Kicks are for trids

Gaming health care

As I write this, I'm watching legendary journalist Bill Moyers put the current US health care debate in 100 years of political context. He is flaunting the popular wisdom that President Barack Obama's plans for health care reform are at risk because of lilly-livered Democrats, evil corporate Republicans and an agglomeration of special interests including, but by no means limited to, physicians, pharmaceutical companies and the insurance juggernaut.

There is no doubt that these forces have conspired to derail Obama's single most significant policy initiative to date. They have much to lose if he is successful. They have trotted out all manner of canards, scare tactics and blatant lies to bolster their case. They have fed the delusion that many Americans suffer that theirs is the best health care system in the world. Yes, true. As long as you overlook minor annoyances such as the number of un- and under-insured; the lack of portability in the system; infant mortality rates; and - oh yes - the World Health Organization. (Note to smug, self-satisfied Canadians: our track record on this last measure is only marginally better.)

One of the points that Moyers made - one that really resonated with me - was the idea that the US is the only Western-style democracy that fails to see proper health care as a fundamental human right, unrelated to economic means. We'll leave for now the broader question of whether the US is actually a true democracy, even though that very question may be at play in this issue.

Obama is a sharp cookie. He cut his political teeth battling the Democratic machine of  Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and his cohorts - surely one of the most advanced, and quite possibly corrupt, operations of its kind outside of New Orleans. Obama is an educated, experienced politician who could not possibly have set himself in this battle without taking into account all of the possible outcomes.

Right?

Well, maybe. There was a time when I believed, as did others I'm sure, that he and his supporters had vastly underestimated the Republican smear machine - the same crew that gave us the Swift Boat attacks, which sunk John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. But lately, I've been nursing a slightly different theory.

Perhaps - just perhaps - Obama is smarter than some of us think. What if he knows that no one really pays serious attention to politics over the summer. Certainly there's been no lack of noise on the topic. But perhaps - just perhaps - that's also part of the strategy.

Sometimes, in politics, the best way to win a fight is to let your opponents exhaust themselves - to prove their arguments so fatuously full of hot air that common sense simply needs to wait them out. Of course there's a whole industry built on the quick response, and normally, I would subscribe to it, especially in case such as this one. It would hold that you don't let your opponents define the debate. You fight back, and you fight at the same level as your opponent because every victory - however small - is a point in your favour.

But Obama is barely eight months into his presidency. He can afford to take the long view here. He can afford to take his lumps in the court of public opinion, because he knows that - at its root - health care is not a social program but an economic driver. A healthy workforce is a productive workforce, and if there's one thing Americans are craving right now, it is a healthy economy.

So in my mind, it's no accident that Obama has chosen to address a joint session of Congress next week. Yes, it's true that it's the day after Congress returns from its summer recess. But Obama could easily have commandeered the agenda before this if he had wanted. He could have asked the US networks for air time. He could have launched a massive advertising blitz. He could have had every Democrat in the House and the Senate (or at least those who support him) out stumping for the cause at every barbecue, county fair and demolition derby in the country.

For heaven's sake, he could have done what he did during the 2008 Presidential campaign and gone all social media on us.

But he did none of those things. He spent much of the summer - and his considerable political capital - apparently squandering a once-in-a-generation chance to make his country a better place. Not since the civil rights battle of the 1960s has the US faced the prospect of such seismic change.

Obama campaigned on the theme of change - generational change, racial change, social change. For him not to see this one change as his legacy is unimaginable.

So I'm not counting him out yet. I think he may have a plan. A game plan. It had better work.

Labour relations

With apologies to Jay McInerney:

You walk into the crowded boardroom, where you're handed a ballot and two envelopes.

The first envelope - the white one - is marked "secret ballot." Just in case, presumably, you've missed every Roadrunner cartoon ever made.

The second envelope - this one a fine hue of lunch-bag brown - has your name written on it.

When you're done voting, you're supposed to seal the first envelope, put it inside the second, and then seal that one.

Which, remember, is festooned with your moniker.

You're then supposed to hand the whole package to a polling clerk, who puts it... not in a ballot box, but in a pile with all the other envelopes submitted that day.

At this point, you might be wondering: when does it actually get put into the ballot box, and by whom?

Not so fast there, bucko.

The ballots are collected and put into the box at the end of the day, by person or persons unknown.

So when do they get counted?

We don't know. It depends on when the two warring sides determine who's actually entitled to vote.

C'mon, seriously? You didn't decide that before you handed people their ballots?

So where is this third-century kangaroo process taking place? Some emerging democracy, or at least someplace where bananas grow, right?

Wrong.

It's taking place at colleges across the province of Ontario. RIGHT NOW.

As a part-time instructor at Humber, I went to exercise my democratic right earlier today - to cast my vote on whether OPSEU, the mega-union that represents most provincial government workers, should be hired on to represent me and my ilk. I was astonished, disgusted, frightened by the appalling spectacle I encountered there.

It was exactly as described above. Two earnest people from the Ontario Labour Relations Board tried to explain to me why this tortured, undemocratic process was really the best way. We've been doing it this way for 20 years, they both argued. And we've never had a problem.

As if that, somehow, made the situation better.

I am someone who takes voting very seriously. I have voted in every election held in this country, this province and this city since I turned 18. It is a right that I cherish, and one which I excoriate others for ignoring.

Returning to my office, I called the board to register my complaint. I also called OSPEU. The former yielded a helpful phone conversation with a supervisor who proffered the same flaccid excuses. The latter yielded only voice mail.

I am indignant. I wanted to vote, and I wanted to my vote to count. But this ill-conceived and poorly executed voting process rendered that option moot. I asked that my ballot be destroyed. Technically, I left without voting. I have never done that before in my life, and I left the building with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

I sincerely hope the union wins the certification vote, and with it, the right to represent part-time college instructors. I believe we have the right, collectively, to be treated more fairly than we currently are - and that union representation will help us in that cause.

But I am also profoundly concerned that - if and when it ever comes time for us to vote on a collective agreement - the voting system we're offered should be vastly better than this one. It really couldn't be much worse.

On leadership

And then there was one.

Bob Rae has renounced his claim to the federal Liberal leadership. There are all kinds of theories that purport to explain/clarify/justify this decision.

It was necessary for party unity, and to create a solitary, consistent face and voice of opposition to the current government.

He realized he couldn't win, had no hope of surmounting the Iggy juggernaut.

Even if he somehow managed to wrest the leadership, he'd never be able to overcome his "baggage" from his days as Ontario's NDP premier, as far as the public was concerned.

Whether any of these factors is determinative, alone or in combination with others, is doubtful. It's also utterly irrelevant.

What Rae's decision shows is the same craven realpolitik that plunged the country into this mess in the first place.

By subverting a more democratic and inclusive approach, Rae has shown that he is motivated not by an impulse to the common good, but to whatever expediency is the best shortcut to power.

If I sound disappointed, there's a reason. In between elected offices, Rae had shown an admirable propensity for humanitarian causes - the tainted blood scandal, the Air India inquiry and a number of other good works. 

I had high hopes - now dashed - that he would prove himself a more altruistic leader, one who could put the right thing ahead of partisanship and petty squabbles.

What he has proven is that he and his adoptive party have no more claim to the moral high ground than the party they sought to replace. At least the coalition was a democratic response to a breathtakingly undemocratic series of moves by the Harper government.

What I find particularly galling is that it appears that any party - given the events of the last 10 days - could have so misread Canadians' distaste for backroom deals. We all know they happen. Like neoptism, they're a grease that keeps the wheels moving.

What the now very dead coalition promised was an opportunity for a genuinely new era in Canadian politics. What we got instead was more of the same - what's good for the party is good for the country. What crap.

Equal time

I have had my impartiality questioned. As a bureaucrat, I am stung. So here, in the interest of equal-opportunity abuse, is my criticism of Stéphane Dion's video suicide note from earlier this week:

1. It was so fuzzy and out of focus, it looked like an outtake from a Barbara Walters interview;
2. There was - as has been widely noted - a book called Hot Air on the shelf behind him;
3. It was late. Media relations 101 has just a few golden rules. One of them is: respect journalists' deadlines. Nothing will piss them off faster - and guarantee you worse treatment - than making the fatal assumption their deadlines are arbitrary or somehow less important than your message.
4. It was sophomoric. Canadians are sophisticated, and expect the same from their politicians. We want them to communicate effectively. When they don't, we take it - rightly or wrongly- as a sign that they have nothing to say.
5. The content was mush. Harper had a clear, articulate message. Dion had televised oatmeal - it's probably good for you, but no one actually enjoys it.

As a devoted public servant - and instructor of same - I continued to wallow in outrage at the way our democracy is being co-opted. That has not changed. But watch for volatile poll numbers in the next few weeks. People will be looking hard at all of their options. When they land on the one they like, it will be very clear.

Why I'm in favour of a coalition government

Normally, I try not to post on anything too directly work-related. But this one's got me fired up.

A student asked me how I formulated my view on the current putsch for coalition government in Canada.

This is my reply.

I came to my view on coalition government easily. While professionally I am a civil servant who respects what you call the bargain, as we all must, I am also a private human being. And in my private life, I have a visceral hatred for politicians who show contempt for the system, which is exactly what Harper and his cronies did with last week's economic statement. I cannot fathom why candidates run for offices they do not want to hold - if they hate government so much, what are they offering to lead it?

I see in the Harper government many of the same qualities that were evident during Mike Harris's not-quite-two full terms as Premier of Ontario. A belief that the public service is actually a maid service, whose job is to keep things need and tidy without interfering. Advice was not sought; original thought was not valued. We were to do as we were told, and not ask any questions.

By attempting to stifle both Parliament and the opposition in one fell swoop, this government has shown contempt for democracy and for Canadians. That is what is undemocratic in this whole scenario. Constitutionally, the opposition has every right to defeat the government in a minority situation. In fact, our system is specifically designed to allow for it.

Confidence in a parliamentary context, a term you've no doubt heard a lot, is primarily a numbers game. Whoever has the highest number wins. It's that simple. What number you measure obviously matters, whether it's popular support, seats in the House or whatever. But ultimately, we are governed by whoever commands the most support. Not by some preposterous belief that the government can stop showing respect for voters the day after the election.

The Palin Debate Flow-Chart

Hat tip: TheAtlantic.com (Andrew Sullivan: The Daily Dish)

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

We all know more this evening about Bristol Palin's womb than perhaps we did earlier today.

Which is only interesting because most of us didn't even know Bristol Palin existed 24 hours ago, much less that we should care about her reproductive system.

This is not a rant for or against politicians who involve their children in their public lives.

But for the record, I'm with those who favour full disclosure - when you're asking me to make you one of the most powerful people in the country, or the world, I believe that gives me full access to anything I consider relevant about your life.

What it's about is the oldest political sleight of hand in the book. John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as a vice presidential running mate is the worst kind of stunt governing - decisions made more for how they'll play than for their public policy value.

But it wasn't Sarah Palin who made her daughter, or the pregnancy, a campaign issue. It was McCain himself who did that. He and his handlers have admitted that they learned of the pregnancy during the vetting process. That Sarah Palin was chosen anyway belies a calculus on how this news would animate party stalwarts.

Worse, Republicans are being hypocrites on every aspect of this matter. The talking points - sputtered on every US news show in the past eight hours - hold that Bristol's decision was somwhow brave and heroic. While this line certainly reinforces the anti-choice message that is so central to the party's success, it is only true in the most partisan sense. Can you imagine the howls of derision from this same crowd if the unwed mother were not Bristol Palin, but Chelsea Clinton?

Politicians can say children are off limits all they want. And from a PR perspective, Sarah Palin had no choice but to address the story once it broke. But what McCain and the GOP have done with this story is exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing - exploiting "the unborn."

Obamania

Americans are ready for a new president. I am ready for a new president, and I'm not even American.

The other guy has had a good run of it. Eight years is plenty. Several wars, an economy in the toilet, the country's worst financial crisis in 25 years and the first and only foreign-born mass murder ever on American soil. Quite a legacy.

Barack Obama is the leading contender right now for the Democratic nomination. And while there's no guarantee, it's likely - unless the Republicans conspire to steal the election again - that whoever gets the Democratic nod will be the next occupant of the White House.

Is Obama thin on foreign policy experience? Is he young and untried? Is he black? Is America ready for a black president? Do any of those things really matter?

What matters is that a political message of change only resonates with voters who are receptive to it. And poll after poll suggest, this time, that that's exactly where most American voters are.

Obama and his strategists are capitalizing on this need for change in expert ways. While he's not the first black candidate for president, he is certainly the first to do this well. That he might actually win makes the race even more interesting.

One of their campaign slogans - "Yes We Can" - has such an elegant simplicity that it's just astonishing. Three simple words, words that convey power and inclusiveness and hope and everything that's been so sorely lacking especially in these latter days of the Bush era.

In the way of these things, the slogan has also lent itself to a truly amazing viral video. Once was, candidates had to pay huge sums of money to buy advertising to get their message out. Now, anyone with an $18 webcam from the local electronic store can create and upload something much more effective - and it gets noticed every bit as much, if not more. (The Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am, who created this little piece, clearly had additional resources at his disposal.)

His oratorical skills have become his hallmark. As a recovering speech writer, I'm a total sucker for anyone who can lift the words off a page and make them sing. His opponents berate him as an empty shirt; in truth, they are likely jealous - at least on some level - of his ability to inspire and generate enthusiasm.

Hillary Clinton, Obama's only real surviving competitor, has lately taken to whining about the way the media treat her - always the last refuge of the pol who is, or perceives herself, to be losing or under attack. And while it may be true - the US media genuinely seem infatuated with Obama - it is also irrelevant. Obama has simply out-campaigned, out-charmed and out-classed Clinton almost consistently in the last few weeks.

I want to believe that Obama may well be another John F. Kennedy. His talent for words makes me almost hungry for his first inaugural speech, his first state of the union, his first fireside chat. I believe this guy has another "man on the moon" moment in him. He can bring some much-needed healing to a wounded and weary nation, bring it along with him, and alleviate its torpor. Many of these same things were said almost 48 years ago about another young man with the gift of the gab. Let's hope this one can actually deliver the goods.

Hands? Meet head

Canada is a country that is experiencing - as are many industrialized countries - a decline in its manufacturing sector. So the very people for whom Labour Day was originally conceived are watching their numbers, and therefore their influence, wane as well.

When the likes of Buzz Hargrove start flirting with the Liberals, you know that Armageddon is nigh, at least politically speaking.

I do recognize the good that the labour movement has done in this country. There are many innovations that would never have been realized, or at least not to the extent they have, had unions not pushed so hard for them. Tops among them are pension plans in both the public and the private sectors. And while some may find those pensions meager - and they are - they are still a damn sight better than what existed before the dawn of the last century. Which is to say, precisely nothing.

Much else has changed in the mean time, of course. Our civilization has moved through its industrial phase, and some would argue that now is the era of information. As little as a decade ago, how many people did you know who had Internet access? Today, it is beyond ubiquitous. It has become an essential, almost indispensable part of life. Many of us can no more imagine being without email than being without phone service.

Why, then, is organized labour mired in the 19th-century politics of confrontation?

Forestry workers, auto workers and miners - three of the most heavily-unionized sectors - consistently and routinely oppose environmental controls. They contend that such measures will cost jobs, which in their world is code for union memberships. Hargrove himself has even argued against government incentives for hybrid vehicles.

No one will fault anyone for putting a priority on economic interests. But selfishness - as evidenced by putting one's income ahead of sustainability - is a short-sighted trademark of the right-winger. The supposedly progressive labour movement proves, by these statements, that it has become too close to its employers.

It's hardly a surprise. Auto workers - even those at the beleaguered GM plant in Oshawa - are among the most highly-paid of private-sector workers, as they should be. Theirs is a dangerous, dirty and difficult lot, riddled with uncertainty, odd shifts and - in the case of miners, for example - direct and constantly lethal threats to their health and well-being.

The NDP has struggled to hold these disparate camps together - the unions and the environmentalists. It's an uneasy alliance, and one that has likely held it back from the kind of electoral success enjoyed by the two larger parties. That said, the party is doing what it must. That is why it is no more accurate to dismiss the NDP as the party of "special interests" than it is to say the Liberals or the Conservatives are the parties of big money. Both sides of the equation, while truthful, miss a larger truth: namely, that money follows success. You can bet that, if the NDP suddenly found itself with a two- or three-term dynasty in this province, money would start flowing into its coffers.

Of course, as we saw during the Rae years, access to power can also cost the party - or any party - the support of its core constituencies. As it learns to govern for the broad middle, by definition it isolates those at the margins. (This advice, of course, stands in contrast to Brian Mulroney's famous aphorism that "Ya dance with the one who brung ya.")

All of this is weighing heavily on my mind, as you can imagine, as the provincial election draws closer. For most of my adult life, I have stoutly resisted the temptation to vote for the party that had the best chance of winning. I try to vote my conscience - asking myself, not who do I think is going to win, but who most closely reflects my values and promises to recognize my needs. If that happens to be the front-runner (which it almost never is), then so much the better.

But this year, I am really torn. I like our local MPP. He seems like an honourable guy, and he's a tireless worker for the community. I first saw him in action as Mayor of the then-Borough of East York, where he impressed me with his calm and steady demeanour. But I'm no longer sure that's enough to trust him with my vote. For the first time in many years, I may have to attend an all-candidates meeting without prejudging my own decision. I'd like to go in with an open mind, and see whose presentation wows me the most.

That is, if I can still be wowed. I may be past that point in my life as well.

On the flip side, once the election writ is dropped on September 10, silly season officially kicks into high gear inside the walls of government. From a bureaucrat's perspective, it becomes difficult if not impossible to get the attention of political staff on pretty much anything unless it's life-threatening. That means all decisions, large and small, are officially on hold. We do have work to keep us busy. Much of it is what's called "transition planning," which simply means we're busy preparing materials to brief a new minister (or refresh an old one, if need be). There's also a period of uncertainty immediately following the election, while the government sorts out its own structure and priorities.

Where we'll fit into those structures and priorities is anybody's guess. Which is, I guess, sometimes how the labour movement feels as well. All you can do is to put your best foot forward and hope you don't get the door slammed on it.

Bitter orange

For good or ill, I'm not someone whose politics are ever very far from the surface. I love to argue politics, read about politics, dissect and analyze politics. Big-P, little-p, doesn't matter to me. It's all the same - and it's all a good time.

For most of my adult life, the NDP is where I've felt most comfortable. I've admired its views, and the passion with which so many of its members have held those views. Most of my true political heroes come from the left side of the political spectrum.

It's a deep, dark secret (to some people, anyway), but many years ago - for a couple of years starting in the fall of 1990 - I actually worked for the NDP, or more properly, a succession of its elected members, including one cabinet minister.

But now - whether it's middle age, or the party's shifting values (or maybe my own) - now, I'm having doubts. I've never before questioned my own beliefs. This is new territory for me.

Actually, I do have some ideas as to what's causing this period of soul-searching.

For one thing, I was extremely disillusioned when Jack Layton corralled the federal caucus to support the 2006 federal budget. It was a regressive document that hurt more people than it helped, especially here in Ontario. Among its many flaws, it delayed by a year or more any movement toward addressing the province's long-standing claim for fairness from Ottawa.

That Layton might have done so in exchange for government support for other NDP pet projects (this is a minority Parliament, after all, and that means horse trading rules the day) makes his decision more appalling, not less so. While I support the idea of breaking down ideological silos for the sake of good public policy, this move had no such altruistic motivation. It smacked of pure, naked, politically-driven opportunism. Motivation matters.

I've also found Howie Hampton's "leadership" much less than inspiring. Back in the day (whatever that means), he was one of my political bosses, during his tenure as Ontario's Attorney-General. A genuinely nice man, who loves his children and treats his staff and colleagues well. But a leader? Nope. He's managed, in every provincial election since the NDP was turfed from office, to reduce its representation. Double digits are a dim memory. That kind of consistently poor showing means something. I'm looking at you, exit door.

Part of the problem, too, is that the NDP remains the last major political party in this country to realize the tectonic shift that's happened in the post-industrial age. Nineteenth-century rhetoric about the plight of the worker may still have some relevance in the NDP's universe, but it's lost its currency for the rest of us. The debate has changed around them, and the elected members of the NDP have lost their credibility. To achieve electoral success - because gone are the days when the party could claim a "moral victory" just by being left standing on election night - it must reach out beyond its traditional support.

Witness the almost-pathological obsession with the fate of the steel industry, including Stelco and Algoma. If these companies didn't have periodic fiscal hiccups, the NDP would never make the front page.

The party needs to champion today's issues - economic, social and environmental - in a coherent, modern way that speaks to today's world. Part of what holds it back is the duality of its base of support. Environmentalists and do-gooders have always felt most at home in the NDP. So too (until recently, at least) has the assembly-line set. But those two groups are now frequently at odds - workers in large, environmentally-questionable industries rightly believe that restrictions threaten their livelihood.

These two sets of views cannot comfortably co-exist, no matter what anyone tells you.

The NDP needs to pick a lane, as the vernacular has it. That kind of choice comes with consequences, of course. But that's the point. Until it does so, the party will languish in the basement of public opinion.

So where to go? I am drawn to the Green Party, certainly. Federal leader Elizabeth May has shown promise, and I am prepared to give her a closer look.

Provincially, there are many things I like about the McGuinty Liberals. The senior people I have come to know - especially Finance Minister Greg Sorbara - are  by and large good and decent people. They truly believe in public service, and they have been a pleasure to work for. Recent scandals, such as this one, haven't really done much to dilute my enthusiasm. Each of the other two opposition parties has done precisely the same thing while in power, and would do so again in a heart beat given the opportunity. It's one of those truisms of the political process, like cronyism (or its kissing cousin, nepotism) - it's part of what keeps the system moving.

So I may have to do what I've scorned so many others for doing over the years - actually go into an election campaign undecided, listen to the candidates (and the leaders) and make my decision accordingly. Maybe I'll even take my kids to an all-candidates' meeting. Kids have superb bullshit barometers. I'd be curious to know how they'd see it all without benefit of prior discussion.