Post-Party Depression

Who amongst the political cognoscenti does not deplore the following:

• Falling rates of voter participation
• The economics of fund raising
• The rising number of potential candidates declining to run
• The falling quality of elected members, and
• The lack of “democracy” in our leader-centred parliaments?

All of these can be consolidated under the rubric of Canadian politics having moved to a “post-party” position. The breakdown of parties as the lead players in the system is the source of the “depression” being felt in the media and amongst party leadership (elected and back-room).

Why People Don’t Vote

The twentieth century was once described as a “short century“: 1914-1991 (originally 1989 for the fall of the Berlin Wall; updated for the fall of the Soviet Union). This was the period of the common man, of the mass, of the mass state (state capitalist [communist], social democrat, corporatist, etc.). Media outlets were few (relative to today), and required — as did almost everything else — large amounts of capital to be mobilized to allow them to even exist.

Whether one takes 1989 or 1991 as the date, one of the first events of the post-short-century period is the rise of the Internet, and, in particular, the World Wide Web. Suddenly any person could become a publisher: pennies replaced mounds of dollars as the cost of expressing oneself. Coupled with this is the ease with which the Web made everything fit nicely into one category: miscellaneous. No longer were institutions needed to organize ideas: any slice of opinion could be created and attract its followers.

In the mass age, to vote was to vote for a party. What had, heading into Confederation, been primarily a vote for a member (to act as a representative in a distant capital) had long since transitioned into, first, a vote for a party — a platform and ideology and a cabinet team — and, starting with Trudeau, a transition to a vote purely for a leader who would become Prime Minister. As we entered the 1990s, party big-tents began to break down: how else can one describe the splintering off of compromise over federalism leading to the Bloc Québécois, or the splintering off of compromise over neo-liberal populism that was Reform?

But the fracturing of the Progressive Conservatives was just the beginning of a realignment playing itself out in a Canadian context, but not at all unique to Canada.

What Reform (in particular; the BQ’s raison d’être being different) shows is a fundamental unwillingness, even in the late 1980s, to doing the work necessary to compromise on policy that is the essence of a big-tent party. Instead, Reform “took its ball and went home”, maximizing its vote by concentrating it. To be fair, as Reform moved from populist non-ideological movement to full-blown “neo-conservative” party, and thence watered down its social conservative and fiscal conservative roots in the transitions through the Canadian Alliance to the Conservative Party of Canada, it, too, has had to adopt the policies and practices of a big-tent party.

Conservatives who now look at the outcome and talk of replacing Mr. Harper, deploring the deficit and the budget, etc., are considered to be the “splittists” for daring to appeal, for instance, to the Party’s actual statement of principles. Many are walking away. But for every ten that do, only a handful will end up shifting to another party. Most will simply become “unpartied” — and likely will not vote.

For parties are not required and have become an anachronism. As BlueGreenBlogger noted, we don’t need mass media (the means by which mass parties “get their message out”). As I would note, we can now deal exclusively in issues. That will inevitably produce a sum of positions that matches no party’s set of policy compromises.

No Fibre, No Support

This, of course, is something overlooked by those who believe that, first and foremost, we must be “on side” with the leader and the party. Commentator Bec at Blue Like You, for instance, exemplifies this point.

If one does subscribe to twentieth century politics, as laid out in the opening to this post, then this position follows naturally: principle should not stand in the face of need. That need might be for continued power, it might be for future power, it might even be for someone or something to believe in. For someone to challenge a change of views — and I do not believe that anyone should be forced to maintain a position in the face of new information — on the ground of principle is to indicate where consistency is to be expected. What is it Edmund Burke said?

[I]t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

I take this to mean that no politician and no party should abandon principles for any reason of expediency. Following the herd into “what to do” falls into this camp. In other words, the Harper who leads a Conservative Party that stands for these principles:

• A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities;
• The Conservative Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive to its members;
• A belief in the equality of all Canadians;
• A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are: (1)The freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy; (2) The freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and (3) The right to own property;
• A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others;
• A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy;
• A belief that good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and has representatives who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interest of all.

has no business deciding to:

• Overthrow fiscal accountability with a slush fund approach to spending.
• Ignore those members who want to maintain the principle of fiscal responsibility.
• Makes some Canadians (e.g. auto sector) “more equal” than others.
• Take over decisions from individual Canadians by burdening them with debt repayment for multiple generations.
• Overthrow fiscal prudence by massive deficit financing (and approving of the destruction of the Canadian currency by the Bank of Canada).
• Massively meddle in the economy, deciding which old economy forces will be winners (at the expense of their peers, other businesses in trouble, and the creation of a twenty-first century economy for Canada.
• Creates a situation where the ethical probity of his Government, Ministers and Members will now be able to be called into question.

while demanding the loyalty of Conservatives with more moral fibre than him.

But, for a party supporter like Gerry Nicholls, whether on his blog or in the press, or for a commentator who is not a party member like <a href=”http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/01/29/the-right-in-full-retreat/”Andrew Coyne, whether reporting on the budget or the abandonment of principle in our politics, just as with me, principle is the core of moral fibre. I know in my own case that I have respect for those who truly believe in other principles and are consistent in their application, even when I think them wrong.

But Coyne is right. Canadians who adhere to the principle of fiscal conservatism are on the outside looking in. For myself, I am not searching for another party, a new party or any party.

This is one of my issues. As I’ve often said, I embrace the independent member. One who plays to my issues will get my vote. Otherwise, I have joined those who ignore the system.

So Why Not a New Party?

The short answer to “why not a new party” is: I don’t want party discipline in the mix.

A Burkean representative is not a trained seal, applauding on command and voting against their principles and conscience because the leader’s whip says so. Given our undersized Federal Parliament and Provincial Legislatures, however, it takes a member of rare fortitude to stand against his/her party: the backbenchers are too few to make a difference, given the number of shadow assignments, parliamentary secretaryships, ministerial appointments, committee chairs, etc. on offer. (Then, too, such a member is seldom kept in the caucus, nor renominated by their party.) These are institutional issues. A candidate who runs as an Independent, however, is likely to keep that independence in practice.

As Australia is showing — where the number of independents in their State Houses and in their Commonwealth setting continues to rise — principle can be returned once it must be demonstrated to win support.

Issue Circles

The other major reason for avoiding parties (like the plague) from now on is that inevitably one is forced to choose between principles as the big-tent is formed. Suppose, for instance, one believed that it is long overdue that we should raise more tax from unwanted production of externalities (this is broader than a carbon tax but along the same line) and instead raise less in other ways. Suppose, as well, that fiscal responsibility, accountability and no deficit spending were another set of principles being held to. The second group would lead one to the Conservatives, but not the first. Which is to be abandoned?

Why have to make the decision? Why not work with two issue groups: one that presses for environmental change, and one that presses for responsible finances?

This is, of course, how many who are entering the voting stream see matters. They are quite committed to their principles — and they see no reason to engage in traditional politics to get their way. Indeed, wisely, they often decide to have nothing to do with “the system”, seeing newer parties (such as the Greens) as the moral equivalent to the older parties. Extra-parliamentary pressure is their avenue for policy change, as opposed to selecting “a winning leader” or a policy convention.

For those in parties, the drying up of donations, the evaporation of votes, the lack of ground workers for campaigns, the failure to acquire a candidate of choice — these are the causes for their depression. For those of us who found supporting their parties steadily less viable, however, our depression lifts when we finally say “enough is enough”.

Postscript: The Media

Previously I have lamented the media’s focus on horse races and process rather than issues. The good news about giving up on parties and leaders is that the traditional media loses any further relevance as well. (Blogs, Facebook Groups, Tweets, and the like, on the other hand, bring together people around individual issues.) In other words, the inadequacies and poor service of our media in Canada is something that will end soon: dead due to a lack of interest.

If you choose to continue to sop up political media by the (Imperial) gallon or the dekalitre, or see value in being a party supporter, go right ahead. I just find it so much easier to sleep at night not caring any more about the polls, the latest twist in the wind, and the latest betrayal of principle.

Worth the Fee’s Goals for 2009

It’s good for the soul to take time off once in a while, and the past five weeks have been exactly that. A chance to take stock, to reread a year’s output, and to determine the future course of “Worth the Fee to Read It”.

No, faithful readers, this is not a good-bye. You can relax.

In looking back over the past year, however, the articles that I am happiest with all fall into one category. They are more philosophical, more reflective and more “why” oriented than the ones written in heat over some issue of the day.

These are what I’ll be doing more of in the year ahead. Less reacting to events, and more thinking about the big picture.

I hope you’ll find that interesting. My hope, as well, is that articles like that will stay “alive” longer. Something that reflects upon our condition at a fundamental level isn’t something where, a day or two later, there’s nothing to be said, because everything has moved on. No, a year-old posting of that nature may just be getting warmed up, and certainly isn’t (or shouldn’t be) past it’s “best before” date for comment and conversation.

That’s what I’m working on in 2009: raising the level of conversation in the comments pages of this blog. I look forward to hearing your voice raised frequently, because at the end of 2009 I’d like “Worth the Fee to Read It” to be a place to come back to, and to meet people you might not otherwise have met.

With that, let’s head in to 2009.

Will Obama Face the American Reality?

As I write (19.32 PT) the networks have noted that there’s no path to 270 electoral votes for the McCain campaign; once the counting moves a little farther along Obama will show the required number of electors to win the US election. For the half a million or more waiting in Grant Park, Chicago to celebrate the victory, one more speech about change and hope probably awaits.

Tomorrow begins the education in reality. And so the question turns to: will the new American President actually deal in reality?

Fantasy land, for instance, assumes that the current drop in the price of oil and petrol are a return to “normalcy”. Reality recognizes that global petroleum supplies are strained, and becoming more so, as producing countries use more and more of their own production, as production is absorbed in greater quantities in more places in the world, and that therefore the future is far more like Atlanta and region experienced this fall — shortages, a failure to deliver product, no oil at any price — and that therefore a country whose entire economy is based on cheap road-based transport, many miles of commuting daily (by car, and especially for running the errands of modern life), big box shopping, etc. just cannot be sustained as is.

Fantasy land believes in alternative fuels, even though the EROEI (energy recovered on energy input) for, say, ethanol, is at best 1:1. A century ago, one barrel of oil produced 100 new ones. Today, in the US oil fields, one barrel of oil produces one barrel of oil, and slightly less than one barrel-equivalent of alternatives. Reality says our great petroleum-based society must be reconfigured, with new infrastructure, and far more locality of production.

Fantasy land believes that financial capitalism and ever-increasing growth will be resumed just as soon as the looting of the US Treasury and the treasuries of many other countries bears fruit and bails out the financial sector. Reality says those days are gone, and we must not only earn our way forward, we must pay off the accumulated debts of the past while we do it. (For Canadians, who saw Chrétien and Martin “balance the books” through tax increases and the destruction of provincial finances, the pain of the 1990s will be as a pin-prick compared to the national car crash complicated by cancer that is America.)

Fantasy land believes that “we owe our debt to ourselves”. Reality recognizes that it is owed to others — who are getting nasty about redeeming it. Fantasy land says there’s no problem financing ten times as much debt per month as the amount to be financed a year ago. Reality knows that the end of this game is very near, and that deficits cannot be run. To have universal medical care, 500+ overseas bases and at least one fleet must be retired — the US can no longer have guns and butter.

As with another pioneer from Illinois, Obama will face challenges no less potentially fatal to the American Union as were Lincoln’s travails as the Confederate States seceeded, with the Civil War to follow. Let us hope these are not personally fatal, as Lincoln found them to be.

A President — and a Congress — that deals in reality in the United States would be a most welcome change not only for America, but for the world. Happy Election Day, my American friends. May you rediscover your Republic and forgo your Imperium, burying it as the last dregs of the twentieth century that it is, carried over by Bush-Cheney even as the calendar changed.

Six Unimportant Things

One of my blogging confrères & favourite authors, Raphael Alexander, started spreading around a meme where he would tag other bloggers, requesting they post six unimportant things about themselves.

One of his recipients of this geas was another favourite author of mine, Patrick Ross, who has, in turn, sent me on the quest. So, here we go: 

I have moved progressively “leftward”, which is why I am so conservative: Left and right are meaningless. The most natural linkage in our politics is blue (Tory) and green (Green). This, of course, sends everyone in fits of ragelaughter, but it’s the sort of paradox I thrive on. Besides, Liberals are anything but liberal: they believe whole-heartedly in group privileges.

I’ll read anything: Not only have I purchased almost 100,000 books in my lifetime, I have been known to pick up newspapers anywhere in the world I am and try to puzzle out the stories. But the real proof of the pudding comes online, where I have to check into Twitter every 30 minutes or so to keep up with all the tweets, have over 250 blogs in my RSS reader, and a long bookmark list of websites that are subscription-based or otherwise don’t just provide a feed.

I am a very lazy person, which is why I work hard: I do work hard, running my own company and all, but actually most weeks if I put in 20-25 hours I’ve got everything done. That’s because I try to work smart. That email inbox is kept empty (helps make the new ones stick out), and I write everything mentally meaning it just needs transcription. (Hey, if it worked for Mozart it might work for me, too.) My failing is that anytime there’s a tax form lying around I put it off, something to do with not wanting to be in the government paperwork or tax collection business.

I love campuses but would not much like being on one: I’ve been an adjunct professor (at the graduate level) three times now, in three different faculties and at two different universities, and frankly I’m just not interested in putting up with campus life, although I loved going to class, and still like being around a university.

The one sport I’d have season tickets for isn’t prominent where I live: I used to share season’s tickets at the SkyDome with a (now deceased) friend of mine but, of course, Vancouver only has a Single A club. Quite watchable, but not the same thing as MLB. Fortunately a Little League game is equally entertaining. As for the rest of the sports available, none of them awaken me from my dogmatic slumber.

I am very easy-going; I have an opinion for every occasion: Clients tell me that I make outrageous claims, but they take them semi-seriously and get the underlying point. Yet there are few places where, if someone wants to disagree, I’m going to go to the mat for a point. I take great pride in watching the world work out the way I think it will. Oddly enough, I’m a better pessimist, so the last year has been “my kind of time”.

I just don’t know yet who to tag with this, so I’ll post what I’ve got and think about it some more. Every decision has its time.

Why Blog?

Why, indeed, blog? How much more writing can one Internet take?

The short answer, at least in my book, is that free speech is becoming more perilous. More groups want to ban any comment that offends their sensibilities. Since we went down the road of recognising groups, we’ve created a situation where men and women are mostly afraid to speak out in public.

We are entitled to speak our minds. We need but a press to publish with. A blog does that very nicely.

Whether my opinions are of any interest to anyone remains to be seen. But they are of interest to me. Couldn’t that serve as reason enough to make them public?

I don’t pretend to be some sort of faux-reporter. Expect what you read here to be items about which I have become passionate, if only for a while. Think of this as an editorial with a mandate to write about anything today that might provoke a response, and we’ll get along just fine.

My commitment to you: I shall endeavour to be accurate within the limits of my knowledge, I shall try not to give unnecessary offence (while being sure to give necessary offence as needed), and I shall do my best to be critical of the situation more than of the person, unless the person is the situation in need of a good airing.

But I also warn that fairness does not require me to write in a wishy-washy fashion, playing the “on the one hand, and on the other hand” game. To not take a position is to really let myself down.

I do hope you find this entertaining, thought-provoking and perhaps even something that occasionally alters the trajectory of your life.

I look forward to our conversations.