Rolling back the damage: are we a country, or a commodity? | #elxn42 #cdnpoli #TPP

Haven’t really crystallized this into a coherent argument yet, but I can’t remember feeling this disheartened about a federal election since 1997. Ever since then, there’s been a growing malignancy in our body politic — a malignancy that goes beyond partisanship.

Successive governments since then have, for whatever reason, surrendered more and more policy tools, and more and more of their innate capacity to advance the public good, in the face of supranational trade and investment regimes. Regardless of who’s been in power in Ottawa (and provincial capitals, for that matter), we’ve been watching the gradual but unmistakable enfeeblement of government, to the point where it may well be irreversible. As awful as Harper’s been on so many files — environment, the war on women, civil liberties, First Nations, the economy, health care, immigration, housing, veterans, integrity in government, climate change — this didn’t start with him.

What I still don’t understand is, why? Why is government, of whatever stripe, voluntarily abandoning its role? Free Trade, NAFTA, MIA, CETA, FIPA, TPP, whatever. Why are public institutions consenting to, and even participating in, their own enervation? Why are we, through our governments, surrendering our ability to protect ourselves and act in the national interest in favour of a few multinational corporations and allowing them to sue us for notional lost profits? Who benefits from this? Who’s looking out for the common good here?

And that doesn’t even begin to address the glaring faults in our current electoral system. The disfiguring effects of our antiquated, necrotic First Past The Post system have already been discussed, but if there’s any sustained discussion of alternatives or efforts to reform the voting system, or the so-called “Fair Elections Act,” it’s barely being heard above the manufactured controversies and distractions. The conversation’s being dragged into the sewer, and that’s no accident either.

It’s why I’ve been wondering, perhaps at odds with my arguments about the responsibilities of citizenship, about the efficacy of voting. If civic engagement is reduced to casting a ballot every few years for choices that have, in truth, been set out for us, then are we really participating meaningfully in our own governance? Is voting, even if it manages to end the Harper era, going to undo decades worth of damage to civil society? Is it going to put an end to this misguided fetish for austerity? Is it going to reinvigorate the notion of an activist government committed to using the power of public policy to cultivate the greatest good for the greatest number? Is it going to re-assert the primacy of the public sphere in the face of “free trade” regimes and investor-state protections? How likely is it that any government, even the best-intentioned, will move to roll back the damage in the face of the inevitable backlash from international finance, the small coterie of Serious and Responsible people who decide which ideas are “realistic” and which are “lunatic,” and their amplifiers in the media?

I don’t want to sound facile, but doesn’t it come down to the kind of government we want and the kind of country we want to be? Do we want to be governed by the people we elect, or by a small global oligarchy of unaccountable string-pullers? And is the simple act of choosing a brand on polling day going to affect that?

Related posts:

• Civic engagement in the face of democratic deficit
• This election, let’s talk about the Public Good
• In defence of the public sphere
• Bloody well right, we need to tax and spend
• Let’s stop fetishizing “The Market”

Advertisement

Civic engagement in the face of democratic deficit | #TOpoli #cdnpoli

So I’ve been watching a BBC mini-series from 1988 called A Very British Coup. There’s an understated but powerful scene wherein the Labour cabinet is debating its spending proposals; at one point, a frustrated and beleaguered Chancellor of the Exchequer declares that there’s little point in further discussion. The Prime Minister, wonderfully portrayed by Ray McAnally, gently admonishes him: “Democracy takes time. Dictatorship is quicker, but too many people get shot.”

Lord knows, I’ve been known to go on about civic engagement and the responsibilities of citizenship. But they’re becoming an even bigger challenge nowadays, and the underlying reasons reflect not just on this or that facet of governance, but on the nature of democratic society itself.

I know, I know — “democratic deficit” has become one of those overused terms that gets thrown around so frequently and so carelessly that it starts to lose its impact. At some point, however, certain events or patterns can bring it back into focus.

Exhibit A: Toronto City Council voted, this week, to reverse an earlier decision and reject the notion of ranked ballots, in a pronounced FU to notions of accountability, representation, and years of effort and outreach by local activists. From what I’ve heard, the discussion lasted about a minute and a half. I’m not going to rehash the details here: my friend Daren does a far better (and angrier) job over at his place. Go read.

What does it say about democratic culture, though, when people supposedly charged with stewardship of the public good can blow off their responsibilities in such a cavalier and thoughtless manner, and face little or no political consequence?

Let’s chew on that a while, and then move on to Exhibit B: the cesspool currently masquerading as our national conversation in the context of the federal election campaign. Let’s forget about the Islamophobia, the manufactured controversy over the niqab, and the coded messages in expressions like “old stock Canadians” for a moment, and focus on something even more basic and troubling.

What if, on reflection, you’re not convinced that the current system really offers any meaningful choices? What if none of the established parties hold out any hope that they’re going to address things that actually matter to you? What if the current conversation isn’t speaking to you? What if, with all the sound and fury, you still don’t feel represented?

Is it so unreasonable to point out the arbitrary exclusion of certain viewpoints? Is it irresponsible to observe that the parameters for Serious and Reasonable Ideas are set by a very small, privileged, and insular class of people?

What if there’s no popular mechanism influencing whose voices matter and whose voices get shut out? What if the manufactured narratives in the corporate media aren’t resonating with you? What if all kinds of questions aren’t discussed in any detail because of an apparent tacit agreement among the major parties and media outlets?

Is choosing among a handful of pre-packaged brands on polling day really comparable to meaningful popular input? By the same token, if you’re not convinced that any of those brands are going to undo the damage of the past few decades, is refusing to participate in the charade really so unreasonable?

I don’t have any easy answers. Over to you, internetz.

Related posts:

• This Election, Let’s Talk About the Public Good
• Reviving #ThePublicGood, part 6: Government is not a business
• Nuance, complexity, and why progressives are frequently at a disadvantage
• Video: March for #SammyYatim

Bikes, BIXI and the public good | #TOpoli #onpoli

Disclosure: I’m not familiar with the BIXI business model, and I’ve got a bike, so I haven’t used the service.

In any event, evaluating the soundness of BIXI’s strategy and financial status isn’t really the point of this post. I’ve let the long-winded sanctimonious wankery slide of late, focusing instead on the short-hit, squirrel-on-crystal-meth model of the sibling blog over on tumblr, but a recent and typically thoughtful and well-reasoned post from Daren has prompted a return to the LWSW (oh, that’s nice — ed.).

It’s no secret that Toronto suffers from gridlock, poor or non-existent planning, outmoded urban design, and a transportation network that might have been appropriate decades ago in an era of cheap and plentiful oil. That it hasn’t been updated to reflect current realities isn’t news either. Simply put, it’s no longer possible to rely solely on private automobiles as our primary means of getting from place to place. The effects of congestion, pollution and the rising costs of energy make that obvious.

A thoughtful, rational, and sustainable approach to moving people and goods around quickly and affordably, therefore, has to account for a variety of needs, distances, purposes, and modes of transportation. That’s not just cars, but also cycling, walking, and public transit. Urban development and neighbourhood design need to consider that, as do the practice of planning and the renewal of public infrastructure.

A no-brainer, one would think. I’m not going to bring out all the arguments about cycling being a healthier choice and cardiovascular benefits and not burning carbon and not requiring huge amounts of space and parking and efficiency and yada yada yada. That’s all been done by smarter people and more committed cyclists. That encouraging cycling, as part of a well-thought-out transportation strategy, advances the public good ought to be self-evident by now.

Anyone bored or desperate enough to return here more than once will already know about this little corner’s fascination (monomaniacal obsession? — ed.) with the public good. One of the consistent themes in its discussion is a reluctance to evaluate it solely in terms of dollars and cents. And one of the most important overarching parameters is an insistence on framing things in terms of our identity as citizens, rather than as taxpayers or consumers of services. In brief, citizenship carries responsibilities and obligations as well as rights and entitlements.

It’s through that lens that we evaluate governance and the crafting of public policy, whether it’s at the national level or focused on local neighbourhoods. Simply put, public decisions must be evaluated in terms of how well they advance the public good. Our touchstone is achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. And it’s in that light that resource allocations and public priorities ought to be decided.

Specifically absent from these discussions, at least in this little corner, is any bloviating about the private sector. There’s an ideological bias about its inherent superiority that’s poisoned public discussion for far too long, and that’s been a natural consequence of evaluating everything in terms of dollars and cents. Public service and government don’t exist to make a profit or generate shareholder value or cement brand loyalty. They’re there to provide for public and social needs.

It’s hard to see how allowing rampant smog, congestion and gridlock advances the public good. It may generate short-term profits for certain private actors, but it costs everyone in terms of poor health, stress, lost time, and quality of life. Obviously, therefore, it’s in the public interest to encourage modes of transport that don’t contribute to smog, congestion and gridlock. That means using policy tools that facilitate the use of public transit, walking and cycling wherever appropriate, and those policy tools include investment in public infrastructure, road tolls, a pricing regime that reflects the real cost of parking and burning carbon, and yes, taxation and licensing fees.

And if it means public investment in services like BIXI, so be it. It’s a pittance compared to what our decades of reliance on private automobiles continues to cost us. As Toronto Council prepares to take control of the transit file from a mayoral administration that’s clearly not interested in governance, let alone sound policy, it needs to spare a thought for BIXI as well.

Related posts:

• Private sector dynamism versus public sector inefficiency
• @StrollCity Blinded by Bixi Bikes
• @Cityslikr, Riverdale Farm, and getting business out of government | #TOpoli #publicgood
• Running Government Like A Business or Family
• Video from Toronto #CriticalMass ride, July 29, 2011 | #bikeTO

Related articles

• It’s time for Toronto to think bigger about bikes (theglobeandmail.com)
• Toronto’s BIXI program in financial trouble, report says (globalnews.ca)
• Toronto will ‘absolutely not’ subsidize BIXI bike share system, says Mayor Rob Ford (news.nationalpost.com)
• Bixi Toronto: City urged to take over financially struggling bike-share program (thestar.com)

Via @meslin and @DesmondCole: Thanks for your support | Mez Dispenser

Thanks for your support | Mez Dispenser.

Dave Meslin, who personifies the term “mensch,” speaks out on the shenanigans, poppycock and tomfoolery afoot at Fair Vote Canada.

Fair Vote Canada has purged diversity from its elected ranks, even as it advocates diversity for politicians http://t.co/Cbi1anK2gM #cdnpoli

— negro frolics (@DesmondCole) March 11, 2013

Props as well to Des Cole for twigging the obvious Life of Brian reference.

Maturity, citizenship, @jerryagar1010 and more on the "all taxes are evil" theme | #onpoli

At first glance, this might seem at odds with my resolve not to engage with trolls. But in fairness, I haven’t really paid that much attention to him, so it’s not really fair to assume that this guy’s a troll. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

Wynne wants to implement taxes and tolls in order to pay for government? She clearly has no creativity. That’s NOT an answer. #ONpoli

— Jerry Agar (@jerryagar1010) January 29, 2013

So, first principles, Jerry. Let’s unpack some of your assumptions. Please — explain to us exactly what’s wrong with using “taxes and tolls in order to pay for government,” and how embracing the idea demonstrates a lack of creativity? And just what is it “not an answer” to?

Y’see, I’ve always viewed community and society as a means for people to pool their resources and work together to do things they can’t do individually. That’s how we manage to have nice things like roads, hospitals, fire departments, libraries, schools, police services, water treatment, public sanitation, electricity, public health, recreation centres, transit systems, and public spaces. Maybe you think of it as the “nanny state.” I’ve always thought of it as “infrastructure.” (I dunno, maybe it just sounds better.)

And maybe I’m just naive, but isn’t that supposed to be the natural function of government? It raises revenues and gathers resources via various forms of taxation, and then it allocates those resources in accordance with publicly determined priorities. We get a say in that determination by voting and by talking to our democratically elected representatives and public officials. Am I missing something here? You make it sound as if there’s something inherently wrong with that.

Now, not to dump all this on Jerry, but isn’t that the problem at the heart of all the “tax-and-spend” rhetoric? And in a larger sense, with a one-dimensional viewpoint that sees people only as “taxpayers” rather than as “citizens?” Isn’t there something a little suspect about a worldview which reduces our relationship with society (and by extension, with each other) to robbery? If you consistently view government as an inefficient and malevolent force that just steals your hard-earned money, then aren’t you just setting yourself up for a lifetime of resentment and victimization?

It’s OK, you don’t have to answer right away. Let’s move on. You were talking about creativity, I think. So tell me, since you don’t like taxes and tolls, what’s your creative solution to paying for public infrastructure?

Lotteries?

Casinos?

Private investors?

PPPs?

Geez, I’m ready to smack myself in the forehead. How come nobody’s ever thought of those things before?

Back to the “adult conversation” theme. I’m all for creative solutions, and reasonable discussions about what government should be doing, and how it should go about it. But simplistic repetition of slogans like “taxing us to death” and “nanny state” and “government monopolies” strikes me as … childish.

(h/t @cityslikr, @kvonbling, @trishhennessy and @VassB)

Related posts:

• Adult conversation. Is it too much to hope for? | #TOpoli #onpoli
• Toronto budget 2013: economics cannot be separated from politics | #TOpoli
• 2012: The Year of Conversing Dangerously
• In defence of the public sphere | #TOpoli #TeamFord

#cARTographyTO and Astral Media: subverting the commercial colonization of public space | #TOpoli

Via The Grid and Torontoist, news of an inspired and inspiring guerrilla action over the weekend.

Dozens of sidewalk-blocking, ad-filled eyesores, laughably known as “info pillars,” were repurposed and turned into art installations, social and political statements, and focus points for satire.

It’s hard not to sympathize with cARTography Toronto. Public space and public amenities are under relentless pressure from the advocates of privatization and the purveyors of commercial messaging; with the dogma of “austerity” comes more and more pressure to find new sources of revenue, especially when we’re saddled with a municipal administration intent on choking off one of the most traditional sources.

I’m sure these goddamn things are good for someone. No doubt they’re good for Astral. And perhaps they get the advertisers’ messages in front of more eyeballs. And who knows, maybe they bring in a dollar or two in licencing fees or something. But, in the words of one of the activists:

They’ve done a lot of permanent damage, tearing up sidewalks, cutting down bike posts, and creating a sightline hazard for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…

How you see this depends, as do many things, on how you define terms and how you frame the questions. If we’re committed to making the public good paramount, then the reclamation of public space from those who seek to colonize it is something to be encouraged. And while aesthetics are admittedly subjective, it’s hard not to be disturbed by the incessant, intrusive, and garish invasions of public sightlines, the cheapening of the visual environment, and the cumulative assault on our senses.  Factor in the removal of bike posts, the destruction of trees and the interference with pedestrian traffic and it’s hard to see how the community as a whole comes out ahead. Surely we’re surrounded by enough vulgarity already.

Of course, that’s only one viewpoint. If we buy into commercial orthodoxy and the gospel of privatization, then anything that brings in revenue is good, and anything that questions the underlying assumptions or interferes with the sacred operation of the market is suspect, elitist, anti-capitalist, and quite probably a threat to national security. And by that logic, it won’t be long before the corporate media are pounding that drum day and night, the activists (already a word with negative connotations for some) are demonized, and the resources of the criminal-justice system are marshalled in their pursuit.

It would be easy to reduce this to competing visions of what public space should be. And while that’s certainly part of the discussion, not all such visions are advanced with the same energy. Not everyone has the resources for lawyers, lobbyists and SLAPP suits. Not everyone has the same degree of access and influence to the decision-makers or conversation-shapers. And not everyone has the same fluency with the technocratic, class-biased language that informs so many public-policy debates.

As we work for more inclusive and democratic conversations, it’s worth keeping that in mind.

(Image via torontoist)

Related posts:

• Queen West Art Crawl: This is what makes public space public | #TOpoli
• Video: Queen West Art Crawl – celebrating the idea of public space
• Today in Respect for Taxpayers and street-level creativity …
• So was the Core Services Review a giant waste of time? Depends | #TOpoli

@Cityslikr, Riverdale Farm, and getting business out of government | #TOpoli #publicgood

Our good friend Daren’s been keeping track of the goings-on at City Hall again. This time, he’s favoured us with a yarn from Executive Committee: a split among the members yesterday means the Riverdale Farm is still in business.

All to the good, of course (although learning that I’m on the same side as Norm Kelly and Giorgio Mammoliti doesn’t exactly do wonders for my comfort level), and Daren’s doing a public service by writing and reporting on this stuff. His argument about what this implies for Team Ford’s ability to advance whatever passes for its vision speaks for itself.

I can’t help wondering, though, whether his post doesn’t raise some larger questions about how we decide what’s important and what’s worthy of public support. So, once again, time to take a step back and view this in a larger context (Jesus, does he have that on a macro or something? — ed.) — namely, the words we choose to use, their connotations, and the effect those choices have on both policy decisions and the public discourse that shapes them. In brief, it’s all about the framing.

(Once again, if you haven’t bookmarked the indispensible Trish Hennessy’s blog, do it now. She’s one of the best observers / analysts in Canada on the subject of framing.)

Something that comes up repeatedly in Daren’s account is the disturbing term “business plan.” There’s nothing wrong with a business plan per se, but it’s disturbing in this context because it comes up so frequently and because it’s indicative of the extent to which public discourse has been colonized and warped by the language of the business school.

It’s because of this that I’m choosing to focus on the framing. The words we use to talk about things, and the language we use for our conversations, aren’t value-neutral; the decisions we make are very much influenced by the value choices implicit in the words we employ. And the notion that we should be demanding “business plans” of everyone within sight is a perfect illustration of that; it privileges the accountants, the managers, the marketers and the MBAs among us, along with their technocratic and class-biased “expertise,” at the frequent expense of popular access and functioning, inclusive democracy.

I know I call out Brother Doug fairly often for his pompous, condescending lectures about the “private sector,” but in truth this goes way beyond Team Ford or municipal politics. Back to first principles: government should be in the business of government. That means balancing interests, discussing things in a rational and comprehensive way like mature, thoughtful adults, and working to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. In short, it’s about The Public Good.

So, to everyone who fetishizes business plans or the private sector or harangues us about running government like a business, a rejoinder: This isn’t the private sector, so STFU already. It’s government. If you love the private sector so much, then stay there and leave government to people committed to using it for the public good. We devote public resources to things because we want to advance the public good, not because we expect them to “look for efficiencies” or “turn a profit” or “build the brand” or “enhance investor confidence” or “create shareholder value.”

The sooner we stop talking about public affairs in those terms, the better.

Related posts:

• #TeamFord’s two-years-and-change horizon, and a proposed two-track strategy | #TOpoli
• Fiscal discipline, @cityslikr and Toronto’s endless budget follies | #TOpoli #onpoli
• Politics, decency, and finding common ground: the restoration of civility | #TOpoli #cdnpoli
• In defence of the public sphere
• Let’s stop fetishizing “The Market” | #cdnpoli #TOpoli #classwarfare #austerity
• Video: This is what a public servant looks like | @kristynwongtam ❤ #TOpoli

Teachable Moment: Ethnic Cleansing vs. Taxes « The Ethnic Aisle | @balkissoon @ArmineYalnizyan

Denise Balkissoon explains the difference to some asshole.

Teachable Moment: Ethnic Cleansing vs. Taxes « The Ethnic Aisle | @balkissoon @ArmineYalnizyan

The lobbyists behind warrantless online spying | OpenMedia.ca

via openmedia.ca

This isn’t Oz, folks. Pay LOTS of attention to that man behind the curtain …

Related posts:

A public-service announcement from OpenMedia.ca | #cdnpoli #onpoli

@Cityslikr, @NickKouvalis, and the need for civility in public discourse | #TOpoli #TeamFord

Ah, nuance.

What a thing it is to contemplate. It’s so bracing. Complication. Reflection. Complexity. It’s what puts the real in real life.

My friend @cityslikr, who on his worst days is ten times more eloquent and compelling than I will ever be, was involved in one of those Twitter conversations the other night. Initially it was with some tabloid scribbler, but as the evening went on, he was joined by Nick Kouvalis.

Mr. Kouvalis, you may recall, was widely credited as the brains behind Rob Ford’s election victory. And full marks to him for that; a lot of people, including me, never thought it would be possible for a guy like Rob Ford to win the mayor’s chair. Regardless of what we may think of it, Mr. Kouvalis ran an effective and successful campaign. Whatever’s happened in the ensuing year can’t change that.

But watching that exchange and reviewing the duelling tweets prompted a couple of related observations: perhaps not especially original, but no less relevant for that, especially given the state in which Toronto now finds itself. The first concerns the difference between electioneering and governing; the second, perhaps more subtle but no less important, concerns the importance of framing (for which I’m also indebted to Trish Hennessy. If you haven’t bookmarked her blog, do it now).

Back to @cityslikr and Mr. Kouvalis. Rather than put words in their mouths, I’ll let them speak for themselves (guys, if I’ve left anything out, or if you feel I’m taking your words out of context, please feel free to write. I’ll publish your comments as you submit them).

To the extent that you can have a compelling policy debate via 140-character bursts, that’s what appears to be going on. And I can’t help but contrast that with the themes that dominated last year’s mayoral contest, thanks in large part to Mr. Kouvalis: Gravy Train. Respect for Taxpayers. Wasteful spending. We don’t have a revenue problem. War on the Car. Those of you bored or desperate enough to read my stuff regularly know what I think of those memes, but that twitter exchange illustrated, beautifully, the gulf between electioneering and governing.

Admittedly, this isn’t a new lesson, but it’s no less worthwhile for the repetition. Democratic governance, whether it’s at the local, provincial, or federal level, is a complex, multifaceted exercise. It involves balancing of multiple interests, looking at issues from both a long-term and short-term perspective, analyzing costs and benefits, identifying opportunities and stakeholders, allocating resources in accordance with needs, recognizing that community is evaluated not just in fiscal terms, but also in terms of aesthetics, cohesion, and sense of common purpose, and above all, trying to fashion public policy in a way that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Ideally, it’s informed by devotion to things like citizenship and stewardship, a resolve to enhance the public good and leave the public sphere just a little better than we found it. In sum, it’s complicated. It’s not something that can be reduced to sound bites, lapel buttons and bumper stickers.

It’s been instructive, watching the direction the conversation’s been taking, most notably with the recent comparisons likening Toronto’s municipal finances to the impending cataclysm in Greece. Do we really have to go there? We’re not Greece. Greece itself isn’t Greece, at least not in the apocalyptic way the tabloid brayers have been portraying it. But that’s the problem with caricature, hyperbole and simplistic thinking. It may play well on the campaign trail or in tabloid columns written by or aimed at people with limited attention spans and cognitive faculties, but it rarely translates into effective and responsible governance.

Simplistic narratives depend on fudging the truth, on omission of nuance, on leaving out and glossing over anything that complicates things or gets in the way of delivery of an easily digested and manipulative message, like … oh, like “public-sector workers are lazy overpaid unionized thugs. Unions are to blame for the mess. David Miller left the city on the verge of bankruptcy because he was their puppet. Who the hell are these greedy bastards?” It plays right into prevailing attitudes of envy and intellectual laziness. Why bother to think things through? Certainly, it’s easier to be a disengaged dullard who gets information from tabloid headlines and Don Cherry’s yargle-bargle, if that’s the extent of your civic engagement.

Which brings us to the source for most of those simplistic narratives: the city workers’ strike of 2009.

It’s no great secret that Ford’s strategy was to tie it to Miller. (Indeed, he wasn’t the only one.) It’s also not much of a revelation to suggest that much of Ford’s mayoralty is predicated on payback for that, most apparent in the drive to privatize or contract out waste collection. Once again: Respect for Taxpayers. Stop the gravy train. Greedy unions. An easily digested, simplistic message which may be short on facts but resonates emotionally with the target audience. Truth and reality are just a bit more complex than that, but you won’t read about that in the tabloid press. It’s much easier, and a more effective means of manipulating people, to keep recycling spite, hatred, misdirection and disinformation.

Good for campaigning, no doubt, which may be why the tabloid press seems to be in permanent campaign mode. Not so good for citizenship or governance.

It’s all in how you frame things, really. Not to take anything away from Nick. Guy ran a successful campaign, based largely on his ability to frame things. Can’t argue with it. He won. His boy’s the Chief Magistrate now, ably backed by the drooling cheering section in the tabloid press. But at what cost? I’d argue that it’s been at the cost of reasonable intelligent discourse, and of effective and responsible governance. The very tone of public conversation has been debased by the constant flow of bullshit and sloganeering. To the extent that we can, it’s worth considering the way issues are framed nowadays, because that’s how the stage is set for public discourse.

This isn’t about elitist sneering at coarse, loutish, vulgar behaviour any more. At the end of the day that’s a matter of personal taste, and that’s not what this is about.

Public conversation and civil discourse are the currency of citizenship. They are the means whereby we conduct public business and ourselves as citizens. Maintaining standards for them is in everyone’s interest, regardless of whether we’re left or right or liberal or conservative or socialist or whatever. Allowing them to degenerate to the level currently practiced by the Ford administration and enabled by the tabloid press (half-truths, distortion, misdirection, name-calling, screeds) makes it that much harder to have civil conversations with one another. Our ability to talk to each other like sane, intelligent and reasonable human beings is undermined.

Effective, responsible governance has suffered as well. (No point in rehashing the campaign-trail guarantee of no service cuts, except to contrast it with current fiscal discussions, dominated as they are by the song of the chainsaw.) The Port Lands clusterfuck may be the most high-profile example, but it’s not an isolated one. When you consider the underhanded, sandbagging way that Team Ford does things, it’s hard to see how things are better than they were under the previous administration.

Again: framing. It isn’t even about whether Rob Ford can grow into the job any longer. If we allow tabloid screed-writers and astroturfing operatives to set the terms of the discussion, we’re screwed. We’ll waste God knows how much time and energy distracted by Shiny Objects and manufactured controversies (polar bear versus beaver, anyone?) instead of having the conversations we really need to have.

Let’s move beyond slogans.

Related posts:

• Revisiting #FordNation: some hard truths
• Further thoughts on the Long War
• If Team Ford’s Port Lands plans are truly dead, would someone mind driving a stake through them?
• From the Star: Land transfer tax will put Toronto finances in surplus
• Beyond the Port Lands: Dragging Swamp Ford for the remnants of civic engagement
• Not Your Grandaddy’s Conservatism