Unpopular Dissent

I was both shocked and astounded to see Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve for 2 decades, admit that the neoliberal ideology he used to manage interest rate policies was flawed. Greenspan is famous for keeping interest rates artificially low, encouraging foreign investment and increasing borrowing. It may come as a surprise, but the subprime mortgage crisis which detonated the upcoming recession was precipitated by cheap, low-interest loans, made by greedy firms that collectively plugged their ears, closed their eyes, and screamed “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” at the threat of a declining housing market.

My favorite excerpt from the linked article:

He admitted he had also been “partially” wrong in opposing the regulation of derivatives in recent years.

“Partial” error is probably the closest thing to “abhorrent failure” we can expect from an until-recently strong proponent of the power of the free market. So it has come to pass that one of the biggest fan-boys for laissez-faire economics à la Milton Friedman admits to one of the many shortcomings of the neoliberal paradigm.

Here’s a link to the CBC’s lack-luster coverage of the same phenomenon.

It sure is a good thing that Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach waited to get the memo of the groundbreaking news before he accused Liberal opposition leader Kevin Taft of Stalinism for proposing government regulations on Oil-Sands development. Oops! It’s too late, he already did. My, whatever has happened to “Steady Eddy”?

(No rich White men were harmed during the publishing of this blog)

Thanks to the numbers provided by Dave Cournoyer over at daveberta, I have been able to (using my elementary arithmetic skills) calculate the proportion of non-Conservative voters to Conservative voters showing up at the polls in Alberta for the past three elections: 2004, 2006, and 2008. These are the three elections that have taken place since the 2003 merger of the federal Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance Parties, lead at the time by Peter McKay and Stephen Harper, respectively. After this merger, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) has been able to ride the vote split on the left to increased representation in parliament. That is not to say, however, that if the election were done proportionally, that the CPC would not still represent a majority of Albertans (62%, 65%, and 65%, in 2004, 2006, and 2008 respectively), but rather that there would be more non-Conservative representation in Alberta than there is currently (2 Liberals in 2004, no one else in 2006, and 1 New Democrat in 2008).

(Note that the voter turnouts for Alberta during the 2004 and 2006 elections are unavailable to me, and that I am writing under the assumption that just as national voter turnout fell from 64.9% in 2006 to 59.1% in 2008, so too did Alberta turnout between the same elections by at least the same amount [ie. equal to or greater than 5.8%].)

2004 non/Con: 61% (479 162:783 379, Roughly 2:3)
2006 non/Con: 53% (495 177:930 817, Roughly 1:2)
2008 non/Con: 53% (437 273:820 855, Roughly 1:2)

That’s a drop of 8% in the proportion of non-Conservative to Conservative voters showing up at the polls between 2004 and 2006. My explanation for this phenomenon is that the effect of the vote-split as the near-Conservative black-out experienced in 2004 observed by non-Conservatives resulted in feelings of disempowerment, and their abstinence from voting in 2006 out of despair.

Between 2006 and 2008, the proportion stayed the same as voter turnout fell.  One obvious explanation for this occurence is increased voter apathy. If I were to hazard a guess for another cause as to why this proportional stagnation occurred, it would be Conservative arrogance in near equal proportion to non-Conservative despair. The potential Conservative voters told themselves that they needn’t vote because the CPC would take Alberta anyway. At the same time, the potential non-Conservative voters told themselves they needn’t vote for the same reason.

I ought to note that the existence and the use of the typologies “Conservative” and “non-Conservative” is yet another pathology of the first-past-the-post electoral system: the sign of “non-Conservative” includes Liberals, New Democrats, Greens, Marxist-Leninists, Christian Heritage Supporters, etc., who are effectively not represented in federal government. It’s depressing that a practice like strategic voting is one of the only ways to even come close to having a voice other than a Conservative represent Alberta in parliament.

I realise it’s a bit overdue, because by now everyone knows the outcome of the Canadian election: stronger Conservative minority government, lower popular support for the Dion-lead Liberals, increased support and representation for a hard working Jack Layton and NDP, and gains for the Bloc Quebecois despite running on essentially no recognisable platform. All this and a record low voter-turnout estimated at 59.1%.

Instead I have chosen to focus on one particular phenomenon which has occurred in my home province (which, I should add, had an even lower voter turnout of 52.9%). Look over to the west there, into Alberta. Look really closely. Can you see it?

How about now? Right in the middle, in the upper rectangle: do you see a little speck of something? I’ll make it a little bit easier for you.

Yes indeed, my own little riding of Edmonton-Strathcona was the sole riding in all of Alberta to not go Conservative. I choose these words very carefully, as it’s indeed difficult to argue that the riding did go NDP.

By now it’s become obvious to everyone except maybe Linda Duncan that the only reason she beat out Conservative incumbent Rahim Jaffer is that many members of the electorate compromised their preferred party affiliations in favour of ousting an incompetent MP. Strategic voting is the reason Jaffer was ousted in favour of his best competition from last election, Duncan. The margin of victory was extremely narrow (approximately 400 votes, or 0.9% of the total votes cast in the riding), but visible also was the immense hit to both Liberal and Green votes (not to mention the minuscule number of “joke” ballots cast for the Marxist-Leninist candidate in the riding: only 150). Avi over at Straight Outta Edmonton has suggested that Duncan send Liberal candidate Claudette Roy a thank you card: a well-founded request. Roy spent a lot of her own money campaigning which has not been recovered by her negligible vote-count.

That’s not to say that Duncan didn’t campaign her ass off. She really made a visible effort, unlike Jaffer, who quite noticeably took advantage of the Alberta electorate with his assumptions that he didn’t even need to try to be re-elected. I personally received a total of two short pamphlets from the Jaffer team, neither of which looked like they took much effort beyond downloading a Conservative pamphlet template and putting Jaffer’s face on them. This is typical of the CPC attitude towards Albertans: they’ll just vote Conservative anyway, why campaign?

The problem of strategic voting is endemic to the country’s electoral system: first-past-the-post, or single-member-plurality. The attitude assumed by the riding of the Edmonton-Strathcona electorate wasn’t to vote for the party they most identified with, but rather to oust Jaffer. In this way, Edmontonians followed the ABC voting technique: anything-but-Conservative.

The folks over at Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying have pointed out that the Conservative Party, post Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance amalgamation, has been able to ride the vote split on the left in the same way the Cretien Liberals rode the vote split between the PC/CA in the 90s, resulting in three consecutive minority governments, two of which were Conservative. They suggest advocating for an electoral system of proportional representation.

While this goal is noble, it is, quite honestly, irreconcilable with the Westminster style of government. Our parliamentary system was designed to facilitate a two-party system, not a multi-party system, which is why we have such skewed seats-to-popular-vote ratios. In order to restructure Canadian electoral system with proportional representation, an overhaul of the Canadian parliamentary institution is needed: a prospect currently too radical given the Canadian political climate of apathy and disaffection.

Back to the topic at hand: Duncan’s victory in Edmonton-Strathcona, or rather, Jaffer’s arrogance. It has been reported that Jaffer made a victory speech with only a small few of the 223 polls in Edmonton-Strathcona reporting. He was only winning by 1 000 votes at the time of the announcement, made from a country bar (The Ranch, for those in the know) on Edmonton’s south side. He even called himself “landslide-Rahim.” These acts are more perfect illustrations of the Conservative Party’s attitude towards Albertans: mindless party supporters.

This attitude is not completely unfounded, however, as obviously, all of the other ridings in Alberta went Conservative by a typically huge vote differential. Albertans have become the victims of Conservative hegemony. The citizens here believe what the CPC and provincial PCs tell them about what is good for them, almost unquestioningly. There is certainly a history in this province of animosity towards the Liberal party, which has been nurtured by the conservative parties and grown into ideology. They claim to fight for the good of the average Albertan, when in reality they pander to the socio-economic elites and businessmen. Somewhere along the line, the real interests of Albertans were conflated with the interests of big business, and this idea has persisted.

Linda Duncan’s victory in Edmonton-Strathcona is not only a sign of resistance to Conservative Party hegemony, but also a sign of the failure of they system. Strategic voting was the only means by which Duncan could have won the constituency and ousted the incumbent. The voter turnout verging on 50% in Alberta is a reflection of the political climate of apathy and disaffection felt by the Albertan electorate. Were these 47.1% of Albertan non-voters potential ABC voters who threw out their votes in despair of another presumed Conservative sweep of the province?

There is much that by covering only the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona and its implications province-wide I may have missed, for example, the Tim Uppal debacle in Edmonton-Sherwood Park. Feel free to comment on any of the topics discussed at hand, or to make addenda or additions.

Tonight we dine with the devil. Tomorrow, he controls our lives.

Rest assured that tomorrow I will have commentary on the outcome of the Canadian election.

Until then, enjoy.

Today’s post is a special request from Avi over at Straight Outta Edmonton. The Conservative Party of Canada has just begun running a new advertisement which exploits the fears of Canadians and smears Stephane Dion. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:

It’s bad enough that this advertisement is blatant fear mongering, and that it obfuscates the taxes paid by corporate polluters with the taxes facing citizens, but the ad is latently sexist (pink shirt?). It doesn’t throw sexism in your face and say, “This woman is hysterical!”, but it does have its (perhaps subtle) problems.

For the sake of this analysis, I will not be addressing the obvious problems of race (hello White family!) and class (look at the size of that fucking kitchen!) in the advertisement. I do, however, leave it open to you and your comments to lend your own opinions on these issues, and you are invited to make addenda/addictions to my arguments.

The implication is that the woman in the ad is the mother of the sweet, innocent child drawing on the kitchen table. Here she is, just home from a long day of work, in the kitchen, presumably to fix dinner (double shift anyone?). It may be just me, but this woman appears to be portrayed as a single mother. There is no mention of “family,” which is bad enough (single mothers can’t have “families?), but the ad directly manipulates feelings of empathy towards single mothers. How low can you go?

“Big thought, right?” As in… big for a woman? Contemplation of the uncertainty of the everyday life, in the case of this advertisement, seems to be something extraordinary for this woman. The colloquial language of the woman seems to imply a sort of relatability, but it comes accross as a kind of un-intelligence. “Women need not care about these matters! Wait a minute, this one is? Something must really be wrong!”

We see as the setting of the ad, the woman in the kitchen. Holy gendered much? Perhaps the Conservatives thought they had to balance this intelligent, working woman who thinks “big thoughts” while wearing her feminized business suit and looking empowered, by putting her in a setting where traditional Conservative supporters would feel comfortable seeing a woman.

Let’s not forget that the woman’s main concern is the loss of her home, conflating the mortgage crisis in the United States with its worldwide market effects as felt in Canada. This worry is disturbingly related to the traditional domestic sphere women have been relegated to for millennia. What could this woman POSSIBLY HAVE if she lost her home? She’s already been denied a “family” (remember, single mom’s don’t have families), and now she’s worried she’ll lose her home? Oh, if only she had a strong, manly man like Stephen Harper. Did you hear that he likes to spend time with his kids?

In conclusion, the Conservative party is perversely more reactionary than you may think. Let’s not forget it emerged from the amalgamation of the socially traditional Alliance Party and the more fiscally neoliberal Progressive Conservative Party. If you have any questions, comments, addenda, or any need for clarification, leave me a comment.

Tonight on CBC News: The National (with the ever-so charismatic Peter Mansbridge), a panel of Economics experts (The Economic Club of Canada) unanimously not only recommended that the next government consider deficit spending to stimulate Canada’s economy during the upcoming depression, but also maintained that Canada could afford it:

“If we try to avoid deficits at all costs, at all levels of government, we’re only going to prolong the slowdown.” – Avery Schenfeld

In 3 clips shortly thereafter, the three major party leaders were quite dismissive of such action. Stephen Harper’s reply, as an “economist” himself said:

“Well, my resistance to running a deficit would be that history has shown there are no small deficits. Once governments lose fiscal discipline, they lose it entirely.”

After rhetorically defending the jobs of the working class, their savings, pensions, and homes, from the scourge of the Conservative Party, Jack Layton, too, was popped the deficit question. Jack’s response?

“No. We don’t believe that’s the way to go.”

Layton’s plan was to increase taxes for businesses by reducing the cuts made by the Conservatives, and to use the income generated by that policy to fund economic stimulation. As for Dion? He’s not safe either. He adamantly stated that,

“We need a government, that believes in the role of the government to help the people.”

His stance on deficit spending?

“No, we don’t want to cause a deficit, it’s very clear that a Liberal government will not cause a deficit.”

Dion is also critical of Layton’s policy recommendation for increasing corporate taxes. He says that it’s a “job killer” (The Journalist’s, not Dion’s words). Canadian politicians are obviously not ready to concede that deficit spending may be a viable way to stimulate the economy, at least not while they’re campaigning. The economists are even recommending it. Why the hesitation?

Just why is “deficit” a four letter word, anyway? Partially because the concept itself hearkens back to the days of Keynesian welfarism and demand-side economics. When Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of the UK, she, and many people like her (Reagan, Fukiyama) took it upon themselves to dismantle the welfare state to benefit corporations at the expense of the public sector. With the illusion of corporate efficiency via the profit motive, Keynes’ mantra of state saving in the good times and state spending in the bad was thrown out in favour of minimal government intervention. The market is perfect, it will regulate itself; the less government intervention, the better.

However, it has become increasingly obvious that the capability of the market to “regulate itself” was a false promise made by those with vested economic interests and enough money to survive without government aid. The market will blindly pursue profit at the expense of performing any risk assessment, as in the case of the mortgage crisis in the ‘States. The facade of attributing God-like divinity unto the market, which is based in its entirety on human interpretation and confidence, can only deceive for so long.

The United States has just taken it to the next level: they not only cherish their supposedly free market, but also are willing to deficit spend to keep it free. Am I the only one who sees the glaring contradiction here? $700-billion (or the newest projection of $850-billion) for the Wall Street bigwigs to furnish their luxury homes before they actually go bankrupt, taken from those people who need it the most.

Unfortunately, it’s far more difficult to reverse the neo-conservative (neo-liberal) revolution than it was to demolish the welfare state. With businesses investing their billions in countries, governments can’t afford to increase taxes or create state-sponsored competition; doing so would just scare away the corporations. They’d just “up and leave.”

When the interventionist state was demolished in the UK and subsequently the US, it was during a time of economic downturn. Thatcher and Reagan vilified the welfare state, and accused it of the economic hardships facing their respective countries. This rhetoric resonated within the consciousness of the electorate, and these neo-cons were elected on a mandate of corporatist reform and the demolition of the public sector (not to mention nationalised industries and unions). Until public consciousness becomes aware of the failings of neo-liberalism, this paradigm adverse to deficit spending will continue to thrive, at the expense of the very people it purposes to help.

The revised $700-billion bailout to the Wall Street fat-cats was passed by US Congress today. $700-billion of taxpayer money taken from the hands of the poor and given to the rich.

The lesson to be learned here is that it’s only “intervention” in the economy if it helps people (ie. not business). What Bush is doing is “stimulating” the market. No one wants to admit laissez-faire can fail. If the Republicans were really supporters of the free market, as they purport to be, they should have just let the banks fail.

Of course, I don’t want mass suffering, but you have to understand that I don’t see this cash influx doing anything to help the economy as it stands. It’s really just putting nearly $1 trillion back into the hands of the moronic businessmen who caused their own businesses to fail with consistently poor management. The trickle-down effect does not work, and it will not alleviate the suffering of those who need the most help the most urgently. Even if the trickle-down effect did work, it would take a long time for those at the bottom rungs of “economic life” to reap any benefits.

We’re going to hell in a really expensive handbag.