WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

I am going to weight in on a subject that will lose me a few friends, the affection of some close family members, and hate mail from some members of the Jewish community. If what I am about to write was written by a non-Jew there would be howls of “anti-Semitism!”

A horrible new kind of reality judgement has descended upon many members of the Jewish community here. They are moving to the Right, not because they are politically conservative, but because they judge Harper by his attitude toward Israel. No matter what, he supports Israel. He is in lockstep with Netenyahu and will reject any suggestion that his government is faulty.

It has always seemed to me that the Jewish community in the Diaspora, not all but most, especially Canadian and American Jews, tend to accept whatever Israel does without question. It is: “right or wrong my country still.” Perhaps it is the sense of being threatened by a hostile world that makes so many of them crawl into a protective pan-Zionist cocoon. So whatever kind of government Israel elects – hawks or doves, conciliators or aggressors, there is no distinction. The world and politics are viewed in the glass of “what is good or bad for the Jews.”

I take heart knowing that the same is not the case in Israel, where strong anti-government attitudes are expressed; where anger over the building of settlements is evident; where many Israelis do not believe that the level of force used in Gaza is appropriate to the danger, or that the incursion into Lebanon was not justified.

Support for Israel has become one of those “wedge” issues. Sadly, and I am ashamed for it, the strategy is working. In the York Centre riding the Liberal incumbent is Ken Dryden. (I always believed he would have been the best choice for leader.) He is not a political hack. He is an honest, dedicated man. He may be defeated by the Conservative candidate. I know – that’s politics. But this is more. The riding contains a large number of ultra-orthodox Chasidic Jews who are the people who in a recent provincial election put up sighs praising Premier Harris for his stand on funding parochial schools, and completely ignoring or indifferent to the ruin Mike brought to our province. In Israel, these people are militant about “the land God promised us.”

Now, I presume that these ultra orthodox flock to the Tories because they have not protested against the building of new settlements in the West Bank. Those settlements are to provide shelter for the burgeoning population of orthodox Jews living in Israel. Add to those zealots, all the moderate Jews, even some secular non-believers, who will vote Conservative because of how good Harper has been for Israel, and how indifferent the other two parties are.

What bothers me about this whole attitude is that we are voting in Canada for the kind of government we need, not for how the government appears to feel about the State of Israel. To me, it is obvious that the Harper government is pandering for votes and using an issue that has no bearing of the future of Canada and its real problems: unemployment, health care, and education.

Israel itself is full of people who dissent just as I have. The fact is that Israel was founded by secular Jews, mostly leaning to the political Left. In recent years, between new immigration from highly orthodox Jewish communities like Morocco and Yemen, and the booming birthrate among the orthodox, that the pendulum has swung. Israel has become a theocracy. Because of proportional representation, the religious parties receive seats proportional to their share of the popular vote. They are a small group, but without them it is difficult to form a working government. They are the “squeaky wheel” that gets the grease.

I still have trouble believing that the Jewish community that was once in the forefront of progressive ideas can be turned into political zombies. By the way, it was the same during the last Presidential election when Obama’s majority threatened by Florida, where a majority of elderly Jewish voters also believed he was not a big supporter of the State of Israel, and that he might be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. (I don’t share that notion. I think the Palestinian “cause” has received attention far out of proportion to the reality on the ground.)

But here in Canada, and often with the Jewish press, there is a slavish devotion to Israel and an unwillingness to be critical of anything Israel does. It’s no way to vote.

P.S. I am not being naïve about the issue. I know that all political parties pander to minorities, many of whom are more interested in what is happening in their country of origin than in the future of this country.

WHAT'S NEXT?

You know a writer has run out of material when he writes a piece about looking for something to write about. I'm almost there.

I am sorry to say that there may not be anything new in this space for some time. I wrote one piece that I would rather not even try to edit.

No excuses. I have been doing what I tell older people not to do: crawling into bed and waiting to get better. For more than a week I have been recovering from a debilitating bout of pneumonia. The strength isn't there. You know things have taken a sad turn when you cancel piano lessons and haven't the strength or the desire to practice.

So my friends, until I am recovered, you will have to do without my regular-irregular blogs.

Thanks.

PLUS CA CHANGE....

It was like revisiting my most frustrating memories. The Globe carried a piece called: ”Unlocking The Crime Conundrum.” It was all about “getting tough on crime,” and “Canadians want to feel safe,” and all the pseudo crime-fighting initiatives. What made it sound like old times to me was that no matter what the question, the answer was the same. And when confronted with reality, the response was thick-headed and uncompromising.

I remember callers to my Open Line Radio show voicing an opinion and when I asked what they had to support that information – the response was always something like “That’s what I believe and I’m entitled to my opinion.” Then I would quote Heywood Hale Broun who once said: “Everyone is not entitled to an opinion. They are entitled to a vote.”

The issue of safety in the streets and the fear of crime makes a wonderful “wedge” issue. That’s an issue you can insert into a campaign, and even though it may only affect a small percentage of voters, you take ownership of the issue and with it – the votes.

I was dismayed during the recent “debate” that when Harper got into his “tough on crime” point, the other leaders lined up to profess that they too were tough on crime. Not one told him he was playing politics with misplaced human opinions and fear. Not one told him we didn’t need American style “justice” here – with their minimum sentencing and mandatory terms. The American way, which handcuffs judges (but makes excellent politics), has resulted in absolutely nothing when it comes to fighting crime.

That’s what the Globe piece was all about. Quoting from that piece: “Why do you want the government to get tough on crime when the crime rate’s already down?”
“But the violent crimes are going up.”
“Actually they’re not.”

The facts are that every statistic on crime, including violent crime, shows rates are steadily going down. But that won’t matter to the voters who want to believe that criminals are getting away with it. That punishments are a slap on the wrist. And that dangerous felons are sent to “Club Fed.”

That last one was always my favourite. I would ask the called if he/she thought inmates should be kept in isolation, hard labour, and bread and water. Any suggestion I might make that it was easier and more productive to treat convicts with humanity. Every criminologist will tell you that harsh and severe treatment only results in an even more hardened criminal mind.

The final blow would always be that the caller, disgusted with my opinions would accuse me of being a bleeding heart.

No politician has ever lost an election by telling people something they want to hear.

UNINVOLVED - THE YOUNG VOTER

Every election brings it up. The same old story about how young voters don’t vote. In the last several elections, voters 20-24 stayed away to the tune of something like 4 million. We are determined to keep asking them why – even though the answer is always the same: politicians don’t speak to our needs. My question: how would you know if you aren’t paying attention?

One editorial comment, it doesn’t matter where it was because I forget, commented about youth “cocooned in a world of text messages and ear buds.” It’s something I have uncharitably said in the past. It labels me an old fogy who does not understand what the “kids” are all about. Oh yes I do. They are, for the most part, so self-absorbed, so caught up in their own worlds, that they don’t know anything else. Even worse, they don’t care. Our youth has abandoned us.

In this campaign, if they are listening. Michael Ignatieff has pledged a program that would help pay for college tuition – a subject that, if you ask them, is important. The young always bring up. Let’s face it – they are concerned about the world they live in, and that world excludes irritating things like Federal elections.

So we go on again and again – fulminating about how the young don’t care or won’t care.

What is – is. Get over it. They may not know who is running in their riding, but they know Charlie Sheen is coming to Massey Hall.

On the larger issue of youthful indifference there was a salutory event in the U.S. in 2008: Obama, using social networking and everything else in the internet, rallied about him an astonishing number of young voters. He was like a rock star. There was a bandwagon and no one between the ages of 18 and 25 wanted to miss it. That is not to say that it was the youth vote alone that propelled the Obama revolution, but it sure helped. The point can be made that the off-year shellacking that the Democrats suffered was because those devoted fans didn’t both to go to the polls. The almost hysterical Obama supporters didn’t see it as “cool” to care who got elected to Congress in a year when the president was not running. So they stayed home with their faithful ear buds.

I am really sorry that I feel compelled to write like old-fogy-attacking-the-young. I think I’m as upset that we keep going back to the same questions and getting same answers, yet we still try to fathom the mystery of youthful political indifference. Forget it. Hope they grow up. Hope they don’t become frightened conservative suburbanites clinging to a precious shred of respectability, and trying to carry the burden of a needless mortgage. The answer to the “why” is that this is not the radical 60s. Stop whining about it and get involved yourself.

DEMOCRACY IS TOUGH ON "FREEDOM"

One of my blog readers sent me an Email soliciting my support for opposition to
removing the word “god” from our national anthem because, he said, only 14% of respondents wanted the reference omitted, we had no “right” to allow the other 86% to be pushed around. (I am paraphrasing.)

I responded this way: “I have wanted to write another piece on what John Stewart Mill called "The tyranny of the majority." Essentially it is an argument against depriving people of their rights simply because they are in a minority. Do you believe that the majority, who believe in God, should have the right to impose that on other people? I have long ago given up on the "imploring the divine" process that has become such a part of our thinking. I neither thank nor praise. It is an opinion I hold dear. However, I also have no right to impose that on other people, no matter how flawed and mystical their belief happens to be. But in what we call public space, there should be no room for dogmas, however widely held they may be. The majority tends to want to oppress the minority. Didn’t most people believe the earth was flat? Didn’t the ancients believe that thunderstorms were the wrath of the gods? Didn’t people justify slavery by Scripture?”

He may have been surprised, not expecting that I would represent the dissenting 14%. It isn’t that their argument is more cogent, legitimate or persuasive. That’s not the issue. And the issue is certainly not to so enfranchise the majority that they have the right to trample of basic rights.

Like it or not, and to look at how the Tea Party sees intervention – as an assault on Law and Order, civilized democracies have one or both of the traditional safeguards: Supreme Courts and a Constitution (and Bill of Rights.) We have a notion here that “Parliament is supreme.” And perhaps it should be. Except that without a high court to rule on the innate justice of an issue, we could have a steamroller majority pushing through legislation that, while it may be appropriate, is often not democratic. It is why in this country we have appeals “under the Charter.” If any law violates the rights of anyone, that person is entitled to make representation before the courts. It does not mean, as many on the political right believe, that we are co-opting government. In the U.S. there is continuous whining about the “liberal” members of the Supreme Court who would overturn the “will of the people.’ The irony is that it is always these people who insist that the Constitution be served. (I wonder how many have read it, or have read the even more important document, the Amendments which represent the Bill of Rights.)

Democracy is not convenient. It is not easy. It can even be clumsy at times. But it is what separates us from dictatorship. An oppressive government majority can be dictatorial. In this country, and I am no jurist, Parliament is still supposed to be supreme and no court should be allowed to thwart government. Or should they??

You may have been struck by the recent preposterous extension of the First Amendment in the U.S. A demented pastor in Florida burned the Quran. No one could stop him. He was exercising his “freedom.” America has no hate laws which would allow prosecution of a group or individual that inspires anger and hatred. The law has an old slogan that should be applied: “Many evils are subsumed under the rubric of free speech.”
So, to my loyal reader, I will not join your crusade to keep "god” in our national anthem, but I will not oppose your right to voice the opinion. I just happen to think you are wrong.

CORPORATE BOTTOM-FEEDING

It is appropriate and legitimate that major corporations, for all their protestations about being “good corporate citizens,” should look for the best deal they can get. If corporate planning is all about profits, then they have no alternative.

But, if corporate planning is also about “stakeholders” i.e. the government of the country where they make their living, and the citizens who work for them, and the customers who come to them, - then there is more to corporate management than short-terms gains.

I had never heard of Zug until I watched a recent 60 Minutes. It is a little town in Switzerland that is host to hundreds of head offices of corporations, many of them American. They are in Zug, for the same reason they moved to the “Celtic Tiger” Ireland. (And look where that one has gone.) They are there for a lower corporate tax rate which saves them billions. In the U.S. the corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world: 35%. In Canada there is a plan to lower the corporate tax rate. The government says it is to attract business. On the other side, a high corporate tax rate loses jobs.

Dare I evoke the old “he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind?” The Swiss don’t rely on a lower corporate tax rate any more than remote places like Lichtenstein or some sandbar of a Caribbean island. Bermuda, a very prosperous place, has for generations housed thousands of corporate “head offices.” All of this is companies taking their money offshore to avoid paying taxes in the place where they make their money in the first place! The joker is that they have to spend that tax gain offshore. The moment they repatriate those profits to the U.S (or to Canada I guess) they will be taxed. President Obama, during his campaign, vowed to end the practice of American corporations taking their money offshore. We’re still waiting for fulfillment of that empty promise.

There is nothing new about competition for corporate head offices and factories. In the U.S. despite its having some kind of national imperative, has states warring against each other to attract offices and factories. When BMW went looking for a place to locate in America, they were coaxed and seduced and lured by the state offering the best tax holidays and the lowest taxes.(Not to mention indifference to unions.) It’s called “bottom feeding.” The irony is that the minute some other jurisdiction offers and even better deal, they pick up and leave. It was not that many years ago that Harley Davidson was rescued from bankruptcy by federal funds. And it was only recently that they decided to vacate their historic home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (There was a lot more to it, with takeovers and corporate changes.)

The other irony, and this is the “whirlwind” comment – is that Ireland finds itself reduced from Celtic Tiger to fish bait. They have had to be bailed out by the E.U. Their largest bank could not survive a stress test. Ireland is proof, if you need it after what the U.S. meltdown proved, that if you overheat your economy and let the “invisible hand” of the marketplace take over, you run a risk. Ireland, with its lower tax rates suddenly found itself overwhelmed with major companies setting up shop.(Long before that they gave tax-free benefits to celebrities who would buy homes and come to live in Ireland.) There were thousands of jobs created. Prosperity was raising the cost of everything, especially real estate. Giving lower taxes meant companies suffering under the burden of that 35% American tax could save billions. It was another of those “win-win” situations. Except that in the same way that an advancing army lengthens its lines of communications, the economy lengthened the hazards of overheating. Just imagine the forgone revenues. The irony of coursed is that without those low corporate tax rates, there would have been no taxes to forego.

And because there is more than one direction an economy will go, “up” suddenly evaporates. The world financial crisis hammered businesses in a country that had already sold the farm on corporate taxes.

Who is to blame? Certainly not the corporations whose imperative is to show profits. Certainly not the consumer who drools at the thought of more jobs and high priced real estate and a building boom and all the other familiar “bursting bubble” stuff.

It is hard to assign blame. In Canada the Conservatives are determined to get in the race with the other tax-cutting countries. High corporate taxation is not good for business, or so they say. But where do you stop? There can be no international agreement about rates. It would be like a cartel operating in restraint of trade.

Come to think of it….