Web Toolbar by Wibiya

So, to sum up #TeamFord’s assault on civic life this week … | #TOpoli

First they lie about interfering in the civic appointments process.

Then they demand proof beyond “hearsay.” 

Then when the proof is revealed in the form of a list of preferred candidates, they huff and puff and shout insults and try to dismiss the revelation as politically motivated.

All the while, pursuing a petty and vindictive campaign for revenge against the city ombudsman.

Rules? What rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.

And it’s only Wednesday.

Related posts:

@Cityslikr, @NickKouvalis, and more on controlling the narrative: the runup to 2014 | #TOpoli

Li-ford-car

Well, another week, another messy and avoidable scandal in Ford’s Toronto. 

The whole reading-while-driving thing is getting tired by now, of course. Yeah, it was fun (in the way that only reckless endangerment of others can be fun), but it was also predictable, and while it’s pretty easy to follow the arc these things take, way things are going, there’s sure to be another embarrassment before long. 

I’ve been meaning to set this out for several days, ever since an impromptu late-night beer with Daren prompted a couple of synaptic twitches. A couple of events have brought things into what passes for sharper focus among guys our age in the interim, so … a few observations on the state of politics in Toronto, circa late summer 2012.

The advent of private waste collection west of Yonge Street earlier this month brought one of Daren’s typically trenchant and well-written observations: in short, he argues that Rob Ford’s political future depends, in large part, on garbage. Amid much smirking and triumphalist chicken-dancing from some of Ford Nation’s er, “brighter lights,” Team Ford has delivered a giant FU to the city unions, following through on one of the currents of resentment it tapped in its successful election campaign in the fall of 2010. Take that, lazy overpaid socialist union thugs! End of the line for this gravy train!

While this provides an undeniable emotional jones for the union-haters, the jury’s still out on whether it’ll amount to more effective and efficient delivery of service, and in a larger sense, whether it will play out in terms of better overall municipal governance. That the private operator’s had some settling-in difficulties is a matter of record; Daren argues, quite reasonably, that while it’s only fair to cut GFL a little slack, Team Ford’s success will be judged, in large part, on whether the contracting out actually saves millions of dollars without any reductions in service. This is what Rob Ford ran on, after all. 

We’ve been told, guaranteed actually, that the contracting out of waste collection to Green For Life will save us $11 million annually with no reduction in the service provided. That is the benchmark privatizing proponents gave us. That is the goal that must be met. I will argue that the mayor’s ‘mandate’ depends on it.

The Tweetr (that is what the young folk are calling it these days, yes?) being what it is, it wasn’t long before a lively discussion ensued. A full and frank exchange of views, I think they call it. My respect for the people involved is also a matter of record, but part of what prompted the segue from that to this was the participation of our friend Nick Kouvalis.

Full disclosure here: notwithstanding the way he’s regarded in some circles at City Hall, my thinking is pretty similar to Daren’s when it comes to Nick. As Daren puts it:

Although I’ve never actually met Nick Kouvalis and, in all likelihood, oppose almost everything he purports to stand for in terms of governance, I think I just might admire like fear… what’s the word, I’m looking for here?… respect? Hmmm. Grudgingly respect him? OK. He’s a guy I’d like to sit down and have a beer and shoot the shit with. What’s the word for that?

What Daren said. Dude passes my beer test too. The guy’s good at what he does, if you define success in terms of electoral results (more on that in a minute). We don’t have to like or agree with what he does, but he’s got insights we can learn from, and I’ll say this for him: on the occasions I’ve engaged with him, he’s answered directly and candidly. Whatever else I may think of him, I have to acknowledge the straight answer instead of the bullshit smokescreen. 

Again: disagree with the man, but respect his effectiveness and don’t let the disagreement turn into scorched-earth hatred. (That may say more about my bourgeois naiveté — er, my lingering nostalgia for civility and old-style conservatism — than it does about anything else, but let’s leave that be for now.)

And as we all know, Nick ran an effective and successful 2010 campaign for Team Ford. I’ve argued, however, that the municipal election of 2010 marked one of the lowest points in the history of Toronto politics, in large part because of Team Ford’s success in establishing a dominant narrative of resentment, pessimism, shallow thinking and belligerent divisiveness. The city’s falling apart. Lazy unionized workers with their culture of entitlement and jobs for life. Waste, inefficiency and gravy trains. Downtown elitists sneering at the hardworking suburban taxpayers. War on the Car. Time to blow up City Hall and start over.

I said a couple of sentences ago that Nick’s good at what he does. What he’s done, unfortunately, has diminished us as a city and as a community. The ascendancy of Team Ford has lowered the tone of public conversation, poured sand in the mechanisms of governance and devalued the currency of citizenship. We’ve been paying the price ever since, in both the regular mayoral embarrassments and the continuing day-to-day fraying of the social fabric. I’ve never tried to hide my thinking on that. 

One of the fundamental themes here, both in the context of this essay and a larger overarching analysis of Team Ford’s tenure, is the difference between campaigning and governing. Once again, campaigning isn’t about nuance, but about framing your message, delivering it effectively, and mobilizing the vote in the run-up to election day. And there’s no denying the impact of simple, emotionally resonant messaging; a lot of people thought the idea of Mayor Rob Ford was a joke, but here we are.

When it comes to governance, however, simplicity and catchphrases have to give way to reflection, analysis, and critical thinking. Interests have to be balanced, stakeholders identified, objectives defined, and resources allocated in a way that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It’s complicated. It’s not as easy as repeating bumper-sticker slogans like “Respect for Taxpayers.”

So here’s one of the fundamental themes for 2014: The Difference Between Campaigning and Governing.

And here, too, is one of the yardsticks whereby Team Ford’s performance will be judged come Campaign 2014. Have they delivered effective governance? Have they managed a coherent and co-ordinated operation of public institutions? Have they demonstrated the ability to work the system efficiently and collegially? This is where Nick’s record, and his own words, become particularly relevant.

Another question that will define Campaign 2014, then: Effective Governance.

Whether the current municipal structures are designed for optimal delivery of services is a larger question than we have room for here. (In that regard, though, it’s worth revisiting a couple of compelling arguments from J.M. McGrath and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler.) We needn’t resolve that question, however, to observe that a large part of effective governance, within the current context, is the ability to build coalitions, to bring people on board your team, and to work collaboratively. In short, it’s about negotiating, persuading folks to buy in, building support, and Getting Along With People.

Well then. Anyone want to try charting Team Ford’s record in that regard over the last couple of years? Anyone want to lay odds on the mayor’s chances of success in advancing his agenda over the next couple of years? You can look at big things like transit or little things like plastic bags, but the pattern’s pretty clear; Team Ford’s control of city council is tenuous to non-existent. And if you’re going to claim operational competency in municipal governance, you need to be able to work with council. It’s part of the job. 

Whatever you may think of them, it’s something both David Miller and Mel Lastman were able to do. Contrast that with Team Ford’s performance. Once again, back to Nick:

To Nick’s credit, he doesn’t try to dissemble or hide this. In it to win. Take no prisoners. I’m here to get things done, not make friends. No substitute for victory. From there it’s not that far to the end justifies the means. Maybe there are aspects of this I’m not seeing, but it’s hard to reconcile an approach like this with effective team-building. In effect, it’s almost guaranteed to kneecap the mayor’s ability to build coalitions — never one of Rob Ford’s strong points to begin with. 

Another overarching theme for 2014, then: Working With Council.

Team Ford’s strategy in that regard, predictably, hasn’t been that encouraging. In fairness, this isn’t about Nick; I’ve listened to enough iterations of the #FoBroSho on Sunday afternoons to recognize one of their consistent memes. Every week, it seems, Rob and Doug go on about getting different councillors in 2014, setting up a lame excuse for their own inability to bring people onside. “Sorry folks, we know we haven’t gotten any subways built, but it’s not our fault. Those people on council won’t work with us!” You can see the same impulse at work when Doug Holyday tells us not to send any more activists, unionists, or cyclists to City Hall.

I hate to get all Donald Rumsfeld here, but you work with the council you’ve got, not the council you wish you had. If you can’t do that, you’re not a successful mayor. It’s part of the job. Building consensus, putting together a team, fashioning a majority to help you implement as much of your agenda as you can. Miller did it. Mel did it. You don’t get to alienate everyone, spend the next two and a half years sulking on your radio show, and then campaign on the basis of divisiveness, resentment, and “just send me a bunch of different councillors.”

From a pragmatic point of view, folks like Daren and Adam and Hamutal Dotan are right: if you can cobble together a coalition of 23 councillors, then the mayor doesn’t matter. As the events of the past year have shown, the councillors we’ve got are quite capable of controlling the agenda and governing around the mayor if they have to. It’s not ideal, and as John points out, it raises questions about competing mandates, but it is workable. 

On the other hand, Ed Keenan’s argued, persuasively, that the mayor’s record of gaffes has consumed far too much energy, focus and attention. In the wake of the Danzig shootings, for instance, Ed wrote:

With his customary bravado, the mayor proclaimed on Monday, “I’m taking a very simplistic approach.” That is the problem, I’d suggest. And so instead of discussing these very complicated issues, we’re spending time discussing the mayor’s inadequacy. What a load of BS.

Much as we might wish it were different, Ed’s got a point. Instead of chuckling about Rob Ford being in over his head or toying with the bright lights of Ford Nation on Twitter, we could be doing something constructive. Are we enhancing civic life? Are we strengthening the bonds of community? Or are we arguing about stupid shit?

So there’s one more possible storyline in the run-up to 2014: The Focus of Public Conversation.

By any of these criteria, Team Ford’s record ought to be instructive. But once again, friends: narratives. Framing. Messaging. 

Buckle up. 

Related posts:

Update: Now playing over at Toronto Citizens.

#TeamFord’s two-years-and-change horizon, and a proposed two-track strategy | #TOpoli

My friend @cityslikr’s got another fine piece at Torontoist today. In it, he neatly dissects the discrepancies between Team Ford’s apocalyptic predictions of fiscal disaster and the fact that our benighted city somehow manages to return an operating surplus year after year.

Matters aren’t helped, of course, by The Brother’s inexplicable characterization of Toronto’s financial condition as bankruptcy. JM McGrath’s already picked it apart for factual inaccuracy, and in terms of formulating a reasoned and measured response, I think Ed Keenan’s shown us the way. 

(Aside: while I like and respect Ed a great deal, I’m not sure I can commit to two years of daily Keenans.)  

Well, what is there to say, really? Can’t argue with Daren’s analysis, and since I can’t really add much to it, maybe it’s time to step back and, as I do from time to time, try to put this in a larger context. (Christ. There he goes again.)

That Rob Ford’s grasp of the workings of municipal governance or the basic principles of citizenship is somewhat, er, limited isn’t news by now. And it’s fairly straightforward to suggest that we should work to limit and contain whatever damage he can do between now and 2014. Council’s already doing that on several fronts: working with him when possible, working around him when not.

But that’s not all, because if we’re really interested in the good of this city, we need to pursue a two-track strategy. The first is already clear to most of us. The second — and this is where it gets tougher — is to do whatever we can to encourage him, to reinforce him, and to enable him in anything that helps him act like a better mayor. And that’s regardless of whether we think he merits a second term. (Kristyn Wong-Tam is showing us the way in that regard, too.)

No illusions. He’s going to backslide. He’s going to disappoint. He’s going to make us all want to do a Keenan from time to time. And this two-track strategy is a difficult path to walk. It demands much more of a commitment to civility, generosity of spirit (I keep going back to this piece wherein Hamutal Dotan sets the benchmark for that), and the greater good than anyone on Team Ford has displayed thus far, or is likely to display in the months to come. If it helps, perhaps focusing on the long view might make the day-to-day cringeworthy stuff a little more palatable.

Related posts:

Politics, the charitable sector, and the public sphere | #cdnpoli

There’s been some discussion recently about the role of charitable organizations, and by extension other NGOs, in social advocacy and the debate over public policy. In an essay for the Star this past weekend, Alan Broadbent calls for just that in arguing for more overt political activity from Canadian charities. 

It’s not hard to discern the context for Mr. Broadbent’s essay. Indeed, he makes it clear in his very first paragraph in citing the recent federal budget and characterizing it as a shot across the bows of Canadian registered charities, and in noting the rhetorical strategy employed by the Harper government and its acolytes in promoting accelerated exploitation of the Alberta tar sands.

HIs essay notes that the law allows charities to devote up to 10 per cent of their activity to politic, and encourages Canadian charities to become more active participants in policy discourse. (In fairness, he also notes that many charitable organizations don’t have the organizational resources to play too prominent a role in that regard, occupied as they are with programming and fundraising.) In describing the need for their participation, he notes that 

… since governments have shed much of their policy capacity in the last few decades, they need good ideas from outside, and particularly from those working close to the coal face of society’s problems.

Mr. Broadbent makes a useful argument, and it’s particularly timely in its evident defence of the fact that some of the money for Canadian charities and advocacy comes from sources outside Canada, if for no other reason than that it blunts the Harpublican strategy of demonizing opponents as foreign-funded radicals trying to hijack Canadian regulatory processes.

That’s one level, anyway. The discussion is valuable on that level, but let’s try to view it in a somewhat larger context — one which examines the role of charitable organizations not just as political actors, but as service providers and enhancers of community bonds and — one of my favourites — the public good.

It’s become fashionable, as governments embrace the “austerity” fetish and shed the capacity to act, to call for more reliance on private-sector actors and/or charities. Indeed, last December Hamutal Dotan described an incident wherein Doug Ford reached into his own pocket and wrote a personal cheque to help out a school nutrition program. 

God knows, I’m not here to kick Brother Doug around for that. But, as Hamutal argues, necessary social programs shouldn’t have to rely on charity or personal generosity. And that’s the larger context for both her argument and Alan Broadbent’s.

Once again, it’s useful to unpack some of the underlying assumptions and go back to first principles. Part of that involves making my own biases explicit, but that shouldn’t take long.

Why do we have government? Why do we have a public sector? Why, for that matter, do we have communities and social structures? I’d argue that a large part of the reason is collective empowerment: we pool our efforts and our resources in pursuit of the common good. By working together, we accomplish things we can’t accomplish on our own. Regardless of whether you want to call yourself a conservative, a socialist, a liberal, or whatever, that’s the basis for community. 

And that’s the organizational underpinning for whatever sector of public policy you want to cite: education, national defence, municipal infrastructure, public transit, health care, food inspection, energy, environmental protection, and so on. That’s why political priorities are set, resources allocated, timelines established, and structures established to ensure democratic oversight and administrative accountability. It’s not a simple process, but it can and does work when it’s properly resourced and managed. As with most complex undertakings, it depends on consistency, predictability and transparency, and an overarching commitment to the public good.

It’s for that reason that I find the increased emphasis on charities disquieting. I’m not questioning the value of the work they do, and I’m not saying they aren’t worthy of all the support they get and more. But I am taking issue with the idea that we should rely on them to step into the vacuum left by diminished and kneecapped public institutions.

Where is it written that we must reconcile ourselves to the enfeeblement of government, of the public sphere, of our collective capacity to act for the common good? Just because “austerity” has become the flavour of the month doesn’t mean we’ve suddenly been relieved of our obligations to ourselves, to our communities and to our fellow citizens. 

Regardless of the political context or the issues of the day, those obligations are constants. They are necessary incidents of citizenship, and of membership in civil society. As such, they need to be resourced and supported consistently. They shouldn’t have to depend on charitable donations. They’re unpredictable, they’re hard to budget for, and they’re too dependent on the personal preferences of donors, commendable though those might be. Frankly, I don’t want the social fabric and essential community programs dependent on the Jim Doaks of the world.

And, as the warning shots Mr. Broadbent cites illustrate, charities are vulnerable to politically motivated attacks. 

We can argue about the legalities and the definition of political activity and whether any given initiative comes close to the 10 per cent threshold, but the chilling effect of those warning shots is perfectly obvious. The Harper regime’s strategy for dealing with people and organizations it doesn’t like is a matter of record. Bracing as Mr. Broadbent’s call to action is, it’s that much riskier for any small organization to stick its head up under the circumstances.

(Do I have to point out that I’d be delighted to be wrong about this?) 

Related posts:

It is fairly absurd to be writing this—that we have to write this. “Rob Ford Should Participate in Pride.” It shouldn’t be a question. We would prefer that Toronto hadn’t elected a mayor about whom such questions arise. But we did, and it is incumbent upon Ford to put them to rest, immediately.

Rob Ford Should Participate in Pride. Period. | politics | Torontoist

If you’re not following Hamutal Dotan, start.

Source: torontoist.com

Conservatism: is it a label? Is it a brand? Or maybe just a little bit more? | #TOpoli

That smartypants fancypants @Cityslikr is forcing me to put on my crankypants. I warned you youngsters what would happen if you didn’t get off my lawn!

Bill-erwin

All right, all right, so I telegraphed that one. Indulge me.

The #TOpoli twittersphere / blogosphere / wankersphere (my usual preserve) has been all lit up over the past few days, thanks to John Michael McGrath and his thoughtful essay about legitimacy. We’ve heard from several folks in response, among them Ed Keenan, Hamutal Dotan, John Lorinc, and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, for starters. All worthwhile reads, and I’d encourage you to click on every one of these links. 

But it’s today’s post from Cityslikr that’s prompting this grumpy-old-man lecture, admittedly because he’s all but dared me to correct him. Dude may be surprised, therefore, to learn that I agree with most of his argument today (probably because it’s substantially similar to the one I made yesterday). I think we’re all in agreement that while what’s been going on at City Hall over the past few weeks isn’t ideal, it’s a reasonable and workable response to a mayor who can’t or won’t work and play well with others. And it’s important to stress, as Ed and Hamutal have, that this isn’t a case of unworkable dysfunction. There’s a great deal invested, I’d submit, in advancing a narrative which paints all politicians as a bunch of fussy children squabbling in a sandbox, and in prompting exasperated voters to blow off the obligations of citizenship because, what the hell, they’re all crooks and liars.

Indeed, I seem to recall some young whippersnapper taking exception to that kind of talk some time ago. Where was it? Oh. Yeah.

But that’s not what the young scamp’s called me out about. And it’s here that I have to confess, it’s this particular debate that’s fuelled many late-night beer-enhanced conversations.

I’ll admit to a pedantic, perhaps even obsessive focus on the meanings of words. (One of my many annoying qualities, I know. Too much education and not enough wisdom, perhaps? Whatever.) But I fixate on it for a reason: words are the foundation of public discourse, and public discourse is the most basic currency of citizenship and civic engagement. If we’re to converse with each other like rational adults, we have to be able to agree on the definitions of the terms we’re using.

And by the same token, when we allow others to strip words of their meanings and repurpose them for their own ends, we’ve given away the game before it’s even started. It’s why I keep harping on winning back the words.

Which brings us to the term “conservatism.” Cityslikr’s already tried to anticipate where I’m going with this, with his fancy-shmancy Edmund Burke references. (Geez louise. You cite Reflections on the Revolution in France once, and the rest of your life, you’re shlepping around this giant freakin’ statue on your back.) 

But I’m not going there tonight, because for the purposes of this argument, there’s no need to get all academic and elitist-like. 

What is conservatism, at its heart? The way I’ve always understood it, it’s about identifying the best and most worthwhile parts of our history and our tradition, and working to preserve and enhance them. It’s informed, I’d submit, by a devotion to the principles of stewardship. We want to leave things the way they were when we found them, or preferably a little bit better, for the next group to come along. If that’s conservatism, and I believe that it is, then sign me up.

In Canada (pardon me while I get mythic), that carries elements of generosity, civility, caring, and community spirit. It’s something that we’ve worked for generations to build, to advance, and to extend to as many of our neighbours and our fellow citizens as possible. It hasn’t come without struggle, and it’s sometimes easy to gloss over some of the less savoury aspects of our history in honouring that, but the bottom line is: we’ve got something here - a culture, a national character, a way of relating to and caring for one another - that’s taken years to build, to develop, to foster. This is our identity. This is who we are. You don’t get to come along and sweep that all away for the sake of some ideological or financial agenda.

And that’s why it’s so important to reclaim the mantle of conservatism from those who have hijacked it over the past few decades. Because whether you’re talking about think tanks pushing the austerity agenda and lecturing us about tightening our belts, or tabloid screed-writers fulminating about waste and mismanagement and cultures of entitlement and gravy trains, what’s at work here is a focused and disciplined campaign to dismantle, to tear things apart, and to weaken the bonds of community. If these folks are conservatives, then I’m two steps left of Joe Stalin.

Tumblr_lg1ruya5qp1qby32yo1_500

So, while my pal Cityslikr is right about the sort of autocratic bullying we’ve seen from Team Ford passing for conservative orthodoxy, I think he’s wrong in the way he’s set it up. (But he’s such a nice boy. He means well.)

In his opening paragraphs, he gives a vivid description of the anti-democratic impulse, and the bare tolerance of democracy. You can see that at work every day, whenever people complain about how messy and inefficient it is and then vow to keep its practitioners away from their kids’ lemonade stands. Where I differ from him is in his characterization of it as conservative. Disdain for democracy or popular sovereignty has nothing to with liberal or conservative or right or left; fundamentally, it’s about power and privilege. In that context, those are just labels. And it’s because I don’t want to see honourable traditions and intellectual currents stripped of context and meaning, and reduced to mere labels, that I’m arguing against the misuse and misappropriation of the term “conservative.”

The folks currently losing their shit because Team Ford’s losing its grip aren’t conservatives. They’re not valiant culture warriors, and they’re not courageous champions of Joe Lunchbucket Subway-Wanting Beleaguered Taxpayer. They’re just part of the noise machine, and they don’t merit any more respect or attention than that.

Related posts:

City Council is Supreme | politics | via @Torontoist and @hamutaldotan

… we are optimistic. We have a government that is working. It is making decisions based on evidence, and it is defending those decisions over time. It is a government that has set a direction on the most fraught and most important policy file we have. It is a government that is doing its job even though Rob Ford isn’t doing his, and if it keeps on doing so Toronto may come out of this mayoralty in better shape than many of us had feared.
via torontoist.com

Hamutal Dotan puts the events of the last few weeks in a calm and well-reasoned perspective. What follows is, for the most part, from a comment over at the Torontoist site.

Really, it’s got nothing to do with Karen Stintz and where she falls on the left / right spectrum. The most important thing about Hamutal’s analysis is the counterpoint it provides to the narrative being pushed by more than one corporate media outlet, which is one portraying Toronto’s city government as being chaotically adrift. Any comment or suggestion that describes council as akin to a bunch of kids squabbling in a sandbox just helps to reinforce that narrative, and let’s not have any illusions about whose interests THAT serves.

Just think about who benefits from that perception. Who do you think wants everyone to dismiss government, civil servants and the public sphere in general as dysfunctional, ineffective and corrupt? Just listen to the radio on Sunday afternoon sometime as Brother Doug tells his listeners that he wouldn’t trust any of his fellow councillors to run a kid’s lemonade stand. Not hard to see where he’s going with that. Once again, if you haven’t read what J.M. McGrath and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler have written in this regard, take a few minutes and go through it.

So no, what we’re seeing now isn’t the ideal situation, but council is showing that for all its disparate elements and conflicting interests and personalities, it is capable of conducting the city’s business in a mature and responsible manner. Sure, it would be nice if the mayor would play ball and show leadership, but what the last few weeks have shown is that council can function, albeit untidily, even if he doesn’t. That’s a good thing.

Ultimately, what it’s demonstrating is that just because something is “political,” it isn’t inherently icky and sordid. As Shelley Carroll pointed out on Monday, governing is an inherently political process. Setting budgets, allocating resources, balancing interests, determining civic priorities … all of these are political acts, properly situated in the public realm. Pretending that they’re conducted in some rarefied space that’s only recently been soiled by politics is the height of hypocrisy. In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that the firing of Gary Webster had nothing to do with politics. 

We may or may not get a rational and well-thought-out transit plan out of this. And god knows we’re nowhere near out of danger in terms of the damage that Team Ford can still do, both to the institutions and processes of governance in this city and to civil public discourse. But at least we know council can function cooperatively and democratically, with or without the mayor, and that government isn’t something to be viewed with contempt. 

Related posts:

From Grover Norquist to Gary Webster: putting #TeamFord’s #TTC jihad in context | #TOpoli #Toronto

2012217-gary-webster-ttc

By now, the initial shock and outrage occasioned by the firing of Gary Webster has probably subsided. Most of the observers whose work I follow have had their say and given their analyses, and in truth, I can’t really add much to it. Yes, it’s vindictive, childish and grossly unfair, and based on a fundamental misconception of the role of an impartial and professional public service. And yes, it sends a terrible message, and yes, it’s going to have lasting and damaging effects upon the future of public transit and upon municipal governance.

So? Really, did we honestly expect anything different from Team Ford? We’ve seen the way they conduct public affairs. 

No. Once again, it’s time to take a longer view. We may be too late to help Gary Webster (although I suspect he’ll be fine), and we may not be able to save Team Ford from themselves, but if we are to save our city from their depredations, it’s important to understand the historical and intellectual foundations (such as they are) for their approach to governance.

Remember Grover Norquist? During the Reagan years in the 1980s, he was head of Americans for Tax Reform, a pressure group instrumental in helping the Gipper get government off the backs of the downtrodden rich. If you’re ever curious about how the tax-policy goalposts got shoved so far off-centre, and why we can’t have an adult conversation about raising taxes without provoking mass hysteria, Grover’s a big part of the reason. 

I’m citing him because of his motivations. Nothing encapsulates them better than my favourite Groverism:

I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

It’s not hard to draw the connections between that and more recent currents in governance and public policy. The common theme running through all of them is a hatred of government and the public sphere per se, expressed in pseudo-populist soundbites like “red tape” and “stop the gravy train” and “get government off our backs” and “more freedom through less government.” Always, there’s a carefully cultivated undertone of resentment, and a sense that the public sector is inherently wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt, if not actually evil.

And how does it play out in practice? Well, we’re seeing it now. Perhaps Team Ford, through its unique combination of clumsiness and tone-deafness, takes it to clownish extremes, but you don’t have to look too far for more illustrations. The Harper government’s hostility to inconvenient facts and impartial advice is revealed in its muzzling of scientists on the federal payroll and its approach to the long-form census. And we’re still dealing with the damage remaining from the Harris era. 

Invariably, there’s an impulse to make government as feckless, dysfunctional, and ineffectual as possible. Forget about advancing the public good. Norquist’s bathtub analogy may seem a little over the top, but when you see governments reducing their capacity to act for the common good, surrendering control over a huge range of issues and voluntarily forswearing a whole range of policy tools, it’s easy to see how things like Walkerton can happen.

Again, it helps to view things through the lens of class analysis. The discussion needn’t be academic or theoretical; there’s plenty of real-world evidence that kneecapping government and crippling its ability to act hurts everyone except the 1 per cent. (That’s why the Occupy phenomenon’s had the impact it’s had, and why it’s not going away.)

Just take a look around. Who benefits from this? Whose interests are served by a crippled government and a hollowed-out public sphere? By a frayed and disintegrating civil society? Who can afford to buy their own social infrastructure? Privileged enclaves? Private security? A captivated mass-media complex that drums it into our heads, over and over, that this is the way it’s supposed to be, it’s just the magic of the market at work, and if it’s not working yet, the only answer is more austerity, more free trade, more tax cuts for corporations and “job creators?” Ringing a bell yet?

Democratic and responsible governance is supposed to be the counterbalance to all that. A healthy and vigorous middle class doesn’t arise from the benevolence of society’s overlords, so it’s no surprise that the policies, social conventions, and progressive legislation underpinning it  - the products of decades, even centuries of struggle - are under attack. And we’re not going to be able to fight back effectively unless we recognize it for what it is.

The scandalous treatment of Gary Webster, and by extension, any other public servant with integrity, doesn’t have to be viewed as one of the front lines in class struggle. All I’m suggesting is that we consider it in context: a cumulative gutting of one of our most crucial public services, coupled with mindless repetition of discredited mantras about the efficiency of the private sector. All we need to ask ourselves is: cui bono? Because it ain’t us.

Related posts:

Time for a #TransitCity happy dance? | #TOpoli #TeamFord

Last summer I wrote a short post about Jack Layton’s legacy of generosity. 

There are many elements to citizenship — respect, engagement, critical thinking — but of all those elements, it’s hard to top generosity of spirit. It’s something we can all aspire to, even if we fall short. I’m going to give props, yet again, to Hamutal Dotan’s marvellous piece in that regard on Torontoist.

Just so my own biases are clear, I’ll set out my definition once again: Generosity of spirit does not look for external validation or reward. It is extended without any expectation of a quid pro quo. And it is extended to those who do not deserve it precisely because they do not deserve it. That is what makes it what it is.

It’s a high bar to clear, and I’ll admit right now that I don’t often meet it. I wish I could. I’d be a better person if I did, but today I just can’t.

We’ve seen the results of today’s vote at City Council. Whether it means we can truly move forward with the development of public transit remains to be seen, but if it does nothing else, at least it will serve as an unambiguous repudiation of Team Ford’s approach to government and to the conduct of public affairs.

It’s hard to pick the three stars of Team Ford from today, but perhaps we might start with Doug’s hectoring of Gary Webster. (Whatever we’re paying Mr. Webster, he more than earned it today.) Add to that his bullshit about the St. Clair ROW being a disaster, and his coarse, vulgar talk about the TTC needing an enema, and you have to wonder — just what does this guy add to public life in Toronto? What good is he accomplishing? 

And then there’s Giorgio Mammoliti’s idiotic posturing about a Finch subway and unmoral (h/t Ivor Tossell) attempts to torque the downtown-suburban divide yet again. (I know, I know, I’m breaking my own rule by talking about him.) 

And then there’s this classy bit:

If anyone wants to nominate a third star, I’m all ears.

In the larger picture, perhaps it’s time to start fashioning a definitive rejection of the entire Fordist philosophy. I can’t give a comprehensive list of what that will entail, but we can start, I’d submit, by affirming support for well-paying unionized public-sector jobs, both as a critical element of our community’s economic base and as an example for private-sector employers to follow. We can flesh that out in the days to come.

In sum, maybe — just maybe — we’ve finally come to see the limits of resentment as a governing philosophy. It’s what put Team Ford in control, but take it away and they’ve really got nothing else. And as we learn more about the gulf between campaigning and governing, its shortcomings become more and more apparent. It’s the easy path — it requires no critical thinking, no empathy and no engagement beyond the predictable hissy-fits of tabloid screed-writers — but it diminishes us all.

Related posts:

#TeamFord and our city: Can no one talk sense to these guys? | #TOpoli #transit #TOlabourdispute

Well, what a week. 

Over the past few days we’ve seen Team Ford apply its magic touch to transit, to labour relations, and in a more overarching way, to our whole sense of civic pride. I can’t sum it all up in the scope of a single blog post, but then in this context there’s no need. Anyone following the conversation through All Fired Up or Ford For Toronto or via the Tweeter already knows what’s been going on.

It’s useful, at times like this, to take a step back and try to see things in their proper historical context. Understanding how we got here from there is the first step in learning from our mistakes, and, god willing, avoiding a repetition of those mistakes.

Fortunately, in this case we don’t have to look back that far. It’s reasonably easy, I’d submit, to connect the dots between the 2010 mayoral campaign and the mess we find ourselves in today. 

Let’s set out the founding assumptions so that our biases are clear: we start, as always, with the affirmation of civil discourse and civic engagement as the most basic currency of citizenship. Effective public policy and democratic governance depend — always — upon thoughtful, respectful discussion. It doesn’t mean we all have to agree with each other and start singing ‘Kumbaya.” It just means hearing each other out and applying our critical-thinking faculties.

Now, hands up all those who think that’s a fair characterization of the 2010 municipal election, never mind Team Ford’s approach to governance.

Really, don’t all jump at once.

No. If we’re honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge that the 2010 campaign wasn’t about thoughtful conversation, mutual respect, or sober, reasoned evaluation of competing visions for the city. The overarching theme was one of lingering resentment and sourness resulting from the labour disruption of 2009. And it was that toxic sludgestream of resentment that the Ford campaign tapped and rode all the way into the mayor’s office.

Really, it’s not that complicated. There wasn’t any reasoned discussion going on there — just a handful of thoughtless, simplistic memes calculated to appeal to that resentment and trigger a visceral emotional response. War on the Car. Stop the Gravy Train. Respect for Taxpayers. Nothing we don’t already know, but if I might add one more simplistic pop-culture meme: I’m Mad as Hell, and I’m Not Going to Take it Any More. Rephrase that, and it might just as well read: I’m Belligerent, Stupid, and Too Lazy to Think Things Through. 

The damaging effects of that campaign are still with us — not just in the seemingly endless series of shit sundaes Team Ford’s made out of public consultation, the city budget, transit planning, and labour relations, but in the very tenor of public conversation itself. The 2010 mayoral race did real and lingering damage to our ability to talk to each other like mature rational adults, and it’s a big part of the reason we’re in the mess we find ourselves in today. 

Once again, it goes back to the difference between campaigning and governing. Simplistic slogans that fit on bumper stickers and lapel buttons may be good at provoking emotional responses or channelling inchoate rage, but they’re no basis for effective democratic governance. Nothing new there either, but it bears repetition: effective and responsible government is an intricate beast. It involves multiple interests, finding balances among competing and sometimes contradictory objectives, allocating resources, analyzing options in a rational and comprehensive way, looking at issues from a variety of different perspectives, building consensus wherever possible, and above all, crafting public policy in a way that advances the public good. Bottom line: it’s complicated. It can’t be reduced to sound bites, bumper stickers or lapel buttons.

Now, contrast this high-minded talk of thoughtful reflection and rational discourse with the state of public conversation in Toronto today. As Ed Keenan argued last week, Rob Ford doesn’t seem capable of discussing ideas: 

No matter what the question, Ford has a bumper-sticker response that doesn’t really address it at all, and he’ll recite it aloud to you, again and again, as if the problem were your hearing rather than his failure to explain himself.

As Ed suggests, it’s the equivalent of clapping his hands over his ears and repeating “subways, taxpayers, subways, taxpayers … ” to himself until everyone else just shuts up. If he has the intellectual wherewithal for a genuine exchange of ideas, this is no way to show it. In an atmosphere like this, one fears that even the most thoroughly considered and non-partisan attempt to bring reason back to the debate over transit planning will be wasted.

(A brief nod to political realities: of course the province isn’t blameless in this either. But let’s be clear: if Rob Ford hadn’t declared Transit City dead the minute he took office, we wouldn’t be in this mess — regardless of how you feel about organized labour or Karen Stintz’s stewardship of the TTC.)

Back to the wider context. Anyone who follows the energy / environment debate or reads George Monbiot knows about Peak Oil and the state the planet is in, and understands the need to invest — at municipal, provincial and federal levels — in sustainable and energy-efficient public infrastructure, and in shaping our communities in ways that facilitate and take advantage of that. In the most prosaic terms, that means public transit. It is simply no longer possible to design cities and transportation policy around the private automobile. That’s not a matter of ideology or class warfare or right or left — it’s a matter of survival. Misrepresenting it with a stupid meme like The War on the Car is not only short-sighted — it is irresponsible, wasteful and incredibly destructive. 

I can’t say for certain, but I wouldn’t bet much on Rob and Doug Ford’s ability to grasp that. To this observer, their approach to transit policy appears based on little more than “get the fuck out of my way” resentment. They’re appealing to anyone who just doesn’t like streetcars or bikes or buses or anything else getting in the way of driving their cars Wherever and Whenever The Hell They Want, Goddamnit. As John Lorinc puts it, however, it’s pointing toward

the single most expensive infrastructure mistake in Toronto history.

One really wants to believe that a more sensible consensus is emerging at city council, regardless of what Team Ford says or does. I’m not counting those chickens just yet, but it seems that one of their most effective operators might be thinking the same thing:

We’ll have to wait and see, of course. But this is what comes of basing campaign strategy on such wrongheaded and selfish thinking, let alone using it as the rationale for billion-dollar decisions.

Anyway, enough about transit. It’s more important, at this point, to wonder whether there’s any way to get these guys to see reason.

It’s easy, in that regard, to take shots at their simplistic and clumsy approach to government, and I’ve been just as guilty of that as the next guy. This piece from Hamutal Dotan should be required reading for everyone who’s concerned about Team Ford, not just for its insight and celebration of the public good, but for its laudable generosity of spirit. As she argues:

The problem isn’t that the Fords are heartless, in other words. It’s that they have run up against the limits of their own experiences and don’t know how to get past them. It’s that they respond to the personal, to the individual case, and can’t see that the social programs they want to cut are made necessary by a large set of individual cases, all clumped together in one place and time. Put much more bluntly: the Fords want for insight, not empathy.

Ok, so they’re not heartless or evil, just a little … uninformed about the role of the public sphere and how democracy works. So let’s cut them some slack. But dear god, can’t anyone get them to see that winning an election doesn’t mean you just get to do whatever the hell you want?

Can’t anyone talk sense to these guys?

Someone?

Please?

Related posts: