My Conversation with Irving Kristol on the Welfare State

In an attempt to break through the neoconservative ideology, it's important to understand why they are so successful. Simple messages, repeated over and over, laid the groundwork.

And with that simple messaging, they target, what they would refer to as the "average" or "ordinary" citizen. The "ignorant masses". The "wandering herd". Because they were needed to sell the message. These were the people that political strategists would refer to as "the base".

Karl Rove used a play-to-the-base strategy when directing George Bush. And when Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, made the decision not to include abortion as part of the maternal health issue, he used the same philosophy:

Perhaps more than any issue that’s arisen in Giorno’s nearly two years as Harper’s top adviser, outlawing overseas abortion funding threatens to drag him unwillingly toward the centre of media attention. (Giorno declined to be interviewed for this story.) Montreal’s Le Devoir reported a few days ago that an unhappy Harper wants the matter defused before world leaders, many of whom disagree with his stance, arrive in Ontario for the summits. But Giorno is reportedly worried about how Conservative supporters would react to any retreat and is urging Harper to “protect the base.”

"Protect the base". All decisions are made to protect that base, because they are the ones who can help you achieve, and stay in power.

It's telling that the simple messaging is being crafted by academics. Academics, like Irving Kristol, who called himself the godfather of the neoconservative movement (see video below). They are the ones who intellectually construct simple messages. As Kristol himself said: "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy."

I've been reading his essays, compiled in book form, and am immediately struck with how very wrong he is on a variety of topics. He probably knew that. But he didn't write them to be scholarly. He wrote them to sell an ideology. But I am going to challenge him anyway.

This time on the "Welfare State".

By now it is obvious to all who wish to see that we are experiencing a profound crisis of the welfare state. Several crises, in fact. There is the financial crisis now evident in all the Western democracies, where all governments, whether left or right of center, are trying desperately to limit government spending and government commitments.

Though it is this crisis that grabs most of the headlines, it is probably over the long term the least serious. That is because of the two basic laws of eco­nomics: what can't happen won't happen, and what must happen will happen. Government will succeed in edging the welfare state back from the brink of bankruptcy, though at a considerable political cost. That cost will be seen in political convulsions that can be quite scary. Still, after the dust has settled, the welfare state will have been sufficiently trimmed to avoid national bankruptcy which would be the worst convulsion of all, and one that no government can contemplate as an option.

This argument was used to suggest that it is the 'welfare state" that is causing the economic woes. Social programs that Kristol already implied only made people lazy.

What he doesn't mention is why governments are finding it difficult to maintain important social programs, that protect a nation's citizens. It's been misguided tax cuts, and lots of them, especially to the rich. And wars paid for on the credit card.

At the peak of the economic crisis, we heard a lot about John Maynard Keynes, and the "Keynesian" philosophy of using government money to stimulate the economy. It helped to take our minds off the corporate bailouts and who really created the crisis.

But there is something of Keynes that was overlooked. In his book, How to Pay for the War, published in 1940, he argued that the war effort should be largely financed through higher taxation. This was not a new concept. Special taxes always paid for war, as well as the promotion of war bonds, whereby workers loaned the government money to offset the costs.

But in today's conservative logic, as we saw with George Bush, the government lowered taxes, while at war. And they encouraged spending, not saving. And yet they blame the financial problems on the people.

But Kristol doesn't stop there. He also blames the welfare state for the destruction of the family.

There is also a social crisis of the welfare state. Fifty years ago, no advocate state could imagine that it might be destructive of that most social institution, the family. But it has been, with a poisonous flowering of those very social pathologies—crime, illegitimacy, drugs, divorce, sexual promiscuity—that it was assumed the welfare state would curb if not eliminate. This has come as such a shock to welfare statists that they have been busy explaining it all away. Their most common hypothesis, by now a dogma of the Left, is that the persistence of economic inequality and the absence of economic opportunity are the root causes of it all. But only those who have succeeded in repressing all historical memories can actually believe that. There are just too many people still alive who can testify that in times past when economic inequality and lack of opportunity were certainly no less evident than today (and for most people were probably much greater), such social pathologies were far less widespread.

What a lot of hokum. I was living during some of the period that Kristol refers to, and see things quite differently. Divorce may not have been as prevalent, but unhappy marriages, that can be just as destructive to their notion of family, were. And educated women who were expected to stay home, or were failures as mothers, created a Valley of the Dolls society.

And things like promiscuity, were not less common. They were just hidden. Popular television programs, which is often what the right believe constituted typical family life then, were for the most part fairy tales. You can't handle crises in 22 minutes and a teenager's bed is not always made.

And the idea that men had to marry virgins, put all of the pressure on the women to fight desires, because they were the only ones who faced the consequences.

The problem is that neoconservatives believe that a family must be mother, father, children. But the modern family has many different dynamics. Same-sex, single parents, blended families. And children raised in these situations, no longer have to wear the stigma. Societal acceptance has neutralized those prejudices.

Canada's neoconservative movement was crafted in part by William Gairdner and his book The Trouble with Canada. According to author and journalist Murray Dobbin, this book "functioned as ‘the de facto manifesto for Preston Manning’s Reform Party’" (2) Gairdner sold copies of his book at Reform Party assemblies.

I read The Trouble With Canada, and it is eerily similar to the writings of Irving Kristol, using the same arguments to convince us that we should abandon the welfare state. Maybe they have a template. I got his new book, The Trouble With Canada ... Still, for Christmas, and "look forward" to reading it.

William Gairdner is also the founder of the Civitas Society, that plays an integral role in determining Conservative Party policy. Their list of founding members is also interesting. See how many Harper insiders you can identify:

Founding President: William Gairdner

Other Past Presidents: Tom Flanagan, William Robson, Lorne Gunter and Brian Lee Crowley

Founding Directors: Janet Ajzenstat, Ted Byfield, Michael Coren, Jacques Dufresne, Tom Flanagan, David Frum, William Gairdner, Jason Kenney, Gwen Landolt [REAL Women of Canada], Ezra Levant, Tom Long, Mark Magner, William Robson, David E. Somerville [National Citizens Coalition], Michael Walker [Fraser Institute].

So What do we do Now?

We have to start, not only framing our message, but selling it. That has been the biggest factor in the rise of the far-right. PR. It doesn't hurt that they have huge amounts of corporate money behind them, but it doesn't take money to just talk to people. You might meet with some opposition, but you'll probably also be surprised at how many people agree with you, but feel that they are in the minority.

I watched a rerun of Bill Maher last night, and while everyone assumes that the latest Republican success, was because people were now looking to neoconservatism to get them out of the mess they were in, statistics show otherwise.

Obama ran on a message of hope. Hope for fiscal sensibility, a plan to address climate change, and provide public healthcare. But once elected, he spent too much time worrying about the right-wing echo chamber, instead of following through on his promises. Of course, he had to deal with the corporate funded Tea Party and AstroTurf groups like Americans for Prosperity, which also has ties to the Harper government.

But he should have stood his ground. Because the Democrats who held their seats, were the progressives. Not the ones who pretended to be right-wing, and refused to discuss healthcare or global warming. But the ones who stuck to their liberal values.

That's the lesson here.

We can debunk neocon ideology, but it's up to the parties representing the left to offer an alternative, not just more right-wing nonsense, like the notion that corporate tax cuts will help the poor.

The Harper government is currently on a massive spending binge. Fighter jets, prisons, and yes more corporate tax cuts. They are selling these enormous expenditures as "job creation", and claim that they won't have to raise taxes to pay for them.

So where will the money come from? We are already in a deficit and heavily in debt.

And they suggest that they can't afford to address climate change until the economy improves, despite the fact that a "green economy" will actually create jobs, not just produce some abstract notion of job creation.

So maybe the best way for us to frame that message is to simply ask "how is that possible"? How is taking out a 30 year mortgage on new prisons and prison expansion, going to help in the long-term? How will fighter jets, deemed to be a maintenance nightmare, pay for themselves?

So we just ask "where will the money come from?" And don't accept rhetoric. Hand them a pad and paper and ask for some figures. They won't give them to you because they can't. Their decisions are not based on studies but simple ideas.

And focusing on things like military hardware and crime and punishment, means they won't be forced to address more important issues like homelessness, child poverty or healthcare.

But if they are willing to go further into debt for jets and prisons, why not instead go into debt for more doctors, clinics, and hospital expansions? They create jobs too and are more beneficial to society. And yet hospitals are closing beds while prisons are opening them.

And the increase in prison beds is coming at a time when our crime rate is the lowest in our history, but an aging population is producing a need for more hospital care.

Maybe as part of our Army of US's or WE's, we should launch a campaign called "cut the crap". Just how stupid do they think we are?

Sources:

1. The Neoconservative Persuasion, By Irving Kristol, Basic Books, 2011, ISBN: 978-0465-02333-2, Pg. 96-97

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7

My Conversation With Irving Kristol on Welfare and Wages

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The late Irving Kristol (d. 2009) was a self-proclaimed Straussian and by his own labelling, the "Godfather of Neoconversation". He wrote a series of essays and books that became the basis for the movement.

In one he discusses "welfare" or "relief" and why he finds the concept absurd. I would like to challenge Mr. Kristol, because I find his arguments absurd.

Leo Strauss often had "conversations" with Plato, or at least at times his challenges and insights read like conversations, so I would like to converse with and challenge Irving Kristol.

I realize that he was an intellectual and certainly out of my league, but I'm going to invoke Hannah Arendt in The Human Condition. "What I propose, therefore, is very simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing."

There is too much compliance to what we are told is good for us, and not enough thinking. Because when you break it down, it's pretty simple.

We are continually transferring huge amounts of money to a government who is supposed to be using that money for the betterment of all citizens, and instead are using the money for the betterment of a chosen few.

And that is something, I "think" about often.

Essay on Pauperism

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance. " - Stephen Harper (1)

Irving Kristol begins his musings on welfare by invoking Alexis de Tocqueville's, 1835 Essay on Pauperism. Tocqueville asks why, in the most "opulent" nation in the world [England], was there such an extraordinary problem of "pauperism". (The "problem" of pauperism, not necessarily a solution to.)

Concluding that too much public assistance can create idleness, he and Kristol also see a problem with the definition of poverty or pauperism. To the peasant, the ultimate goal was to have enough to eat. There was no desire to accumulate wealth. The only concern was survival.

However, in a modern city, the standards were different.

... in an "opulent" society, the idea of poverty itself undergoes a continual redefinition. The poor experience not only the need for a guaranteed minimum; they also suffer from what a modern sociologist would call "relative deprivation." Tocqueville puts the matter this way: "Among civilized peoples, the lack of a multitude of things causes poverty... In a country where the majority is ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, who thinks of giving clean clothes, healthy food, comfortable quarters to the poor? The majority of the English, having all these things, regard their absence as a frightful misfortune; society believes itself bound to come to the aid of those who lack them.... In England, the average standard of living a man can hope for in the course of his life is higher than in any other country of the world. This greatly facilitates the extension of pauperism in that kingdom." (2)

So the definition of poverty in the city, is different than that in the country.

The reasons for that, at least when this was written almost two centuries ago, was first off that those living in poverty in the city, had no land to work for food. But also their impoverishment was visible to those who took so much for granted.

How can you live conscience free, in a society with so much disparity?

The Welfare Explosion

The next body of work that Kristol critiqued was Regulating the Poor: The Function of Public Welfare by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. He calls their book "simpleminded", and "so crude in a quasi-Marxist way, that one is embarrassed to summarize it."

He scoffs at the notion from Piven and Cloward, that "Relief arrangements [under capitalism] are not shaped by the impulse to charity ... [they are] created and sustained to help deal with the malfunctions inherent in market economies."

Poverty in a modern society is often created by unemployment, and unemployment is often created when the "market economy" is in turmoil. The first to be cut by the corporate sector, during hard times, is the labour force, which creates a downward spiral.

The misguided notion that by giving more money to the corporate sector, jobs will be saved or created, has been proven over and over to be a myth. When companies were bailed out at the beginning of the latest "downturn", much of the money was used to give bonuses to executives and to buy up other companies that had gone bust.

Unemployment is still high, yet headlines in financial sections of newspapers, repeatedly include the words "record profits".

Piven and Cloward also wrote:

Relief arrangements are usually initiated or expanded in response to the political disorders that sometimes follow from the sharp economic downturns or dislocations that periodically beset market systems. The purpose of relief-giving at such times is not to ease hunger and want but to deal with civil disorder among the unemployed. (2)

Revolutions are often ignited by the lack of bread, real and metaphorical. And since Canada's crime rate is now at the lowest in our history, could this be why Stephen Harper is so intent on building more prisons?

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" - Ebenezer Scrooge

So My Dear Mr. Kristol. This is What I "Think"

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” - Stephen Harper, (The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

Tocqueville also wrote that "There are two incentives to work: the need to live and the desire to improve the conditions of life." The basis of Neoconservatism or Libertarianism, is that everyone should look after themselves. But how can you find work when you have no clothing to wear, no food to eat, or no roof over your head?

Maybe if we take care of the first incentive, the second one will have a better chance of prevailing. We can always find money to give to Big Business or war, so there is no excuse not to channel a bit to our nation's disadvantaged, who might actually want to get out of the cycle of poverty.

Apparently the NDP and Conservatives are negotiating terms for the acceptance of the January budget. NDP finance critic, Thomas Mulcair, wants "future corporate cuts to be more targeted to ensure companies are investing in jobs and productivity."

"Future corporate tax cuts"? What happened to the NDP? Those terms should have been compulsory 50 billion dollars ago. From the day that Stephen Harper invited his corporate backers to slurp from the public trough. That is our money and we don't want "corporate tax cuts" that promise so much and give so little.

That money could have gone, and should be going, to actual job creation. If the NDP buy into this, they are going to lose most of their base.

Maybe they need to read Linda McQuaig's column: The growth of extreme inequality in Canada

The massive upward flow of income has largely been invisible to the public, even though it may well amount to the most significant change in Canadian society in decades. The impact on Canada's social fabric is huge and likely to grow. Recent research -- particularly the work of British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett -- shows that less equal societies almost always have more violence, more disease, more mental health problems, higher infant mortality rates, reduced life expectancies, as well as less social cohesion. The effects are most pronounced at the bottom, but are evident throughout the society.

Or John Grace's review of the new book, Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, that he wrote for the UK Guardian.

They say, it's not just the deprived underclass that loses out in an unequal society: everyone does, even the better off. Because it's not absolute levels of poverty that create the social problems, but the differentials in income between rich and poor.

That is the only issue that the NDP should be raising. Not what to do with "future corporate tax cuts".

Irving Kristol speaks of the fact that welfare payments were based on the poverty level, which means that they are at the same as the lowest wage earner's income. But the problem is not the amount of "relief" but the fact that wages are so low. There's no reason for it.

And if he felt that this meant that people wouldn't work, as a result, he might want to think about a national childcare plan, because often those on assistance are single parents, who can't work for poverty level wages, and pay someone else to look after their children while they work.

He also felt that welfare took away a man's masculinity: "... welfare robs the head of the household of his economic function, and tends to make of him a "superfluous man." And he suggests that if single mothers are paid to raise their children, they will stay single or get rid of their male partner.

Notwithstanding the inequality of that notion, the problem again relates not only to unemployment, but the ability of people to work. Food, healthcare, clothing, shelter and childcare. Those needs must first be met.

And jobs paying higher than the poverty level, provide revenue from income tax, that can go to helping others to abandon their pauperism.

Yes, there will always be cheats, just as there will always be Big Business demanding more and more of our tax dollars, in some perverse sense of entitlement.

So my dear Mr. Kristol. Neoconservatism is failing society, but thanks for playing. And to my dear Mr. Mulcair. Give your head a shake.

"Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world." - Tommy Douglas

Continuation:

1. My Conversation with Irving Kristol on the Welfare State

Soures:

1. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

2. Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, By Irving Kristol, The Free Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-02-874021-1, Pg. 43-49

Why we Need to be Concerned With the Extent of Inequalities in Our Society

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..." - Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994.

One of the foundations of Canadian democracy has been the move toward a just society, within the framework of our Welfare State.

Universality meant that the basic tenets of that just society, were common to all. Healthcare, education and justice, were at the centre of the debate. All Canadians were to be entitled to equal access to these things regardless of their financial situation.

The neoconservative movement has sought to tear that down. Their belief is that by providing things like free healthcare, pensions, equal access to education and justice, we are opening the door to communism. However, I believe they are necessary to repel communism, if that was really their fear.

Universality does not mean that citizens do not have the ability to rise above their station. Wealth distribution does not mean that we want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, as expressed by the corporate sponsored Tea Party gang. And equality does not mean an end to diversity.

But a society based on fairness is necessary for the safety and well being of all citizens, including the wealthy.

Andrew Armitage, in his study of Social Welfare in Canada, provides a compelling argument for the necessity of equal rights and universal considerations as the basis for government policy.

Equality and equity, as they relate to poverty and the concern with the extent of inequalities. What are "the minimum standards of living that are to be tolerated in the society?"

If you take the neocon view, that everyone should look after themselves; or the Religious Right view, that if you are poor, it's because God wants you to be poor; what would be the end result?

Massive social unrest.

Armitage provides the alternative that was the basis for the Welfare State.

The welfare of any individual cannot be maximized without consideration of the effects of his choices upon others; thus a theoretical rich man can increase his welfare by giving to a theoretical poor man. The benefit can take many forms; the poor man will be politically more amenable to the rich man keeping his wealth when he is not so desperately poor; the poor man will be better housed, clothed, and fed and hence, healthier - his health makes him a better potential worker and a less likely carrier of disease; the poor man will he a better consumer, increasing financial stability, and hence preserving, too, the rich man's consumption, etc. Because there is a real benefit conveyed to the rich man, he can be expected voluntarily to choose a greater degree of equality. (1)

A pretty strong argument for a fairer distribution of wealth. The "poor man" will feel less animosity toward the "rich man", when he doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is coming from.

But then the neocons have a solution for that as well.

They'll just hire more police and give them broader powers. Complain and "whack". They'll put military in the streets dressed in "urban camouflage".

And they'll make tougher laws for the theft of consumer goods, and build more prisons.

Problem solved. The rich man can keep his wealth without fear.

But what about disease? The end of universal healthcare means that many Canadians will not be able to afford treatment, and funny thing is, no matter how rich you are, disease is universal. It doesn't ask the size of your bank account. And while you may have access to the best treatment money can buy, you are still at risk.

"The test of a socially beneficial redistribution is that is should be voluntarily undertaken." The "voluntarism" referred to is that of the theoretical rich man who seeks his own greatest welfare. The poor man's only influences lies in the ways in which his life impinges upon the rich man's. (1)

So again, what are "the minimum standards of living that are to be tolerated in the society?"

They should be at least in part, an effort to prevent an epidemic, because it doesn't matter how posh the hospital is that you die in, you are still just as dead as the person in the pauper's grave.

Since the day that the wealthy rose up in anger over the Liberal Party's attempt to close up tax loopholes, they have become increasingly demanding. Tax rates for the wealthy have been cut in half while those of the working class* have risen. The richest one per cent of taxpayers are now taxed at a slightly lower rate than the poorest ten per cent.

As a result, by the end of 2009, 3.8 per cent of Canadian households controlled $1.78 trillion dollars of financial wealth, or 67 per cent of the total. (2)

And they were able to use some of that enormous wealth to buy up the media, who now try to convince us that such a disparity is a good thing. In fact they even claim that we should give the wealthy more money. It will be good for us they cry.

But as Murray Dobbin points out, this gross inequality has had dire consequences, giving Canada another black eye.

Last May, the OECD put out figures comparing infant mortality rates in countries around the world. Perhaps the biggest story of all the figures were those attributed to Canada. This country has always boasted of its social stats — life expectancy, infant mortality, university graduates, and other measures of our success as a nation.

But not this time. The numbers were “shocking” — a word used by half a dozen prominent commentators, including the Conference Board of Canada. We had slipped from sixth place in the world to 24, a virtually unprecedented fall for any country. We are now just above Poland and Hungary, with 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births of infants less than one year of age. The actual tragedy beyond the percentages: 1,181 infant deaths in 2007. (20

The Religious Right will simply claim that it is part of God's plan, while the neocons will shrug and call us bleeding heart liberals for pointing out this national tragedy.

But the real test of this, is in what we will say about it.

Will we agree with Stephen Harper that the end of universality is an "achievement" or will we recognize that it is in fact a curse?

I guess it depends on the kind of Canada you want to live in. One that is 24th of 26 countries when it comes to infant mortality rates, or one that makes the welfare of all citizens a priority?

Footnotes:

*When you're in the stores or restaurants it's difficult to imagine that Canadians are not doing as well as they had been, when we were deemed a just society. But there is another factor to consider. Canada's household debt has reached a new high.

Sources:

1. Social Welfare in Canada: Ideals and Realities, By Andrew Armitage, McClelland and Stewart, 1975, ISBN: 0-7710-0725-X, Pg. 10-11

2. That Gap between Rich and Poor Is a Baby Killer: The deadly, unforeseen consequences of Canada's widening inequality, By Murray Dobbin, The Tyee, December 6, 2010

We Need a Lot More Attlee and a Little Less Churchill

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

At the end of World War II, Britain should have been riding high. They had defeated the Axis, led to victory by Winston Churchill.

And yet when an election was held in 1945, they did not choose Churchill to continue to lead the way. Instead a social worker named Clement Attlee was elected prime minister.

The people had grown weary of war and tired of bluster. They were looking for compassion and a return to some form of normalcy.

My mom was a nurse in England during the Blitz and I asked her once how she felt when the war was over. She described a brief feeling of elation, not because they had won, but just that they could finally put it all behind them.

She had seen so much and that she rarely talked about.

Attlee offered something different.

Britain was no longer to be led by this extraordinary figure [Churchill], once called "the greatest adventurer of modern political history" descendant of the duke of Marlborough, cavalry officer and Boer War hero, swashbuckler and master prose stylist, liberal reformer-turned-defender of Empire. Instead, he was replaced by Clement Attlee, moved by the poverty and despair ... and inspired by what he called "Christian ethics". (1)

Yes, believe it or not there was a day when "Christian ethics" and "Christian values" meant caring about poverty and despair. Now the only Christians we hear from, as represented by the Religious Right, are those motivated by greed and hatred, while judging the rest of us who don't think as they do.

Like Tommy Douglas, Attlee was a socialist. Not animated like Douglas, but quiet and reserved. And he was just what Britain needed at the time, creating an intellectual movement that focused on ideas.

[and] established free medical care under a newly constituted National Health Service, created new systems of pensions, promoted better education and housing, and sought to deliver on the explicit commitment to "full employment." (1)

In the 1930s unemployment was at 12%. By the late 1940s it had been reduced to 1.3%.

And while the state of Britain's finances, due to the enormous cost of the war, prevented him from doing everything he would have liked, he accomplished something miraculous. He put people first, and in 2004, was voted the greatest British prime minister of the 20th century, in a poll of 139 professors.

He had presided over the start of the Welfare State, that focused on the well being of the nation's citizens.

We need a return to that kind of thinking.

Our occupation of Afghanistan has now outlasted that of the Soviet Union. Canadians are weary of war and tired of bluster.

In the U.S., Obama supporters are angry over his extending the ridiculous Bush Tax Cuts. They should be. Not that he really had a choice. Today's conventional thinking is so twisted, that somehow giving the rich more money is supposed to make sense.

I mean they've done so much for us, haven't they? Led us into a recession and while crying "Free Markets", came running to us with their hands out when things went bust.

And like idiots we gave them more money.

One of the accomplishments of Attlee that I found inspiring was the replacing of the gold standard, with a "full employment standard."

The economy was to be judged not by how many troy ounces there were to the British pound but by the number of jobs it could deliver to a population willing to work. (1)

Imagine that.

Sources:

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

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

The Use of Language to Manipulate for the Better Good

"The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense." - Benjamin Franklin

The neoconservative movement has achieved most of it's success through the clever manipulation of language.

"Calculated ambiguity", "hidden dialogue" and "words that work", are all part of their arsenal.

Linguist George Lakoff believes that progressives can win if they start tapping into this skill (video below). We can't assume that everyone automatically can see the good in social programs, that not only strive to alleviate hunger and despair, but also help to eliminate social unrest.

The Neocons promote war based on the need to keep us safe. We have to frame our message in a similar fashion. Hunger is a great motivator and can lead the desperate to commit desperate acts. It is as fundamental as self preservation. How many revolutions took place for something as simple as the lack of bread? The French and Russian certainly come to mind.

We need to keep everyone fed to keep everyone safe.

It's clear to anyone paying attention that the increase in prisons by the Harperites, is not for "unreported crime", but for future crime, if they are allowed to succeed in their agenda to dismantle Canada's welfare state.

The elite need to have their "stuff" protected when a large sector of our population find themselves without the ability to buy "stuff" for themselves. The ability to buy bread. The police brutality at the G-20 was a test for martial law. I'm convinced of that.

And having so many of their MPs who are ex-cops, including the latest Julian Fantino, The Harper government will continue to have the police on their side. They will no longer be protecting the public, but their mandate will be protecting the government and the wealthy from the public.

Stephen Harper knew as early as 2005, that he would need a military presence in the streets of our major cities. He has since then created urban camouflage uniforms for our soldiers. According to the Ottawa Citizen:

Those designs are to be based on the "unique requirements" of the urban settings of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, according to an outline of the project co-ordinated by scientists at Defence Research and Development Canada in Suffield, Alta.

So social programs not only help to prevent social unrest, but also protect us from the necessity of having soldiers in the streets, unless there's been a natural disaster. I can't imagine too many Canadians who would want to live in that kind of country.

It is too reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Carl Schmitt in his Concept of the Political, the only modern doctrine that Leo Strauss followed, says that "strife itself is humanizing". A necessary element if we are to understand inhumanity, I suppose. But I think that attempting to end strife is a far greater test of humanity. Witnessing that is more humanizing.

So instead of using the term "welfare state", we stick to "social safety net", with an emphasis on "safety". We can even throw in "freedom" now and then. A powerful word. But we do need "freedom" from this authoritarian style of governance.

The "freedom" to live without fear of our government and it's agencies.

On Religion

Another area of daily life hijacked by the neoconservative movement is religion. They have laid claim to our mortal soul. But their faith is based on the religion of corporatism, and it has become a religion of hatred and greed.

More churches need to speak out publicly, and not just privately as they do now.

Religion should inspire not incite.

On Symbols

Another area that George Lakoff reminds us that the Neocons have hijacked, are national symbols. The Republican pollster Frank Lutz told Harper to tap into symbols like hockey, and now our prime minister is it's number one fan.

I can assure you that had Lutz suggested ballet, Harper would be wearing a tutu in the House. Whatever it takes.

But they also claim the flag, the national anthem and the notion of "democracy", despite the fact that the movement denounces all three. Many Reformers hated the new flag, calling it too "Liberal" and saw no need for a new anthem, when the Maple Leaf Forever served us so well. And neoconservatism itself is closer to fascism. They fight against too much democracy.

We need to have our flag representing not a symbol we fight under, but a symbol we live under. Make Canadian sovereignty the Holy Grail, not Canadian combat.

Framing and Unifying

Lakoff rightfully says that part of the problem progressives have is that they are divided. The NDP, Liberals and Bloc are constantly at each other's throats, which only helps to support the neoconservative movement.

They need to rally around the issues they have in common.

And in framing messages, words like "community", "prosperity" and "empathy" work best.

He also uses George Bush's "tax relief" as an example of helpful framing. The "relief" suggests that taxes are something we need to be relieved of. We have to make taxes a positive thing, since they buy us civilization.

So instead we speak of the need for "poverty relief", a "break from corporatism" or "freedom from war". Giving negative connotation to negative things.

Because if we don't start speaking up and speaking clearly, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak at all.

Michael Ignatieff and the Canadian Dream of Social Decency

"Canadians may not realize it, but along with all the other things we export to the world, we also export our rights talk. It was a Canadian law professor, from Montreal's McGill University, John Humphry, who helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Humphrey was a democratic socialist and one of the founders of the League for Social Reconstruction, which campaigned for the creation of the welfare state. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for all its formidable abstraction, is actually an attempt to universalize Canadian social democracy as it stood in the bright dawn of victory after 1945. Many of the provisions of the declaration - including those for medical insurance, unemployment compensation, and paid holidays ... encapsulate (s) a very Canadian dream of social decency." (The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, Michael Ignatieff, Anansi, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 10)

The Welfare State: Where Did we Go Wrong?

"The test of serious moral commitment to the family is a willingness to spend public money. Effective child protection, universal access to health care, affordable child care, first-rate primary and secondary education - these are the building blocks of the protective arch that society must raise over its families. This institutional arch doesn't come cheap, but those exponents of family values who won't stump up for it are just engaging in cheap talk." (The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, Michael Ignatieff, Anansi, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, pg. 111)

Wikipedia describes the welfare state as; ... a model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens ... and (benefits that are) universally applied to citizens as a "right".

By now most of us know of Stephen Harper's claim that "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it." This from his famous speech delivered to the Council for National Policy, but what does that mean exactly? Though there was certainly no Canadian pride in that speech, the statement was merely in line with the neo-conservative ideology. That is, the tearing down of the welfare state and the dismantling of government institutions.

But what is wrong with taking care of a nation's citizens? In a country like Canada, with it's vast natural resources; why shouldn't those resources go to the benefit of all Canadians?

Unfettered Capitalism isn't working. The disparity between rich and poor is at it's highest, and the promised trickle down affect from a free market economy is not trickling down.

In Part Three of Mel Hurtig's lecture series; Who Killed Canada? he discusses how our increasing poverty rate coincides with increasing corporate profit. And though these 'free market' gurus try to convince us that we should throw in our lot with corporate Canada, they have done nothing to advance Canadian interests or protect our country's citizens.

I've noticed on many blogs and in comments at the end of online articles, people are saying that there is no difference between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper. However, I would challenge that statement. They are not even remotely the same, and their ideologies are completely opposite.

Now if we take the welfare state in it's purest form, the NDP are probably the closest in their desire to create a Utopian society, but in today's world how realistic is that? If the sharp right turn gave us whiplash, a quick snap to the left could be devastating, especially given the state of the economy.

And besides, we need to create a system that can be palatable to the majority of Canadians. We are not a right wing country, nor are we a left wing country. Our comfort zone is in the middle so we need a leader who can be a consensus builder. One who is willing to work with industry to make us competitive in the world markets, without neglecting our citizens; especially those most vulnerable.

Neo-conservatism is not a good fit for Canada. It's not who Canadians are. But how can we get our country back on track?

1. Vote - The first thing we need to do is to restore democracy. Neo-cons fair best when they drive people away from the polls.

2. Pick a team - If you decide you want to vote Conservative, and believe that we should be free from all government intervention, than that's who you should vote for. However, make sure you know exactly what that means. However, if you feel that our citizens should have a social safety net, than choose a party from the centre to left of centre. The Green Party is actually probably the party most in the centre, followed closely by the Liberals. The NDP of course are left. But vote. That is critical. No excuses.

3. Know your issues when choosing a party - There are so many single issue groups now, that lobby government, but few who will take that issue and work on behalf of a political party. That is one of the strengths of the neo-conservative movement. They narrow in on single issues like the gun registry, promising the gun lobby that they will scrap the registry. That lobby not only votes but votes Conservative; and uses it's resources and membership to promote the Conservative Party. You need to do the same if you have any hope of having your voices heard.

4. Be reasonable in your demands - Every election campaign we wait to see whose going to promise the most. In today's economic climate with so many challenges facing us, we need a party and a leader who will be honest. Taxes will have to increase, and any party or leader who promises no tax increases, obviously has a slash and burn agenda, because we are broke. It's not rocket science.

5. Move Forward - Regardless of our economic situation, we still have to demand that our politicians are willing to move this country forward. Social conservatism is about going back to some imaginary land of the 1950's. We are a progressive nation and we need to look to the future for answers to today's problems.

Margaret Thatcher and What a Stephen Harper Majority Would Look Like

Stephen Harper has always been a fan of slash and burn leaders and politicians, including Margaret Thatcher. She and others became the driving force behind his Reform Party's financial policies, which fit in well with their plans to tear down the 'welfare state' and foil what they deemed to be a 'socialist conspiracy'.

Like Thatcher, he was a devotee of Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian economist who believed that free-market capitalism was the best defense against socialist and collectivist thought.

However, the Reform Party also brought fundamentalist Christian dogma into their party platform, not simply because they firmly believed in theocracy, but knew that they could tap into religious fervour which would naturally gain them votes. Many policies were intentionally ambiguous to appease both the moderates and the extremists.

So when they said that issues on things like abortion and same-sex marriage would be determined in a 'free vote', the extremists heard that they would be abolished, while the moderates felt good that the people would decide. However, to Preston Manning 'free vote' only meant the free vote of his caucus, not the grassroots, on contentious issues.

However, from Ernest Manning's Socreds, to Preston Manning's Reformers, to Harper's Reform-Alliance- Conservatives - Northern Foundation - National Citizens Coalition; the ultimate goal is the abolishment of the welfare state in favour of free-market capitalism; with an evangelical twist. And they were going to do it, whether we liked it or not.

Ernest Manning stated that "The will of the people is bound to come into conflict with the will of God" and according to Murray Dobbin: "Throughout his political career, Ernest Manning was motivated by religion, and more specifically, by anti-Socialism: 'Socialism, to Manning, is a system which largely prevents the individual from attaining the state of grace and hence salvation ... Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God'."Manning argued that 'where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory'. (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 9)

Preston Manning stated when he was a member of the Youth wing of the Social Credit Party; "We (socreds) believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state..." (Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25)

And of course Stephen Harper weighed in: "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."

Margaret Thatcher and the Welfare State

"There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

"Harper asked Weissenberger to dig up the Conservative Party manifestos under which Margaret Thatcher had fought ... They admired the clarity with which she nailed her theses to the wall. 'No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom.'" (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada by William Johnson ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, 2005, Pg. 49)

Like Harper and all his various parties, lobby groups and think tanks; Ms Thatcher believed that all economic problems are a result of social programs, that created the welfare state.

This term was actually used to describe a series of programs aimed at reducing the hardships of the entire population, by providing services such as national health care, pensions and social assistance; with a redistribution of wealth. There was also a strong feeling after WWII, that if a nation was asked to sacrifice at a time of war, they should be taken care of during a time of peace.

But Margaret Thatcher was having none of it, and with traits which have often been used to describe our current PM; "... one of her (Thatcher's) own supporters described her as having 'a certain impatience with subtlety of feeling, a lack of sympathy with people unlike her..." (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 8)

She arrived on the scene at a time when Britain was experiencing growing deficits and slow economic recovery, so her promises to turn the country's economy around were welcomed at first.

"The 'crisis' of the welfare state provided Margaret Thatcher with her opportunity to seize control of the political agenda and take the Conservative Party sharply to the right. In doing so she altered the course of British politics for decades and influenced political development in many other Western democracies .... she was crystallizing her thinking, largely through intensive reading of the works of Friedrich von Hayek .... with high unemployment and inflation fuelling the anxiety of Britain's middle class, Thatcher was ready to present her ideas for public consumption in a Conservative party policy document entitled 'Right Thinking.'

"This was not a manifesto for the faint of heart ... What Thatcher was proposing was nothing less than the dismantling of much of the infrastructure of the modern liberal democratic state. Government was the enemy (Harper feels the same way) ... The woman ... wanted to privatize, deregulate and otherwise reduce state intervention in the economy ... Most of all, she wanted to break the power of the unions, whom she loathed." (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 10-12)

Those in her own cabinet who opposed her revolutionary style, she referred to as 'wets' and one of her MPs, Julian Critchley once said "She cannot see an institution without hitting it with her handbag." From then on her demolition of the British system was referred to as 'handbagging.'

"In addition to the middle class, luck was on her side ... Many of her most drastic measures were implemented during the economic recovery, minimizing their impact in the short term . When she got into difficulties with the electorate and her party ... it was as much for her imperious leadership style as her draconian policies. There were many direct and violent confrontations with labour, and various groups whom the prime minister dismissed as 'special interest'. Society became visibly more polarized as the winners and losers of Thatcehrism emerged.' (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 14)

We have to remember that Thatcherism failed. She privatized everything, and since profit was now the trigger, it resulted in higher costs and less services. While these enterprises were raking in record profits, unemployment rose, resulting in the select few making significant gains at expense of the majority. We've seen the same thing under George Bush, resulting in one of the worst economic crises in recent history.

And of course her removable of controls left citizens vulnerable to health risks. The same thing happened under Mike Harris, when he reduced the number of water inspectors: Walkerton. Stephen Harper allowed the meat industry to inspect their own plants: Listeriosis.

We have to think long and hard before we give this man a majority. In fact we should think even longer and harder about giving him another mandate at all. With the size of Canada's debt and deficit, he will be able to implement the failed economic policies of Margaret Thatcher, fulfilling his career dream of dismantling the government of Canada.