we're committed to our profession and our patients, but how can you expect us to work when we don't have the protection we need?"
I'll let you think about that one.
I promised you about a week ago that I would try to help you stay abreast of what's been happening with the H1N1 Influenza. But my ethics work here has kept me sidetracked. (So I've been a dreadful failure in keeping you informed -- official numbers are only part of the story.) I just sent another memo to a colleague this morning, raising issues about the health and safety of people who work during a pandemic. In the SARS outbreak in Toronto a few years ago, a significant number of deaths were among health care professionals. (Just as in 9/11 in Manhattan, a lot of police and firefighters died in the line of duty.)
One of the major concerns in any pandemic relates to the number of health care professionals who will show up for work. There are research numbers which suggest that about 50 per cent would stay home. Talk about a health care system being overwhelmed by that loss of employees!
One of the challenges of emergency work is protection of workers. Back in the days when I was a firefighter, I sometimes had to work above the fire (a particularly dangerous place) looking for people who might be trapped or injured, so we could get them to safety. Back them I had a heavy canvas, rubber-lined "turnout" coat, boots, a helmet, and self-contained breathing apparatus. And given that level of protection, I was reasonably confident doing what I had to do, even thought I was in a risky situation.
The biggest fear in a pandemic is that health care workers will not get the protective gear they need in order to do their jobs safely. That puts them, and their patients, and families, and, ultimately, the community, at risk. How much risk? I'm not sure. But at least in principle, this is a significant problem.
So we have a legitimate ethical challenge. Workers say, "Yes, we're committed to our profession and our patients, but how can you expect us to work when we don't have the protection we need?"
I'll let you think about that one.
Monday, 29 December 2008
THE Christmas Present for Canada
The Christmas present that Canada needs this year -- and needs desperately -- is a Parliament that works. It would be a Parliament which deals with the real needs of real people in a difficult time.
That depends on Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He’s the guy from Toronto who is part egghead economist and part ideological pit bull. I admire and respect a person of strong convictions, who stands by his convictions. My admiration disappears when those convictions begin to hurt people. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is so full of what’s (ideologically) right that sometimes he doesn’t understand what’s good, necessary, practical, and helpful.
After applying his ideology to disrupt our 39th Parliament, he went to the Governor General asking for a federal election, because Parliament had become “dysfunctional.” In October’s election, the non-progressive Conservatives got about 170,000 fewer votes than in January, 2006. They enjoy the support of only one voter out of five.
During that election, the Prime Minister kept arguing the fundamentals for Canada’s economy are strong. But by election time, the Toronto stock market had fallen from its high of 15,156 in June to 9,955. That’s a drop of 34 per cent. Now, he’s “very worried” about Canada’s economy. That's quite the switch.
After the election, Harper told a Tory policy convention that the party would have to be less ideological and more practical. Yet the financial update the new Parliament received was really not practical -- it didn’t do much to solve Canadian’s problems. And it was extremely ideological. Probably the most ideological item was the plan to cut off federal funding to political parties. It was an attempt to undercut the opposition. But more important, it was an attempt to limit public discussion of important national issues. The move created a huge political backlash, which could have ended Harper’s government, had the Governor General not bailed him out.
Now Harper and his helpers are consulting people. The Finance helper, Jim Flaherty, is asking for time to put something together, though most other world governments have already taken strong action. The time for consulting, Mr. Flaherty, was in September and October -- the time your boss was wasting on an election.
Mr. Flaherty needs to develop a wide-ranging proposal to help stabilize our economy. And the proposal must help to stabilize peoples’ lives, too. There must support for some major sectors -- manufacturing (including automobiles), forestry, fisheries, agriculture, mining, though the support will depend on the specific needs of the sector, and the companies in it. That aid must be dependent on keeping people employed. There must be help for small business owners, who also employ many people, and who are getting caught in a credit crunch. There must be lower taxes in the lowest tax bracket. And there must be help for individuals who lose their jobs -- in terms of longer and stronger unemployment benefits. These are necessary even if there has to be a budget deficit. This is the nature of a moral economy.
If Mr. Harper can get past his ideology and do the practical thing, we may have a workable solution which everyone in Parliament can support.
(These thoughts were originally published in The Western Producer, in a slightly different form.)
That depends on Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He’s the guy from Toronto who is part egghead economist and part ideological pit bull. I admire and respect a person of strong convictions, who stands by his convictions. My admiration disappears when those convictions begin to hurt people. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is so full of what’s (ideologically) right that sometimes he doesn’t understand what’s good, necessary, practical, and helpful.
After applying his ideology to disrupt our 39th Parliament, he went to the Governor General asking for a federal election, because Parliament had become “dysfunctional.” In October’s election, the non-progressive Conservatives got about 170,000 fewer votes than in January, 2006. They enjoy the support of only one voter out of five.
During that election, the Prime Minister kept arguing the fundamentals for Canada’s economy are strong. But by election time, the Toronto stock market had fallen from its high of 15,156 in June to 9,955. That’s a drop of 34 per cent. Now, he’s “very worried” about Canada’s economy. That's quite the switch.
After the election, Harper told a Tory policy convention that the party would have to be less ideological and more practical. Yet the financial update the new Parliament received was really not practical -- it didn’t do much to solve Canadian’s problems. And it was extremely ideological. Probably the most ideological item was the plan to cut off federal funding to political parties. It was an attempt to undercut the opposition. But more important, it was an attempt to limit public discussion of important national issues. The move created a huge political backlash, which could have ended Harper’s government, had the Governor General not bailed him out.
Now Harper and his helpers are consulting people. The Finance helper, Jim Flaherty, is asking for time to put something together, though most other world governments have already taken strong action. The time for consulting, Mr. Flaherty, was in September and October -- the time your boss was wasting on an election.
Mr. Flaherty needs to develop a wide-ranging proposal to help stabilize our economy. And the proposal must help to stabilize peoples’ lives, too. There must support for some major sectors -- manufacturing (including automobiles), forestry, fisheries, agriculture, mining, though the support will depend on the specific needs of the sector, and the companies in it. That aid must be dependent on keeping people employed. There must be help for small business owners, who also employ many people, and who are getting caught in a credit crunch. There must be lower taxes in the lowest tax bracket. And there must be help for individuals who lose their jobs -- in terms of longer and stronger unemployment benefits. These are necessary even if there has to be a budget deficit. This is the nature of a moral economy.
If Mr. Harper can get past his ideology and do the practical thing, we may have a workable solution which everyone in Parliament can support.
(These thoughts were originally published in The Western Producer, in a slightly different form.)
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Fascism or Coalition?
Today I received an e-mail note from Canada's Conservative party, telling my why I should support Prime Minister Harper and fight the Liberal-NDP Coalition. The Tory letter began with the words, "Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice." The rest is my response.
Thank you for this note.
You are absolutely right!
"Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice."
In the end, 5.2 million Canadians (22.2% of Canada's 23.4 million eligible voters) cast ballots in favour of Conservative candidates. That's roughly one voter out of five. A support level for the Conservatives of 1:5 is hardly a ringing endorsement for anything. (In the same election, just over 40% eligible electors, 2 out of five, voted for "none of the above" by not voting at all.)
I don't belong to any party. In my voting life I've supported various parties. If there were to be another election soon -- another huge waste of time and money -- I don't know who I would support. I do know that Mr. Harper scares the living daylights out of me. He seems so hard-headed and self-righteous, and worse, so hard-hearted. His attitude reminds me of those attitudes held by leaders of Fascist governments in the past.
At the party's November policy conference Mr. Harper warned delegates to avoid an ideological approach to governing. "We will have to be tough and pragmatic, not unrealistic or ideological in dealing with complex economic challenges, he said. And he added, "We must work hard to keep Canadians trust and earn it again. We must listen to all voices, whether they support us or not." But by time the 40th Parliament convened, he had entirely forgotten those words.
Sadly, I do not think Mr. Harper is capable of listening to other people. Indeed, in Mr. Flaherty's economic statement, there was a plan to silence the voices of those who are not Conservatives.
So now we are at a crossroads. Should we allow a "centrist and socialist" coalition to rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois), or a fascist party rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois)? Because Mr. Harper cannot hold office without the support of the BQ, if he faces the opposition of the Liberals and New Democrats.
I know you're going to send me an insulting meaningless "thank you for your comments" letter in reply to what I have written. That says a lot about how much you listen to voices of those who are not die-hard Conservatives. But this letter comes with a warning. I am not at all thrilled by the idea of Canada being governed by a centre-left coalition. But I'm too afraid of Mr. Harper to give him my support. I think I speak for a lot of people in Canada's "silent majority."
Respectfully,
Rob-bear
Thank you for this note.
You are absolutely right!
"Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice."
In the end, 5.2 million Canadians (22.2% of Canada's 23.4 million eligible voters) cast ballots in favour of Conservative candidates. That's roughly one voter out of five. A support level for the Conservatives of 1:5 is hardly a ringing endorsement for anything. (In the same election, just over 40% eligible electors, 2 out of five, voted for "none of the above" by not voting at all.)
I don't belong to any party. In my voting life I've supported various parties. If there were to be another election soon -- another huge waste of time and money -- I don't know who I would support. I do know that Mr. Harper scares the living daylights out of me. He seems so hard-headed and self-righteous, and worse, so hard-hearted. His attitude reminds me of those attitudes held by leaders of Fascist governments in the past.
At the party's November policy conference Mr. Harper warned delegates to avoid an ideological approach to governing. "We will have to be tough and pragmatic, not unrealistic or ideological in dealing with complex economic challenges, he said. And he added, "We must work hard to keep Canadians trust and earn it again. We must listen to all voices, whether they support us or not." But by time the 40th Parliament convened, he had entirely forgotten those words.
Sadly, I do not think Mr. Harper is capable of listening to other people. Indeed, in Mr. Flaherty's economic statement, there was a plan to silence the voices of those who are not Conservatives.
So now we are at a crossroads. Should we allow a "centrist and socialist" coalition to rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois), or a fascist party rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois)? Because Mr. Harper cannot hold office without the support of the BQ, if he faces the opposition of the Liberals and New Democrats.
I know you're going to send me an insulting meaningless "thank you for your comments" letter in reply to what I have written. That says a lot about how much you listen to voices of those who are not die-hard Conservatives. But this letter comes with a warning. I am not at all thrilled by the idea of Canada being governed by a centre-left coalition. But I'm too afraid of Mr. Harper to give him my support. I think I speak for a lot of people in Canada's "silent majority."
Respectfully,
Rob-bear
Friday, 7 November 2008
CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 2 - Background)
If you want to check more on Fascism, here's a good link: Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. I trust you will find this information interesting and useful, and at least a start in understanding what Fascism really entails.
There is also a web site dedicated to explaining how Fascism in, or may be, evolving in the United States of America. See: 14 Points of Fascism: The Warning Signs. This link originates with the "Project for the Old American Century," whose main page concludes with a quotation from Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator of the 1940s: "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." (See About POAC) This does not mean that the American experience is the same as the Canadian experience, but a comparison may be instructive.
There is also a web site dedicated to explaining how Fascism in, or may be, evolving in the United States of America. See: 14 Points of Fascism: The Warning Signs. This link originates with the "Project for the Old American Century," whose main page concludes with a quotation from Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator of the 1940s: "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." (See About POAC) This does not mean that the American experience is the same as the Canadian experience, but a comparison may be instructive.
Saturday, 3 May 2008
CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 1 - Basic Orientation)
I believe that Canada is heading down the road to Fascism, and is making good “progress” in that regard.
For a brief period in Canada’s history, we were afraid of Fascist governments. Between 1939 and 1945, Canada was at war with Fascist governments -- particularly Germany and Italy.
But the rise of Communism, and its rapid expansion in the later 1940s, quickly pre-occupied western nations. Communism was the bogey-man. And people basically forgot about Fascism.
The problem is that, despite their ideologies, Communism and Fascism are almost the same thing, because they act the same ways.
RIGHT vs. LEFT
In common political language, we use terms derived from the French National Assembly, at the time of the French Revolution. (The world has changed so much that it is hard to make legitimate comparisons from then to now.)
Today, politicians of the “right” believe in free-market capitalism and extreme individualism. Politicians of the “left” focus on collective development and co-operative society-building. And there are, of course, various mixtures of those policies. I don’t think either exists in a “pure” form.
LIVING the CIRCLE
The problem, of course, is that the principle defies reality. It assumes a kind of straight line. In fact, political philosophy is built in a circle -- like most other things in our world.
Think of a circle, with the north, south, east and west of a compass imposed on it. That’s how to sort our politics.
On the left side of the circle, you have your “left-wing” parties. On the right side of the circle, you have your “right-wing” groupings. That is pretty clear. What follows is, perhaps, less obvious.
On the top half of the circle, you have “democracies.” On the bottom half of the circle you have “dictatorships.”
So it is possible to have one of four basic models: a left-wing democracy, a right-wing democracy, a left wing dictatorship, and a right wing dictatorship. Left-wing dictatorships are called “Communist.” Right-wing dictatorships are called “Fascist.” Again, I don’t think any of them exists in a pure state.
While the ideology separating Communists and Fascists is radically different, in practical terms they are highly similar. That is why they meet at the bottom of the circle. That is because they are both tightly-controlled dictatorships, that use similar methods to achieve their goals.
I believe that Communism is basically unacceptable to the majority in Canada. I also believe that Fascism IS acceptable to many Canadians. And I believe that we are moving towards a more Fascist form of government, and away from the more balanced social democracy that Canada has been for so many years. The is a move which will fundamentally change our approach to life. Instead of having a kinder, gentler, more equal country, we will end up with one which is more vicious, harsh, and divided. I do not believe those characteristics — vicious, harsh, and divided — are of benefit to any nation.
For a brief period in Canada’s history, we were afraid of Fascist governments. Between 1939 and 1945, Canada was at war with Fascist governments -- particularly Germany and Italy.
But the rise of Communism, and its rapid expansion in the later 1940s, quickly pre-occupied western nations. Communism was the bogey-man. And people basically forgot about Fascism.
The problem is that, despite their ideologies, Communism and Fascism are almost the same thing, because they act the same ways.
RIGHT vs. LEFT
In common political language, we use terms derived from the French National Assembly, at the time of the French Revolution. (The world has changed so much that it is hard to make legitimate comparisons from then to now.)
Today, politicians of the “right” believe in free-market capitalism and extreme individualism. Politicians of the “left” focus on collective development and co-operative society-building. And there are, of course, various mixtures of those policies. I don’t think either exists in a “pure” form.
LIVING the CIRCLE
The problem, of course, is that the principle defies reality. It assumes a kind of straight line. In fact, political philosophy is built in a circle -- like most other things in our world.
Think of a circle, with the north, south, east and west of a compass imposed on it. That’s how to sort our politics.
On the left side of the circle, you have your “left-wing” parties. On the right side of the circle, you have your “right-wing” groupings. That is pretty clear. What follows is, perhaps, less obvious.
On the top half of the circle, you have “democracies.” On the bottom half of the circle you have “dictatorships.”
So it is possible to have one of four basic models: a left-wing democracy, a right-wing democracy, a left wing dictatorship, and a right wing dictatorship. Left-wing dictatorships are called “Communist.” Right-wing dictatorships are called “Fascist.” Again, I don’t think any of them exists in a pure state.
While the ideology separating Communists and Fascists is radically different, in practical terms they are highly similar. That is why they meet at the bottom of the circle. That is because they are both tightly-controlled dictatorships, that use similar methods to achieve their goals.
I believe that Communism is basically unacceptable to the majority in Canada. I also believe that Fascism IS acceptable to many Canadians. And I believe that we are moving towards a more Fascist form of government, and away from the more balanced social democracy that Canada has been for so many years. The is a move which will fundamentally change our approach to life. Instead of having a kinder, gentler, more equal country, we will end up with one which is more vicious, harsh, and divided. I do not believe those characteristics — vicious, harsh, and divided — are of benefit to any nation.
Saturday, 8 March 2008
CHANGE IN AFGHANISTAN?
While there are a lot of global economic and political issues being played out in Afghanistan, it is the social issues -- the life of the people -- which most consistently gets lost in the "change" that is happening.
"Change," according to whom?
Whose life will be better for all this "change"?
Basically, we Euro-Americans are trying to drag the Afghan people into the 21st century (from our perspective), even if “we” have to drag “them” kicking and screaming (which they are).
“We” want to change thousands of years of culture, and do it virtually overnight. We're trying to change their whole society — everything they believe about who they are, and how their society "should" operate.
It is a kind of a cultural imperialism. But we are doing it because, you see, “we” think a liberal democracy “would be good” for “them.”
Change focus. We are in the early 1960s. The Americans are trying to get the Saudi Arabian royal family to effect a more “democratic” and “humanitarian” tone to their society. The response from the Saudis is instructive. “Do not send us your Coca Cola, Ford cars, or upstart son of a whisky merchant [i.e., President John F. Kennedy]. We have our own culture and have had it for thousands of years.”
Is real change possible in Afghanistan?
There are strong forces opposing change in Afghan society. Particularly the Taliban, but they are not alone. Traditional rulers, so-called "Warlords," really don't want much change, nor do many traditionalist clerics and ordinary citizens. No different from our society, where "conservatives" of all kinds oppose creative change.
A recent report for a knowledgeable Afghan woman, on International Woman's Day in Saskatoon, presented the situation in sharp contrast. (What she said is well known; she simply highlighted the problem.) "Redevelopment" money being spent three ways in Afghanistan. First, to arm and equip the new Afghan army. Second, to "pay off" the "Warlords." If there's any money left over after that, it might go into something else like a school or a hospital.
And that is the situation which the Canadian Government wants to support until 2011. Because the government thinks real change will happen if it supports this new "status quo."
If we are rdally committed to making change in "their" society, we'll have to leave troops -- army of occupation -- for several generations -- not years, or decades; generations. It will take that long for real change to take hold. Otherwise, the "conservatives" in that society will quickly reverse any changes that have been made.
And who will benefit from any of these kinds of "change?
"Change," according to whom?
Whose life will be better for all this "change"?
Basically, we Euro-Americans are trying to drag the Afghan people into the 21st century (from our perspective), even if “we” have to drag “them” kicking and screaming (which they are).
“We” want to change thousands of years of culture, and do it virtually overnight. We're trying to change their whole society — everything they believe about who they are, and how their society "should" operate.
It is a kind of a cultural imperialism. But we are doing it because, you see, “we” think a liberal democracy “would be good” for “them.”
Change focus. We are in the early 1960s. The Americans are trying to get the Saudi Arabian royal family to effect a more “democratic” and “humanitarian” tone to their society. The response from the Saudis is instructive. “Do not send us your Coca Cola, Ford cars, or upstart son of a whisky merchant [i.e., President John F. Kennedy]. We have our own culture and have had it for thousands of years.”
Is real change possible in Afghanistan?
There are strong forces opposing change in Afghan society. Particularly the Taliban, but they are not alone. Traditional rulers, so-called "Warlords," really don't want much change, nor do many traditionalist clerics and ordinary citizens. No different from our society, where "conservatives" of all kinds oppose creative change.
A recent report for a knowledgeable Afghan woman, on International Woman's Day in Saskatoon, presented the situation in sharp contrast. (What she said is well known; she simply highlighted the problem.) "Redevelopment" money being spent three ways in Afghanistan. First, to arm and equip the new Afghan army. Second, to "pay off" the "Warlords." If there's any money left over after that, it might go into something else like a school or a hospital.
And that is the situation which the Canadian Government wants to support until 2011. Because the government thinks real change will happen if it supports this new "status quo."
If we are rdally committed to making change in "their" society, we'll have to leave troops -- army of occupation -- for several generations -- not years, or decades; generations. It will take that long for real change to take hold. Otherwise, the "conservatives" in that society will quickly reverse any changes that have been made.
And who will benefit from any of these kinds of "change?
Saturday, 1 March 2008
"POLITICS" MADE SIMPLE
Listening to people talk about "politics" today, I feel very sad about the lack of basic understanding that most people have about "politics." I'm not talking about party positions or philosophical positions. I'm talking about the basics of politics.
To understand politics in our society, we need to reflect on "the cradle of democracy" -- ancient Greece. The Greeks had an wonderful word -- politeia. (That is the word from which we have our English words "politics" and "political.") That Greek word meant citizenship -- particularly "the rights and responsibilities of the citizen" — and citizens collectively.
But over the millennia we have developed "political institutions," of two kinds.
First, there are assemblies, which bring people together: city councils, legislatures, parliaments, congresses, etc. These are now filled with "elected representatives."
Second, there are parties: associations or groups of people who tend to think the same way about most things.
The flaw with these "political institutions" is that they have taken away — usurped — the rights and responsibilities of of citizens. Their actions deprive ordinary citizens of their politeia -- their "politics. "About the only thing left is the "right" and "responsibility" to put an "X" on a particular line of a particular piece of paper at particular times.
The loss of those rights is a historic study in itself.
There was a time when the leaders of the assemblies might have been "the brightest and best" — but more often they were simply the people who had the most power — either economic or military. With today's assemblies, there are lots of bright people on the outside — often brighter that the elected representatives. But because the elected hold the power — power which they are usually reluctant to share — we citizens have lost the core of our citizenship.
The time has come for us to reclaim our politeia -- our citizenship.
To understand politics in our society, we need to reflect on "the cradle of democracy" -- ancient Greece. The Greeks had an wonderful word -- politeia. (That is the word from which we have our English words "politics" and "political.") That Greek word meant citizenship -- particularly "the rights and responsibilities of the citizen" — and citizens collectively.
But over the millennia we have developed "political institutions," of two kinds.
First, there are assemblies, which bring people together: city councils, legislatures, parliaments, congresses, etc. These are now filled with "elected representatives."
Second, there are parties: associations or groups of people who tend to think the same way about most things.
The flaw with these "political institutions" is that they have taken away — usurped — the rights and responsibilities of of citizens. Their actions deprive ordinary citizens of their politeia -- their "politics. "About the only thing left is the "right" and "responsibility" to put an "X" on a particular line of a particular piece of paper at particular times.
The loss of those rights is a historic study in itself.
There was a time when the leaders of the assemblies might have been "the brightest and best" — but more often they were simply the people who had the most power — either economic or military. With today's assemblies, there are lots of bright people on the outside — often brighter that the elected representatives. But because the elected hold the power — power which they are usually reluctant to share — we citizens have lost the core of our citizenship.
The time has come for us to reclaim our politeia -- our citizenship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)