Ontario Election
The province of Ontario, Canada, where I live, is going to have an election in the near future. What makes this of some general interest is:
1. Ontario is the most populous province in Canada, and Toronto is the biggest and richest city, closely tied to the Great Lakes states;
2. The incumbent government continues to campaign on tax cuts as one of their main commitments.
The Progressive Conservative government was elected in 1995 with Mike Harris as leader. Harris had become leader in 1990, just in time for an election, after which his party remained in third place. In 1995 very few observers gave him a chance of winning, even though the NDP (social democratic) government was very unpopular. It was widely assumed that the Liberals would form a majority, as they had from 1987 to 1990. Harris worked hard, devised a plan, and stuck to it, and he won.
Harris circulated a manifesto-type document called "The Common Sense Revolution." Both his policies and his strategies owed something to some successful U.S. campaigns: Proposition 13 to freeze property taxes in California in the 70s; Reagan's presidential victories; Christine Whitman's first victory in New Jersey; Engler in Michigan; and the Contract with America. Harris promised across-the-board cuts in income taxes; business-friendly changes to labour laws and worker's compensation; and a freezing of hydro or electricity rates. He promised to at least maintain spending in three key areas: health care, classroom spending (not necessarily administration and other periperals of the education system), and "law and order." He made it clear that any other spending might and probably would be cut.
Harris had always favoured cuts in both spending and taxes, so he was running on his dream platform. As his campaign developed, he picked up on more issues that were suggested by ordinary voters. There was a backlash against affirmative action, especially in government hiring. A fortune had been spent in trying to find a landfill site for Toronto, in a process that was scientifically correct but politically hopeless. The government was perceived as favouring certain minorities with special treatment such as housing, while taking a certain satisfaction in angering the majority of working, tax-paying people.
The broader public sector in general was seen as soft and bloated--even corrupt, in the sense that bureaucrats were building their empires, if not feathering their personal nests, at taxpayers' expense. The NDP, which always seemed to favour a government spending solution to every problem, had made the problems of the public sector especially apparent, but Harris succeeded brilliantly in showing that the Liberals were not determined to stand up to these problems. It was enough for him to hint, therefore, that if elected the Liberals would be rolled by the bureaucrats, the special interests, and the unions. In the language of the trade, Harris used "wedge issues." In a three way race, he didn't even need a majority; he needed to build up and hold onto a loyal core of about 30% of the electorate, and add to it by winning over people who admired his toughness and honesty, and were convinced that the Liberals weren't up to the job. In two majority victories, Harris won 45% of the vote once, and 46% the other time. He won in 1999 because or in spite of the fact that he had kept many promises, cut a lot of ministries, and even taken on some tough fights, such as the structure of municipal government, that no one had expected.
(In a parliamentary system, it is only seats in the legislature or Parliament, and being able to command a majority there, that makes a government. 45% of the vote, spread fairly widely in the country or province, is almost always enough to win a majority of seats. The NDP actually formed a majority with 37%).
Harris stepped down in 2001, and his former Finance Minister, Ernie Eves, became party leader and Premier. Eves promised in his leadership campaign that the days of confrontation--by implication, the days of tough wedge issues--were over. He would consult more, he would avoid angering significant groups, including public-sector unions. Harris was committed to "privatizing" or at least "commercializing" electricity; Eves has put the brakes on this process. As the time for an election has approached, however, he is sounding more like Harris.
Legally, Eves can wait until spring of 2004 to call an election, but it looked like he was ready to do so a month ago. He has produced a Throne Speech, a Budget, and a campaign manifesto. He is promising to ban strikes by teachers (and lockouts by school boards). He is fully committed to tax cuts for parents who send their children to a private school--regardless of whether the school actually teaches the provincial curriculum or not. (He campaigned against both of these stands during the leadership race). Above all, he has promised more and deeper tax cuts, especially for homeowners and seniors.
Polls show the Tories trailing the Liberals, but it seems that if anyone can squander an opportunity, it is Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty. The Tories' wedge issues have tended to work on the provincial Liberals because the latter have difficulty presenting a unified response from within their own ranks. Some of their members, including elected MPPs, are far enough to the left that they would be comfortable in the NDP. Presumably, they decided to run as Liberals in order to have a shot at power. Others are comfortable with aspects of the Tories' agenda.
I am interested in the day-to-day shifts of politics, but I also try to look at the bigger picture. In the 1970s, the growth of the welfare state looked unstoppable. Above all, it looked like a success. Government spending, in good times and bad, smoothed out the troughs of the business cycle without preventing the peaks. It helped ensure an educated and healthy workforce, buying houses and consumer goods and growing the economy. A certain kind of conservative hoped the welfare state would fail, since it is corrupt to succeed by spending someone else's money. But it was very difficult to argue with success.
In the past few decades, however, there has been at least a significant correction. I don't think total government spending has actually gone down, but the rate of growth has slowed, and people's expectations have changed. Tax cuts are not necessarily supported by sound economic theory--sometimes they are a needed job-creating tonic, more or less in Keynesian terms, sometimes (probably more often) not--but they appeal to a sense of justice in a lot of voters. Why shouldn't the "final" distribution of wealth have something to do with that combination of luck, schooling and effort that is called a career? Why should there be a presumption that the mere existence of wealth is a problem as long as some have been "left behind"?
Taking even a further step back, obviously every argument to the effect that the wealthy deserve their wealth can be questioned; but as far as I know, every argument that the wealth should be transferred to someone else is even more questionable.
Universal social programs are an ingenious invention. They make it difficult for many taxpayers to figure out if they are net benefactors or beneficiaries. Somehow there are a lot of public amenities, including schools and parks, and they are paid for somehow. Aristotle says any space or location that is "common" is certain to be neglected; for "everyone" to care for it is the same as noone caring for it. A common room in a dorm would be a good example. The welfare state still holds out the promise that the common good, in a meaningful sense, can be built and maintained by paid bureaucrats. But many conservatives and right-wingers, favouring the entrepreneur, the land-owner, and/or the family, will resist.
Probably the best columnist writing on politics at Queen's Park, as we say, is Ian Urquhart of the Toronto Star. Go from the Star home page to "columnists":
http://www.thestar.com/
Murray Campbell of the Globe and Mail is also very good:
http://www.globeandmail.com/
|
