Jack Layton Needs to Spend the Summer Taking "Speech" Lessons

Matt Latimer, a former George Bush speechwriter, wrote a book on his experiences at the White House. Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor.

In it he speaks of how excited he was to be hired to write presidential speeches. Pearls of wisdom that would be passed from generation to generation.

But once he joined the 'team", he learned that he was little more than an ad man. George Bush didn't want lavish speeches, he wanted slogans. If it wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, it had no place in his parlance.

Harper insider, David Frum, also a George Bush speech writer, carefully crafted the gem, "axis of evil". My hero.

However, the most important task for speech writers in the Bush administration was crafting messages. When they were first considering bailing out banks during the economic crisis, many conservatives said that this was tantamount to nationalizing the banks, and sounded like socialism.

Bush needed the team to write a speech that made nationalizing the banks, not sound like socialism, despite the fact that it kinda' was.

Stephen Harper has increased government advertising by 300% and has the largest communications team, of any prime minister (maybe even larger than George Bush's or God's), and yet he doesn't really communicate with us.

And that's because this over bloated office has one function and one function only. To craft messages, so that things that are clearly wrong for our country, sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

They won the standoff with the NDP over the postal strike, because they carefully crafted the message as concern for charities and small businesses. Canadians soon forgot that it was not the workers who stopped the mail, but management.

I admired Jack Layton and the NDP for their filibuster, but it was doomed to fail from the get go. And that's because of messaging.

Layton, maybe still stinging from the booing his party got for suggesting that they drop 'socialism' from their constitution, met with postal workers and referred to them as his "brothers and sisters".

I didn't know if he was going to rap or break into a rendition of the Hymn of the Bolsheviks. What was he thinking? This is just the kind of ammunition the Harperites needed. Doesn't he remember this from Fox News North?



Instead of worrying about the term 'socialist', he needs to remove the nonsense from his own speaking. "Big oil, big banks and big gas" are just annoying now. And anti-corporation rhetoric will win him few favours with anyone. Instead he needs to focus on how to work with big business, to make them more responsible.

He sounds like a crotchety old man complaining about the yunguns' playing their 8-tracks too loud.

In the age of globalization "big oil, big gas and big banks" are going to be with us for a very long time.

Layton has some clever young people in his caucus. Tap into their youthful passion, and allow them to present some catchy alternatives to the same old jargon.

Because this legislation was important for all of us. It was not just about protecting good union jobs, that benefit small business and charities, but also, setting a tone.

In Mike Harris's Ontario, there was an atmosphere of distrust, as the government encouraged people to report their neighbours and co-workers, if they were bending the rules. General Motors, picking up on the vibe, placed a suggestion type box in their factory, encouraging workers to "snitch" on their fellow workers.

It didn't last long, because the union stepped in and the box was removed.

This time, management won over workers, and the nation rejoiced. The message is clear. They are the boss and will always be the boss, and if you want to keep your job, you do as you're told. How long before we see another "snitch" box?

During the Mike Harris years in Ontario, the clashes between government and unions were legendary and riot police became as normal a view at Queen's Park as the sculptures.

We need to stop this trend before it gets started, and the only way to do that is to convince Canadians, with messaging, that unions are important. Without them income disparity will only grow, and our middle class obliterated.

That's the argument the NDP need to present to the Canadian people. Referring to union workers as "brothers and sisters" only provides fodder for the right-wing media.

One of my readers posted a link to a column written by Harper's former VP at the National Citizens Coalition, Gerry Nicholls. In it he discusses the fact that Harper's ultimate goal was to completely destroy the Liberal Party.

Indeed, his desire to eliminate the Liberals is something he and I discussed way back in the days when we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition. His theory, as explained to me, was that conservatism would be better served in this country if Canada had a two-party system, one that pitted right against left, free enterprise against socialism, Conservatives against New Democrats. He believed that, in such a polarized political environment, a conservative-oriented party would have a huge advantage over its left-wing rival. When given a clear choice, voters will usually pick conservatism over socialism.

Astonishingly, Harper was able to convince Jack Layton that destroying the Liberals would be good for him too, so Jack complied.

Little did he know at the time, that he was setting himself up, because Harper is right. The majority of Canadians will never choose socialism over free enterprise. Now with the PCs eliminated and the Liberals weakened, we are moving toward a one-party state.

And that "my brothers and sisters" is the simple truth.

Creating the Conditions Ripe for Socialism

Hark, the horn blows loud and long,
There is something wrong I fear,
There’s mourning in the dismal dells
Keeps sounding in my ear,
Dark phantoms rise before my eyes,
News comes, the vision’s fled,
One hundred three and twenty of our
Spring hill miners dead.

On February 21, 1891, a powerful explosion occurred in the number 1 coal mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, resulting in the death of 123 men, 17 of them just boys. Those not killed by the blast suffered the affects of mine gasses, what miners called the deadly “white damp”.

The 17 young boys who perished, ranged in age from 12 to 15.

But there was no talk after of safer conditions or child labour, because those in the community knew that those mines meant their survival and the pay envelopes of their young sons were greatly needed.

So instead they applauded the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company, who paid for the burials.

However, one young lad, Adolph F. Landry, at the first glimpse of the flames, threw his hands over his face and crouched behind his horse. The animal fell on him, and in pinning the boy to the ground, saved his life. The 14-year-old would tell the story of how he was in such intense pain that he prayed for death to come swiftly. (1)

Landry took those memories with him into adulthood, and would later become integral in the Socialist movement, raising awareness to the differences between the lives of the miners and those of the wealthy mine owners.

Complaints were of a system of government that made the rich richer and the poor poorer. And workers opposed the selling of its labour to barely maintain an existence. (2)

Most of the wealth was in the hands of only a few and those on the top had little interest in helping those they felt beneath them.

Adolphus Landry spoke of the:

"terrible mockery" of poverty, unemployment, and industrial violence. Look, Landry cried, at the consequences of the system! Look at "all the stunted undeveloped inarticulate brains, all the bent and aching backs, all the tired and weary limbs, all the rheumatism racked frames, all the wrecked hopes and aching hearts of youthful manhood." Think of "all the anxious hours and painful heart beats of hungry mothers, all the bitter cries and untold suffering of children, children robbed of their childhood, that have been, and shall be. Think of the Rockefellers, the Goulds, the Astors — the money they made in a day would feed a working-class family for a year!" (1)

And he complained of the Prime Minister Charles Tupper, who spoke of "Business cycles" and "cyclones", forever focused on the economy, while ignoring the people.

Today we are experiencing the same social structure, with a dwindling middle class, and a government determined to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I'm not a socialist and don't believe in government owning everything. But I do believe that only government should administer social services. And if a government wants to avoid social unrest, it must help to create a fairer distribution of wealth, with a fairer taxation system.

That might sound like "leftie" talk, but I'm a realist.

The Tea Party, Reformers, Alliance, Republicans and Conservatives, constantly warn against the perils of socialism, but it seems to be that if they were really frightened of socialism, they might try to avoid replicating the same conditions that caused the socialist revolution covered in Ian McKay's book.

Stephen Harper is still sticking to the line that Corporate tax cuts create jobs and spur growth. A figment of the wealthy's imagination.

Canadian companies have added tens of billions of dollars to their stockpiles of cash at a time when tax cuts are supposed to be encouraging them to plow more money into their businesses. Corporate tax cuts are becoming a major issue in the federal election campaign. The Conservatives, arguing that they are the best custodians of an economy that remains fragile after the recession, say tax cuts are crucial to stimulate job creation and make Canada more competitive on the global stage.

Nonsense. Our corporate taxes are among the lowest in the world, and in fact even if the NDP or Liberals raise them to 18-19.5 %, they are still about half that of the United States, where they now sit at 35%.

And another thing to consider, is that there is little tax incentive for U.S. companies to operate in Canada:

Under existing rules the Obama administration will now enforce, any difference between what US companies pay in taxes abroad and what they would have paid at home gets taxed back by the USA. As a result, a great percentage of the massive corporate tax cuts, like the ones Stephen Harper introduced in his 2008 budget, flow directly into the US Treasury, since many of the most profitable companies in Canada are US-owned branch plants

The Canadian taxpayer is funnelling money directly into the U.S. Treasury.

And Harper is crying austerity for us, but not demanding austerity for big business. He bailed out the banks with our money, but made no demands to cut service charges. Instead they gave their bank executives massive bonuses, a slap in the face to the ordinary Canadian struggling to get by.

He views society through a law and order lens. He's going to cut down on elder abuse, forgetting that seniors living in poverty, is elder abuse. And children living in poverty is child abuse.

We need a progressive revolution in this country, and the time could not be better than right now. An election. Because we are not "cycles" or "economic units". And we know that Harper's "health insurance" plan is not the same as "universal healthcare".

Our natural resources belong to us and if a company exploits them for profit, they must reimburse us through taxes. And they must respect the community where they do business, our ecological system and our environment.

But before we can even make those demands we need a government that respects democracy, and won't have us beaten up every time we want to bring those demands to our elected representatives. And won't try to ruin the careers of experts simply because they dispute their claims.

And we need a leader who won't shut Parliament down every time he doesn't get his own way, or refuses to play by the rules, but makes his own.

May 2. Vote and Vote wisely.

Sources:

1. Reasoning Otherwise: Leftists and the People's Enlightenment in Canada, 1890-1920, By Ian McKay, Between the Lines, 2008, ISBN: 978-1-897071-49-6

2. THE EMERGENCE OF THE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN THE MARITIMES, 1899-1916
David Frank and Nolan Reilly

Socialism or Capitalism? Why Not Both?

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” - John Maynard Keynes

Capitalism in its present form, isn't working.

Instead it is creating a culture of greed. A culture without compassion, and frankly a culture of stupidity.

The "most wickedest" have somehow convinced society that the debate at a time of record debt and deficits, should be who is wealthy enough to receive tax cuts.

Think about that for a minute, though you won't need a minute to determine, that as a philosophy, it is insane.

You have to pay off a debt, so you decrease your revenue?

The debate should be, who has enough wealth, and doesn't need more? Who should start paying their share? Even the extremely wealthy Warren Buffet is questioning why he is in a lower tax bracket than his housekeeper.

So is Socialism the answer?

Not entirely, but we do need to redefine the notion of the Welfare State. It was not about simply establishing a "welfare" system but creating governments whose primary goal was taking care of the well being of their citizens.

We entrusted them with our tax dollars, in the belief that they would use them for the common good. We didn't want them back necessarily, but expected a reasonable exchange.

Stephen Harper wants to dismantle Canada's Welfare State. He believes in a free market system, but while "free market" sounds like a positive thing, it is not. Originally it defined the removal of price controls, but now entails the removal of all impediments to acquiring wealth, including safety and environmental standards.

Things required to keep us safe.

We will not live better because of it. In fact we are not living better after the removal of price controls.

I remember when an increase in the price of gas made headlines, because often it had remained the same for years. Then Brian Mulroney deregulated the industry and now filling up at the pumps is like playing the stock market.

Can you imagine being in a grocery store and having to rush to the cash to buy that can of peas before it doubles in price?

And the promised prosperity for all, never came. Prices continue to soar while only the wealthy have seen a significant rise in their incomes. The poor continue to get poorer and the middle class has stagnated.

We are recreating the conditions of the Great Depression.

During the 1920s, the market system had not performed anywhere near adequately ... and during the 1930s, it had failed massively. It could not be counted on not to fail again. What happened over the subsequent four decades [of creating the welfare state] cannot be understood without grasping that unemployment was the central structural problem toward which all policies were to be geared. (1)

And when people were working, it created what has often been referred to as the "golden years".

Then Capitalism took over, appealing "to greed instead of idealism", promoting inequality and failing the people. And to many Capitalism is the root cause of war, creating even more strife. (1)

But the Welfare State also became greedy. Election campaigns focused on "gimme, gimme". Outrageous demands and promises began to drain the system. Capitalists wanted lower taxes, consumers were convinced that they also wanted lower taxes, and citizens simply wanted more of everything.

We need a return to a mixed economy, where everyone is treated equally. If corporations want to be thought of as citizens, they need to start acting like citizens, which involves give and take. As it is now, they only take and will continue to take until someone says "enough already"!

"We have nothing left to give you"!

I posted recently on the bailouts of financial institutions in the U.S., and how the money was not used to stimulate the economy, but instead went to feed the beast. Canadian institutions were included in that.

Jim Flaherty bailed them out here, and they still went border crossing for more.

The "most wickedest of men" doing "the most wickedest of things".

Seems to me that neoconservatives who claim to be motivated in part by the fear of communism, might consider the possibility that if they made life bearable for us, we wouldn't need to look elsewhere for help.

Unbridled Capitalism is not the answer. An economy based solely on the notion of the "Free Markets" is not the answer. Lowering taxes is not the answer.

The Welfare State has served us quite well. We just need to make it more sustainable by prioritizing. Healthcare, education, full employment, child welfare, all at the top of the list.

And we need a healthy business sector. Overfeeding it will only create obesity, which is bad for it's health.

And we need a government that will stop wasting our money in an attempt to get re-elected, and instead start doing what they were elected to do.

Focus on the well being of this country's citizens.

Sources:

1. The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, By Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Touchstone, 2002, ISBN: 0-684-82975-4. Pg. 3-4