The Agonizing Challenge of Voting in 2015

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

There's been much talk of late about uniting the main opposition parties in some sort of delusional effort to defeat the Harper Regime come the next faux election either as a one-time strategic plan or by way of a more long term relationship.  Here's a reality check for those fantasizing about such a possibility.

1) First of all, not one of the parties is really progressively left, though all three like to spin that they are when it suits them, especially if they espouse support for social programs. Every single one of them unequivocally subscribes in varying degrees to the core neoliberal tenet of market fundamentalism, continuing to promote implicitly through policy the financialization of the economy at the expense of the real productive economy, though the latter is  occasionally paid due lip service.  Practising politics within the neoliberal bubble disqualifies them immediately in my mind.

The LPC has always been neoliberal (remember the austerity programs of the 90s?), and so it could be said - perhaps ironically - that the LPC is less reprehensible than, say, the NDP with its major shift away from traditional progressive thinking to the centre during Layton's reign and now its bold shift to right of centre with Mulcair and all his talk of "free trade," "polluter pays" mechanisms (internalizing "externalities") of "sustainable development" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), and sanctioning of the tar sands under the right conditions. This is spun as modernizing the party of course, but it’s really about swinging votes. The GPC seems, at first glance, to be the most progressive, but a closer look reveals that its so-called green economy policies are really green-washing of good old market based solutions, a strategy recognized long ago by Naomi Klein among others. (Cap and trade - with which each party has flirted at one time or another - is of course another form, albeit diluted, of green-washing grounded in market fundamentalism.)

At best, then, the opposition parties can offer only a tinkering with a system that needs to be completely transformed. No one, so far as I can see, can even offer serious reform let alone the major transformation required aside from a less than satisfactory motion adopted at a GPC convention to restore the Bank of Canada partially to its original function but apparently with a series of inhibiting attached caveats.

2) Then there is the party dynamic itself to consider. How can one support, as Vaughan Lyon in his book Power Shift reminds us, any party given the deep partyocracy of all the parties whereby party discipline has eroded the very core of Parliament as an institution? What kind of power does an individual MP really have as a representative of a constituency or as a conscientious individual? Can anyone honestly say we have vigorous, honest debate and discussions in standing committees, cabinet, caucus, or question period? Is parliament only a divisive, adversarial cock pit? Can anyone honestly say that MPs themselves are really doing anything about this horrendous democratic deficit in our key political institution that is supposed to express the will of the people except mouthing off to the media occasionally from within their own partisan party bubbles? I mean, seriously, does anyone, aside from political junkies, really pay that much attention any more aside from the poor journalists and talk show types who are obliged to cover this pathetic mockery of parliamentary democracy?

3) So called representational government is failing us in the context of  increasingly irrelevant, dysfunctional parliamentary and party systems, but it is also failing us in terms of real democratic representation. What's fair, what’s democratic, about a first-past-the-post system in which an unsubstantial  majority - achieved only because of a faulty riding distribution system - can exclude the representational values of the rest of those who voted? What's the direct pay-off for our vote? What’s the incentive to vote?  Next to nothing unless you're a member of the winning team. Yet people continue to vote out of some sense of moral obligation even though, if they really thought about it for a minute, they would realize it’s like playing the lotto numbers.

Despite its messy challenges, proportional representation as an electoral system whereby power is distributed through negotiations and coalitions based on a share of the vote is clearly far more democratically representational than our current electoral sham, but don't expect any party with power - namely, the big three - to push for it any time soon. For them, party power and its substantial perks come first.

4)  In terms of fundamental democratic representation, then, the electoral system itself is deeply flawed, but so too is the structure of riding distribution on which it sits whereby the less densely populated rural ridings of Canada, especially in Ontario, carry as much representational weight as those ridings in urban and suburban areas that have much higher populations.  Such a disparity favours the Harper Regime of course because these rural ridings tend to be politically dominated by C/conservative old white bread men who on a daily basis read the Sun newspapers (distributed freely in such establishments as McDonalds and Tim Hortons) and never miss the radio talk shows. There are also a considerable numbers of the 10% of Canadians who are evangelicals in these ridings too, a major strategic component, as Yves Engler reminds us, of Harper's voting base. And since the Regime, being good little neoliberals, treats voter constituencies as strategic marketing targets, this demographic and the conservative immigrant "ethnic" market of the suburbs, now enhanced with the proposed riding expansions, are key marketing terrains for growing another Regime victory.

And so it will be very difficult for real progressives to participate in the next election without some sort of moral compromise.  So what does one do? Vote while holding one's nose, absent oneself from the system and not vote at all, continue protesting in various ways from outside, or begin the process of hollowing out from within somehow? Action of some sort is required. Apathy and indifference are not options, for they play significantly into the Regime’s hands - a Regime which continues to wear us down day after day with an extraordinary accumulation of appalling actions. Some days one can be forgiven for speculating  that the daily grinding down is a strategy in and of itself.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Addenda:

1) As Engler suggests, the rationale for Canada’s defense of Israel right or wrong is less to woo the 1.3% potential Jewish Canadian voters than the evangelicals, who have a deep ideological stake in the preservation of Israel as the “Holy Land.”

2) Interesting to note the following about the four party leaders: Harper is a former Alliance and before that a Reform party member, Ray  a former provincial and presumably at the time federal NDP member, Mulcair a former provincial Liberal MPP, and May may have been a Progressive Conservative during the Mulroney era.

Time for Real Resistance to Neoliberalism: Education, Coordination, Cooperation Leadership

Isn't it time to begin real resistance - actions and strategies beyond rallies and marches, beyond petitions for this or that worthy cause and letters to MPs and the editor, beyond conferences and discussion groups, beyond Facebook and Twitter? Isn't it time for all progressives to come together in a coordinated effort to start a real (non-violent) revolution against Neoliberalism? Every single issue with which progressives are concerned from climate change to income inequality can be traced directly to neoliberal policy, which of course is no simple set of practices but a tenaciously pernicious ideology that has penetrated the very fabric of our daily lives and that has been so thoroughly naturalized as a result that most people living inside the bubble fail to see the walls of the bubble. And many who do happen to recognize it, though well-intentioned, seek only reform within the neoliberal systems themselves, not real transformative change. There is a difference between reform and revolution, although reform can certainly serve revolution. While this may seem initially to be primarily an amoral economic issue, it is in reality a fundamentally moral issue that affects peoples everyday lives. More than an economic solution is thus required.

The only outstanding question in my mind is how to bring about a meaningful transformation on such a large and sprawling issue and thus what strategies to choose that yield real practical outcomes -  something beyond feel good satisfaction. How do we begin?  Coordination and cooperation with other progressive groups to generate real political power is the only viable strategy in my opinion - no easy task - though lots of solidarity generating things along the way to that strategic goal can still be implemented.  For that unprecedented communication to happen we need leadership from each progressive group - certainly not an easy achievement since each group has its vested interests. But if enough people in the rank and file of those groups call for such coordination and cooperation,  it just might happen. Identifying groups and constructing an all-embracing communications network is an obvious first step.

The other key factor is educating one's own people on the importance of understanding what neoliberalism is, how it works, and why it's necessary to concentrate efforts on it. One of the main failures of the progressive movement besides its insularity is a lack of focus - too many fires burning in different locales. We need one giant bonfire. You can't get help from your own organization if its members, staff and rank and file,  don't know what you're talking about.

In bringing together several youth progressive groups from across the country, PowerShift has led the way providing, that is, whatever excitement and momentum that has been generated can be sustained meaningfully and turned into real pragmatic strategies. My fear, however, is that PowerShift 2012 will be just like the Take Back Democracy Conference, a similar worthy event - that is, nothing more than another self-satisfying, insular feel good progressive bubble event. Prove me and all the other discouraged progressives out there wrong.

Addendum:

Apparently the Council of Canadians convene a summit of 50 progressive organizations in September - which at first blush looks like a powerful gesture in the right direction. It would be useful to know what actually happened at that summit.

PIPSC, Fat Cats, and Disturbing Dreams

I had the pleasure of attending the PIPSC Fat Cats game on Sunday - an exciting affair that the FCs won in the ninth with a sensational walk off steal at home plate by LaDale Hayes, who also made an extraordinary diving catch earlier in the game. Though American, he also represented the team in the before game ceremonies - which turned out to be fortuitous since he was clearly the player of the game. Still one wonders why one of the Canadian players was not a representative. Maybe Harper sent out a chill message or perhaps the Canadians thought they were being "neutral."

At any rate, I suspect the FCs gained a few more fans from the friends and family of those in attendance, which was substantial. And who knew Gary Corbett was such a rocker?

The mood at the PIPSC-Fat Cats game was festive, but beneath it was a depressive mumbling. This is my reading of that underlying mood, what I personally extrapolated from chit chats with several people, who may or may not have been members of PIPSC - I never asked. And so my comments in no way reflect PIPSC’s or any one member of PIPSC's position on these issues.

1) Managers have not suffered. Indeed, many have received or will receive bonuses for finding “efficiencies” - an extraordinarily perverse neoliberal incentive practice driven by greed.

2)Tony Clement in fact dreams of "efficiencies" at night when he's not counting gazebos - or electric sheep.

3) The PS has been increasingly politicized to the point where it is almost no longer even a nominal neutral non-partisan space but a mere extension of the ruling Regime, though the PS out of necessity has always had to bend to some degree to the party in power - never to this extent.

4) Harper has governed as a “dictator” in spirit if not in fact; and such an authoritarian rule has profoundly undermined the services and programs run by the PS, parliamentary democracy, and fundamental democracy. The current gutting of the PS coupled with the effects of the omnibus bill will only exacerbate this excruciating situation.

5) The Regime is looking for new young hires - at a reduced wage scale of course - the main requirement being a willingness to be moulded by the Regime’s ideology and thus a contributor to the neoliberal agenda.

6) Several PSs are resigning before getting axed simply because they can no longer tolerate working under the oppressive yoke of the Regime.

7) Unless progressive forces across Canada find a way to fuse their political strengths Canada will be lost. By the time the next election rolls around it will be too late since so many policies and laws will be so firmly established they may be impossible to remove - a scenario I’ve argued myself many times. Progressives have to step outside their respective bubbles and reach out to each other and, most of all, to the mainstream, as vague and challenging as that might be. They must abandon their comfortable, secure cocoons and enter the messy space of public discourse somehow.

Finding New Strategies for Progressives in Canada

A few weeks back, Andrew Coyne wrote an excruciatingly epideictic column for The National Post on the virtues of free trade in general, stressing in the process how virtuous CETA (the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) is likely to be for Canada.  It was such an egregiously neoliberal column just hanging out there in public discourse on the threshold of the CETA negotiations moving towards their end that I suggested to a well-placed progressive activist whose file was in fact free trade and the CETA agreement that he - because he has some stature and authority to speak on the issue - respond publicly in some fashion to the column.  My take was not that the column would actually carry any weight in and of itself but that such a paean to neoliberalism at this particular moment was a useful opportunity to score some points on the problems with CETA with an audience that might not have even heard the term before. Alas, his answer was, to my surprise,  a - albeit mild - trash-talking dismissal of both the column and the National Post as in effect not worthy of his attention, claiming “no one” reads such a right-wing publication and that few would pay attention to Coyne's remarks - a position, I might add, supported by some other progressives on Twitter. 


So what’s wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing it’s a symptom of a larger attitudinal drift that might be undermining the possibility of effecting real transformative system change - presumably the goal of all progressives everywhere. Why not engage with those who do not share your perspective on their ground where you might actually have a shot at changing a few minds, be they influential or not? Why simply dismiss them as unworthy of your attention because they don’t share your values?  Your goal, if you really want change, is to shift their values, not wallow comfortably in yours. What’s the point of spinning well-known progressive talking points in a vacuum to other progressives - the overwhelming tendency of progressives on Twitterverse, in the blogsphere, and in meetings of progressive organizations across the land? There’s no earth moving in such a progressive bubble. Take a shot at the Other.


We need the presence of progressive voices in mainstream media, then, whenever and in whatever ways possible. Since we have so few of those voices at the moment, that means developing strategies for finding ways to scale those walls instead of cynically standing outside muttering it’s hopeless over and over again, allowing ourselves to feel powerless and thus to be victims of neoliberalism’s moral Darwinism that, as Pierre Bourdieu has always reminded us, wishes to inculcate cynicism as the norm of all behaviour and action.  "They've won. What's the point? They'll never listen. Why bother? Why waste my time?"


We also need to find ways to begin developing some serious sophisticated alternative media outlets both to complement and to reinforce any gains that may be made in mainstream media - something way beyond  Rabble, Ipolitics, or Huffington Post, something beyond feedback yapping on the main media's websites. (Democracy Now, The Real News Network, RT, and Alternet come to mind immediately as potential models.) For in the Canada of 2012 it is only in the realm of public discourse that change can actually happen, not in party politics and their policies and not in Parliament - at least not yet. Developing strategies that might gain a bit of power in the realm of public discourse, in other words, is important because it isn’t just or even politicians whose minds need to be changed - that may never happen under the Harper Regime - but those of our fellow citizens. This is the place to grow a counter-power.


A corollary to understanding the need to pentrate the mainstream arena of public discourse is recognizing that the conventional rhetoric of protest and demonstration in 2012 has its limits. There are times when it's required, yes, and times when it's very effective - bringing many different progressives groups together for a greater show of strength in numbers, for example - but there are also times when it simply doesn't work.  Progressives nevertheless go ahead and do it anyway because, well, we've always done it. "Get the placards out of the closet, Fibber, we've got another rally to go to." What's the goal of such demonstrations? Awarness?  A particular message?  If so, what do you hope to accomplish through this particular method of generating awareness?  Does the sheer existence of, say, a large crowd in and of itself really convey a meaningful message when it's a strategy that's been used so often?  The method matters every bit as much and maybe more so than the message. Not to sound too McLuhanesque, maybe it is the method that is the message. Some rethinking about demonstrations and their purpose would seem in order.  Otherwise, “it’s just another one of those demonstration thingies, Molly, nothing new. Go back to sleep.” 

The Response to Toews' List Should be one of Absolute Outrage

http://goo.gl/qswg The response from both the media and politicos to Toews' list seems remarkably tepid to me.  Shouldn't an appropriate response be one of absolute outrage? I certainly consider this threat to progressives to be the most heinous, the most openly articulated, the widest assault yet perpetrated by the Harper Regime against those who would democratically exercise free speech and their rights to speak out against what has now clearly become a repressive regime: we're all positioned in these remarks as fundamentally terrorists, as "enemies of the state." Look closely at this text from Toews and tell me it isn't worrisome: vigilance will be exercised against "domestic extremism" - a euphemism for "domestic terrorism" - “based on grievances – real or perceived – revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anticapitalism.”  Who determines what extremism is? Why of course the state. And Toews thinks of course he's being rhetorically clever dropping in "white supremacy," and note the weasel phrase "real or perceived." Even if your grievance against, say, Gateway pipeline is only a "perceived", not a "real," one, you're still an enemy of the state. And who determines what is real or perceived? Why of course the state, but the difference doesn't matter: you're screwed either way. Members of the occupy movement better look out too since they would clearly appear to be enemies of the state in their anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal protests. Someone might want to phone Pamela Anderson as well.

It's way too early to invoke Godwin's Law, so I'll just say instead that I don't care whether the buses run on time. This is pure, unadulterated fascism. 

Much on the Progressive's Wishlist but much for which we should be grateful

We should be grateful to the occupy wall street folks who may just have started the non-violent socio-economic revolution for which we've all been waiting. The democratic character of this movement, the rapidity with which it is spreading, and its breadth give us great hope.(See OWS  statement in the above blog entry.)

We who happen to live in Ontario should also be grateful to all those who voted against a potential Hudakian Regime. With Ford and Harper in place, Hudak's victory would surely have created downright despair for progressives here and elsewhere.  Instead we have a little room to work now.

We owe Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert thanks, too, for actually giving us the real U.S. news.  Would that we had three like this in Canada, though Rick Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes do on occasion make a good effort.

And, finally, we owe deep gratitude to all the progressives around the world who constantly remind us, in big and small ways, that social and economic justice are always worth fighting for in any way one can. A special thanks to three Canadians who have in particular inspired me: Brigette DePape, Kai Nagata, and Naomi Klein.