3 Things

Three things that inspire me:

Creativity

Talent

Enthusiasm

Best part is, I don't have to limit myself to just going online to find them.  They're out there, every day, in places you'd least expect.

Why the Rob Ford crack scandal is bad news for progressives (Paul Saurette)

 

“You guys are lower than a bunch of f**kn’ politicians.” Quite the statement, coming from “everyman” Doug Ford – inheritor of a family business, city councillor, aspiring provincial politician, son of an MPP and brother to a mayor. Given their bombastic history and vitriolic response to the unfolding scandal, many Torontonians may be tempted to revel in the poetic justice of watching the tragic flaws that propelled them up, now pull them low.

But even progressives who regret the damage the Fords have done to the municipal agenda and disdain the faux-populist affectations of a couple of self-entitled rich guys passing themselves off as regular joes, should mourn the events of the last few weeks and think carefully before indulging in too much schadenfreude. For although these scandals might ultimately topple one or two “Teflon” conservative politicians (which wouldn’t be a bad thing), the long term effects of scandals like these are likely to make it even harder for us to advance progressive political agendas.

Why might this be the case? The ease with which Doug Ford was able, devoid of irony, to demean the media by insulting politicians, is indicative of a political worldview that is both fantastical and real at the same time. It is a perspective that closely mirrors what Thomas Frank has termed “backlash populism.”

 

Backlash populism is not really political populism. Political populism, at minimum, argues for substantial procedural changes in the way the political realm functions to give “the people” a more direct say in politics (for example, abolishing the senate, holding direct referendums, or giving grassroots riding associations far more real authority). Historically, political populism has also sought to reduce inequalities of wealth and power. Thus it has usually critiqued the excessive influence and wealth of economic elites, who also tend to exercise a heavy influence over political and media spheres.

Backlash populism, however, merely mimics the linguistic tics of political populism (e.g. invoking the people against an imagined elite) without any actual policy to back it up. In fact, the real achievement of conservative backlash populism – pioneered in the US and sometimes embraced in Canada – is to use populist language while changing the target. In this worldview, having money doesn’t make you an elite. It is the “social” elites (Doug Ford’s term) in the media and politics that are the enemy. Faux populism is probably a better name for it.

One might think that such a narrative is too silly to become popular. But contemporary neuroscience has shown that sheer repetition is a powerful strategy of persuasion. Neurons that fire together, wire together, as they like to say. The constant repetition of these faux populist talking points actually works with lots of people. As Daniel Kahneman – winner of a Nobel prize for his pioneering work in behavioural economics – has shown, the more times you hear something (even if you don’t really believe it), the more familiar it feels. And the more familiar it feels, the more true it seems.

 Familiarity may breed contempt among some. But it also breeds acceptance among many others. And the faux populist story has been circulating in Canada in politics and the media for several decades.

One of the core tenets of faux populism is the idea that you can’t trust anyone in the media (latte sipping, look-down-their-nose-at-you city types) or in establishment politics (corrupt and captured by special interests). Hence the reason so many conservative politicians continue to frame themselves as rank outsiders despite it being patently untrue (George W’s successful ability to claim the outsider mantle despite being literally the son of the president shows how far this can go). And why Doug Ford could refer to politicians as the almost lowest of the low without blushing.

 

Won’t the fact that it is now conservatives that are so spectacularly caught up in a whirlwind of scandal at federal, provincial and municipal levels finally burst the bubble and let people see the empty rhetoric of faux populism for what it is? It is possible. But the more likely outcome is that these scandals will only deepen the generalized distrust and cynicism that Canadians increasingly feel towards politics.

 

With each scandal, the bar of what we expect of our politicians is lowered farther and farther. It now takes truly absurd events to shock us. And so we become even more cynical about all politicians. If we can’t even trust the guys who yell loudest about stamping out crime; and if we have to watch even the hand of the guys who lecture longest about keeping the public till free from those who feel entitled to their entitlements, who can we put our faith in?

And yet, even if we don’t expect more, we still know we should be able to. So alongside our cynicism, we start to resent the fact that we are constantly disappointed by so many of our political representatives.

 

The tragedy is that this intensification of cynicism and resentment – even when caused by conservative scandals – is a bigger problem for progressives than it for conservatives. Progressive political parties rely on having citizens believe, at least to some degree, that those in public office might be worth trusting and might actually be working for the general good. And most progressive platforms require citizens to put their faith in the idea that greed is not the only motivator and that we can set up non-market systems that actually deliver more value than if we assume that people will only do the bare minimum they can get away with.

 

Contemporary conservatism, however, is in a far better situation to appeal to a public that only believes in individualized interest and doesn’t trust anyone. Because the most logical response to those assumptions is to create a night-watchman state that is heavy handed when it comes to national security, crime and protecting (at least the appearance of) a functioning market, but is largely uninterested in developing collective public solutions to many of the issues progressives care most about.

 

Progressives are well within their rights to express their outrage at these recent scandals and to push for political regime change on that basis. But that ought to be done carefully and for the right reasons. And it certainly shouldn’t be celebrated. Because these messy affairs hurt us all, and in the long run, perhaps progressives most of all.

Paul Saurette is an associate professor at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. His column appears on thestar.com every second Thursday. You can follow him on Twitter @paulsaurette.

The Business of Governing

I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

  - Mitt Romney

 

Holyday said the senior management has helped cut costs and trim the workforce, steps that were needed to put the city on a sounder financial footing.

  - From the Toronto Star

 

Reward the elimination of others?  You can only think this way if you've never had to worry about money yourself.

This, folks, is where "government as business" becomes problematic.  See, when you own a business, you are focused on the bottom line - generating revenue, managing expenses, seeking out opportunity for growth.  Period. 

While I agree it's important to keep our governing institutions on sound financial footing, there's more to government than that.  Employees are also citizens and more to the point, citizens aren't employees.  If anything, they're the employers.  If I hire a company to, say, take out my garbage and find that it's happening less and less regularly because that company culled staff to save costs and "save me money" I would not be impressed.  I'm paying money to get my garbage taken; if that doesn't happen, why should I be paying, period?

Then there's the fact that Holyday thinks senior bureaucrats deserve to get higher salaries for cutting the income of other Torontonians.  At a time when unemployment is on the rise and EI is being gutted.  What message does this send?  What model is being encouraged?  Would a young Torontonian think twice about taking a job with the City if they figured they would be pilloried for being civil servants, have their value questioned by the Mayor and possibly end up being let go, anyway?  Are people going to move here for that and a reduction in services, to say nothing of the transit mess?

There's more to success and sustainability than just dollars.

Richard Majkot takes this a step further:

“The salaries aren’t competitive,” said Majkot, executive director of the City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association (COTAPSA).

“What do you want to do, hire second best? This addresses a big hole that the city has and I hope the council realizes that.”

He's not referring to the best here, but the most cutthroat; the ones who don't mind breaking other people's eggs to make omelettes.  The best aren't in it for the money.  The types of people who deliver creative solutions to problems want skin in the game, legacy.  If they feel that's going to be tainted by association with people who are going to give quotes like that to the media, that's yet another reason to think twice.

Instead of getting the best, this hyper-competitive, carrot-and-stick mentality attracts the types of personalities that have brought Goldman Sachs, ORNGE and SNC Lavalin recent notoriety.  Which brings you back to the headlines, tarnishes your brand and undermines confidence in your leadership.

Creative destruction, indeed.

 

Mental Illness Tragedy in Toronto

Today, at around 1:30 pm on the Queen's Park TTC subway platform, I was part of a tragedy.

Sadly, it’s a tragedy that plays itself out every single day.  An older gentleman, gaunt, bald and with a full grey beard was being kicked off the train by its operator.  The why is no surprise - the man was swearing, claiming he was a US Marshall, pointing and being belligerent to the operator.  The operator was not happy; the other passengers were decidedly uncomfortable. 

I'm hardly an expert, but the behaviour this man displayed was indicative of a mental illness.  The operator was in reactive mode; the man was a threat which he wanted to remove.  The other passengers were equally reactive, trying to bundle into themselves as much as possible, not wanting anything to do with what was playing out in front of them.

Me?  I ran through the underlying context in my head – which illness the old man was likely inflicted with (schizophrenia was my guess), the limbic reactions of the passengers and operator, the broader public services that apply to mental health and justice, plus the sad regularity of the scene.  Yet still, I did nothing but watch. 

Since then, I've asked myself why I sat by, passively, when I knew what was going on and could probably have done something to help.  The answer troubles me; despite what I know about behaviour, about TTC operations and about available mental health services in Toronto, I felt helpless, unempowered, to make a difference.  If I stepped up, how would I explain the facts to the operator?  What techniques could I use to reach the old man?  How much time would it take and would, ultimately, I be able to connect the man with the help he needed?  I didn't act; the tragedy unfolded unabated, as it does time and time again.

It's not my fault that the man was sick.  It wasn't my fault that the operator was tired and frustrated.  It wasn't my duty to act - but then, whose duty was it?  Nobody was to blame, but we were all guilty of not trying to help.

We live in a society and, like it or not, we live in it together.  What happens to each individual one of us has an aggregated impact on all of us.  That man might end up sleeping in a police office, or in a hospital, costing the public money and reducing the availability of service to the rest of us.  There’s an unlikely chance he might hurt someone else, reacting to his environment much as the operator did.  Most likely, the man might do something to hurt himself. 

When we let tragedies like this happen, we are all lessened in every way – morally, financially, service-wise.  We are all responsible; abdicating our duty to each other is not enough.  When we look beyond what we see, when we reach past our feelings of discomfort, we empower ourselves to be part of the solution.

The road to empowerment lies through education.  The people we generically label as “crazy” aren’t monsters – they are real people with real families.  They’re just suffering from illnesses, illnesses for which treatment and supports exist.  The person who is sick just needs the chance to be connected with those services. 

Here are some websites you can visit to learn more:

Schizophrenia Society of Ontario

Mood Disorders Association of Ontario

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Canadian Mental Health Association

Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Children’s Mental Health Ontario

I am advocating for a web system that makes it easy for the average person on the street to take a photo or send a text into an online portal, connecting a situation as it happens with the local service providers who can do something about it.  We already have suicide lines in subway stations; Google Maps lets us find restaurants or theatres and rates them.  A digital mental health service system wouldn’t be much different, wouldn’t cost much to build and it would make it easy for everyone to make a difference without getting directly involved.  Such a system would help police, justice services and mental health service providers connect people with mental illness and their families with the assitance they need.  If you think this is a good idea, drop me a line here on the blog or via Twitter @__cce.  You can help.

There is lots of good work being done right now, partially by the organizations listed above but also by businesses like Great West Life and Bell Canada.  There are many, many politicians who are taking mental health and its impacts seriously – find out who your local representatives are and ask them what you can do to help.

The most important thing we can do is learn – learn about mental health and how it effects not just those with mental illness but each of us in how we live our lives, every day.  This is vital, because it does impact us;

Percentage of short term disability claims related to mental illness in Canada: 75%. 2007 figures report 72%.

Percentage of long term disability claims related to mental illness in Canada: 79%. 2007 figures report 82%.

Fastest growing category of disability costs to Canadian employers: Depression

Annual losses to the Canadian economy due to mental illness in the workplace: $33 billion

Amount employer will save, per employee per year, for those who get treatment: From $5000 - $10,000 in averagewage replacement, sick leave and prescription drug costs

We all pay the costs when we do nothing; by doing something, we can all benefit.

When you’re not part of the problem, you’re part of the solution.  Be part of the solution.

Rob Ford should brush up on his Lao-Tzu (Updated)

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/24/mayor-ford-calls-council-foes-two-steps-left-of-stalin

Poor, polarizing Mayor Ford would do well to visit his nearest public library and take out a copy of the Tao te Ching.  In his political peccadilloes, he would benefit greatly from Lao-Tzu's advice:

"When people see some thing as beautiful,
  other things become ugly.
  When people see some things as good,
  Other things become bad."

Or, when you see some folk as left of Stalin, others are going to define you as being right of Hitler.

Lao-Tzu's advice?

"The Master doesn't take sides;
 He welcomes both saints and sinners."

"Hold on to the centre."

UPDATED: There've been lots of opportunities to add to this; but this one was too good not to include:

After some back and forth between Ford and I, the mayor said "I am going to hang up before I say something I regret."

I think it was too late by then, your Worship.

Opposites create each other.  So, by creating a "with me or against me" dichotomy, Ford has basically undercut his own ability to adapt and, as a result, is turning everyone who could and should be his ally against him.

Call it natural selection.


If you are a patter for the world... there will be nothing you can't do.