Emperors Don't Follow Laws

 

 

Mr. Perrin said the government’s biggest concern from its year of overwhelming defeats will be that its agenda is grinding to a halt. If that agenda “continues to be unravelled by the courts, it’s actually not governing the way that it wants to. It’s also politically quite embarrassing, and if people begin to think that the government is not understanding what the law is, and it’s not able to govern effectively, that becomes a very serious concern.”

 

I know I'm not the only one who feels far too many members of the Harper government (both elected and non-elected) feel that, because they are top dogs, they rest above the law.  They make them for other people and are held to a different standard, one they themselves set.  It's reminiscent of Karl Rove:

 

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality... We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

 

Call me sensationalist, if you feel the urge.  I can point to many, many sources of evidence to support my argument.  They can all be summed up in one line:

 

"We'll go over the heads of the members of Parliament; go over the head, frankly, of the Governor General; to right to the Canadian people." 

 

A government committed to democratic engagement recognizes that Parliament, a free press and independent courts are fundamental pillars of a democratic system.  Such a government, when faced with repeated opposition to their approach, would self-reflect a bit and consider if they need to change the way they operate.

 

This isn't how Harper's government has ever operated.  Faced with opposition, they don't compromise; they double-down, attack, do whatever they can to get their opponents to back down so that they may win. 

 

Lina Keene they could can; not-for-profits they can defund; they get more ink that Carol Todd, so reframing her positions to fit their narrative and then shutting her out is easy.  The media can be side-stepped, and has been. 

 

And yet the Supreme Court has been doggedly defiant of the Conservative Empire.  This is problematic, because opposition to their agenda, in their eyes, makes them look weak. 

 

The courts, however, aren't so easily suppressed or manipulated.  At least, not yet.

 

And that should be of serious concern to all of us.

Tim Hudak: The Angry Man with a Fanciful Plan

"I'm not going to be the leader that promises you more and more spending," said Hudak Friday.

No, he's promising to burn the whole thing down.

You know what promotes job creation?  Stability.  Reliable services.  Solid infrastructure.  That kind of thing.  

Hudak's planning to fire 100,000 Public Service employees.  Which ones?  When will the decision be made, and based on what?

The entire Ontario Public Service will be walking on eggshells, waiting to find out.  Unions will be gunning fro Hudak, trying to defend their members.

Picture strikes - lots of them.  Work-to-rule a-plenty.  With that, we'll see service disruption, delayed projects and countless important projects put on hold.  

This makes for a rather unstable environment.  What's worse, Hudak will be doing to Ontario's public service what Harper is doing to the Canadian Public Service - threatening them, bullying them and making it impossible for them to do their work in an evidence-based way.

Employers aren't going to rush in to embrace Hudak's slashed tax rates - it's in their best interest to plan long-term.  Smart companies will figure Hudak won't last four years and, if he does, the province might not.  They'll stay clear away.

Meanwhile, the covered health-care costs of the OPS sores even higher (count on a ton more anxiety and depression med prescriptions) what will Hudak do, start cutting back on health benefits?

That won't work.  Meanwhile, there's not just going to be two Parties and the Ontario Families Coalition gunning for him - every "special interest" that pays attention to facts that Hudak would rather ignore (including the Canadian Mental Health Commission) will be on his case.  That's before raising unions and regional communities that are going to get pretty mad pretty quickly, too.

What's Hudak going to do when he simply tossing insults across the aisle isn't enough to stop his mounting opposition?

Or when services grind to a halt, employers get even more skittish about hiring and people start getting more and more anxious about their future?

I don't think so, Tim.

Hudak's plan is, unfortunately, a reflection of how he thinks - in sound-bites, not strategy.  He delivers a great alliterative punch line, but that's not leadership.

It's a long campaign yet, but it's pretty clear Ontarians are going to see more of what they've seen before - anger, petulance and a refusal to listen.  

Having watched Toronto go through that with Rob Ford, Ontario will realize it'll only have itself to blame for a Hudak government.

It's about time someone else took the till of the PCs.

Lucky for Hudak, there's always talk radio.  

Functionally Fixed Antagonism is not Leadership

Two news stories that stuck out for me today:

1:  Tory Leader Tim Hudak says he won't back down after being slapped with a libel notice from Premier Kathleen Wynne over accusations she was behind an alleged plan to destroy documents in the gas plants scandal.

Hudak did back down (at least for the camera) on his Right To Work push but by and large, he's got a track-record of obstinence.  It's his way or the highway; there's no middle ground.

2: The councillor said security guards spoke to him and asked him to tell the mayor there was a private function occuring in the lounge, in an effort to stop him from repeating the allegation.

I did, but he was adamant that, 'No, that's not the reason'... He's very opinionated and you're not going to convince him otherwise."

Rob Ford doesn't back down, period.  He doesn't waver, no matter the evidence that negates his positions or demonstrates the harmful nature of his actions.  He is, after all, Rob Ford.

There is something to be said for an unyielding commitment to a vision or set of principles; the road forward can be fraught with hardships and temptations.  But neither of these gentlemen have a vision, not is there anything in particular that they stand for.

Both men are vocal about what they stand against - government, social service, consultation, anyone they deem as opponents, anyone who thinks differently than they do, anyone who calls them to task for their own mistakes.

They are equally quick to attack and demand others take ownership of errors, but both are hesitant to personally take ownership of anything other than wins.

Hudak, by his own words, has never lost an election - some other organization has always interfered and taken victory from him.  Ford didn't lose his mayoral powers because of his erratic, illegal, disruptive behaviour - it was taken from him by greedy leftists.  It's almost like they're begging for power enough to silence these competitors permanently.

There is clearly an appetite for this sort of reactionary behaviour; on every single campaign I have door-knocked on, I have heard tales of resentment from parents who feel their kids can't get jobs because immigrants have preferential treatment, disgruntled taxpayers who don't think they should be subsidizing social services for people with disabilities and voters mad at private corporations for hoarding capital and yet bemoaning taxation.

Bitter and disfranchised voters aren't looking for structural solutions - they are looking to see someone else face some form of punishment.  This is the resentment that the Fords and Hudaks tap into, pouring gas on social unrest and promising to crack down on those a given voter block dislikes.

It's cheap, populist politics, but more than that - it's what Tim Hudak and Rob Ford believe themselves.  

They are the embodiment of how they think the world should work - attack, deflect, claim all wins, blame others for all faults and failures.  In this model, victory is achieved by being the last man standing - which is hardly a good model for leading a city or a province.

   

The grand irony in this is bears repeating: both men claim to be champions of individual responsibility, but are allergic to accountability.  

This may be good practice in terms of advancing one's career - we're all greasing the squeaky wheel and all - but leadership isn't about personal advancement.  It's about leading.

Leaders study the entire terrain and understand how various paths intersect; they can't afford to put their blinders on, because they plan for long-term sustainability.

Leaders are conduits, not stumbling blocks - they actively seek out the opinions of others and constantly seek to empower people to be part of the solution in collaborative fashion.

Leaders are unafraid of taking responsibility for failures, because they understand mistakes for what they are - prototype experiences and opportunities to learn and improve.

Leaders have no interest in blame; that's regressive.  They are focused on solutions; instead of saying "you were wrong, you're a bad person" they say "what led to the result we have and what can we do to improve the outcome next time?"

Most importantly, leaders do not give in to cynicism or bitterness and certainly don't express such feelings to the people they lead.  People don't look to leaders for desperation - they can and do despair all on their own.  

They look to leaders for inspiration.

Neither Tim Hudak or Rob Ford care a whit about inspiration; they are far too busy fighting against to see where their antagonism leads.  

Which is why neither one of them will ever truly be a leader.

Tim Hudak's True Colours

"It's a PC seat.  But when you give that oversized influence to 'big labour,' they buy influence with members."

Two parts to this.  

First - I'm sure the people of Niagara would be surprised to know that the seat reserved for their elected representative belongs to the PCs.  Unless, of course, they belong to the PCs, too.  I don't think that's an assertion Hudak wants to be making.

For the second, let's look at another quote of his: "This is all about the union elite who are running the show.  Give me a level playing field in Niagara Falls and we win that seat."  Italics are mine.

Never mind that Hudak is borrowing from Rob Ford's rhetoric - it's the level playing field thing that interests me.

This is the same Tim Hudak who has repeatedly stood against creating a level playing field for Ontarians; he wants less support for poorer families, less support for persons with disabilities both physical and mental and no unions to represent the interest of individual employees against employing corporations.

When it comes to everyone else, Hudak tells us it's not about equality, it's about competition; you want to have stiff competition, as that forces you to perform better.  If we got rid of social services, regulation and unions, people would be forced to work harder, be more strategic and do better.  

Following this logic, he should have been delighted to have big unions throwing their influence into the mix, as it would force him to work harder, work smarter and maybe even adapt to the challenges he's facing.

That's not what he's done, though.  Instead, he's spouting the exact same complaints he did when he lost in 2012.  

To reiterate:

- Hudak feels entitled to the Niagara Falls seat

- He doesn't trust voters and thinks big money/influence shapes their choices

- He won a seat, yet is focusing on who to blame for losing the other one

- His blame this time looks an awful lot like the blame he cast last time - it hasn't changed, nor has he

Entitled, doesn't trust voters, focuses on blame, doesn't learn from mistakes, doesn't adapt from one challenge to the next.  Oh - and definitely doesn't like it when other kids play in what he feels is his sandbox.

That's the sort of Premier Tim Hudak would make.

But hey, at least he's consistent.

Patrick Brazeau: Canary In the Competitive Coal Mine

In the ensuing years, each time he displayed a stunning lack of judgment or acted in his typically boorish and bullying manner, he took to blaming the messenger.

 

 

Patrick Brazeau was a young, brash leader - and was rewarded for those traits.  Any time his behaviour slipped into questionable territory, Stephen Harper covered for him - ostensibly to protect his Party's brand.  In so doing, he encouraged more of the same in an escalating pattern.  Never once was the question asked, "how can we stop this from happening again?"  More than a few people have suffered as a result - including Brazeau himself and I would argue, Stephen Harper's Conservative Party.

 

Rob Ford has been exactly what he advertised himself as - a brash, blinders-on, elbows-up leader.  The results have been exactly what one would expect - messy.  But we got what we asked for, didn't we?

 

The focus at all levels on competitive confidence has seen a sharpening of the political point, but leaves less and less room at the top for people to stand.  Functional fixedness if failing us, which we should have seen coming.  Haste and beating The Other comes at the expense of meaningful deliberation and collaborative responses, which is no small part of why we're in the deficit situation - fiscal, social, democratic - we face today.  It's almost like there's a pattern forming.

 

More hopefully, there's another trend possibly emerging - in Ontario, the Liberal Party has picked a leader skilled in mediation over one known as a political scrapper.  In relation to the afore-mentioned Brazeau, there have been voices raised among the general populace questioning the validity of lines in sand and throwing stones when we all live in glass houses.  Could it be that winning is starting to take second place to achieving?

 

One can only hope - because the only way to move the mountain of challenges in front of us is to all pull together in the same direction.