Wither Ford Nation?

It is safe to say that municipal politicians do not get bigger than Rob Ford (no pun intended). It is hard to pick up a newspaper or switch on a news broadcast in Canada and beyond and not be made privy to the comings and goings from Nathan Phillips Square. The City that the late actor Peter Ustinov once described as ‘New York run by the Swiss’ is now coping with reining in the power of a Mayor whose exploits have given the gag writers at Saturday Night Live a vein of comedic gold.

And yet…

Yet, there are a significant number of Torontonians who still consider themselves part of ‘Ford Nation’, and who would vote to re-elect the Mayor if a suitable alternative did not present itself. This, of course, causes people in certain quarters to risk an embolism at the very notion that Ford could survive this current situation. They are outraged that there are people who they feel are less than mentally capable for not seeing what they would argue is obvious.

Yours truly has spent three decades working the political circuit – dozens of campaigns and contests at all levels. Candidates and movements rise and fall, and each cycle brings with it a new generation of champions and causes.

There are very few ‘unifying theories’ in politics. What works in one election cycle will blow up horribly in the next, and vice versa. If you try to plot an election or a politician based on the issues, you will become lost very quickly. Brian Mulroney won a majority mandate on the issue of free trade with the US – something that his predecessor as party leader, Sir Robert Borden, won power by opposing. The same Liberal Party that ran on free trade with the US in 1911 vehemently opposed it in 1988, only to work to expand it to include Mexico in the 1990’s. Plus ca change…

Circumstances change, and positions change with them. The real answer is not found in policy, but philosophy, or – dare I say – attitude?

Let me paint a scenario.

Meet John Smith. John is a second-generation Torontonian who was able to achieve the upward mobility his parents desired for him and worked assiduously to attain. He has a decent income as a skilled professional, and lives with his spouse and kids in the eponymous 905 belt. They have a nice house, not fancy, but comfortable and with a small mortgage. He floats some modest debt, mostly to help put the kids through post-secondary studies. His car is a few years old, and he takes care of it to make it last. There’s possibly one night out for a private dinner and some alone time, but the Smiths are generally homebodies.

You would think that John Smith is a happy and contented fellow. To some extent, he is, but there is a great deal of displeasure and dissatisfaction lurking about.

John feels as though he has been taken advantage of. He has seen his property taxes rise faster than his income, cutting into his retirement savings and what he uses to help his kids. He also sees that his local government – and governments of all levels – increasingly passing rules and regulations that impact his behavior. For the good of the environment, he accepts that recycling and garbage sorting is the right thing, but it’s the dozens of other little things, ranging from the number of cars in his driveway, to the way he decorates his house for the holidays. He feels like he’s being treated like a child and being charged a great deal of precious income for the privilege.

He complains, but people infer that he’s not being a good citizen, that he hates the environment, or hates healthcare, or hates children, or the elderly, or the poor. There is an implication that if he argues to keep a larger share of his earnings, he is being anti-social, that he is selfish and self-absorbed.

He watches as municipal councilors and mayors earn generous stipends, seem to be invited to the best parties by the ‘best’ people. The Star and the Globe and Mail may mention how they had attended some downtown gala and were feted along with the megacity’s intelligentsia over fine wine at the Four Seasons.

John Smith quickly understands that he is subsidizing the ability of others to attend events and happenings that he would never be invited to, all the while wondering whether he and his spouse will have to delay their retirement and re-amortize their mortgage to get the kids through their studies.

John Smith is not a happy person. John Smith knows what he wants and is willing to give his backing to the person who not only represents his views, but is willing to fight for them. John Smith will back the man or woman who says ‘you’re being taken advantage of, and I’m going to work hard to stop it.’

John Smith is Richard M. Nixon’s ‘silent majority’. John Smith helped elect Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney, and Mike Harris. John Smith is America’s Tea Party movement. John Smith is Ford Nation.

It is movement politics in the guise of a personality. People are loyal to the individual not because they believe them to be some perfect savior, but because they carry the hopes and aspirations of the group. So long as they continue to be the means to the end, support is assured.

Critics are discounted because they represent the vested interest under threat, and are merely protecting their privilege. They don’t believe the downtown wine-tasting crowd respects them, and the feeling is mutual. They expect name-calling and questioning of their intelligence. They’ve heard it before, and they wear it as a badge of honour. Every ad hominem insult tells them that they got under the skin of an elitist and lowered them to playground name calling. When people with advanced degrees and prodigious vocabularies resort to using pejoratives not often heard outside a local tavern near closing time, the recipient of the vitriol feels nothing but the satisfaction of having found an Achilles heel.

Movements always hold against outside pressure. Whether it be left or right, people close ranks and fight shoulder to shoulder. They expect the external challenge, and gird for it. The only thing that can really destroy the movement is the threat from within – often from the person at the top.

The biggest threats to Rob Ford do not come from Toronto City Council or from the editorial pages of the various dailies. It won’t come from pundit panels or protest groups. The two biggest threats to Rob Ford lie within his own erratic and reckless behavior, and in the emergence of another standard-bearer who could offer the same policies, but without all the baggage and the drama.

Despite the theatre of the absurd, those who voted for Ford generally feel that he delivered on his promises. Personal behavior aside, he gave his supporters what they wanted, and that is why they have held as firmly as they have. Critics of Ford Nation who wonder how people can overlook the personal peccadillos of a politician just because they ‘did their job’ need only ask themselves what their view of impeaching President Bill Clinton was. Clinton’s defenders argued that his performance as President was distinct from his personal affairs. In that respect, true believers on both sides of the fence are not that different.

In the past couple of months, admissions of illegal drug use have come from both Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. A true political agnostic may say that an elected public official using narcotics is an elected public official using narcotics. That view would be hard to find – squeezed into obscurity by people on both sides arguing why one is so dramatically different than the other. To put it bluntly, people on the left will forgive Justin Trudeau almost everything and Rob Ford virtually nothing. People on the right will do the same thing, but only in reverse.

Political scientists call it ‘confirmation bias’.  It means that if someone tells you something bad about the person you like, you declare that the fix is in. If they say something bad about the person you dislike, you puff out your chest and smugly declare ‘See, I told you so.’ At no point in time do you actually change your mind. You simply act like a patient who didn’t like their doctor’s prognosis and went out looking for a second (or third, or fourth) opinion to back up what you thought all along.

Again – it is not about the person. They may very well be nice, and all that, but that is not why they get elected. They win because they tap into a ‘zeitgeist’ in the public arena. They channel hope, fear, anger, passion and everything else that the voter brings to the polling station.

Rob Ford, the man, is a sad figure whose personal affairs have subjected the City of Toronto to a great deal of controversy. Rob Ford, the political idea, however, is still intact. Ford’s admissions and behavior have not caused his supporters to embrace higher property taxes and increased bureaucracy. John Smith still dislikes what he disliked before Ford took office.

In the end, even the most die-hard supporters of a politician will wake up one day and declare that they cannot tolerate any more. Even John Smith will one day turn off his television with a mixture of regret and disgust. Quite possibly he will not vote for Rob Ford, but that does not mean that he is going to vote for someone who wants the opposite of what Ford attempted to do.

If Ford Nation is defeated in next year’s municipal elections, it will not be because it has disappeared. It will either have found another champion, or it will have decided to stay home and wait until 2018.

Free Trade, Partisanship, and Ping Pong Balls

Politics is always tricky to hammer down. Issues have a lot of moving parts, subtexts and implied motives. If you layer on a good slathering of partisan bias, then you could be forgiven for missing the real story. It’s the same technique used by an illusionist. Flap your right hand all about so people don’t watch you palm the ping pong ball with your left.

This week at the G8 Summit in Inniskillen, Northern Ireland, there was discussion on free trade. There was the triumphant announcement that the United States and the European Union are about to begin formal negotiations on a treaty. There was also the admonition that after four years of talk, a Canada-EU treaty was ‘really, really close.’

The usually suspects among the Canadian punditocracy have greeted this news with the predictable requisite amounts of fear, trepidation and angst. Oh no, they lament. What if the Yanks beat us to the punch? Still others display a surprising amount of mental gymnastics by suggesting that Ottawa should be faulted for not getting a deal by now AND that such a deal, when ratified, would result in too many compromises to the Europeans. In the world of political opinion, it is possible to such and blow simultaneously.

There is often a fine line between ignorance and hyperpartisanship. Most times, they succeed in co-existing quite comfortably (thank you very much!). Of course, in the political world, there are no shortage of axes, places to grind them, or targets to swing at.

I have always believed that untruths commit two egregious sins. First, and most obvious, is the damage done by the lie itself. On the other hand, what often galls me more is the lack of effort and sophistication behind them. It’s bad enough that you spin me, but do you have to insult my intelligence as well? Lying is bad enough, but assuming that the target of your lie is stupid as well is beyond the pale.

Pundits always equate their opinion with truth. They try to make the subjective into the objective. A dislike of the taste of liver becomes the equivalent of 1+1 equaling 2.

For the record, I have no eternal truth on this issue of free trade with the European Union. I have an opinion, based on observation, making it as valid as anything you’ll read in a newspaper or hear emanating from the well quaffed talking head on your television.

So, let’s begin…

A Canada-EU trade deal represents too much of a compromise

Perhaps it does. Maybe that’s why it’s taking so long. You might not have read it, but neither have the people who are telling you about it. They are doing the political equivalent of improv. They take suggestions from the audience (Give me a topic…Free Trade with the EU….Okay, now give me a position…I’m against it…Good! Now let’s begin!) then they write their columns and do their interviews.

Is it at all possible that the delay in ratification is a result of one, or both, parties not being satisfied that their national (or supranational) interests are not being met? If Ottawa agreed to everything Brussels wanted from the start, I suspect we’d already have inked the deal.

You can have speed, you can have caution – you can’t have both. People should know better than to suggest such a thing.

We have to hurry or the Yanks will beat us!

Really? Exactly how long do you think it’ll take for a US-EU deal to come into effect? Six months? Twelve? Twenty-four?

Ask yourself how long the Canada-US FTA took to get done. The Americans are desperate for our oil, but how long has the whole Keystone XL approval dragged out? Anybody remember how many years after Free Trade where we still had to deal with softwood lumber?

But let’s not be negative here. Let’s assume that this agreement has been ordained by the Gods and has redefined what Washington considers a ‘fast track.’ Let’s assume that this treaty’s negotiation is the fastest in the more than 200 years of the Republic’s history. Okay, the treaty goes to the Senate.
Huh?

Silly rabbit – everybody knows that for a treaty to become US law it has to be passed by the US Senate. It’s in their Constitution.

Okay – no prob. Obama’s a Democrat. The majority of Senators are Democrats. He’ll tell them how to vote, and it’s all over except for the crying.

Yes – and with a Democratic majority in the Senate, look how easy it was for the White House to ram through healthcare reform, gun control and that little ‘fiscal cliff’ thingy. Let’s not forget that one-third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years, and that US Presidents would rather get a root canal than introduce any controversial topic just before a mid-term.

Let’s harken back to those wild and heady days of 2004, and the Australia-US FTA. President George W. Bush wanted it. The man running to replace him, John Kerry, wanted it. The Aussies wanted it. Slam dunk, right?

On June 24th of that year, Tom Steever of the National Farm Broadcast Service reported the following:

“The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday dealt a setback to the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement and then held up final action on the deal. Key Committee Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota succeeded by a single vote in amending the agreement, further tightening beef import safeguards.”

Read that carefully, now – the last sentence. The Senate Finance Committee held up the ratification of a comprehensive free trade treaty between the United States and Australia ‘by a single vote’. Single. One. Solitary. Alone. Yes, it eventually passed, but you get the idea.

The truth is that Washington does not only play political hardball, they invented it and have turned it into a fine art form. If the negotiators  from Brussels succeed in not losing their shirts in the rough housing with Obama’s emissaries, they still have to run the gauntlet of 100 Senators – 33 up for re-election every two years and all ready to turn on their party and their President if their seat depended on it.

Beat Canada to a deal? Yeah…right.

We need this deal more than they do and they know it.

Sure about that? Take a look at the GDP figures for the EU, and then compare them to Canada. Look at what’s going on in Greece. Look at the number of European banks whose main shareholder is the government. Ask anyone holding a bank account in Cyprus how they felt about the recent ‘surcharge’. If you’re not convinced of the picture on the ground there, then fly to Madrid and ask anyone on the street if they are happy that the national unemployment rate is somewhere in the range of 25 percent.

Don’t kid yourself – they need a deal as badly as we do. Probably worse.

The Best Defence is a Good Offence

So far, it’s been looking at things from a different angle. Let’s go somewhere that the pundits haven’t ventured yet. Let’s go on an adventure!

The pundits do get one thing right,that weakness in the face of a negotiation is a monumental error. The question is 'whose weakness'?

In 2011, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's exports to the 27 member EU stood at C$42.29 billion. What you might not realize is that 46 percent of that, or C$19.37 billion, was with only one EU member - Britain. The 2011 figures for the United States are not as dramatic, but of the US$268.5 billion shipped to the EU, 20.8 percent, or US$55.87 found its way to Britain.

In many ways, for both the US and Canada, trade with the European Union is really trade with Britain. Bear in mind that this is the same UK where the majority of people are dissatisfied with EU membership and that there is good reason to believe they would vote to leave the EU in a referendum.

Ask yourself what the value of Canada-EU trade would be if Britain were out of the equation? Well, simple math says it would drop almost in half. Okay, under those conditions, what types of demands could Brussels make on Ottawa (or Washington) for that matter?

If the value of EU trade for Canada plunged overnight from C$42.29 billion to only C$22.92 billion while a trade deal was being finalized, would it not seem altogether reasonable to assume that Brussels might have to concede far more than it would have in the beginning? If the value of the European market to the US dropped by 20 percent in one day, exactly what kind of attitude shift would infect the American negotiators? Would they say that it makes no difference? Would they say, perhaps, that $213 billion doesn’t get the kind of compromises that $268 billion can expect?

A cynical person might suggest that with the possibility of a British withdrawal from the EU being more than a statistical rounding error, Brussels wants a deal sooner than later because a European Union without Britain is less of a draw and a player with fewer high cards to play with either Canada or the US. In geopolitics, as in life, people are not generally amenable to paying full price for half a loaf.

 

At the end of the day…

When all is said and done, trade treaties are all about the politics. If they were based solely on economics, we would have negotiated global free trade decades ago and the WTO mandarins would not be feverishly working to resurrect the Doha Round of talks like some latter day Lazarus.

Treaties are about politics, and politics is a lot like shopping at a yard sale – searching for bargains and haggling over what to pay. The seller wants a King’s Ransom while the buyer wants a freebee. Neither will get their way if a deal is desired. The buyer will pay more, and the seller will settle for less. Desire and desperation will determine where the two sides meet.

Whether you think Canada-EU free trade is a good thing or not is a debatable point. Whether or not you like Stephen Harper and his party is an equally valid discussion. Neither of these discussions, however, suggest the relative strengths and weaknesses of either side. A like of the Prime Minister doesn’t give Canada the upper hand. Conversely, a hatred of Harper doesn’t put Brussels in the driver’s seat. Both parties must contend with their advantages and vulnerabilities, and whatever does come about will reflect just that.

As for the optimistic assurance at the G8 that a Canada-EU deal was ‘really, really close?’ It was the British PM, David Cameron, who said it - not Stephen Harper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Unsolicited Advice from an Opinionated Foreigner

Sometimes it is very difficult to stick to one’s knitting, although as a matter of polite principle it is seldom borne as the wrong thing to do.

Not everyone shares this opinion, and a good number of them have been out in full force over the past couple of weeks. Talk of Britain reconsidering its membership in the European Union has elicited a great amount of comment. There are Belgians, Spaniards, Germans, French, Irish and even one erstwhile functionary of the US State Department who have all chimed in on the efficacy of such a move. Indeed, this veritable United Nations of punditry has dominated the UK press so thoroughly that it’s a wonder that anyone holding a British passport can get a word in edgewise.

From where I sit, this spate of clamoring is quite peculiar, as it comes almost on the eighth anniversary of keeping my own mouth shut – not an easy task, I assure you.

In late 2004, I was greeted with two happy occurrences. First and foremost was the birth of my lovely daughter. Around the same time, though, came the point where I had finished a manuscript. Within a couple of months, it would go to print with the rather ponderous, albeit self-evident, title “The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade.”

Within a short time of its publication, I had opportunity – and still do to this day – to meet and talk with a number of people in the UK. They inhabit a good portion of the political spectrum – UKIP, to Tory, to Labour – and they have always been very polite in their discourse and reasonable in their demeanor. I continue to value their friendship and their wise counsel.

It is no secret that the Commonwealth has often been cited as a possible alternative to membership in the European Union, and that many commentators in the British press and in political circles have made this argument. UKIP, in particular, has been explicit enough in this regard to have made it part of their policy manifesto, and campaigned on it in the last British general election.

Nevertheless, I have always tried to steer clear of the issue of a 'Brixit.' To be blunt, it is none of my business. I am a Canadian, born and raised, like successive generations of my family.  Ask me about NAFTA, about Quebec sovereignty, or the travails of politics in Ottawa, but Britain? Sorry, the most recent arrival of my ancestors to Canada left British shores almost 180 years ago. That's the moment when my family left their right to an opinion on British politics as well.

It is awkward, to be certain. I am, after all, a subject of Her Majesty, just like all of them. The coins in my pocket bear the Queen's likeness. I drive past a 'Prince Charles Public School' on my way to work each morning, and every Monday evening, I join all the other parents at standing straight while my 12 year old son's Navy Cadet corps wraps up their weekly parade with an a capella rendition of 'God Save The Queen.'

Nevertheless, the distance remains, and for all of the commonalities, I am a spectator.

Ask me if I'm pro-Commonwealth, and I will give you a resounding and unqualified yes. Ask me whether Britain should stay in the EU or vote to leave, and I'll be resigned to fidgeting through the quiet awkwardness of my own design. If pushed, I'll tell you that Canada should build up its Commonwealth connections - Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore to name a few. Prod me more, and I'll tell you that the people of Britain need to consider their own path, their own future.

That, of course, is the roundabout point to this piece. Britain's future belongs to its people - its many citizens who go about their business quietly building and renewing a great country, one with a storied past and a bright future. It does not belong to the chattering classes on the continent, and it certainly does not belong to an American diplomat. It does not even belong to a friendly cousin from the Dominions, no matter how well meaning they might be.

No one from beyond Britain's shores has anything to contribute to the EU membership debate - pro or con - even if they believe they do.

In the coming months, it is likely that the country will be facing an important decision on their future with Europe. It will be a tough discussion to have, but challenging situations have never been shied away from. They are the land of Elizabeth and Victoria, of Wellington and Nelson, of Churchill and Thatcher. They have always been at their best when things have been their trickiest.

Like any loyal friends, rather that lecture and cajole the British people on the future of their nation, I would offer the following:

We are your friends.

We have been your friends in good times and bad.
We trust you and respect you.
Make your choice and know that we will always be in your corner whatever you decide.

Good luck to you all.