Sarah Palin defending Newt Gingrich - Fox News/Fox Nation - January 29, 2012

When recently asked about how Newt Gingrich, given his 20 years in Congress and role as Speaker of the House, could be portraying himself as a Washington outsider, Sarah Palin responded: 

“Yeah how can he say he is not part of the establishment? Well look at the players in the establishment, who are fighting so hard against him. They want to crucify him because he has tapped into that average everyday American Tea Party grassroots movement that has said ‘enough is enough of the establishment that tries to run the show that tries to tweak rules and law and regulations for their own good and not for our nation’s own good.’ Well when both party machines and many in the media are trying to crucify Newt Gingrich for bucking the tide and bucking the establishment that tells ya something.  I say, ya know, you gotta rage against the machine, at this point in order to defend our Republic and save what is good and secure and prosperous about our nation, we need somebody who is engaged in sudden and relentless reform and isn’t afraid to shake it up. Shake up that establishment.  So, if for no other reason to rage against the machine vote for Newt, annoy a liberal. Vote Newt. Keep this vetting process going, keep the debate going…”*

Of course what one first notices is Palin’s ability to not answer the question put to her – the sign of a true Washington insider if ever there was one.  That aside, the notion that she is ‘raging against the machine’ is just flat-out amusing.  Palin and Gingrich don’t want to eliminate the machine – they merely want to be at the helm when that machine is programmed.  And it is not a question of the machine being re-programmed (or the call for ‘relentless reform’) it simply needs a slightly altered emphasis.   Remind me again exactly how Gingrich is ‘bucking the tide’?  It is easy to say you are going to ‘shake up the establishment’ (talk about co-opting the ancient leftist language) but how exactly this is to be done by a person such as Gingrich is another question entirely. 

In a style that is typical of the contemporary conservative politicians, the aim is to portray both yourself and the person you are defending as victims or oppressed little guys.  Are we are to assume that Newt is an injured party merely because everyone – including Republicans – is picking on him?  How the treatment Gingrich has received is different from any other presidential candidate is unclear (and those of you with long memories will recall that Newt is not above mud-flinging with the best (or worst!) of them).  Still, utilizing the most excessive language available Palin claims that the media and political parties are aiming to “crucify” Newt.  It is nice to see Palin has not lost her ability to be subtle and levelheaded (and religious).

Perhaps most amusing of all is that Palin thinks the prime goal in all this is to annoy liberals.  That sounds like a solid foundation for political policy!  Presumably she is talking about those mythical bogeyman liberals who run both the media and Washington.  According to this view the liberals don’t represent anyone in the United States – yet somehow they remain all-powerful.  Perhaps it is for the best that Palin doesn’t even try to explain how this mysterious magic works.  And while I’m not exactly sure what publications Palin reads, or which television networks she watches, but it seems as if someone needs to tell her that Gingrich is not running for the leadership of the Tea Party.  I can’t help but feel this will be news to her.  

A brief reminder about the grass roots establishment-bucker from yesteryear…

Noam Chomsky, Z, January 1995:

Gingrich represents Cobb County Georgia, which the New York Times – reasonably enough – selected in a recent front-page story to illustrate the rising tide of “conservatism” aimed at ridding us of the “nanny state.”  The headline reads “Conservatism Flowering Among the Malls,” in this wealthy suburb of Atlanta, one of several that “offer – particularly to whites – a sense of prosperity and safety, conservative southern values and a relaxed, friendly way of life.”  It’s a “Norman Rockwell world with fiber optic computers and jet airplanes,” Gingrich comments with pride.  With its “history of inhospitality toward blacks,” Cobb county is scrupulously insulated from any urban infection so that the inhabitants can enjoy the fruits of their ”entrepreneurial values” and market enthusiasms in “the conservative heart of a conservative region,” defended in congress by the leader of the conservative triumph.  

A small footnote: Cobb County receives more federal subsidies than any suburban county in the country, with two exceptions: Arlington Virginia, effectively part of the federal Government, and Brevard County Florida, the home of the Kennedy Space Center.  When we move out of the state system itself, Cobb County is the leading beneficiary of the “nanny state.”  Its largest employer is Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company, which is designing the F-22 advanced tactical fighter and other military aircraft.  72% of the workforce are in white-collar jobs “in expanding areas of the economy like insurance, electronics and computers, and trade” – all carefully tended by “the nanny state.”  It’s remarkably easy for conservative entrepreneurial values to flourish while one is feeding happily at the public trough.  Meanwhile praises to market miracles reach the heavens, notably where “conservatism, is flowering among the malls.”

* - I’ve corrected a few obvious errors from the transcription on the Fox News website – although the inclusion/interpretation of words such as ‘ya’ and ‘gotta’ is from their webpage. 

Conrad Black – Margaret Thatcher’s controversial policies have stood the test of time (Ottawa Citizen, January 7, 2012)

I guess it was to be expected with the release of new film The Iron Lady that a lot would be written about Margaret Thatcher in early 2012.  One can’t help but presume that Thatcher herself would appreciate the all-out forms of hype and marketing which surround the release of contemporary mainstream films.  While I’m not a fan of the Labour administration that preceded or followed the 1980s Conservative period I can’t help but take exception to any piece which paints an entirely positive picture of Thatcher’s administration.  Conrad Black’s gushing and fawning commentary falls squarely into this category.  Quoting himself (no excessive ego there) Black refers to the former British Prime Minister as “one of the great leaders who has arisen in a thousand years of British history.” 

Anyone with a shred of balance would recognize that Thatcher’s relationship with media barons such as Black was highly problematic.  For all of the claims that Thatcher was responsible for ridding England of the class system, the Prime Minister cultivated relationships with some pretty lofty, wealthy and influential people.  As well as Black, think Jeffrey Archer and Rupert Murdoch.   One can’t help but notice, to put it kindly, the shaky legal ground Black and Archer have occupied and Murdoch seems to be sinking into.  Regardless, they do share a certain single-mindedness and an ability to maintain their morality-tinged rightness even when facts suggest contradictions.  Why let pesky particulars get in the way?  Even while Thatcher was in office she utilized her relationship with Conrad Black in an attempt to influence leadership outcomes within her own party. 

If one can get through all of Black’s over-the-top praise the most relevant information comes at the very end of his commentary.  The disclaimer bit reads, “Margaret Thatcher was a senior member of the Hollinger International Advisory Board from 1991 to 2002, was Conrad Black’s sponsor at his induction into the House of Lords in 2001 and gave a toast at Black’s and Barbara Amiel’s wedding dinner in 1992.”  Who says Thatcher hasn’t been busy since her time in office?  As well, it is nice to see that everyone was keeping a critical and professional distance.  As for Rupert Murdoch, well, let’s just say he is an even bigger Thatcher fan.               

In recent days Black and others have made the point that Thatcher was a no-compromise and non-wavering leader.   She is known and frequently praised for her single-mindedness.  For some reason (even though one could argue that the essence of politics is compromise) these traits are presented as honorable and an indicator of clear vision.  Is such a robotic stance on issues possible ... or even desirable?  Either way, the former Prime Minister is presented as being steadfast against an ocean of communists, lefties and terrorists.  Black assures us that Thatcher had a “starring role in winning” the Cold War.  But even here a bit of retrospection gets in the way of simplistic claims. 

One could argue that the Thatcher administration exaggerated the threat of the Soviet Union to gain political loyalty.  I seem to recall the Kremlin stronghold crumbling overnight without a shot being fired – something that would have been unimaginable if Reagan and Thatcher were taken at their respective words.  As well, there is evidence that the so-called Iron Lady wavered on a number of topics from how to deal with the Apartheid administration in South Africa to appropriate measures when confronting the IRA.*  Even Thatcher’s record on taxation and government spending is not as clear cut as the rhetoric of that time (and since) would suggest.   

From the early 1980s, I recall a great deal of oratory about individuals and how there was no equality of ability merely equality of opportunity.  All hard workers could, and would, succeed.  A part of this logic entailed a paring down of the government and the deregulation of financial institutions (which, according to neoliberal ideology, were self-regulating and in no need of monitoring or correction).  The economy was presented as a natural rather than human-made entity.  Much of this market-oriented speechifying was ideological (and it is ideology rather than heaven sent) code for lower taxes and less accountability.  One can’t help but laugh out loud when Black claims that Thatcher “forced democracy on unions”.  What is willfully missed in my view?  That ‘equality of opportunity’ is clearly a myth and that these forms of economic-speak promoted a type of dehumanized cynicism which continues to haunt us all.  Anyone could also write a book about how the ongoing financial crisis has its roots is this era of less accountability and decreased regulation.  What else do Black and the neoliberals/neoconservatives conveniently leave out?  That Thatcher, in part, fell from power while trying to put through a tax increase.   

Perhaps ironically Black and other Thatcher supporters seem to suggest that the so-called Iron lady had a monopoly on loving freedom.  Of course this notion ignores such obvious questions as: freedom for whom?  The perspective that freedom is subjective and multi-faceted is largely ignored.  It is Black’s oversimplified and one-dimensional view of Thatcher which hints at the very problem with contemporary media – and ultimately does a disservice to the subject herself.  According to this take, all of Thatcher’s foes were merely wrong-headed or worse, hated freedom.  Needless to say Black (and a similar 2010 piece by Rupert Murdoch) avoids addressing the potential pitfalls within the cozy relationships between political leaders and media barons.  Never mind, it is only democracy at stake.  Also, one also wonders how Thatcher feels about receiving raves from her old friends/convicted criminals.  She was all about law and order – but what happens when your friends and biggest boosters run afoul of the law?  Perhaps these details just don’t matter.  In Conrad Black’s commentary, and many of the articles I read around the new film, it is easier to rely on stereotypes and clichés than dig for potentially messy and contradictory details.  Perhaps Black should go back to his day job. 

* This blog is named after a song which, in part, addresses London’s highly dubious relationship with the IRA.  While the Gang of Four song likely predates the administration in question it reminds me that there was ‘dirt’ behind the initial Thatcher ‘daydream’ that a sharp dose of law and order would solve all in Northern Ireland.  Long Kesh was the Abu Ghraib of its day. 

“In some quite obvious and undeniable ways, the whole point of Thatcherism is to clear the way for capitalist market solutions, to restore both the prerogatives of ownership and profitability and the political conditions for capital to operate more effectively, and to construct around its imperatives a supportive culture suffused from end to end by its ethos and values.  Thatcherism knows no measure of the good life other than ‘value for money’.  It understands no other compelling force or motive in the definition of civilization than the forces of the ‘free market’.” – Stuart Hall

“Over the past thirty years, capitalist realism has successfully installed a ‘business ontology’ in which it is simply obvious that everything in society, including healthcare and education, should be run as a business.  As any number of radical theorists from Brecht through to Foucault and Badiou have maintained, emancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be mere contingency, just as it must make what is previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable.” – Mark Fisher

“As neoliberlism converts every political or social problem into market terms, it converts them into individual problems with market solutions.” – Wendy Brown

SUN NEWS PRESENTS… – a series by Joanne Richard

I guess there is nothing wrong with a little cross-pollination … a little cross-marketing … a touch of the old synergy.  Lately I’ve been reading in the Sun pages the ‘Sun News Presents…’ pieces by Joanne Richard.  Clearly the strategy is to promote the growing Sun Empire by profiling their on-air personalities.  In recent weeks Richard has written pieces on Krista Erickson, Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley.  While the profiles read like introductions composed in grade 5, I detect some clear patterns among these features.   Without fail these journalists are freedom loving, salt-of-the-earth, job-loving, tireless, family-oriented, straight-talking yet funny, CBC haters.  And yet they are also all victims – victims of political correctness, government monopolies and obtuse viewers.  

It is amusing that in all three profiles there is an emphasis on the ills of the CBC – almost as if the supposedly individualistic and unconventional Sun journalists all think in precisely the same manner – or were all led in the same direction.  That can’t be right for a group of free-thinking individuals can it?  I guess when your bosses hate the CBC you hate the CBC … although given the circumstances it hardly strikes one as a rebellious stance.   Party discipline holds – even when people like Erickson used to work at the CBC and Levant has appeared on the national broadcaster many times promoting his wares.  Presumably those were the rare instances when the institution was not “run with your money by a bunch of unaccountable, secretive and arrogant bureaucrats.”    

According to the headline for Richard’s December 18^th profile, Byline host Brain Lilley is ‘Sticking up for the little guy.’  In an effort to further establish his non-elitist credentials, Lilley himself claims to be “just the guy who lives next door…” In his household there is a wife, four kids, two dogs and two cats.  He has had all kinds of jobs, is a devout family man, and is both Catholic and pro-life. Lilley is interested in stories that matter to the “little guy” and Byline is about “providing a strong voice for the average Canadian.”  That all sounds good (if unnecessary) to me … except when it comes to the list of Lilley’s favorite interviews.   These include, Mark Steyn (the journalist/author who seems to have a contract with Sun TV to flog his website, books and … yes… CDs), the former Vice-President of the United States Dick Cheney and Avigdor Lieberman (Israeli foreign minister).  Yep, no elitism there – they all sound like average Canadians to me.  And who does Lilley want on the show – why Stephen Harper of course, because the Prime Minister is “always fascinating.”  This doesn’t much match with Richard’s claim that Lilley is “cheeky” and “bent on shaking things up, making waves.”  

The headline for Ezra Levant is ‘Pumping up the volume’.  Both Richard and Levant himself try to make ‘volume’ and ‘noise’ into virtues.  Why bother with nuance and thoughtfulness when you can shout down your perceived, and invented, opponents.  Richard tells us that Levant is “an informed, funny and feisty (loudmouth)” who “won’t shut up or back down until he gets results.”  Just which results she is referring to goes un-discussed.  A large potion of the profile is dedicated to Levant’s willingness to publish the controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons.  Levant comments, “That was an important fight for free speech, the independence of the media and the separation of mosque and state.”  Wait a minute, did he say ‘mosque’?  Yes indeed, because much of Levant’s recent pro-Christmas rhetoric suggests he doesn’t actually believe in the more all-encompassing separation of church and state.  Clearly his respect for religion is highly selective.  Still, even though Levant and the others assert that they represent mainstream Canadians, as with Lilley, Richard claims Ezra really “likes to shake things up…”   Only a character such as Levant, when he reissued Richard’s profile on his website, would remark, “Yours truly, done up in-house celeb profile-style.”  No elitism or ego there Mr Celeb!  No humor either.  Still, I guess he is at least honest about what the profiles are.               

Canada Live presenter Krista Erickson is, according to the December 11^th headline, a ‘Rebel with a cause.’   Not to be outdone by her supposedly edgy colleagues, Richard states that Erickson is “shockingly controversial.”  She is also “spirited” and “opinionated” and offers “her own brand of hard news delivery.”   While she is against both government subsidies and the CBC, Erickson managed to hang on to various positions at our sinister national broadcaster for a mere 11 years.  In the profile we learn that Erickson has a great relationship with her mom, a serious boyfriend and a Jack Russell named Winston.  The face of Canada Live likes “living on the edge” and Mom says she is “unconventional” and “strong willed.”  And just like Ezra she is “feisty.”  And speaking of Ezra, for all of her maverick-like “boundary pushing” Erickson seems to adore the Sun Empire and her coworkers.  Richard writes, “She embraces her good fortune, being associated with people like Ezra Levant, Charles Adler, Michael Coren and Bill Lilley.”  Wait, what were those names again?  What times are they on the air?  Ever the free thinker Erickson herself goes on to add, “They’re all brilliant in terms of their analysis, their points of view, their understanding of the world; they’re also brilliant showmen and I just have so much respect for them.” And guess what?  Yep, “She’s out to shake up the mediascape…”

Now, I realize we are talking about SUN opinion commentators (at least in the case of Levant and Lilley) rather than reporters. Opinions are free – and don’t require facts, details or subtlety.  Still, two quotes you won’t read in any of these pieces are ‘I try to see many sides to issues’ or ‘While I disagree with them, I’m sympathetic to counter-opinions’.  No, much easier to ridicule your perceived opponent, invent or inflate outlandish adversaries, and use them as a source of comedic fodder, rather than address a variety of nuanced counter-opinions.  The old right wing stumbling block: how to be a common-sense every-day person and a rebel at the same time?  The funny part is that instead of presenting Levant, Lilley and Erickson as complex and varied individuals, in these profiles they come off as interchangeable group-thinking corporate drones.  Aside from the colorful family and pet bits they all fall into line in a completely assimilated Borg-like fashion. Given their forced and seam-showing humor, and by-the-numbers personal tidbits, they are the Borg sans the whimsy.  And, of course, I can make any of these less-than-flattering comments because I’m merely presenting my opinion.  I’m simply a showman.  And for those of you that care I’ve no children, no dogs or cats … so, you know, clearly I’m a nasty person.       

Kelly Roche – ‘Unhappy Holidays’ (Ottawa Sun, December 18, 2011)

The page two Ottawa Sun headline is glaring: ‘UNHAPPY HOLIDAYS’.  It would seem that a group of protesters had the previous day gathered on parliament Hill.  At issue for the demonstrators was the idea that it should be ok, make that it is a right, to say ‘Merry Christmas’.   The whole idea is that rampant political correctness, and an ever-increasing bowing to minorities, has made it taboo to utter ‘Merry Christmas’ in public.  The main focus of the protestors seems to be on schools.  One child of a protestor was quoted in the article as saying, “we’re not allowed to say Merry Christmas. We have to say Happy Holidays.”

While this does indeed sound pretty alarming in the very next paragraph the article contains a quote from a spokesperson from the Ottawa Carleton District School Board stating that there is no policy with respect to this issue.  End of story right?   No, no, no, not so fast.  Instead Roche proceeds to revive the story regarding Cambridge Public School who recently decided to make what was formerly a Christmas concert into a more wide-ranging and less specifically Christian event.  This decision had caused something of an uproar a few weeks earlier.  Even the Canadian branch of The Huffington Post featured an article with the eye-catching, and inflammatory, headline ‘The Ban on Christmas Begins’.  Of course even this story was blown out of proportion as it was evident that the school in question planned a number of Christmas-related events – they had merely opted to make the concert into something more inclusive.       

Perhaps not surprisingly these are the sorts of details left out of the Sun article.   It is much easier to perpetuate a non-story when you ignore pesky facts and contradictory details.  The photograph accompanying Roche’s piece is of a man holding a placard which reads ‘The Christ In Christmas’ with an image of Santa Claus being crucified.  Glad to see that everyone was being balanced and rational!  The article further notes that some of the protestors wore red Santa hats.  That the whole fabricated corporate-imagined Santa Claus construct was being perpetuated by the demonstrators, of course goes unmentioned.  It seems to me that a lot of this issue can be traced to the policies of businesses. 

For years we have read articles about how stores have policies which instruct their employees to say ‘Happy Holidays’ rather than ‘Merry Christmas’ (although having worked in several retail stores myself, I’ve never encountered a policy with respect to this issue).   Still, why anyone would be surprised that stores want to be as inclusive as possible is a mystery to me.  I suspect that if you put to Sun readers the question ‘Short of breaking laws, should retail stores do all they can to attract as many customers as possible and maximize profits?’ the answer would be ‘yes’.  Of course the funny part of the screaming page 2 Sun article is that if you read long enough you learn that the protest consisted of “about one dozen protestors” – a number so low the Sun would surely mock it if it were related to any other cause.      

Perhaps the most disturbing piece I’ve read recently was a posting on a friend’s Facebook page.  The text of the paragraph wondered what our troops had fought and died for if not the flag and out right to say ‘Merry Christmas’.  The piece went on to say that if one comes here to live one should adhere to our national values.  My first thought was that if you followed the logic of this blurb, we should all be adopting Aboriginal values and beliefs – and should have left our European (and other) baggage at the door.  But clearly this is not what this piece was getting at.  The ‘us’ is obviously ‘us’ and the ‘them’ is obviously ‘them’.  As for how the writer of this rant accounts for the activities, dreams and motives of non-Christian Canadian soldiers (Aboriginal veterans in particular) this question remains unaddressed.  Perhaps some of those soldiers were fighting to make our society, and the globe, more understanding, harmonious and inclusive.  Again, such complexities don’t make for good rhetoric and easy answers.      

The argument is always that political correctness, and the accompanying drive for inclusiveness, is taking the fun and spirit out of Christmas.  There might be a hint of truth to this claim.  Although I’m an agnostic (even more frowned upon than being a Christian), I’m never offended when someone wishes me a ‘Merry Christmas’.   I enjoy the gesture in the ‘good tidings’ spirit – assuming this is more of a traditional wish rather than a strictly a religious one (although by the logic of those Parliament Hill protestors this would make me wrong-headed and off-message).  Often, there needs to be a decline in dogmatism on both sides of this equation.  Still, as for those that insist ‘Merry Christmas’ is correct and all variations of ‘season’s greetings’ are wrong, one might also make the point that being more inclusive and loving of others is the true spirit.  As is so often the case, claimed opposition to political correctness is merely an excuse to disparage, rather than embrace, ‘them’.  

Michael Hlinka (business commentator) – CBC Radio One, Ottawa Morning (November 29, 2011)

Michael Hlinka is the master of avoiding counter-arguments.  All of his economic opinion is presented in a manner which suggests it is both logical and obvious – not so much his views as just the way things are.   This narrow and oversimplified method of presenting information became particularly clear during Hlinka’s recent rant about efficiency.  The bottom-line, according to Hlinka, is that when it comes to spending, individuals are efficient and governments are not.  Of course Hlinka fails to address both what his conception of efficiency (presumably we all have the same understanding of this word) is and that individuals, banks and private companies are just as capable of risky behavior and overspending as governments (in spite of self-interests being at stake). 

A part of the argument forwarded by Hlinka is that governments are not concerned with efficiency and thus are not suited to decide where money should be spent.  Of course, realizing that China would provide an obvious exception to this dubious hypothesis, our editorialist notes that, “Last week we learned that manufacturing activity in China declined sharply.”  This is a very selective tidbit of information indeed – find one morsel of data which doesn’t really address your point and somehow try to make it fit.  Hlinka manages to avoid discussing Canada’s own drop in exports and how our current Federal government studiously blames all ill economic news on ‘external factors’.   The neo-liberal/neo-conservative line has always been the increased trade and economic integration will be our savior – yet somehow it is also our villain of convenience.   Our commentator also ignores the long-standing tradition of right-wing governments (particularly in the United States) to spend like drunken lemurs only to leave their successors holding the debt/deficit bag.  Presumably the difference here is that right-wing governments are spending on worthy projects – rather than those wasteful ones which actually assist people. 

Not surprisingly Hlinka singles out the New Democratic Party as being particularly problematic.   The NDP wants all sorts of infrastructure programs to stimulate spending – programs which, according to Hlinka, include “Roads, bridges, transit facilities, you name it…”  I really like the inclusion of “you name it” as if the list was comprised of nutty ideas which are not concretely linked to our contemporary reality.  Yep, this is indeed a list of frivolities.  Somehow our editorialist refers to all of this as “spending money for its sake”.  It goes without saying that Hlinka sidesteps the Prime Minister’s record on the debt/deficit and infrastructure spending.  Un-discussed is the fact that Harper is on record as defending (at least temporarily) infrastructure spending to stimulate the sluggish economy.  Hlinka goes on the make a link between governments borrowing money and the decline of wages.  For this theory he offers no evidence.  One assumes he is hinting at a potential increase in interest rates which will make it more costly for businesses to borrow.  If this is indeed his theory the evidence is sparse to say the least. 

Our not-so-trusty commentator also blames workers themselves.  The general idea being floated is that the public sector is unproductive – as if efficiency is somehow their sole mandate.  The problem, needless to say, is that unlike in the private sector, there are no incentives for governments to be efficient.  Hlinka states, “I think that the indifference, if not outright hostility to efficiency, has everything to do with the self-selection process of who pursues a career in government in the first place.”  There are not even any exceptions to this iron clad rule as he adds, “But no one, at least no one in government, seems to care much about efficiency.”  Slackers are drawn to the public sector and serious people to the private.  Of course anyone who has worked in multiple sectors and industries will know there is plenty of inefficiency (if the word can even be defined) to go around.  Hlinka does not seem to understand that we select, finance and control the various levels of government – they are not abstract identities unconnected to reality.  The government is us – warts and all.  And if the public sector is as ‘bloated’ as Hlinka claims, one assumes the solution is to put more people on the unemployment line.  However, if the real economic problem is that people are unemployed, Hlinka’s suggestions offer the very opposite of solutions.  They are recipes for how to make things worse.  This side of the equation goes unanalyzed.  I guess Hlinka imagines that those magic businesses enjoying their new low tax rates will pick up the employment slack.  

Of course in his measure of efficiency, Hlinka miraculously avoids the obvious – that business requires public spending, and lots of it, to function.  From schooling to hospitals to road work for the transportation of goods, industry thrives on public spending.  All of that public stuff is stuff they don’t have to pay for.  And given how few companies in Canada pay income tax (a complex issue to be sure) one could even make the argument that businesses in Canada get a free-ride from public spending and Canadian tax payers.  But this is precisely the type of counter-argument and detail Hlinka conveniently forgets … or avoids.  What is even more telling is that Hlinka knows the whole ‘rational spending’ and self-preservation argument is false.  Just this past week he was discussing how individuals often opt to study for jobs they like in spite of their being little work (and little pay) in their particular field.  I guess we humans just lack the efficiency of robots.  The nerve of us! 

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," – Alan Greenspan (former chairman Federal Reserve Board 1987- 2006), October 23, 2008.

 “The figures, tabled recently in Parliament, show from the tax years 2000 to 2009, anywhere from 853,830 to 1,065,810 corporate tax filers did not pay income tax to the federal government. That makes up almost half of Canada's 2.4 million businesses, according to the latest December 2009 statistics from Industry Canada.” – Postmedia News, September 27, 2011.

“When (efficiency) is used as an end in itself, as a value in its own right, and as the overriding goal of public life, it becomes a cult.” – Janice Gross Stein

Michael Hlinka (business commentator) – CBC Radio One, Ottawa Morning (November 15, 2011)

Michael Hlinka really should be writing for the Ottawa Sun.  His regular business commentaries fall into that same overly-simplistic and entirely predictable vein.  Business = good.  Anything that impedes business = bad.   So it was not a surprise to recently hear him decry the delay in the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.  Hlinka put the blame firmly on political activists, the financers of the Democratic Party and those ever-so-pesky environmentalists.   The problem is not only that Canada, as a nation, has been insulted, but that the decision to delay the project will cost jobs on both sides of the border.  According to Hlinka, and hinted at by our Finance Minister, if the Americans can’t get their act together we should be looking to China to sell our oil. 

Early in his commentary, Hlinka states, “You would think that given the current state of economic affairs there would be widespread political support for the project on both sides of the 49^th parallel.”   One wonders if this means jobs should be the sole consideration with respect to any such project.  And what does it say about the nature of our economy if so much hope is being pinned on a short-term highly-regional initiative.  Even the number of jobs linked to the project is uncertain and contestable.  One number Hlinka is definite about – he claims that this delay will cost TransCanada Pipelines one billion dollars.  If this figure is correct, that a single entity can sustain such losses is in itself worth addressing and commenting on.  Although I’m not sure how the delay of a projected tentative deal can ‘cost’ anything.  Did it cost me ten thousand dollars when my boss failed to give me a raise this year?  Maybe.

Hlinka also makes the case that Canadians should take the delay as an insult.  He spoke of how “the decision should be understood as a slap in the face to the Canadian people.”   My question is: which Canadians?  Even those who opposed the pipeline?  Should I feel affronted that the President of the United States made a decision which may, or may not, alter the lives of a relatively small number of Canadians?  And should I always feel personally insulted when a political decision is made which may, or may not, alter jobs.  The reality is that such decisions are made – rightly or wrongly – on a daily basis in both Canada and the United States.  And what might be even more shocking to Hlinka is that a lot of decisions don’t place the interests of workers first.   One gets the sense that ‘jobs’ is code for profits and that the latter is much more important than the former. 

Although he does acknowledge that the environmental organizers in Nebraska are ‘grassroots’ one gets the impression that these folks, and their ‘claims’, are not taken seriously by Hlinka.  Somehow activists are suspect while high-profile lobbyists represent business as usual.  In Hlinka’s mind all of the forces opposing the pipeline are forms of protest.   There is a right way to do politics and a wrong way.  And if this is part of Obama’s reelection bid, and the President feels more voters are opposed to the project than support it, this would suggest that the democratic process is both intact and working.  If Obama has made a serious judgment error in this case it will be addressed in next year’s election.  Imagine a process which is attentive and responsive to voters.  That can’t be right!  Hlinka and others must paint these would be anti-business forces in a negative light and suggest there is something deceptive and malicious about their motives.  Lobbying is fine so long as it is a certain type of corporate lobbying.   And, as with critiques of the so-called anti-globalization forces, I’ve never met a single person opposed to either business or trade.  So what is really at stake is how, and in whose interest, such activities are conducted.  These debates are much more nuanced than the easy-answers right-wing media (yes, even the CBC has them!) would have us believe. 

One also has to question where the voices for ‘ethical oil’ are in this whole debate.  Yes, there are plenty of commentaries about how Canadian oil is more ethically suitable than the oil from several other countries around the world, but what about this focus on selling oil to China?   It’s funny how the anti-communists seem to be silent all of a sudden – even when they are often the same folks making the ‘ethical oil’ argument.  I guess this resembles the methods (by some clever slight-of-hand) pro-business/anti-communist forces in the United States are able to keep the focus on Cuba rather than China.  Perhaps this has become a requirement as China is holding a huge portion of US government debt.  I’m not making an argument for or against China, I’m just trying to figure out how this all squares in the minds of business commentators and politicians.  

My argument isn’t so much that Hlinka is wrong – or even that some of the alternatives to the pipeline are preferable.  The point is that such issues are complex and by nature reflect a multiplicity of competing interests.   Like it or not that is politics.  Why it is assumed, as our Prime Ministers does, that such questions are ‘no-brainers’?  Why is the environment not an ethical issue?   Why is the whole ‘ethical oil’ argument confined to producers rather than consumers?  I guess even when completion is the ideal state in business it is not always appreciated and welcomed in the realm of politics.  

John Robson – ‘Occupiers’ hollow outrage truly obnoxious’ (Ottawa Sun, November 6, 2011)

John Robson has recently made the argument that the ‘Occupy’ movement is full of folks who do not know how to wash (yes, yes, yes, we get your lame on-running joke about how failing to shower is not a form of political activism) and who don’t understand the fundamentals of human nature.  The movement ‘conspicuously despises ideas’.  Imagine a movement without leaders and overt rules!  Robson sure can’t.  He does however argue that compassion is an individual choice and as such is not something which can be transformed into a political ideology.  Imagine the nerve and gullibility of a group of (mostly) young people suggesting we can make things better!   

When I recently visited Occupy Ottawa I came across three folks who had studied university-level political science and a professor.  Clearly none of these people are empty-headed or mistakenly think there are easy answers to complex problems.  Unlike our Sun editorialist, there seemed to be an inherent understanding that nuance and complexity are key components to any political equation.  And, of course, without offering evidence, Robson is quick to make the supposition that the ‘Occupy’ movement is strictly a left-wing affair.  A pretty big assumption – especially when one considers the potential political overlaps with the Tea Party movement (nobody likes ‘big government’ until they need something).  As he is intent on documenting the ills of the left, Robson is more than willing to brush aside the role laissez-faire economics has had in the current economic crisis.   The neo-liberal/neoconservative twin notions that open markets and free trade will be our saviors look more utopian than most of the ideas I’ve seen from ‘Occupy’. 

But what is most troubling about Robson’s piece can be found in his statement: “And I deplore the impulse to transform human nature through politics.”  There is an elitist assumption that he knows and understands ‘human nature’ and that it is something clear and unalterable.  One can take away from this position that all politics is folly as our true natures are set in stone.  There is to be a clear divide between politics and caring.  According to Robson, “The problem is that political remedies for life’s fundamental injustice cannot work.”  Yet one can’t help but recall that many of the arguments against the abolition of slavery and extending rights for women were made on the basis of some imagined ‘human nature’.  Robson is merely offering the same old exhausted one-dimensional right-wing argument: what I have is human nature and common sense and what the left offers is ideology.  After all who can argue with ‘nature’?     

Still, the Sun itself is not above making overt pleas for more ideology in politics.   In a recent editorial (November 9, 2011) there is a rebuke of Jim Flaherty.   Apparently our Finance Minister had the nerve to state that the government would ‘not be bound to ideology’ when it came to economic decisions.  The editorial wonders why this is the case as obviously Canadians had recently elected a conservative government.  To me this line of thought resembles the ‘hollow outrage’ Robson was speaking of. 

Any voter who had done even the smallest amount of research on the subject would know that the Prime Minister, and Flaherty by extension, supports the idea of changing economic policy to suit current circumstances and using government revenues to stimulate job growth.  In other words, Harper and his Finance Minister are textbook Keynesians.  So the real issue is about living up to pre-election commitments.   When such transgressions take place at the provincial (read: liberal) level the Premier is a devilish liar.  At the federal (read: conservative) level, Stephen Harper is merely not living up to ideological expectations.  Perhaps the ‘willful obtuseness’ and ‘deliberate vacuity’ Robson speaks of resides at the Sun as well.  Why wouldn’t Mr. Robson be as demanding of the paper he writes for as he is of the ‘Occupy’ movement? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQBHXl72bo