Margin Notes: Names, Changes, and Details

TORONTO, ONTARIO - It seems like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is even worse than other broadcasters in using events in the news as an excuse to play related popular music. Boy George in the news? Run some Culture Club. Something about celebrity theme parks? Run Dolly Parton. Since the 6-August-2009 death of iconic movie director John Hughes, I've lost count of how many times I've heard Simple Minds' "Don't You Forget About Me", used in his movie "The Breakfast Club," after a story on Hughes. Yes, it's a great song--I've had it at #166 in my all-time list, but his other movies had soundtracks. Couldn't someone have played "Holiday Road" by Lindsey Buckingham (from the National Lampoon's Vacation) or Oingo Boingo's title track from "Weird Science"?

* * * * * *

Most of the press coverage (including the CBC) of the New Democratic Party convention in Halifax, Nova Scotia this weekend has focused on the failed motion to re-name the party the "Democratic Party." While for the sake of accuracy, I liked the idea of re-naming it the "Social Democratic Party" instead, but if the desire to keep the NDP initials was strong, a suggestion I heard from a Conservative was to re-name it the "Neo-Communist Dinosaur Party." I guess that would make the former Progressive Conservatives the "Petrified Corporatists." (I was always disappointed that when the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties reunited they didn't adopt the name "Conservative-Reform Alliance Party," or CRAP--which was actually proposed.)

* * * * * *


A new sign went up at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre as viewed from Bremner Boulevard in Toronto, Ontario on 15-August-2009

There may not have been a change in party names in Halifax, but there have been changes near Toronto's waterfront this week. Lower Simcoe Street finally opened underneath the railroad tracks west of Union Station on 14-August-2009, allowing traffic a route to the waterfront between York Street and Spadina Avenues, and just to the west along Bremner Boulevard, the Metro Toronto Convention Centre finally received a clear exterior sign facing south.

* * * * * *


The new playground equipment for Toronto's Roundhouse Park had been installed by 15-August-2009, but the Grand Trunk Railroad didn't exist in 1929

Above portions of the Convention Centre, Roundhouse Park is rapidly approaching its re-opening. Amongst the recent construction milestones was the installation of new playground equipment in the park's southeast corner. Appropriately enough, some of the equipment looks like a locomotive, but the markings are interesting. "GTRR 1929" seems to pay homage to the Grand Trunk Railroad and the 1929 opening date of the John Street Roundhouse, but the Grand Trunk didn't exist in 1929. Apparently, it was simpler legally to use the name of a defunct line rather than still-existing Canadian Pacific that built the roundhouse.

* * * * * *


Ed Freeman, leader of the Heritage Toronto walk through the Deer Park neighbourhood, held up a 1920's picture of the bridges carrying St. Clair Avenue East over Yellow Creek on 16-August-2009

Exploring fine details like that are one of the joys of going on Heritage Toronto walks. Today, I had the pleasure of walking through the Deer Park neighborhood and learning details like where Glenn Gould lived (in the Park Lane Apartments on St. Clair) and where the railings on Avoca Avenue came from (the 1890-era bridge over Yellow Creek, dismantled in the 1920's). More coverage of the walk will be forthcoming in a future post.

Politics: Conservatives Afraid of Free Markets?

TORONTO, ONTARIO - At least since the Reagan-Thatcher era, it has been the conventional wisdom that free markets and conservatives are inextricably linked. If one comes from the "right" side of the political spectrum, one was expected to favor letting the market solve all economic problems while at the same time trying to keep government from growing and standing up for "traditional values." However, there's a psychological disconnect inherent in that pairing that occasionally reveals itself in ways amusing to those coming from other perspectives. In reality, those who call themselves conservatives do not necessarily have to favor free markets.

One definition of "conservative" is to be "traditionally disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, and to limit change." Conservatives generally want things to stay the same. New ideas, things that might improve things, make them at best uncomfortable, in some cases quite defensive. If "traditional values" remain in place without modification, the conservative is happy.

In contrast, the free market provides incentive for change. The only way to get ahead in a truly free market is to innovate. When someone comes out with a better (or cheaper) product or service, then they can make a greater profit, which is the driving motivation. With every innovation comes change. So, by letting the economy take a free market form, it is almost guaranteed that there will be constant change. To a dictionary-definition conservative, that isn't a good thing.

Of course, at least in North America, there is a common thread between the definition of conservative and the free market. Belief in both is consistent with belief in lesser government. Smaller government has a lower ability to distort a free market. Before the Depression, government was much smaller in the United States. Notably, this isn't necessarily the case in other parts of the world, where government has been traditionally larger and it would almost match the definition of conservative more closely to defend traditional government institutes. Especially in the United States, though, the limited-government argument is the link to bridge the inherent conflict between the anti-change conservative and the pro-change free market.

It might seem like a conservative would want all ideas to be out in the open, as in a free market, and then have the best ideas (which from their perspective would be the conservative ideas) win out in that marketplace of ideas. When people who self-identify themselves as conservative want to repress new ideas (often about topics relating to sex), this can seem strange--why not let the ideas die on their own in the marketplace of ideas? It may seem a strange phenomenon to those who are not conservative, but it really is just the anti-change fundamental nature of the conservative coming out, something that happens especially commonly with fervently religious conservatives.

Just because I see and understand the paradox doesn't stop me from tweaking my conservative friends--when they seem to want to suppress ideas, I love to invoke the libertarian mantra, "The best solution to bad speech is not banning the bad speech, but more speech." But, of course, libertarianism is not the same as conservatism--and that's a whole different discussion for another time.

Politics: It's the Canadian Economy, Stupid

TORONTO, ONTARIO - It can't be a surprise to Stephen Harper. When the Prime Minister requested that the Governor General dissolve the government and call an election on September 7th, he had to see what was coming. A string of disturbing financial news has shifted the campaign to one focused on the Canadian economy--and so far, that appears to be hurting Harper.

For the longest time, the current Canadian election seemed like a "Seinfeld" election, an election about nothing. Nobody saw a compelling reason for calling the election, dismissing the Conservative line that they wanted a renewed mandate. The national polls had been essentially stagnant for weeks, with the Conservatives polling in the upper-30% range, the Liberals in the upper-20% range, the NDP in the upper teens, and the Bloc and the Greens trying to break 10%. While the Liberals and the Greens tended to talk most about the environment, no issue was really catching fire anywhere, except maybe for the current government's arts cuts curtailing their prospects in the province of Quebec.

Yet, the economic situation was building up. While the August employment figures were spun as positive by the government, the unemployment rate stayed at 6.1% and the 15,200 jobs added that month only partially offset the more than 55,000 that had been lost the month before. As the price of oil started to flow downward after a spike caused by Hurricane Ike in mid-September, so did the value of the Canadian dollar. Today, it closed below 90 US cents for the first time since May 2007.

The real damage, though, would come from the United States. As Canadians watched the drama of Congress trying to pass a "rescue" package, stock markets were falling, and the Canadian exchanges went right along for the fall. The most-watched S&P/TSX index, which had been over 15,000 in June, dropped below 10,000 yesterday, and just regained that benchmark today. Canadians have watched the value of stock investments decline by as much as one-third from their peak.

Stephen Harper has tried to campaign as the safe choice for the economic future, that the Conservatives would continue competent management of the economy, whereas all of the left-leaning parties would introduce "risky" environmental measures that would have an unknown impact on the economy. That strategy was largely viewed as credible--and seemed to be working--before the public perceived the economy to be falling apart.

Now, the specter of the Bush administration looms large. As late as July, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulsen stated that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac "remain adequately capitalized." In September, he effectively took them over to prevent their collapse. As late as March, he used the word "fine" in referring to the broader economy. In September, he was asking Congress for $700 billion to restore liquidity. Suddenly, saying everything was fine--even in a country that actually has regulations in place--no longer seemed credible.

The other parties are now portraying Harper as just like Bush, not wanting to take action until there is a crisis. The aura of inaction may have been best symbolized by the first item on This Hour Has 22 Minutes in the 7-October-2008 episode. Harper takes essentially no action as a young supporter faints behind him during an event. Some wags have nicknamed that supporter "Economy."

Now, the race suddenly seems dynamic. Polls show the Conservatives falling in the national polls and the Liberals rising. The NDP also seems to be gaining at the same time--the first time the Liberals and the NDP have both seemed on the rise in this race. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion started using the line "It's the Economy, Stephen" back on 25-September, echoing the slogan of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign in the United States. Indeed, in the election that had been the "Seinfeld" election, it's now the Canadian economy, stupid.

Politics: Contrasting Strategies on the Right

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Globe and Mail columnist John Duffy has made the case that the first North American election is taking place in the United States and Canada. Duffy believes that that rural voters (represented by the Republicans and the Conservatives) are being pitted against urban voters (represented by the Democrats and the other parties in Canada). While challenges to that thesis could take several forms, perhaps the most interesting divide may be that between the tactics used by the Republican Party of John McCain and the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper.

In Canada, Stephen Harper has positioned his Conservative Party as the beacon of stability and competent economic stewardship. He has called the other parties "too risky for Canada" especially in rough economic times, and has tried to emphasize that risk. Indeed, polls indicate that Harper is viewed by Canadians as the best leader to handle the economy. The deeper the economic problems in the United States prove to be and larger their impact on Canada appears, the more Harper would seem to benefit.

In contrast, John McCain has been trying to establish himself as more anti-establishment than the candidate of the party that actually is out of power in the White House. Building on his long-standing reputation as a "maverick," McCain picked as his vice-presidential nominee someone else who could claim populist credentials in Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Since picking Palin, McCain has rarely talked about his advantage in experience over rival Barack Obama, instead emphasizing what his ticket would do to change the nation's capitol. He paints himself as a man of action, who takes on his own party and forces change in ways that benefit the country, even if that means doing things in an unconventional manner and hurting his own political prospects.

(As a side note, the etymology of the word "maverick" is somewhat amusing, traditionally meaning an unbranded ranch animal, named after a Texas rancher who refused to brand his cattle. This was essentially an unethical practice by Samuel Maverick, allowing him to claim ANY unbranded cattle whether it was actually his or not, subverting the branding system to his personal advantage. Does a politician really want to be associated with a word of that etymology?)

The "maverick," "country-first" strategy reached a new apex this week when McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington to lead the effort to pass economic bail-out legislation, and that furthermore he would not attend the scheduled Presidential debate scheduled for this evening. While McCain tried to make a case for demonstrating self-sacrificing leadership through this action, in many ways he made Obama look like the competent statesman who was taking a measured approach and understood that the personal contribution of either candidate to the legislation was likely to be minimal. Obama's statements that "presidents have to do more than one thing at a time" and that "injecting presidential politics into this process may not be helpful" sound like things that Stephen Harper might say. Far from calling the other candidate too risky, McCain is opening the door to appearing too risky himself.

A case could be made, in fact, that the personality expressed by McCain in his campaign does not most closely resemble Stephen Harper, but that of Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe. Interestingly, it is indeed the Bloc that may effectively compete for rural votes in Quebec if for no other reason than its nationalist stance. While generally regarded as a left-leaning party, the Bloc currently holds most of the rural seats from Quebec and may retain a number of them considering the current backlash against perceived Conservative insensitivity to Québécois culture.

The rise of the action démocratique Québec (ADQ) at the provincial level in Quebec, as well as the election of a New Democratic Party member of parliament in urban Montreal, may indicate that Duffy's rural-urban thesis is coming to that province. However, since there is still competition for rural voters in Quebec and the current divide in tactics between the Republicans and Conservatives exists, the first North American election still probably lies in the future.

Politics: Nixonian Stephen Harper

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Earlier this month, columnist Paul Krugman received considerable attention in the United States for a piece in the New York Times, echoing historian Rick Perlstein's book “Nixonland,” claiming that Republican politics in the United States had been exploiting the resentments and fears of voters toward various other Americans ever since Richard Nixon came onto the scene. George W. Bush's anti-intellectual, anti-elitist, anti-government campaigns, so effective against both Al Gore and John Kerry, could be directly traced to Nixon's establishment of the "Orthogonians" at Whittier College to counter the Franklin Society that had rejected him.

Any doubt that Conservative Party of Canada leader Stephen Harper had learned from the Republican tactic should have been dispelled this week. Yesterday, Harper defended his controversial recent cut of $45 million in arts funding by saying that "ordinary Canadians" did not appreciate people attending "rich galas" (Harper felt the need to repeat the word "rich" throughout the speech) complaining about the loss of subsidies. He also stated that "cultural funding" had increased under his government.

On that final point, Harper is technically correct. Government spending on "culture" has increased under his administration. The problem with the statement is that "culture" is quite broadly defined in official terms. It includes institutions such as the CBC and other government funding of the media, and sports funding. Most Canadians would probably agree that hockey and curling count as culture. However, the increases in "culture" funding have mostly been directed at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, in the realm of sports, and into "new media" ventures in the media. Funding for items that would be considered "arts" has gone down modestly, though even the CBC has had trouble pinning down the exact amount.

Skepticism of the Conservative government on arts spending has been largely driven by a provision of Bill C-10 from the recent parliament, which gave the Heritage Minister the right to refuse tax credits for a project deemed "offensive or not in the public interest"--after the completion of the project. C-10 was expected to lead to considerable self-censorship amongst artists out of fear of losing the tax credit. The passage of C-10 in the House of Commons led many artists to turn against the Harper government, and Harper's recent comments seem to reinforce the impression that the Conservatives are not interested in maintaining the current arts atmosphere in Canada.

Backlash against C-10 and Harper's recent comments seems to building, especially in Quebec. A popular and hilarious You Tube video (the linked version has English subtitles) paints the Conservative government as hopelessly unable to understand Quebecois culture. If any resentment is incited in Quebec, it may be against the Conservatives.

The use of resentment seems to have become a real theme of the Conservative campaign. About two weeks ago, I received campaign mail that stated "Why should thugs, drug dealers, and sexual offenders serve their sentences at home watching TV, playing video games, and surfing...the Internet? They shouldn't. The Conservative Government Supports Ending House Arrest for Serious Offences." Yesterday, Harper himself started making this case in his speeches, apparently an attempt to make people resent certain criminals for having an easy lifestyle. It turns out that only 11,000 people nationwide are in house arrest, most of them in transition to release after having served much of their sentences in jail. Putting all of them in jail would not be likely to have any actual impact in the discouragement of crime. Thus, the point of the campaign is clearly more symbolic. At some level, building resentment against criminals may be preferable to inciting fear in the electorate. In this case, the campaign tactic chosen to sell the policy seems to be more revealing of the candidate than the substance of the policy.

Harper's Nixonian tactics have not been limited to the incitement of resentment. Nixon was well-known for using coarse language, especially in private, and Harper has taken to using surprisingly coarse language during this campaign. Referring to the Liberals' "Green Shift" environmental proposal, he has talked about the "Green Shaft" and stated that it will "screw everybody across the country." Whether intended as a sexual or carpentry reference, that's quite colloquial and graphic language to be using in a Canadian political campaign, and he's repeated it often enough that it can't be passed off as an off-the-cuff remark. That's the language Harper apparently wants associated with his campaign.

While a case could be made that there has been a shade of anti-elitism in American politics ever since the Declaration of Independence, Nixon and Republican strategists right through to George W. Bush's Karl Rove have taken it to new levels, creating a division in the electorate that has resulted in the deep "blue and red America" divide that has made centrist politics almost impossible to practice in the United States. In contrast, Canada has no such long-standing tradition, and the two largest political parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, have traditionally tried to claim--and govern from--the political center. Canadians from all political stripes still talk to one another and seem to prefer centrist policies.

Many Canadians have found Stephen Harper to be a competent and centrist Prime Minister, as reflected in his positive leadership poll numbers. There seems to be far more to question in his campaign tactics than in his actual policies. The channeling of Richard Nixon by Harper should be closely examined by everyone in Canada, starting with Stephen Harper. One look down south should show where it could be taking Canada, and I don't believe that even Stephen Harper wants to end up with the divisions that exist in the US electorate.

Politics: The Real Threat To Conservatives

TORONTO, ONTARIO - The current flare-up over the Leadership Debates in Canada is revealing that the real threat to the Conservatives in this election is the Green Party, not the Liberals.

I have found the behavior of the party leaders after the decision yesterday by the consortium of networks to exclude Green Party leader Elizabeth May from the Leadership Debates quite revealing. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the leader of the Conservative Party, cited the deal between May and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion to not run opposing candidates in their ridings, claiming May was actually the Liberal candidate in her riding of Central Nova. He went so far as to predict that May would endorse the Liberals before the election is held.

The concept of a party leader with 306 candidates running nationwide abandoning them to endorse another party is absurd, as May quickly pointed out. If the pool of voters that might vote for the Liberals and the Greens was really the same set of people, one would think that Harper would want to encourage the comparatively-small Greens to take votes away from the Liberals and make the task of creating a Conservative plurality easier. Since he isn't doing that, there must be some other motivation.

Could it be that Harper is actually worried about the Greens taking away votes from Conservatives? The only party leader that publicly called for May's participation in the debates, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, doesn't seem concerned. The Green Party's historic emphasis on the environment shouldn't appear especially attractive to a Liberal, as Dion has proposed the Green Shift carbon taxing scheme that moves in the same direction as desired by the Green Party, one of the reasons that Harper cited in claiming they were really the same party. Yet, why would a Liberal-leaning voter jump ship to the Greens on the basis of the environmental policies when the Liberals have a similar policy and would seem to be in a better position to actually be elected and implement the policy?

Similarly, a NDP-leaning voter would seem to have little reason to shift to the Greens. The NDP has a different perspective on the way to address climate change, calling for a cap-and-trade arrangement on carbon emissions instead of a carbon tax, but leader Jack Layton often speaks about prioritizing the environment and indeed spent most of Monday critizing the environmental condition of the province of Alberta. But, again, even if a NDP-leaning voter strongly preferred a carbon tax to cap-and-trade, why would that voter defect to the Greens and not the Liberals? Layton's opposition to having May in the debates seems to be much more likely rooted in keeping protest votes that are not environmentally motivated from going to the Greens, a position that is nearly indefensible for a party that itself often begs for attention.

Even the Bloc Quebecois speaks out enough on environmental issues, favoring the Kyoto Protocol and taxing non-renewable resources even if they favor the Hibernia project such that the idea of a voter abandoning the BQ over environmental issues seems absurd.

Yet, if one were a Conservative-leaning voter that had environmental concerns, there would be a reason to defect to the Greens. While Stephen Harper claims that the environment and the economy are at odds, Elizabeth May rejects that thesis and professes that sustainable economics and sustainable environmental policies go hand-in-hand. She has increasingly emphasized sustainable economics, including in a recent interview with CBC's "The Current". This provides a reason for Conservatives to consider the Greens--they can maintain their fiscal responsibility and not claim that it's impossible to do and keep the economy going. Furthermore, one look at the European economy seems to imply that May's vision might actually be achievable.

I have yet to personally meet a former Liberal or NDP supporter that has switched to the Greens. On the other hand, I know several former Conservatives, particularly former Progressive Conservatives, that are looking closely at the Greens or have started to look at them. I suspect that's the real reason Harper opposes and Dion supports Elizabeth May's inclusion in the Leadership debates.

The public reaction to the exclusion of Elizabeth May from the debates has been substantially negative. It should be. The real standard for inclusion in the debates should be electing a member of parliament from that party (by which indeed the Greens would not qualify on the basis of Blair Wilson's change of affiliation) OR by running candidates in at least (say) 90% of the ridings across the country (by which the party does qualify). If a party is organized enough to be running candidates across the entire nation, it has a voice that deserves to be heard at the Leadership debates. To my knowledge, this standard would only add the Greens to the present debates, not any of the other Federally-registered parties that at most have fielded a handful of candidates across the country, usually in regional or urban clusters.

If the policies of Conservatives, Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are defensible, then they should be able to promote them in a debate, whether Elizabeth May is there promoting the Green Party or not. Harper, Layton, and the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe should be ashamed for causing her to be excluded from the national forum.

Politics: Canadian Election Expectations

TORONTO, ONTARIO - This post may read to some as advocacy of the NDP or the Greens, but I believe that misses the point. What I'm really talking about is rejecting expectations--usually set by rival parties--and actually looking at what a party may do in the future. Fundamentally, elections are supposed to be about the future, are they not?

Nothing frustrates me more than to hear someone say "the NDP will never form a government" or "the Greens will never form a government." The odds might be quite long, and perhaps there are good reasons to not want them to form a government, but dismissing the possibility of any party running candidates all across Canada taking power is not healthy thinking, in my opinion.

In a general election, every seat in the House of Commons is up for grabs. If a party is running candidates in each riding, they conceivably can form a government. Believing that they cannot just makes it more likely that they won't--and results in defeatist, US-style politics.

Canada doesn't suffer from nearly the incumbent inertia experienced in the United States. Canadians actually "throw the bums out" when desired, and there should be pride in this ability and tradition--and a recognition that this means anything can happen.

If the NDP didn't believe this, could they have recruited Thomas Mulcair to win in Outremont?

I am not saying that the history of a party does not matter. I hold my suspicions of the Liberals and the Conservatives based on their past governments (I'd cite other parties, but they haven't formed governments lately) just like everyone else. If you believe Stephen Harper lied egregiously in this past minority government, that Stéphane Dion broke a promise by proposing a carbon tax, that Jack Layton hasn't shown adequate leadership in parliament, or that Elizabeth May engaged in back-room dealing the the Liberals, then those might be good reasons not to vote for their parties. The past performance of individuals does matter, and the people that they bring with them does matter.

But, I don't understand why many Liberals didn't give Stéphane Dion a chance. Sure, he had some baggage, especially in Quebec. Yet, I listened to the candidate speeches during the 2006 Liberal Party convention, and I found that Dion--and, indeed, most of the Liberal candidates--articulated a cohesive, electable vision. Just the same, since he won that leadership race all we hear are complaints about him being too professorial, too weak, unable to win, and so on. The pre-conceived notions of Dion have dominated the media. Almost nobody has seemed to care about what he could do moving forward.

Yet, I look at the actual record and don't see the evidence. Many fault me for being too tolerant of pragmatic practicing of Machiavellian politics, but did it really make sense for Dion to show "strength" by bringing down the Conservatives in 2007 when the appetite for an election was even lower than it is now? Is an energy policy not all that different than what Al Gore wanted to propose in the early Clinton administration really too "professorial"?

Lest this seem like a defense of the left-wing parties, Stephen Harper has clearly been a victim of perception and expectations in the past. Who believed that he could govern the country from a minority position for more than two years? Even within the Conservative party, there seemed to be skepticism of his ability to be viewed as a leader. Now, every poll seems to show him regarded as the strongest leader. If all voters believed the nay-saying, would Harper have gotten the chance he has received to prove these expectations wrong?

Elections need to be about the future, not the past. I advocate throwing away the common perceptions and expectations, taking a careful look at what the candidates (and by that, I mean in a riding as well as at the party leadership level) are saying, evaluating their ability to deliver what they promise in the future, and then making a decision. It might not be the same decision made based on what "everyone" is saying.

If each Canadian actually did that, there might be a lot of expectations proved false and perceptions changed in Canada. Furthermore, I'm not so certain the beneficiaries would be the NDP and the Greens--it might well be the Liberals or even the Conservatives. After all, having expectations would be contrary to this post.