Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Jim Stanford rightly says that it's long past time for the Occupy movement to refocus our economy in the wake of a free-market-induced crash and stagnation:

In the 1930s, the last time capitalism failed so destructively, radical opposition movements won the day: Demanding both immediate aid for the Depression’s suffering, but also bigger structural changes in the economy. Pressured by these radical forces, governments’ response went well beyond “stimulus.” Instead, government was given powerful, countervailing powers to offset the skewed dominance of business and wealth – everything from unemployment insurance to stronger regulations (aimed especially at finance) to union-friendly labour laws.

This time around, in contrast, the stronger political response to crisis has come from the other direction. Justified by deficits that were the consequence of the meltdown (not its cause), tough-love conservatives have so far seized the offensive. For every socialist out denouncing the failure of capitalism, there have been 10 Tea Partiers on the streets demanding a purer, harder incarnation of it.

The financiers who pushed us over the edge in 2008 are back in business, as profitable as ever. Most of us, meanwhile, can barely keep our heads above water. That teetering imbalance should be a recipe for left-wing revolt. So where is it?

Judging from the spirited, friendly, and optimistic crowds at this weekend’s occupation protests, perhaps that sleeping radical giant has finally been awakened....
In retrospect, the radicalism of the 1930s didn’t exactly charge out of the gates following the 1929 crash. It took years of trial and error, in the context of the continuing failure of the economy to fix itself, before the left really got going. So perhaps the current occupations will come to constitute, for this decade, something like the 1935 On to Ottawa March was to the 1930s. It started out as a small, rag-tag expression of frustration over years of human hardship. It came to symbolize a powerful, broad demand for change, influential far beyond its numbers.

- Michael Geist worries that the Cons' commitment to open government may be shutting down in a hurry now that they hold a majority.

- Bruce Johnstone points out that the Cons' decades of work to tear down the Canadian Wheat Board apparently haven't included any effort to plan to transition away from a single-desk model - which only figures to exacerbate the damage they'll do in abolishing it.

- Erin notes that the Sask Party's math skills are only looking more and more pitiful as Saskatchewan's election campaign progresses.

- Finally, both Laurie Monsebraaten and Malcolm write about the difficulties facing former NDP MP Dan Heap and his wife Alice - with a particular focus on the much more difficult circumstances which surely face many more less prominent citizens without the same resources as a relatively prosperous couple with two dozen relatives ready and able to pitch in at a moment's notice.