Step by Step: Tim Murphy on Principles and Ambition

I picked up Steve Paikin's The Dark Side from a remainder table at Indigo and while leafing through it came upon this interesting passage, which was Tim Murphy's reflection on the same-sex benefits imbroglio in 1993/94, when Lyn McLeod was Ontario Liberal leader and Tim was the MPP for St. George-St. David. It is particularly interesting in light of the past few months.

"Every politician comes to the point where they know when they're making the decision to compromise their principles for ambition," Murphy says. "The danger in politics is not that you get to make that decision all at once. You have to make it a thousand times, step by step by step. And the challenge in politics is when you finally get to the one thousandth decision, is there anything left in you? That's the truth of politics. You don't make one big compromise in politics. You make a thousand little ones."
--The Dark Side, p. 253

Murphy insists that the NDP deliberately framed the same-sex benefits issue to trap McLeod (though Rae and Lankin deny it). As reprehensible as Murphy thinks that was, he nonetheless seems to have learned from it.

Red Ken and Root Causes

The Toronto Star European bureau reports today that London mayor Ken Livingstone “has spent the last two days pinning much of the blame for the July 7 attacks on U.S. and British foreign policy in the Middle East, on the West’s ‘double standards’ in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on CIA-trained Osama bin Laden turning on his ‘creators.’”

Says Red Ken: “You’ve just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil. We’ve propped up unsavoury governments, we’ve overthrown ones we didn’t consider sympathetic,” he told BBC Radio’s Today program yesterday. And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s, the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and throw them out of Afghanistan.”

Well, Ken didn’t manage to get these helpful thoughts out of his mouth nearly as quickly as Muslim groups were to pronounce themselves victims of racist “retaliation” that has yet to occur, but I guess less than a fortnight is fast enough, and mighty fast for an old socialist.

At times such as these it is helpful to remember that terrorism is, to choose arbitrary figures, 5% physical and 95% psychological. The psychological aspect of terrorism is not confined to grief over dead innocents or fear of going about one’s daily lives. It extends to the self-doubt and self-flagellation that occur when rational societies return again and again to the question “what did we do to deserve this?”

As much as Islamic terrorists hate Western culture, they understand and exploit it well. They understand that for the modern Western politician, inaction and deferred decision-making are the paths of least resistance; decision and action are swiftly met with criticism; too many decisions and actions tempt electoral defeat. The terrorists also understand that even decisions which are long past or irreversible are open to criticism and revisionism. Most in the West consider this openness to re-examination to be a strength -- those who would destroy Western culture consider it a weakness that works to their advantage, as it leaves their victims in a permanent state of second-guessing past actions, and fear and confusion over future ones. But second-guessing is not in the vocabulary of the terrorists. They do not publicly debate whether killing Muslims is consistent with their professed beliefs and values. They do not regard their bombings of Western civilians as inappropriate meddling in our affairs.

This is not to say that there is anything to fear in re-examining and re-affirming the West’s insistence that Israel be allowed to exist in peace and security; that it was worthwhile to forestall Soviet expansion into the Middle East through Afghanistan; and that, whether or not one of the reasons for invading Iraq was mistaken, Iraq and the Middle East are better off without Saddam Hussein, and America and its allies must remain until Iraq is stable.

I wish, however, that those of Ken Livingstone’s ilk would occasionally add to their list these items: whether it was prudent for the U.S. to reward terrorism by pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in 1982, to trade arms for hostages in the 1980s, or to treat the major al-Qaeda attacks in the 1990s as criminal matters, not acts of terrorism and warfare. It would also be useful to remember that the West took the side of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and used force to do so, yet Bosnia and Kosovo were and continue to be recruitment and training centres for Islamic terrorists. If Livingstone were to look at all that has happened since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, he would see that the terrorists change their spin as frequently and ingeniously as they change their methods, and that Western help for Muslims abroad and weakness on terrorism have hardly diminished the terrorists’ fervour.

Part of fighting terrorism is distinguishing between reasonable reflection on past actions and policies, and the wholesale rejection of past policies and actions, based solely on terrorists’ less-than-trustworthy claims that these are the reasons for their horrific acts. My own suspicion is that if the West is doing things that terrorists say they are angry about, then we are on the right track, not the wrong one.

Chaoulli: Supremes Play Daddy -- Again

My understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision is this: the court did not say that private health care is superior to public care. The court did not open the door to private health care. The court did not signal the end of Medicare, or “Tommy Douglas’ Dream”, or whatever jacked-up phrase the health care unions are using these days.

All the court said is that if the government enforces one, single-payer system of health care, if that system covers most medically-necessary services (as the tenet of “comprehensiveness” in the Canada Health Act dictates it must) and if citizens are barred from purchasing those services elsewhere in Canada through private insurance or direct payment, then that health care system cannot be a farce. Specifically, it cannot be a farce that allows a good number of people to go undiagnosed, die on waiting lists or live for years in pain and/or disability waiting for surgery or treatment.

This decision, however, is wrong.

It is no mystery to many Canadians that the health care system became a farce long ago. Those who were somehow unaware of this fact could easily inform themselves of it through regular perusal of the major media. Yet at almost every opportunity that Canadians have had to say that the emperor has no clothes – or the patient has no gown, or bed, or MRI – they have voted to continue the farce.

When the Ontario Liberal government moved to ban so-called extra billing in 1986 (i.e. modest user fees set by individual doctors, but not universally imposed), the public cheered, and a Toronto Star editorial cartoon famously portrayed doctors as pigs. The Liberals won a massive majority the following year.

When Paul Martin cut the health and social transfer to the provinces by $25 billion in the mid-90s, he was portrayed as a good fiscal manager. Provincial governments trying to restructure their hospitals and keep up with rising costs and demands were portrayed as villains. Occasionally the Liberals would use the Canada Health Act to threaten provinces who dared even hint at expanding private delivery to improve services (unless that province went by the name “Quebec”).

In the 2000 and 2004 federal elections, the merest whiff of “two-tier” health care, or allowing more private delivery, or even allowing provinces to experiment within the public system, drew high-pitched attacks from the Liberals. Liberal re-election soon followed.

In the 2003 Ontario election, one of Dalton McGuinty’s promises – and one of the few he kept – was to use provincial dollars to buy out nine privately-operated MRI clinics that were providing tests under OHIP, as do hundreds of other private facilities and labs that somehow escaped McGuinty’s notice.

So events suggest that Canadians have quite deliberately chosen this state of affairs. They have chosen anodyne rhetoric over difficult reform. They have chosen 1960s mythology over 21st century reality. They have chosen to risk delayed diagnosis, chronic pain and even death because they accept that all the other options are worse, and one step away from bankruptcy through illness or dying in the street, which happens every day in the United States, don't ya know?

Whether this choice was made consciously or unconsciously is no matter. Voters are adults and should be treated as such. They should bear the consequences of their actions, and not be soothed with the lie that those consequences are not their fault, and it’s someone else’s responsibility to fix things. In short, we have a farcical, Soviet-style health care system that Canadians have affirmed and re-affirmed again and again. Who is the Supreme Court to override their votes? Who is the Supreme Court to save them from themselves?

Yet this is precisely what the Supreme Court, in its well-intentioned way (for they are always well-intentioned when they declare that democracy got it wrong) has done. Is it a mature populace that requires four lawyers in St. Nicholas robes to force them to look at the truths they were vaguely aware of but chose not to see?

Conservatives who have argued for honest language and mature debate on health care have nothing to celebrate in this ruling, even if they do agree with its gist. And it is no less a case of judicial activism than the same sex marriage rulings. “The end justifies the means” is a rationale typical of the other end of the political spectrum.

As for the honest, realistic debate that many hope will be spurred by this ruling, I’m not holding my breath. The Supreme Court is unlikely to wipe away the health care delusions of Canadians, when a decade of declining services and increasing waiting lists have done nothing but reinforce those delusions.

Some may argue that this decision was a blow on behalf of the people against institutions that believe they know what’s best for Canadians, whether those institutions be bureaucracies, legislatures or courts. Sadly, it is just the opposite.

Reflections on the Revolution

It was 10 years ago today that the Ontario electorate closed the door on 10 years of Liberal/NDP gluttony and government expansion, and took a chance on an 11-toed golf pro from North Bay wielding a driver in one hand and a Common Sense Revolution booklet in the other.

I was lucky enough to be working at PC campaign headquarters, and the day after the election volunteered to help out on the switchboard, which was surprisingly busy. Most of the calls were from regular folks calling to say congratulations or remind us to do what we promised. At one point a scruffy young fellow dashed into the reception area, snatched a small stack of CSRs from a desk, and rushed back onto the elevator before Tony Quirk or I could inquire as to where he got those wicked tattoos, or could he spare a spliff?

I thought nothing of the incident until I saw the same dirtbag and his comrades on the TV news that night, setting fire to their liberated platforms. Many people scoffed at Mike Harris when he talked about the “vested interests” who opposed change. Whenever they did, I would think back to our rude visitors who unwittingly set the tone for the years to come by setting fire to the CSR, doubtless without reading it, and before the government was even sworn in.

Anyhow, the intransigence of the vested interests was demonstrated soon enough. On many issues the revolutionaries prevailed, but I found it remarkable that on Mike Harris’ retirement, he observed that he wished he had moved more quickly on more fronts when he was first elected. I hope our next conservative premier will keep that in mind, because as we soon found out, the vested interests are focussed on government 24/7, while taxpayers are lucky to find an hour a week to be informed or engaged.

Margaret Thatcher once said that the test of her record would not be its effect on the conservative party, but its effect on their opponents. In that respect, the CSR has had some success: though presenting themselves as the antithesis of the Harris regime, the McGuinty Liberals had to present a clear platform and appear to be fiscally responsible – including a promise not to raise personal taxes – in both the 1999 and 2003 elections. Several times as opposition leader, McGuinty called the balanced budget and taxpayer protection laws “the price of admission” for any party seeking government, and even attempted to rewrite history by boasting that the Liberals had supported the concept in 1995 – which they had not (only four Liberal candidates signed the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation pledge in 1995).

Though in office the McGuinty fiscal plan and no-tax-hike promise quickly collapsed, on other issues the Fiberals have quietly affirmed the wisdom of several Harris-era policies, such as per pupil funding and health care restructuring. Yet while the concept of respecting the taxpayer and his dollars has become entrenched among mainstream parties – even the NDP – Mike Harris’ dictum that “there is only one taxpayer” seems to have lost some currency lately. Witness our dear premier’s discovery of a “gap” between taxes paid by Ontarians to the federal government, and the largesse doled out directly from the federal government to the provincial government. This is now blowing back on Dalton, as David Miller has discovered a parallel “gap” vis a vis Toronto taxpayers and the provincial government. Enjoy the whirlwind you have reaped, Dalton!

As unbelievable as it may seem, after all this time there is at least one test remaining for the revolution: is keeping promises still important to voters? Will voters punish the Fiberals for their many broken promises, or be anaesthetized by the quiet in the schools? As Kent Brockman would say: only TIME will tell.

No matter what happens, those of us who had a seat at the revolution can say that we made many long-overdue changes for the better, and “did what we said we would do.”

Vive la revolucion.

Was it in the Stars for Belinda?

No lie, these are two of Belinda's horoscopes from May 17, the day she announced her defection to the Martin Team. She is a Taurus (May 2, 1966)

National Post:
Taurus (April 20-May 20): You like it when you feeel good about your financial scene. (You feel wonderful when you wrap yourself in cash.) Things are going swimmingly at work. Many of you are enjoying new duties or new ways of earning money or possibly a new job completely.

Toronto Star:
Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. Having missed out on the first two possibilities, why not hold out for the third option?