Why do I get the feeling this meme is gonna get a lot of work?
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?)
- Austerity has murdered any hope of recovery
- @NYTimesKrugman on #austerity and Europe’s apparent death wish
- The Galloping Beaver: Joe Oliver attempts to lampoon Saturday Night Live
- Unethical oil and its Canadian friends | The Vancouver Observer | #EthicalOilBullshit #tarsands
- Teachable Moment: Ethnic Cleansing vs. Taxes | The Ethnic Aisle @balkissoon @ArmineYalnizyan
- UPDATED - PMO InfoAlerteBot After Dark: “Foreign radicals threaten further delays” | via @kady
- Frank Graves poll: The beginning of the end of progress | iPolitics | #cdnpoli
- Don Drummond’s austerity medicine: suck it, Ontario | #onpoli
- Let’s stop fetishizing “The Market” | #cdnpoli #TOpoli #classwarfare #austerity
- In defence of the public sphere | #TOpoli #TeamFord
Let’s stop fetishizing “The Market” | #cdnpoli #TOpoli #classwarfare #austerity
Comrades, this is our moment. Tonight we smash capitalism!
(The code word is Dzhugashvili.)
Anyway, to business. Two marvellous contributions to the conversation recently from Alex Himelfarb and Trish Hennessy; if you’re not reading their stuff, then start now. Whereas some people go for the easy snark and descend into rudeness, their stuff is invariably thoughtful, tempered and beautifully written. Their arguments are persuasive and elegantly constructed. If you want contemporary Canadian policy issues framed in a comprehensive context, it’s hard to think of better places to start.
Both Alex and Trish have written recently about the so-called austerity agenda and the foolish unsustainability of fiscal policy based on tax cuts. I’m not going to try to improve on their arguments, because I can’t. I’ve linked to them; read them at your earliest convenience. What I do want to do, to the extent that I can, is expand upon them and, perhaps, establish a bit of context.
Before I get into that, though, a small observation consistent with my obsessive focus on the meanings of words, their use, and their connotations. “Austerity” is one of those loaded words. It’s got overtones of moral opprobrium, fiscal imprudence, even Calvinist rectitude. It’s difficult to imagine it coming up in conversation without connotations of stern paternalism, a sense that we’re wayward children in need of firm correction — for our own good, of course. Less is more. Live within our means. Shared sacrifice. Tightening our belts. We’re all familiar with the discourse by now. Inevitably, however, the attendant pain is borne mostly by the less privileged members of society.
Again, though: Alex and Trish have set up a comprehensive and essential discussion of the “austerity agenda,” so I won’t rehash it. To the extent that I can contribute, I’d like to suggest a bit of political and discursive context; if I’m successful, this will help re-frame the discussion and expose some of the underlying assumptions.
The most important pillar in that context, in my submission: “The Market.”
There’s no shortage of right-wing think tanks devoted to deification of “The Market” and belching out talking points in an attempt to control the discourse. In an earlier post, I linked to a terrific site examining the sources of their funding; The Sixth Estate goes into a fair bit of detail about who funds them and why. It’s worthwhile background reading if you want to understand why the meme of “The Market” holds such sway in the national conversation.
My purpose here, though, is more basic. Let’s go back to first principles and define our terms: what do we mean when we talk about markets? From Wikipedia:
A market is one of many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter, most markets rely on sellers offering their goods or services (including labor) in exchange for money from buyers. It can be said that a market is the process in which the prices of goods and services are established.
I’m not suggesting that Wikipedia’s is the last word. I’m citing it only for the sake of discussion. In this context, it’s defined as a system of economic relations, a means for conducting commerce and establishing the value of commodities. Left unaddressed is the question of whether such a system should be the only means whereby we govern social relations; we’ll return to this momentarily.
Let’s acknowledge at the outset, though, that like most social relationships and forms of organization, it is an artificial construct. It did not exist in a state of nature; it is not some uncontrollable force like the weather, and it does not function through acts of God.
However, let’s take a good long look at the position to which we have elevated it. We have raised this artificial construct to a position of quasi-divine power, and we are making weekly obeisances to it as if it’s a force of nature. An immutable thing over which we have no control. And tied to that is the assumption that left to its own devices, it will always produce the optimal result. Societies governed by market forces, we are told, are always more free, more efficient, and more adaptable.
And we attribute the most anti-social, destructive things to it and then just shrug. What are you gonna do? Supply and demand. It’s “The Market” at work, folks, and you’ve priced yourselves out of it. We can’t afford to pay decent wages any more. We can’t afford a social safety net any more. Investors will just take their money elsewhere. We’ll need to tighten our belts and live within our means.
Let’s imagine for a minute. A powerful external agency devastates our country / flies planes into office buildings / inflicts unimaginable environmental degradation / destroys our economic infrastructure. Pick one. Or pick them all. The common theme in all of these is a destructive external force ripping the heart out of our community. All the myriad connections, bonds and interdependencies upon which the fabric of society is built are unsentimentally torn apart. In other contexts, we’d consider it an act of war. We’ve been attacked.
But when corporations like Electro-Motive do it, we shrug and tell ourselves it’s just market forces. As if that somehow takes away the moral stain. Let’s not pussyfoot around here. Leaving people without the means to support themselves is wrong.
When people place self-interest above all, ignore the rules of civilized behaviour, and don’t give a shit about anyone else, we call them sociopathic. When international investment vehicles and corporations act that way, they’re just maximizing shareholder value and reacting to “The Market.”
But if “The Market” can’t ensure a living wage and decent benefits and contribute to the economic underpinnings of a community — all those parts of our daily lives that make us social human beings — then What Fucking Use Is It?
It’s time to stop fetishizing it.
Never mind the artificial construct or the logical and semantic hoops its mouthpieces lead us through. Subsidies, tax breaks, artificial monopolies, empty regulations — all these things are a licence to print money when, in fact, the recipients don’t compete in a “free market” at all. They want us to guarantee a return on their investments, look the other way when they use their economic power to crush competition, and meekly acquiesce when they form oligopolies and cartels to milk us for all they can get.
But for all the frippery and harrumphing we’ll hear from the corporate media and the think tanks, they never really address that question. There’ll be plenty of distraction, plenty of misdirection, and reams of effort devoted to changing the subject. And again, we’re all familiar with the memes: investor confidence, mobility of capital, free trade, labour market flexibility, respect for taxpayers, yargle bargle blegh.
Which brings us to the question of unions and organized labour, and the impending lockout of Toronto city workers. Once again, let’s be clear about our biases: as a paper from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently argued,
Generations of hard-fought union struggles brought Canadians the eight-hour day and the weekend; workplace health and safety legislation and employment standards; income supports for new parents and training for unemployed workers; public pensions and minimum wages; protections for injured workers and equal pay for equal work.
Again, this is boilerplate. The CCPA paper is essential background material; it helps establish the context for a more fundamental argument which owes much to Trish Hennessy’s implication about a ruthlessly unilateral shredding of the social contract. That shredding has been abetted or even tacitly encouraged by a succession of increasingly feckless and then captured federal governments. As Trish argues,
1. Instead of defined pensions, we were offered RRSPs.
2. Instead of an EI program that’s recession-ready, we were offered TFSAs.
3. Instead of affordable university tuition, we were offered RESPs.
Once again, let’s go back to first principles and examine some of the underlying assumptions. Why shouldn’t we have these things? They benefit society as a whole. Their value ought to be so self-evident that we shouldn’t even have to have the debate. That’s why I’m referring to the social contract. Underlying the phrase is another concept that needs to be reaffirmed and reclaimed: the public good. And since these things accrue to the public good, it stands to reason that they should be enshrined as public-policy objectives, and funded accordingly.
Instead, we listen as one think-tank mouthpiece or bank spokesthingy or columnist after another lectures us about “living within our means” and tells us we can’t afford it. And thus are our expectations steadily lowered — of ourselves, of our country, of one another, of citizenship itself. The bar is progressively lowered, the defining criteria for enlightened and civilized society are abandoned, and eventually we’re left at the mercy of international investment regimes and the corporations that work them, with no corresponding public institutions to defend the public good.
Where does organized labour fit into all this? As Trish points out, it’s no coincidence that unionized public-sector workers are being attacked and demonized. In my submission, they’re an essential element in the defence of the public good and the public sphere. They’re one of the few countervailing institutions in the struggle against “market forces” as defined by the think tanks and their patsies. I recognize that this is going to be a hard sell these days, but that doesn’t make them any less important as a counterbalance, so let’s have at the inevitable objections.
Should unionized public-sector workers be making 150, 200 % more than the “market rate?” Frankly, I don’t care, because that’s not the issue. I’m not going to reduce the conversation to one about numbers, and I don’t know what “the market rate” means. There will always be some nasty corporation ready to undercut the public service, pay people 8 bucks an hour and treat them like shit, and protest that “that’s the market rate.” SFW? How does that advance the public good? What’s so special about “The Market?” Again, if it can’t advance the public good or ensure that quality of life is enhanced for everyone, what fucking use is it? Time to stop fetishizing it.
Once again, back to the notion of the public good. The public sphere has a role to play in this beyond whatever artificial reductionist fantasies about “The Market” you want to indulge in. By ensuring that public-sector workers are paid a living wage with decent benefits, we set an example for private-sector employers to follow. We are making a statement about our values — that decent wages and the healthy communities which rely upon them are important and worth preserving, regardless of what the free-marketeer flimflam artists might be selling. We support that with workplace-standards legislation, with laws protecting the rights of workers to form unions and bargain collectively, anti-strikebreaker legislation, and so on. All of these have been enacted, after protracted struggles, by democratically elected governments supposedly charged with enhancing the public interest. It’s no coincidence that as that government gets colonized, regulatory agencies crippled by lobbyists, and the public conversation dominated by the corporate media, these have all been under attack — most stridently by the tabloid press which brays about being the voice of the little guy while advancing an agenda that just happens to coincide with the interests of the 1 per cent.
And again, let’s go back to the imaginary example suggested above: the scenario wherein a community’s economic backbone is at stake. Yes, my taxes pay public-sector workers’ wages. So what? Ensuring a decent income for everyone benefits society as a whole. I don’t have a problem with that, and the steady drumbeat of demonization and stupid memes about them being lazy overpaid thugs isn’t going to change that.
Sure, maybe my tax bill might be lower if we outsource to some contractor who pays its people shit, but how does that make society better? I might save a few bucks on my taxes, but I’ll be paying for it in countless other ways — as Alex has described, a meaner, more threadbare, more divided and polarized society with more crime, more conflict, more violence and more despair. All to save a few bucks and stick it to the “greedy unions?” Really, union-haters? Is that what you want? If so, then at least have the courage to admit it.
There’s a whole series of assumptions that need to be exposed, unpacked and questioned. It’s beyond the scope of a single blog post, but one of the conversations that needs to happen concerns things like tariffs and “protectionism,” versus “free trade.” While I’m not claiming economic expertise, it seems to me that once again, it comes down to value choices. If we’re placing the right of international investors to make a quick buck above the need to foster domestic industries and maintain national control over resource extraction, or the right to craft industrial policy in a way that serves the interests of our citizens and produces the greatest good for the greatest number, fine, but then let’s be honest about it. It’s not about some irresistible natural force called “The Market.” It’s class warfare, pure and simple. The only question we need to ask ourselves is which side we’re on.
- In defence of the public sphere | #TOpoli #TeamFord
- Adam Smith: It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion
- Does anyone really get what they “deserve” in a democracy? | #TOpoli #cdnpoli
- Why Unions Matter - excerpted from the CCPA
- #EthicalOilBullshit, the Sierra Club, and demonization: Where we juxtapose, once again | #astroturf #tarsands
- Ignore the trolls, or engage? Mudwrestling with pigs and other dilemmas for 2012 | #cdnpoli
- The Sixth Estate on who pays for Canada’s right-wing think tanks | #cdnpoli
- Austerity’s Targets « Framed In Canada | #cdnpoli #classwarfare
- @GeorgeMonbiot on the subversion of ‘freedom’ | #winningbackthewords
- The Sun: Demonizing organized labour, no matter what | #cdnpoli #onpoli
- BBC: Markets dive in reaction to unfortunate outbreak of democracy in Greece
- #Alex Himelfarb
- #civic engagement
- #class warfare
- #critical thinking
- #cultivation of stupidity
- #fetishizing the market
- #international finance
- #international investors
- #manufactured crisis
- #Milton Friedman
- #public good
- #public interest
- #public sphere
- #role of government
- #social contract
- #Trish Hennessy
- #winning back the words
- 1 year ago
The lobbyists behind warrantless online spying | OpenMedia.ca
This isn’t Oz, folks. Pay LOTS of attention to that man behind the curtain …
A public-service announcement from OpenMedia.ca | #cdnpoli #onpoli
On the off chance that the threat from Islamismisticism or whatever might be just a tad, er, exaggerated for political reasons …
This is part of why that little ninny at York shouldn’t become today’s Shiny ObjectTM.
- How Ottawa reacts to leaks: apparently there’s a new approach | #cdnpoli
- Via @awsamuel: Riot vigilantes speak for themselves
- Crowdsourced surveillance turns ugly. Who could have predicted?
- Via Politics Respun: the Canucks riot and the narrative of division
- We’ve seen Big Brother, and he is us: On the dangers of crowdsourced surveillance
- Perhaps the best analogy in the history of the entire Internet | #uspoli #teabaggers
- 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans | Truthout
- What to do about vertical integration? Absolutely nothing | via @peternowak
How Ottawa reacts to leaks: apparently there’s a new approach | #cdnpoli
I’ve seen a number of media stories since yesterday about the CSIS documents that were leaked to La Presse and supposedly reveal that Abousfian Abdelrazik and Adil Charkaoui once plotted to blow up a plane. Oddly, none of those stories seem to report any concern from any government official at the unauthorized release of this so-called intelligence. Obviously these documents weren’t intended to be public information. You would think that when our national intelligence agency loses track of confidential documents — and not for the first time — that in itself would be a story.
But the only official government reaction I’ve seen came from Jason Kenney who appears to be pleased about the leak because it gives him the opportunity to lecture us on the need to trust governments and intelligence agencies rather than question their conclusions. Of course Kenney has it exactly wrong, particularly as it concerns the issue of guilt or innocence. The onus is never on the citizenry to just trust government. The onus is on government to present the facts and make its case. But then Jason Kenney and democratic principle aren’t all that well acquainted. And his case isn’t exactly strengthened by the fact that he wants us to trust people who can’t seem to keep track of the keys to the filing cabinet.
One of my favourite analysts talks about security, secrecy, and trust, with a couple of pertinent observations about Jason Kenney. The idea that confidential information can be leaked and then used for partisan political purposes is a novel one, but it does kinda put a different spin on the whole notion of national security.
In fact, this puts me in mind of an earlier post from the same blogger, reacting to a complaint from a senior Canadian intelligence official about what he considered inadequate deference from ingrates like us. The speech is posted here.
Apparently, we’re supposed to just trust him and be thankful, and run along after he pats our heads. And don’t worry about creeping authoritarianism or erosion of fundamental civil rights or anything. I’ve always struggled with the whole notion of deference to authority, and it’s especially troubling at a time when significant sectors of our political and media establishment seem more and more bent on turning ignorance into a civic virtue. Having people like this in charge of sensitive information and matters of intelligence makes it easier to understand things like what happened to Maher Arar, but it doesn’t exactly do much for one’s comfort level. But maybe that’s just me.
Apparently, we’re supposed to just trust him and be thankful, and run along after he pats our heads. And don’t worry about creeping authoritarianism or erosion of fundamental civil rights or anything.
I’ve always struggled with the whole notion of deference to authority, and it’s especially troubling at a time when significant sectors of our political and media establishment seem more and more bent on turning ignorance into a civic virtue. Having people like this in charge of sensitive information and matters of intelligence makes it easier to understand things like what happened to Maher Arar, but it doesn’t exactly do much for one’s comfort level. But maybe that’s just me.
- Never Visit a Murdoch Website Again with This Helpful Browser Add-On
- Partisanship and posturing | #TOpoli
- 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans | Truthout
- More on @mtaibbi and the Bachmann piece in Rolling Stone | #uspoli #media #TOpoli
- Via @awsamuel: Riot vigilantes speak for themselves
- Crowdsourced surveillance turns ugly. Who could have predicted?
- BBC News - Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ say former leaders