Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jim Stanford examines how a national child-care program would boost Canada's post-COVID recovery and rebuilding. And Michael Roberts points out the value of being able to manufacture vaccines and vital goods for ourselves, rather than depending on foreign corporations for public health necessities.

- Nick Falvo discusses how our current social programs are set up to be grossly insufficient for single people. And Max Fawcett writes about the future of any middle class in Canada - including the need to define its well-being in terms of quality of life rather than material ownership (particularly where that's financed by debt).

- Matthew Remski offers a warning as to what to expect as Qanon and related conspiracy theories spread in Canada. And tcnorris discusses the connection between systematic errors in U.S. polling and the fomenting of distrust in institutions by Donald Trump and his followers. 

- The remarxist examines the ongoing grift that is the manufactured culture of western alienation - which is of course creating a fertile breeding ground for the most dangerous kinds of wingnuttery. And Mitchell Anderson discusses how Jason Kenney's obsession with oil interests and right-wing identity politics over people's well-being has proven disastrous for Alberta in a pandemic. 

- Finally, Patricia Treble discusses the community buy-in which has enabled the Atlantic provinces to suppress COVID-19 - and thus regain some social and economic normalcy. 

Well said

Brian Topp nicely sums up how faux populism has served to breed a violent political culture in the U.S. - and the description is all too apt here at home as well:

Their brand of right-wing populism – their appeal to unreason, to hatred, to anger, and their dance with violence (just as the previous generation of right-wing American populists danced with white racism) – invites what happened in Arizona on Saturday.
...
Why do populist right-wingers need to play these games? Because they can't defend their program on its merits.

Help for the poor through tax giveaways to the rich. Economic security by breaking people's pensions. Fiscal responsibility by bankrupting the state. Jobs by promoting economic recklessness that has produced a global economic crisis. A better society by promoting gross income disparity. Double and triple the police and prison apparatus to deal with a crime rate that has long been in decline. Better health care by making it available only to those who can afford it. Getting the state out of people's lives by imposing narrow religious views in the schools. Legislating responsibly by abdicating the legislative and budget process to corporate lobbyists. Peace by warmongering.

None of the central goals of American populist right-wingers hold up in rational debate. So a smokescreen is required. Take our country back! Respect the constitution! And... lock and load!

It's had a good run in the past two years, this latest manifestation of right-wing unreason in the United States. But perhaps this is the moment its real nature stands revealed. Like all right-wing populism, that is something it cannot survive.

Dumbing down

A belated shorter John Doyle:

A conscience. An interest in accuracy. A sense of shame. These are the weaknesses which the Cons have long since eliminated in order to better posture on behalf of their party and ideology. And I salute them for it.

Paging all speech warriors

We await your immediate and outraged response to the systematic suppression of disagreement with nuclear power, expressed peacefully through signs on the speakers' private property.

This is where we pause for laughter.

Coincidental

A new State of the Future report with backing from a remarkable range of different groups is calling for an "effort on the scale of the Apollo mission" which landed man on the moon to combat global warming. (And it would seem reasonable to figure that saving our current planet is worth at least as much of a concentrated effort as exploring its satellite.)

But just in time, hoax theories about the moon landing are also getting new attention in the press. Which raises the question: if the next argument in favour of strong action against climate change is based on an analogy to, say, the industrial revolution, will we be treated to a corresponding argument that that too was a hoax?

On overheated rhetoric

Shorter National Post editorial board:

BREAKING: A single overstated phrase in a Sheila Copps column proves conclusively that everybody to the left of Ted Morton hates Canada and considers it hell on earth without any supporting evidence. We now return to our regularly-scheduled column on how human rights commissions are worse than Hitler.

Today's right-wing vocabulary lesson

Coup: A vote in which parties representing the majority of seats in a legislative body use their superior democratically-elected numbers to vote down a governing party which has lost their confidence.

"Coup": The military seizure and subsequent forcible exile of a democratically-elected leader.

All too true

Digby nicely sums up how the right wing's complete lack of scruples or first principles which won't be tossed away where politically convenient has made it impossible to have a genuine conversation about what kinds of actions are and aren't acceptable:

(T)hey have retired the concept of hypocrisy. It goes far beyond double standards or duplicity or bad faith. There's an aggression to it, a boldness, that dares people to bring up the bald and obvious fact that the person making the charge is herself a far worse perpetrator of the thing she is decrying. There's an intellectual violence in it.

In a world in which the conservatives weren't such post modern shape shifters, we could come to a consensus on certain issues in this country --- like privacy, for instance. We could agree that it's wrong for government employees to use private information for partisan purposes --- or for the media, including bloggers, to stalk and publish private information of anyone who dares speak out for a political cause. But we don't live in a world like that.

We live in a world where the right wing ruthlessly and without mercy degrades and attacks by any means necessary what they perceive as the enemy, and then uses the great principles of democracy and fair play when the same is done to them. They leave the rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.

(I)t's not that I believe liberals are purely good and decent. We have many, many faults and are almost preternaturally talented at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory before we even get finished celebrating. But failing to truly grok just how pernicious this right wing rejection of hypocrisy really is and how much power it gives them is a foolish mistake.

And lest there be any doubt, no, the Cons at home aren't any different.

Letting loose

I'd planned to post about the Cons' latest attack on reproductive rights in the form of Maurice Vellacott's Bill C-537, but thereginamom has beaten me to the punch.

So rather than commenting on the substance of the bill for now, let's consider the timing involved. With Rob Anders acting up this week as well, could it be that the Cons' crazies have finally decided that they can't restrain themselves any longer? Or was this another attempt to make sure that at least one set of bad news for Deceivin' Stephen - either the Cons' stay on the wrong side of the law or the latest in hard-right pandering - would be drowned out by the other?

(Edit: changed title.)

Senseless

Shorter (or at least more accurate) Halls of Macadamia:
In light of the shooting of Constable Christopher John Worden, we should declare war on everything even speculated to be linked to his death, including low-income citizens, apartment complexes, and police assistance calls. But not guns, because that would be wrongly politicizing a tragedy.

Turning back the clock

Ted Byfield argues that it's long past time to make child labour the norm once again. Stay tuned for the next column in his "Bring Back the 19th Century" series, where Byfield wonders whether it's time to reconsider universal suffrage.

(Edit: While the Byfields probably are interchangeable, might as well correct who's responsible for this column in particular.)

Canadian Blue Lemons Out of Touch with Reality

Lemon is ready to throw blame around for the hidden polling which showed that the Cons couldn't be further from connecting with Canada's ethnic communities:

Who commissioned this study?
Was Ipsos Reid hired by bureaucrats hoping to embarrass the government?

So let's take a look at which notorious Communist operative actively took credit for a poll which Lemon sees as an effort to sabotage the Cons' efforts:

A spokesman from the Prime Minister's Office said the research was based on policies outlined in the speech from the throne, as well as issues of importance to new Canadians.

"The groups were non-partisan, policy-focused and helpful in getting input from members of Canada's multicultural communities," said Dimitri Soudas.

For those who find the name familiar, that's with good reason, as it's Harper's deputy press secretary who actively sought to defend the poll when it was first discovered. Which means either that Soudas managed to come down with a severe case of Left Wing Conspiracy Syndrome without his bosses noticing over the last year-plus - or that we have another prime example of reality's notorious left-wing bias.

Never enough now

Shorter Paul Jackson:
The only thing more unfair and devious than an opposition party not willing to cater to the government's every whim is one which actually helps to pass a government bill.

Authoritarians in waiting

Lately there's been no lack of Lib and Green bloggers trying to vilify Jack Layton and the NDP at every turn - and reality be damned in the effort. But the Blogging Tories have offered a couple of reminders that they're still without equal when it comes to fact-free demonization.

Last weekend, the outrage du jour was that the NDP's reporting of publicly-available documents allegedly constituted "sabotage". And today, the festivities included an attempt to classify Jack Layton's work to build alliances with international leaders as "illegal", "sedition" and "treasonous" - notwithstanding the fact that other opposition politicians, including Stephen Harper in his time on opposition benches, have (quite properly) engaged in similar efforts.

Of course, such overheated rhetoric is usually a sign that a party is doing something right. And indeed the NDP deserves full credit both for holding the Cons accountable, and working to build more effective links abroad. But it's still remarkable how many Con supporters would seem entirely happy to make "existing while NDP" (or presumably any other party which was managing to successfully oppose the Cons) into a capital offence.

Can't stand it, I know you planned it

Shorter Babbling Brooks:
War is peace. Truth is sabotage. Ignorance is strength.

On false moderation

Stephen Maher nicely pegs why Harper's attempts to appear relatively moderate haven't put a dent in the rightful suspicions of Canadians - and aren't likely to anytime soon:

Ted Byfield, a conservative Alberta commentator who has watched Mr. Harper for years, said in 2004 that any such moves would be merely strategic.

"I don’t think he knows how to compromise," he said. "It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?"

Since then, on virtually every important national issue, Mr. Harper has shifted left toward the traditional Canadian consensus position. He has rarely, though, enunciated reasons for the shift, perhaps because that would mean admitting he was wrong earlier, or perhaps because he does not believe he was wrong, just that the earlier position was not acceptable politically...

Some policy flip-flops are a normal byproduct of going from opposition to government, but Mr. Harper has changed his whole platform, one item at a time, embracing everything from bilingualism, which he once called "the god that failed," to the Kyoto accord, which he called "a socialist scheme."

It looks like he would change a policy, judge whether it moved him close enough to the centre, then finding it had not, sigh and change the next policy...

These changes are different from the normal broken promises of politics — like Jean Chretien’s vow to scrap the GST or Mr. Harper’s promise on income trusts — and more like a complete transformation. And since they have not been accompanied by a public explanation, it is hard for anyone to know what Mr. Harper really thinks about things.

Average Canadians, who pay little attention to politics between elections, nonetheless seem to sense this ambiguity, perhaps in the guarded look that Mr. Harper has in his eyes from time to time.

If there's anything Maher misses, it's that there's another reason for concern beyond only Harper's lack of justification for his changes in position.

Instead, the Cons' stay in government has also been marked by a distinction between their spontaneous responses and their more calculated maneuvers. Harper's grudging moves toward the centre have, as noted by Maher, largely been based on an intention to do as little as possible as late as possible in order to appear centrist.

In contrast, his party's manner of dealing with new issues which demand an immediate response (particularly with respect to foreign policy) has generally involved taking as extreme a position as possible as quickly as possible, then refusing to retreat except to the extent absolutely necessary. And since all but the largest foreign policy issues tend to be relatively quickly forgotten, that's often resulted in little (if any) movement from the Cons' initial stances.

Based on that track record, it's easy to see that the instincts of Harper and the Cons still amount to nothing more than a cynical, centralized and corporatized version of the extreme positions which they now try to claim are in the past. And with the Cons' stay in power marked by a complete absence of principle other than a desire to reinforce that power with a majority government, Canadians have every reason to think that Harper's refusal to explain his party's change in position simply reflects the fact that he's looking to reverse course at the first politically-viable opportunity.

A dogged defence

Shorter Officially Screwed:

The fact that nobody sees the Cons' tax credits as worth bothering with just proves that they're working!

Transference much?

Of all the comments on Pat Martin today (and there have been some ludicrous ones from Libs and Cons alike), this manages to stand out for sheer detachment from reality:

(Martin) did not come out and criticize Jack, he pointed the finger at NDP's policymaking and communications apparatus, which, he said is far too guarded in spreading the party's message, often replacing plain talk with officialese. Considering the hierarchy in the NDP, that's just code for blaming the leader. Nobody takes a crap in that party without their leader's approval or approval from the leader's office.

That's right: a supporter of Harper's Cons trying to accuse the NDP of micromanagement. If you listen carefully, you can hear irony spinning in its grave.

Can't-miss TV

Ordinarily, there are few shows which I find less interesting than contrived reality TV. But if there were a "wingnuts" team on CBC's Test the Nation, could anybody pass up the opportunity to see just how much more they can embarrass themselves?

(Of course, this might make for slightly more fair competition.)

Never enough

The National Post and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation team up to whine about the number of people employed by the federal government - even though the actual data suggests that the anti-civil servant crowd has received exactly what it's wanted over the past decade.

Let's start with the complaint:

John Williamson, the national director of the taxpayers' advocacy group the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the figures speak volumes about government promises to cut bureaucracy over the past 11 years. "The numbers speak for themselves," he said.

"Politicians are good at talking about changing the way government works, but the reality is that government hasn't changed -- it looks pretty much the same as it did a decade ago."...

Mr. Williamson said the civil service cuts of the 1990s were "a passing phase," and the bureaucracy began quietly expanding again as soon as it could.

"It is the nature of the beast to keep filling cubicles in Ottawa," he said "[And] as long as the size of the federal civil service is growing, then the size of government is growing."

One of the problems with the periodic government announcements of cuts or drives for greater efficiency is that while spending on programs is often slashed, those who create and administer these programs rarely lose their jobs, he said.

"Health care gets cut, education gets cut -- things like that -- rather than the size of the federal bureaucracy."

So just how many "cubicles in Ottawa" have been filled over the past decade at the expense of program spending?

In 2006, the last year for which the federal statistics agency has figures, there were just over 380,700 Canadians working for the federal government, down slightly from about 382,000 in 1995. The study looked at bureaucrats working for all government departments, including members of the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and employees of federal boards and agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency...

The Statistics Canada paper said the overall number of federal civil service positions fell sharply in 1996, under deficit-reduction measures introduced by then finance minister Paul Martin. About 29,000 bureaucrats took early retirement or buyout packages that year, and the overall size of the civil service continued to fall until 1999 when it bottomed out at 326,500 --a drop of more than 55,000 federal government employees in four years.

But from 2000 on, the numbers began to increase. In fact, since 1999, Ottawa has added slightly more than 54,000 new people to the federal payroll, Statistics Canada said, an average growth of 2.2% a year.

The increase is attributed to growth in services such as border guards, RCMP, Canada Revenue Agency and the CBC. Employment in the military and "core" public departments fell over the period.

To anybody interesting in discussing the facts, this would serve as strong evidence that in fact the number of "cubicles in Ottawa" has indeed undergone a significant reduction. Not has Ottawa's civil service not expanded back to its pre-1996 levels, but even during the expansion of government spending over the past few years, staffing at "core public departments" has continued to decline. Meanwhile, the move in the total numbers back toward the starting point is based on the inclusion of programs such as policing, which even the CTF (hopefully) wouldn't be rabid enough to oppose.

But since that fact doesn't fit with the CTF's stock rant about bureaucracy, it's entirely ignored in favour of the usual attempt to demonize the civil service. And the article doesn't bother to seek an opinion from anybody who's actually willing to respond to the study's conclusions - meaning that the CTF's blatant disregard for the facts goes entirely unchallenged.

Sadly, it's articles like this that have enabled the anti-government mantra to become such an overwhelming part of Canada's public debate. And while the Cons would likely revel in the opportunity to undertake another wave of slashing, hopefully other parties with a bit stronger grasp on reality will realize that it's pointless to try to please people who apparently won't be satisfied until the civil service is torn down entirely.