Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Plenty of commentators are using the Labour Day weekend to discuss the place of workers in Canadian society. Sid Ryan notes that depressed wages are bad news for Canada's economy generally. And Morna Ballantyne and Steven Staples point out the need for unions to reach out beyond their membership - particularly to highlight how collective bargaining helps workers throughout the workforce.

- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter longs for a future in which there's no such thing as a good job.

- Tonda MacCharles offers an Ontario perspective on the Cons' gutting of environmental assessments. But it's worth wondering whether the Cons' decision to decree that regulators have no business actually evaluating environmental impacts from a policy perspective will allow outside parties to play a greater role in shaping public opinion - such as, say, the experts who have concluded that tanker traffic off the B.C. coast poses unacceptable environmental risks. (Handy hint: I wouldn't want to be the one trying to justify allowing tankers to operate based on the claim that there's only a 73% chance of a major spill.)

- Finally, David Roberts raises some issues for journalists trying to cover parties who are outright hostile toward the idea that truth matters (among other norms which are normally required for a democracy to function):

The right term is “post-truth politics.” What Kevin is struggling to describe is that Romney’s campaign is not contesting the truth value of its assertions so much as contesting whether truth value itself is relevant.

One effect of the radicalization of the right over the last few decades has been the discovery of just how much our politics is held together by norms rather than rules. There’s no rule you can’t filibuster every bill in the Senate by default; there’s no rule you can’t interrupt a president’s State of the Union; there’s no rule you can’t hold the routine debt-ceiling vote hostage. It simply wasn’t done. But if you shrug off the norm and do it anyway, there’s nothing to stop you.

Similarly, it seems that the lip service given to truth in politics is but a norm itself, one with increasingly tenuous hold. Political campaigns have always lied and stretched the truth, but when caught in a lie, would typically defend themselves (claim it was actually true), retract, or at the very least stop repeating the lie. Either way, the presumption was that truth-telling had some moral force; one ought to tell the truth, even if that commandment was often honored in the breach.

What’s creepy about the Romney crew is that they don’t do any of those things. They don’t deny, they don’t stop, they just don’t care at all. What they’ve realized is that, given today’s hyper-polarization and fragmented media, there’s no practical risk to lying. It doesn’t hurt them, in terms of getting votes, so why shouldn’t they do it?

And lest there be any doubt, the combination of systematic fabrication and dishonesty and planned interference with democratic processes is just as much the modus operandi of the Harper Cons as the Romney Republicans.

Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Sunday reading.

- It's a few months old, but the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy's comparison of U.S. states with a zero personal income tax to those with the highest tax levels looks like one of the most clear refutations yet of the idea that there's any real economic benefit to be had in handing yet more money to those who already have the most.
  
- Andrew Mitrovica criticizes Chuck Strahl's qualifications to oversee CSIS, and not without some valid points about Strahl's lack of knowledge and experience in the area of security oversight. But I'd think the most important problem is this: somebody whose most recent public job responsibility was to say "yes, Mr. Harper" at every turn probably shouldn't be in charge of keeping tabs on abuses of state power.

- The Cons' attempt to run over parliamentary democracy with an omnibus budget bill has even managed to lose Lorne Gunter. Yes, that Lorne Gunter.

- Finally, Paul Krugman points out that the limited amount the U.K. Conservatives have been willing to put into stimulus when it's most sorely needed has consisted of little more than a breeding ground for cronyism.

Juxtaposition

Lorne Gunter desperately tries to pretend that nothing has changed in the NDP's reach outside of Quebec:

Outside Quebec the party is relevant in 60 or 70 ridings, with most of those concentrated in Toronto, Vancouver and the North. There was no NDP surge outside Quebec. Indeed, beyond that province, the party has hit a glass ceiling. In ridings where there is no faculty club, no concentration of civil servants or public-sector workers (nurses, teachers, social workers, etc.), no large numbers of freshman and graduate students, and no colonies of enviro-agitators, there is not much hope for the NDP.

Which of course conflicts entirely with the vote and seat totals from May 2. But in case we needed a more direct contrast, let's ask some people who actually know something about the NDP's strategy:

Mr. Lavigne said that the party's dilemma is to capture seniors and immigrants, two increasing populations in Canada that have traditionally not favoured the NDP at the polls.

They've been working on that by focusing on issues such as pensions and health care as well as family reunification.

"We don't intend to give up the seats that we've gained," said Mr. Angus, adding that he expects to see the party grow north of Toronto, in the 905 area code region, and in southwestern Ontario. "We are actually seeing breakthroughs in areas now that are second-tier ridings that were never even in our universe before. We've already begun to do outreach and planning because it's not just about holding these seats; this is about taking government."

Not that I'd see any reason to complain if the Cons are as thoroughly off base as Gunter. But lest there be any doubt, the NDP is indeed building bridges into new communities across the country - and there's a strong chance that given four years to keep up the job with increased parliamentary resources, it'll be able to overcome the Cons' momentary advantage.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Easter reading.

- We seem to have officially shifted from having commentators merely pointing out the NDP's surge, to making an effort to explain it. And David Goutor looks to have part of the answer:

Another old refrain is that the NDP is benefitting from finally dropping its past socialist rhetoric and adopting more moderate positions. This argument might be credible if there was any sign that voters have stopped seeing the NDP as a left-of-centre party. But the reality is the opposite — Layton and the NDP are in many ways the best known commodities in the election.

This points to a much more compelling explanation of the NDP’s success: Layton is getting rewarded for being so comfortable with what his party stands for and what he has to offer Canadians.
...
In one sense, the NDP’s rise can hardly be a surprise, as polls have consistently shown that a large chunk of the population supports many of the party’s policies, especially regarding social programs. It is no accident that the NDP’s rise has occurred just as issues like health care gained more public attention.

It’s also logical that Layton’s biggest gains have been in Canada’s most left-leaning province, Quebec. Indeed, if there is one long-term NDP strategy that is paying off, it is Layton’s effort to establish his party as a social democratic alternative to the Bloc for francophone voters in Quebec.

Of course, a new twist in this unpredictable campaign could turn voters in another direction. And a new wave of contrived hysteria about the threat of NDP socialism is likely on the way. But until voting day, and indeed for future elections, there is a valuable lesson from the NDP’s big surge in 2011: falling back on established values is not a bad way to get ahead.

And one can extend the analysis a few steps further in noting why the other parties haven't done so well. The Cons may be trying to take back the title of the party most opposed to government action, but they've thoroughly muddied up that message by also trying to take credit at the local level for stimulus spending. And the Libs seem to have run as far as they could from their platform and supposed principles under Stephane Dion - ensuring that voters would have little idea what they claim to stand for, and even less reason to believe whatever consistent message they can decipher.

- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter is rather more annoyed that the NDP is gaining momentum. But he too offers a plausible explanation as to why it's happening:

There is no doubt in my mind why the NDP have so far been the big movers in the federal election campaign: Alone among the parties, the New Democrats have offered a positive vision for the country if they were to win the May 2 vote. I may not like their vision (and I don't)...But at least Jack Layton and his crew have managed to raise themselves above the name-calling and mudslinging - no matter how briefly - and give voters a reason to choose their party that doesn't involve only scare tactics about the threat posed by their opponents.
...
(T)he NDP's blend of green (environmental) and red (social-democratic) policies is at least a real vision for the country, whether or not you share that vision. And in an election almost devoid of vision, it's little wonder that the brightest light is attracting the most interest.

- Patrick Brethour points out another area where the Libs' attacks on the NDP make absolutely no sense:

The problem for the Liberals (in criticizing the NDP's cap-and-trade plan) is this: They envision having their own cap-and-trade system, functioning long before 2015, not much later than the NDP. Within a year, two years at the most, the Liberal program would be operating, according to Liberal environment critic Gerard Kennedy.

“We’d have a bit of a hurry-up agenda,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview in the opening week of the campaign, adding that a Liberal government would convene a first ministers’ meeting that included climate change issues in this calendar year.

“We do believe that it’s possible to do within a year or two, to have something up and running,” he said.
...
The Liberals seek to split an exceedingly slender hair: The tax-loving, unrealistic NDP would move within 10 months to set up a carbon trading system and use whatever funds it generates to pay for green programs.

But the fiscally responsible, thrifty Liberals would take 12 to 24 months to set up a carbon trading system and use whatever funds it generates to pay for green programs. Two months, evidently, is the difference between a fiscal apocalypse, and responsible government.

Perhaps the Liberal war room can divine the difference; it’s doubtful that Canadian voters can manage the feat.

Though in fairness to the Libs, they do have ample experience in claiming (however implausibly) that their arbitrary choice of two months' difference in timing makes for the lone explanation as to how programs promised for upwards of a decade were never delivered.

- As per usual, there's every reason for caution about reading too much into vote projections based on uncertain inputs and assumptions. But the Project Democracy numbers pointed out by Paul Dechene suggest there's a real chance to paint most of Regina orange next week.

- Finally, Douglas Bell offers his take on strategic voting in response to a Lib supporter whose actual ideas look to be a far better fit for the NDP:

And while he sat there spinning , I thought “I love this guy.” I thought that because he believes that the Charter actually matters and he believes that the G20 crackdown was bullshit and he believes a guaranteed annual income is the natural outcome of a just society and he believes a lot of the same stuff I believe. Plus he’s not a cynical bastard like a lot of other people in politics.

But this time, as much as I’ve pimped for the coalition and as much as I believe a Tory majority would be a disaster, I want to disagree with my friend. This time I want to vote NDP because it’s the right goddamn thing to do; because they ran the best campaign and because maybe just maybe politics isn’t about this campaign or the next campaign but the one after that.

Misrepresenting the West

Shorter Lorne Gunter:

Pay no attention to Lorne Nystrom and other longtime NDP MPs who built their base in part on a longstanding and widespread belief in abolishing the Senate. As the official voice of Con-approved Western populism, I hereby declare that the only reform anybody has ever wanted is patronage appointments for Conservative election fraudsters.

Let me win and there'll be nothing to talk about

Shorter Lorne Gunter:

Most talk about "civility" really only represents one side of a debate about the role of the state wanting to silence the other. But if we just ran everything my way by rendering government irrelevant, then actual civility would be sure to follow.

By the numbers

Number of consecutive columns by Lorne Gunter bleating solely about how right-wingers should be paid to spout even bigoted comments which reflect poorly on an employer: 2.
Number of columns in which Lorne Gunter accuses left-wingers of hypocrisy in only valuing speech for their side: 1.
Number of times Lorne Gunter has bothered to mention the lone recent example of an individual actually (and repeatedly) being arrested in North America for the crime of expressing his opinion: Take a wild guess.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On failing strategies

The media narrative on the Cons' coalition fearmongering seems to be settling into place - and aside from the usual false assertion that the NDP joined the Libs in promising not to enter a coalition in 2008, the consensus seems to be that the Cons are misfiring badly. Here's the National Post editorial board:

(T)imes have changed. If the Liberals and New Democrats were now to admit that that they are open to coalition talks after the results of the next election are known...then claims that the two are engaged in a "coup d'etat" would fall on deaf ears.

And even Lorne Gunter can't take the Cons' histrionics seriously:

(A)re the Tories guilty of still fighting the last battle, rather than the next one?

There was genuine outrage the last time a coalition reared its head, but conditions have changed enough since then that the outrage likely will not form again this time. It is no longer one month after the last election, for instance, as it was the last time the Liberals and New Democrats tried a coalition. Moreover, last time there was a genuine attempt to form a coalition, with real coalition papers drawn up and everything. Last time, the Libs and NDs were actually trying to pull one off. So far this time all we have are Tory scare stories about possible future coalitions. And fairy tales, while occasionally powerful in politics, as seldom as powerful the real deal.

On unlikely agreement

It's exceedingly rare for me to agree with much of anything Lorne Gunter has to say. But as one might have guessed from my post yesterday, I'd have to say that he's on the mark when it comes to the real problem with Helena Guergis' airport eruption:

This Friday, Guergis apologized for speaking "emotionally" and admitted her behaviour was "not appropriate." But even if only half of the foregoing is true, this goes way beyond simple emotionality and inappropriateness. This exemplifies the worst of the arrogance that gets into the heads of some politicians.

Who in this day and age arrives at an airport 15 minutes before a flight and expects to be waved through check-in and security? Only someone who is so convinced of her own importance that she has come to believe the rules that apply to mere mortals do not also apply to her.

Witness her remark about how she had been on the island working hard for "you people." There is in that a regal complex in which the speaker believes her magnanimity towards the little people entitles her to their gratitude and favour.

Of course, I strongly disagree with Gunter's apparent view that we should assume that the problem is solely with Guergis personally rather than with the Cons' government as a whole. Which is why I part company with the suggestion that firing Guergis should be enough to put the incident in the past.

But hopefully we can agree that if Stephen Harper continues to defend Guergis, then that will tell Canada that the regal attitude is at least accepted if not fully shared by the Cons in general.

Deep thought

I wonder if Lorne Gunter is insured against his home and property.

Self-serving

Lorne Gunter is determined to bash Jack Layton for having the nerve to cooperate with anybody other than Deceivin' Stephen. But in so doing, he only offers up another stark reminder of the petty and destructive view of Canadian politics which still serves as the Cons' main governing focus:

First, he had a chance to do the Liberals in and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP have the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals, instead he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.

With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist...

So let's review how the above statements compare to each other. In Gunter's world, Layton ought to have lent his support to a fiscal update that was both antithetical to the NDP's policy vision and likely to hurt them as a party as well, all for the sole purpose of helping Harper to inflict a death blow on the Liberals. Which would apparently be considered a selfless act of principle.

Instead, Layton cooperated with the opposition parties to work out an agreement which would not only improve the NDP's standing on the federal scene, but also help to ensure that policies closer to its values would be put in place (both in dealing with the recession and in governing over the next year and a half). Needless to say, that earns Gunter's condemnation as "opportunism".

Ultimately, Gunter's column looks to be just another example of the Con base's warped attitude that Harper's goal of destroying the Libs matters more than anything. But the more the Cons and their flacks try to project the same pathology onto the NDP, the more clear they make it that there's only one party which truly puts a perceived political war above the good of the country. And the Libs should be careful to keep that distinction in mind in deciding whether they want to leave Harper in control.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Apparently I need to start checking my ballot more closely

Shorter Lorne Gunter, Andrew Coyne, and a stream of Con-friendly pundits sure to follow:

While nobody voted for a progressive coalition, everybody voted for a Con-Lib corporate coalition.

On class war

Shorter Lorne Gunter, joining in on CanWest's pity party for the wealthy:
Statistics Canada's report on income shows that increased inequality in employment income has been balanced out by progressive taxation and social programs. Which somehow proves my point that we don't need progressive taxation or social programs to reduce inequality.

On hot air

Shorter Lorne Gunter:
This just in: if climate change can be combated through common-sense means like managing driving patterns and eliminating unnecessary appliances, then it isn't worth bothering with at all. Now back to our regularly-scheduled rhetorical program, "WE CAN'T REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WITHOUT DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE!"