Friday, 17 March 2017

My contribution to trivia - a possibly fun fact about BC's premiers

In the interests of populating this neglected blog with something, anything, really anything, I decided to undertake a small piece of historical research.  One of those little lines of inquiry where the answer is an either open field for thought, or just another piece of useless trivia.  But mine is not to reason why, mine is just to tell you what I found.

It goes like this:

The modern history of BC politics usually begins with the ascent to power of WAC Bennett.  He first took office as premier in the summer of 1952, nearly 65 years ago.

Counting Bennett, BC has elected 8 premiers up to and including Christy Clark.  The others are Dave Barrett, Bill Bennett, Bill Vander Zalm, Mike Harcourt, Glen Clark, and Gordon Campbell.  Three others (Rita Johnston, Dan Miller and Ujjal Dosanjh)  served as premier without being elected, each taking office after a mid-term resignation by their predecessor.  Fine people though they are, they don't count for the purpose of today's exercise.

Now most people would say that this long era has been characterized by a swing between, on the one hand, a coalition party of the centre-right (first Social Credit, then BC Liberals) and on the other hand a coalition party of the left or centre-left (the NDP).  The centre-right has won every election since 1952 but three: 1972 (Barrett), 1991 (Harcourt) and 1996 (Glen Clark).  Five elected premiers of the centre-right; three of the centre-left.  The centre-right has been in power for (roughly) 52 of the last 65 years.  That's quite a run.

Here's my fun fact.  Of the five elected Social Credit and BC Liberal premiers, only one, Gordon Campbell, had a university degree. Christy Clark attended university but did not graduate.  So far as I know, the other three (WAC Bennett, Bill Bennett and Bill Vander Zalm.) never attended university.

All three elected NDP premiers had university degrees.  In fact, they each appear to have had at least two degrees. (Barrett and Clark had masters' degrees and Harcourt a law degree).

Since you are wondering, the current NDP leader John Horgan also has two degrees.

Now as I say, I'm not sure if this means anything.  As a statistical survey, it's got an awfully small sample size.  Of course one question you could ask is whether in seeking high public office in this province it helps or hurts to have a university education. Some might say it's never electorally groovy to appear to be well-educated, especially in the era of you-know-who-down-South. But I'm more interested in how to advance the cause of post-secondary education as a key policy priority for government.  I've sometimes found it's harder to do that when you're speaking to someone who's enjoyed success in life without much formal education, as opposed to someone like me - who wouldn't have achieved anything in life without a post-secondary education.  Great things have been done for post-secondary education in BC under premiers of all stripes: for example, SFU was established during the long mandate of WAC Bennett, that Kelowna hardware store owner high school dropout.  But looking ahead, BC has no serious hope of social and economic prosperity in turbulent times without recognizing that education, education at the highest levels, is not just a wanna-have, but a must-have.  Yes for now we need welders.  But what we are really going to need are the people who can figure out what we're all going to do when all the welding is done by robots, a day that is coming much faster than most realize. And there's no place quite like a post-secondary education institution to help young minds develop those kinds of thinking skills. 

Sunday, 22 January 2017

That pathetic White House press conference yesterday

There's lots of discussion about yesterday's White House press conference. A few comments posted in a thread on a friend's Facebook site were "critical of the criticism" of this press conference, and one person then asked if anyone was concerned about the fact that there were apparently some negative comments in social media about Trump's son in the context of the inauguration. The author said "Republicans never attacked the Obamas' children." This is the kind of thing people afflicted by one-sided partisan blindness often say. Republican supporters in particular seem utterly incapable of acknowledging their role in massively increasing the personalization of American politics. I completely agree that Trump's 10 year old son should be off limits.  But the statement that Republicans - harumph! - had never criticized the Obamas' children yanked at the tripwire that usually holds me back from weighing into US political debates, and so I got my trusty trigger finger out and responded:
A Republican staffer named Elizabeth Lauren lost her job in late 2014 for criticizing the Obamas' daughters' dress at a Thanksgiving event. That took me five seconds to find via Google so I fully expect there are lots of other examples. After all, Obama was probably the first president to have to produce his birth certificate as a result of the campaign by a number of prominent Republicans led by the POTUS claiming there was 'credible evidence' that Obama was not born in the US. Then there was Trump's campaign co-chair in New York, who said Michelle Obama belonged in the zoo with a gorilla. And so on and so on ad nauseam. The really dangerous thing about conservative Republican zealots is not that they spout such appalling nonsense constantly, it's that they actually believe what they're saying.
It would be great if politics could be conducted on the plane of principle and policy, but that is not how the US election was fought. And no side did that more tenaciously than the Republicans. "Lock her up. Lock her up." Crooked Hillary. Lyin' Hillary. Indeed, they chose as their candidate a man who only sees the world personally, who has no interest in anything that is not personal.
That so-called press conference yesterday was an embarrassment to the office of the US President, and made the United States look foolish. This was, after all, the first occasion on which the White House had the opportunity to address the press in the briefing room. A moment of great promise for a presidency. A chance to define the relationship between a new President and the press. A world waits to hear what the POTUS will do with this opportunity. And his press secretary uses it to give a five minute lecture on crowd counts? I agree, the fact that his rant was error-filled is hardly the point (though I think media fact-checking will be essential under this new regime). The real point is that we now have a very clear insight (and it's not a surprising one) into the new President's abiding, all-consuming obsession. It's not jobs or liberty or peace or security or immigration policy or defence spending or health care. It's his personal popularity. As in, how dare you suggest (what anyone with eyes could see) the crowds were smaller at my inauguration! I'm the most popular President ever!
When you think of the things a moderately conservative Republican POTUS could do or at least encourage: improve the Affordable Care Act, undertake a major reform of the tax code, reform Sarbanes-Oxley, lead a renewed global initiative to expand free trade, for starters. An ambitious, principled, conservative agenda. Instead, Americans elected something quite different. And that pathetic little five minute excuse for a press conference yesterday was a revealing signal of what we're in for over the next four years.

Thursday, 22 December 2016

Somebody else's idea of my 2016 greatest hits list

A few days ago, the helpful folks at Spotify handily offered me a window into my life in 2016.  Okay, I doubt there was actually a human being involved in this, but a link appeared in my Spotify app entitled “Your Top Songs 2016.”

Hmm.  So they were keeping track?  Making a list?  Checking it twice? Finding out if I was naughty or nice? 

Well, I thought I should have a look.  So I did.  It’s not really a complete guide to 2016.  I still listen to CDs and iTunes (Oh boy do I like listening to my two San Fermin albums, and I usually listen to Shari Ulrich’s lovely record Everywhere I Go from start to finish and the Jackson Browne tribute album is a big favourite) but even so, the list says something about the moods I was in for much of 2016. 

Here’s the top 25.  See if you can figure me out:

1.       Not Dark Yet – the Jimmy LaFave version of the Bob Dylan song.

2.       Wisteria – Richard Shindell

3.       My Back Pages – the Bob Dylan 30th Anniversary Concert version

4.       Homecoming – Thomas Newman, from the soundtrack to “Bridge of Spies”

5.       So Are You To Me – eastmountainsouth

6.       Farewell to St. Dolores – Pine Hill Project

7.       Ain’t You Tired (End Title) – Thomas Newman, from the soundtrack to “The Help”

8.       Weight of the World – Dar Williams

9.       There Will Be Time – Mumford & Sons – Johannesburg

10.   Gethsemani Goodbye – Richard Shindell

11.   Wonders I’ve Seen – The Bills

12.   Strange News – Kairine Polwart

13.   More Than This – Lucy Kaplansky

14.   I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For – U2

15.   I Put a Spell on You – Annie Lennox

16.   Ship to Wreck – Florence + the Machine

17.   In Your Eyes – Peter Gabriel – the live version

18.   I Am A Town – Mary Chapin Carpenter

19.   Love’s Not Where we Thought We Left It – John Hiatt

20.   Hard Times – eastmountainsouth (the Stephen Foster song)

21.   So Familiar – Steve Martin

22.   33 “GOD” – Bon Iver

23.   Walking on Broken Glass – Annie Lennox

24.   In a Parade – Paul Simon

25.   Gimme Shelter – Rolling Stones

Thursday, 10 November 2016

Leonard Cohen. And me, I suppose.

So long Marianne; it’s time that we began, to laugh and cry and cry and laugh about it all again.

Tonight we think of Leonard Cohen.

I still have the songbook I purchased in the music store in West Point Grey where I took my first guitar lessons all those years ago: The Songs of Leonard Cohen.  With a picture of Cohen’s Greek visa - if that’s what it was - on the back cover. I wanted to learn how to play Suzanne, because everyone else could.  (It sounded so simple, though it wasn't.) Instead, I learned Bird on a Wire and So Long, Marianne. But really hardly ever played them. There was something impenetrably, ineffably unreachable in his unique juxtaposition of the sacred and the profane.  And I could never shake this feeling that they weren’t really songs; they were more like poetry barely set to music.  He was, I think, simply too adult for my 14 or 15 year old self.  It was far easier to set sail on the more approachable, or at least tuneful seas - flying machines and broken heartships - of Gordon Lightfoot, James Taylor and Neil Young.

Oddly enough, I returned to Leonard Cohen a few years later through a side door: Jennifer Warnes’ completely perfect record, Famous Blue Raincoat.  That punching drumbeat in First We Take Manhattan cracks across your mind like some kind of weapon.  Her duet with the man himself on Joan of Arc is a wild tour into the unknowable, unresolvable mystery of mysteries. Song of Bernadette, which I played so often the grooves wore out on the vinyl and still today can bring me close to tears: ‘so many hearts I find, broke like yours and mine, torn by what we’ve done and can’t undo’ - well, isn’t that life in a dozen words?  And anyway, I was just old enough by then to be entranced by the idea of a Jewish poet from Montreal who couldn’t leave all these Christian icons alone. Jennifer Warnes helped me see the music that completed the poetry.

And then again, a long interruption, until the album The Future, and its Closing Time, which I played and played and played again, not just because it really is hell to pay when the fiddler stops, but by then I guess I was maybe old enough to start thinking about closing time.  But young enough still to think that the answer was simply to party on, and hope the fiddler would never stop.

If you will forgive me a moment of excess, I think I can say that the first twenty thousand times I heard Hallelujah - including as k d laing sang it at the 2010 Olympics opening ceremony (we were there for rehearsal night) it meant something to me, but eventually all good things - even really, really good songs, wear out their welcome. Not Cohen’s fault, I know, but there it is. It’s a curious song.  I’ve always thought it’s a lot like Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA: there’s something superficially compelling about it that allows you to disregard the true darkness that lies within it.  Sometimes I hear people sing it and I say to myself, are you actually listening to what he’s saying?

Pico Iyer’s writings about Leonard Cohen’s life with Buddhists brought the man into focus in ways that could only cause you to rethink your own way of living, or at least it did that for me, and I give them both credit for doing that.

Leonard Cohen is a special treasure to Canadians, of course.  A Montrealer who made it big in the larger world and never completely let go of his roots.  Someone whose muse also never quite let go, and drove him to create, to mystify and enlighten and even entertain us into his 80’s; well, that’s a powerful inspiration in his own right.  He’s thought of as an icon of the 60’s, one of the greats of a long ago era who managed to reinvent himself into relevance again and again for six decades.  I think his work will last.  Context always matters; the time and place in which creation happens is always at least relevant.  But the art that truly endures can stand outside its time and place.  That is a right reserved to very few creators.  Leonard Cohen is surely one of them, an immortal.  Few people prepare so publicly for their own demise, but I always thought that he was preparing us for his departure as much as he was preparing himself. He’s gone now, but the words and the songs will live on.

The morning after the morning after, and it's not getting better

A day later, and the future still seems pretty dark to me.

Yesterday morning, Hillary Clinton conceded defeat with grace and dignity, and a resolute commitment to the inevitability of social progress, confirming our belief that these have always been her qualities.  President Obama began the process of transition. He invited the President-elect to the White House as soon as today.  And in a quite remarkable attempt to re-contextualize 18 months of bitter, impassioned and angry campaign rhetoric, he quaintly described US presidential elections as "intramural scrimmages".

Well, we're all getting along now, I guess.  At least no one it seems, is any longer describing the US voting system as rigged.

Commentators are well into the post-mortem analysis.  For many, of course, that will have to include an examination of the question: what went wrong with their confident prediction that Americans would reject Trump?  (Of course, in one sense, they did: Clinton won the popular vote.)

There will be lots of explanations.  Here’s one that needs considering.  I won’t remember the numbers perfectly, but they went something like this: compared with 2012, the Republican vote decreased by a bit less than a million (in round numbers, 61 million to 60 million); but the Democratic vote declined by as much as 6 million (66 to 60).  Overall, a lower turnout.  But perhaps what really happened is simply that Republicans voted Republican, while millions of Democrats abandoned their party and candidate.  (These would probably be the blue collar workers who once formed the backbone of the New Deal Democratic coalition and who are now the bedrock of Republican support in the Rust Belt states where the election was won and lost.)

The other narrative that has returned to the media discourse as an explanation of Tuesday’s outcome is the argument that what really happened is that voters decided, as they do from time to time, to vote for change rather than continuity.  In crudely simple terms, it’s like this: “we’ve given those bastards a pretty good run at it; now it’s time to elect a different set of bastards.”  (The argument is pursued by Gail Collins in her op-ed in today’s New York Times.)

This idea was once very elegantly explained by the American philosopher Robert Nozick in his book, The Examined Life.  He called it the "zigzag" of politics.  He wrote,

“The electorate I see as being in the following situation: Goals and programs have been pursued for some time by the party in power, and the electorate comes to think that’s far enough, perhaps even too far.  It’s now time to right the balance, to include other goals that have been, recently at least, neglected or given too low a priority, and it’s time to cut back on some of the newly instituted programs, to reform or curtail them.”

It’s a philosopher’s argument (I don’t think he even names a political party throughout the whole of his discussion).  It implies, plausibly, that voters are rarely as entrenched in their adherence to the positions and views of parties and candidates as are the parties (and their ideologues).  It argues for a balance over time that ensures that different interests, priorities, and aspirations eventually all have their chance.  It underestimates the role that personality - as opposed to policy - plays in election outcomes.  But it is not a bad way of explaining one of the best features of healthy democracies, which is that long term one-party rule is the exception, rather than the norm.

So maybe what happened is that Americans - or at least some of them - were simply voting this week for change.

Fine. I can comprehend that analysis.  I might even agree with it.  But it doesn’t help.
Americans may have voted for change. But what they got was Donald Trump.  And that’s where the fear starts to rise again in the pit of my stomach.

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

US Election night - first thoughts

As I write, late Tuesday night, the races in the last few states are too close to call, and there’s as much chance of a Trump victory as a Clinton victory, or even, perhaps, god help us, a tie.  As I write, the TV commentators are simply overwhelmed by the failure of their own understanding - informed and encouraged by the false promise of opinion poll reliability - of the country they are paid to claim they understand.

Whatever the ultimate result, over 50 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Whose vision of the world is profoundly hate- and fear-filled, and utterly narcissistic.  And who appears to have - or at least demonstrates - not a particle of respect for the institutions of American governance. There are surely lessons to be learned from this for us here in Canada.  I do not think this is a time for smugness.  This is a time to reflect on the corrosive power of disaffection and alienation.

We ought to spend time thinking about the lessons of this US election. At the very least, we are called not to take for granted what we trumpet as our Canadian tolerance for diversity, our compassion, and our respect for difference.  For my part, I think I need to spend more time trying to understand the reality that intolerance in the United States is not just the strongly held ethos of a vocal minority, but possibly something close to a majority view, at least of those willing and able to vote.  A frightening thought.  If the country which is the home of pluralism (e pluribus unum) is actually ambivalent about diversity, that is a worrying thing.

But tonight I want to offer only one comment for our continuing consideration.  America, it seems to me, is a country deeply, profoundly, divided on the question whether government can be trusted to do or manage or solve anything.  It’s not quite the same thing as a vigorous debate about whether, on an issue by issue basis, government has got it right.  It’s a deeper view, a view that government is simply, irretrievably and irredeemably illegitimate in all imaginable ways.

How does such a view come to be so widely held?  Plainly, those who are alienated from the benefits of government, who see or feel nothing of the benefits of social and economic progress, the rule of law, or prosperity are eventually bound to question the basic legitimacy of government as a force for good. My worry is that all of the ingredients for institutional distrust are as alive and well here on the north side of the 49th parallel as they are in the United States.  Think for a moment of the last time a major decision was made by a government, an agency, or an appellate court in our country that was not immediately followed by extensive media coverage of the voices of those who do not simply disagree but completely reject the legitimacy of the process that led to the decision.  We increasingly have come to expect that this is the basic framework of our discourse.  Someone is given the power to decide. They decide. Someone immediately questions the legitimacy of the decision.  You never hear the voice that says, “I argued hard for my perspective, but I respect that others have made a different decision.”  A voice that, in my respectful view, is critically necessary if we are to function as a democracy.

I have no trouble with the idea of dissent and disagreement; they are fundamental to democracy.  But if our public discourse is dominated by voices that simply reject the legitimacy of any decision by any decision-maker, we will sooner or later lose any capacity to decide difficult issues with any confidence.  We will lose confidence in the capacity of government or its agencies to do the difficult business of governing.  We will come to hate government and everything it represents.  And after we’ve done that for long enough, we will start electing people who represent the perfect expression of that perspective: people who have no experience in public service, who know nothing about the complexities of the world, who traffic only in mindlessly simple, misleading slogans.  People, in other words, like Donald Trump.

My question tonight, then, is what can we do in this country to build confidence, support, and yes, trust, in our political institutions?  For all their failings, we simply need to cut them the slack to do the most difficult business of deciding and governing.  We are so accustomed to hearing the voices of those who challenge and question.  My concern is that in the long run we will only continue to earn the right to disagree if we can, at least sometimes, accept the right of others to decide even when we do disagree.  This is essential to the functioning of government.  It is also essential to civilisation - to have the grace to accept defeat, to join hands sometimes with your opponents, to applaud the achievement of a society that has nurtured both government and the right to disagree.  Trump won - or at least achieved surprising success - by campaigning against government, against even the idea of government.  That way lies madness, or at least chaos.  We must choose a different path.

Saturday, 29 October 2016

More thoughts on political fund-raisers

It’s a rainy Saturday in Vancouver, and I’m not really enthralled by the book I’m supposed to be reading. So I decided to sit down at the computer and start typing.  No apologies for length.  It’s pretty much just an edited, write-it-down-as-it-comes to me stream of commentary.


Cash for access. Pay to play.  It’s remarkable how a clever turn of phrase has the power to both illuminate and distort our understanding of things.  And to change how we judge the world.

As I write, the public clamour to change the rules of political fund-raising intensifies, encouraged by indignant newspaper editorials, righteous political columnists and the usual radio talk show callers.  Already one premier, Kathleen Wynne of Ontario, has yielded to the pressure and promised reform.  I have to say I think it is inevitable that other political leaders will, sooner or later, fall into line. That is to be regretted.  Sometimes, even in a democracy, the people are wrong.  The changes being demanded will make our politics more complicated, more expensive, and more unwieldy. They will do nothing to improve the quality or honesty of political decision-making.  And they will do nothing to curb whatever corruption actually exists; rather, as I will explain later, they are more likely to encourage it.

The way Canadians practice democracy is the envy of most of the rest of the world.  The rule of law is respected.  Our politicians have integrity.  While it’s unlikely that most people could demand a one-on-one meeting with the Prime Minister, it’s actually not difficult to meet with your local representative, whether that be a municipal councillor, a member of the provincial legislature, or an MP.  The views of crackpot conspiracy theorists and Internet trolls aside, corruption is the rare exception, not the rule. Political office is neither bought nor sold.  Nor are political decisions.  To repeat something I said earlier this week, the fact that we can all remember the instances of corruption is evidence of how little there is.  

Until a few months ago, political fund-raising events - dinners, coffee parties, picnics, summer barbecues - had been a feature of political life in Canada (as in most democracies) for as long as anyone could remember.  Some of my own earliest political memories are of political fund-raisers.  When I was in high school my father, an active volunteer in the federal Liberal Party,  was often the principal organizer of the annual federal Liberal leader’s dinner in Vancouver.  Once or twice we were trundled downtown to spend the night of the dinner in a hotel so that my parents didn’t need to get a babysitter for us.  The lure was that we might - if we were lucky - meet a politician or two.  I met the first Prime Minister Trudeau that way.  As this discussion about political fundraising has escalated over the past few weeks, I’ve been thinking about that meeting, which was probably 1971.  Regrettably, I did not use the occasion of our meeting - with just his wife, my parents, and my sisters in the room - to try to lobby for a highway construction contract or tax change.  I suppose I could be excused for being sixteen and not realizing this is what you’re supposed to do when you’re in a room with a politician.  But I am quite sure of this. If I or anyone else had suggested to Pierrre Trudeau that he could have been in some way bought by the fact that someone had paid a few hundred dollars to attend a dinner in his honour, he would have laughed himself silly, to the point where you were soon made to realize what a fool you were even to think that this was possible.

Is there a difference between a crowd of a thousand in a hotel ballroom and a gathering of a dozen people in a private home?  Undoubtedly.  But it’s actually not a difference that matters.  Again, I’ve been in both those rooms.  I’ve been at the very back of the ballroom, and watched as politicians worked the room, moving from table to table, shaking hands, having their picture taken, and from time to time moving off to one side to have a few private words with someone.  I’ve also been in rooms where the gathering was much smaller, perhaps ten or a dozen people in lengthy and close conversation with a candidate or elected politician.  To be clear, these events are rarely ever open to the public - they’re not advertised in the local newspaper or radio.  That’s because the goal is to raise money, not convene a public consultation session.  And in case you want to know (because you’ve never been at one of these events), they are not actually occasions for influence-peddling.  Rather, there’s usually some cheerleading for the guest of honour or the party, some speeches, and sometimes a question and answer session.  Oh, and of course, the rubber chicken.   At these events the politician is making his or her case in front of a room of supporters.  She is asking and hoping for their continued support.  He wants their help in the upcoming election.  She is trying out new policy proposals.  He is praising his cabinet and caucus colleagues.  She is poking fun at the opposition.  He is scaring the room into fearing the prospect that the other party will be elected. In short, it’s politics.  

And no matter whether there are ten people in the room or 1500, everyone has bought a ticket (or is there because someone else did.)  Everyone, in other words, has paid to play.

Is all of that corrupt? Again, I know how many voices have lined up on the other side of this question, but the answer is no. Not even close.

In fact, these events are indispensable to participatory democracy. They bring people into the process. They are not, of course, a substitute for the obligation every elected official has to be directly and personally accountable to their electorate.  No politician leaving a fund-raising dinner thinks that their job of working for the public has been discharged by a night of politicking with party faithful.  But sometimes they are cheered by the fact that they have supporters, people who are willing to part with some of their own hard-earned money to help ensure that the next campaign will be adequately funded.

The argument is made that political fund-raising events offer privileged access to the rich, and exclude those without means.  That argument confuses partisan politics with public duty.  Partisan politics costs money, and the money has to be raised somehow.  Fundraising events are a time-honoured, and perfectly honourable way of doing that. The morning after the dinner, the politician is back at work in their community, as accountable to those who disagree with her as to her supporters. 

The argument is made that this money buys influence and favourable decisions.  Well, this is the kind of argument that sloppy thinkers (and opportunistic opposition politicians) make because it’s a clever way of implying that politicians are corrupt without actually saying it.  That’s the mischief in the phrases pay to play and cash for access.  Where real corruption exists, it’s a crime.  It should be investigated and prosecuted.  But at the same time, thereare dozens and dozens of examples of politicians who made decisions directly contrary to the interests and wishes of their principal supporters.  Think Gordon Campbell and the carbon tax.  Think NDP governments when they have legislated public sector unionworkers back to work.  These things get done because politicians govern according to their conception of the public interest, not in order to curry favour with their donors.  Are there exceptions to this rule?  Of course.  But at the same time, do you think that politicians could long hold office if they did not have supporters?  People willing to knock on doors, post leaflets, erect signs, update voter id lists, call voters, make coffee, open their houses for coffee parties, drive people to and from polls, scrutineer the count, and yes, donate the money necessary to support this work? 

And yes, the money is necessary. Our political process is already more than adequately subsidized by taxpayers.  Elections Canada - the bureacrats who audit and enforce the mind-numbing assembly of rules that govern our electoral process - spent $443 million on the last election.  On top of that the two major parties spent approximately $40 million on their respective campaigns. A great deal of that money is subsidized by taxpayers through the political contributions tax credit.  But not all of it.  Fund-raising is still necessary to pay for the balance. 

I complete reject the suggestion that our political process should be paid for entirely by taxpayers.  I believe that the work needed to obtain financial support directly from citizens is an excellent way of ensuring that political parties actually pay attention to citizens. (Every citizen is a potential donor.)  In addition, most models I have seen for heavier public subsidy of political parties tend to encourage what I would describe as a change-averse political process.  All the parties that have traditionally done well get most of the funds.  It’s harder for new parties to break in.  That’s not healthy.  So some fund-raising is necessary.

Should we ban political fund-raisers?  Well, let me ask this question: how would we do that?  Let me be a lawyer for a moment and ask whether it is possible to define what a political fund-raiser is in terms that can be readily understood by those expected to comply with the law, and easily enforced by officials and courts.  Would it include an event where there is no actual ticket price payable ahead of time, but where phone calls are made after the event to solicit donations?  Would it include an event such as, say, a local Chamber of Commerce or union local or environmental organization dinner, where the featured guest is an elected politician and there’s someone in the crowd meeting everyone, asking for their business cards, and planning to call or email them the next day to see if they would support the politician?  What if you really do want to buttonhole a politician and you can’t get anyone to organize a small group dinner - because they’re against the law - and so what you do instead is to pay the amount necessary to secure an elite membership in a local charity, which guarantees you a seat at the head table at the next event, so that you will sit beside the politician?

I can assure you that all of these things happen now, and they will continue to happen.  If you’re actually worried about whatever it is you think is meant by “pay to play” then please don’t fool yourself into thinking it will all somehow go away if some more rules are made.  This is what I meant earlier about the risk that the cure may actually be worse than the disease - if the wrong rule is enacted, the problem (if it is one) won’t go away, it will just pop up in a different, possibly more pernicious form somewhere else.

And I haven’t even offered up the most difficult example with the proposed prohibition.  What’s the difference between a typical political fund-raiser and the dinner at the annual constituency meeting or party convention?  Again, you’ve paid to participate in the event - you’ve paid to join the party, and you’ve paid the fee to attend the convention, and you’ve paid the special ticket price for the dinner, and may event have paid the additional fee for the special pre-dinner party attended by all members of caucus and Cabinet.  Isn’t this starting to look a lot like whatever it is that people mean when they say “pay to play”?  Are we going to ban politicians from attending constituency meetings or party conventions? 

The direct and intended consequence of any prohibition of this kind of fund-raising will be to isolate politicians from people. To cut them off from their supporters.  Indeed, to cut them off from everyone. It’s ridiculous.

Another suggestion for ridding politics of the scourge of fund-raisers is to enact a donation limit of, say, $100.  Well-intentioned, I suppose.  So how does that work?  If you’re a constituency MP or federal candidate who needs to raise $200,000 to pay for the cost of an election campaign, that means you need to find at least 2,000 people willing to donate $100 to your campaign.  I won’t say that’s impossible.  I will say it’s close to impracticable.  How will you find those 2,000 people?  Remember, you can’t hold any public events for that purpose because you don’t have the money to hire the meeting room and you can’t charge admission.  Do you knock on doors?  Come up with some clever viral online strategy?  Or do you hire ten people to mount an organized telephone and online solicitation campaign to try to raise the funds?  Let me say this:  people who have never had any experience in campaigning for, or holding elected office, often think all of that is easy.  In my experience, having done it and watched it for nearly two generations it’s actually very hard.  Forcing politicians to fund-raise this way will probably mean that they spend way more time fund-raising than they do now.  Is that a good thing?  I don’t think so.

There are some who wish our politics was less expensive.  While I sympathize with the wish, it’s not realistic.  There are already limits on campaign expenditures.  I don’t know whether their impact has been studied, but I’m guessing experts would say it would be hard to mount the kind of campaign which actually reaches voters without spending amounts in the general range of current campaign expenditure limits.  

Lastly, I will say again what I said earlier this week.  At some point, high becomes too high.  But the cure is not to legislate prohibitions on this important feature of our democratic politics, but rather to impose strict standards of disclosure.  Public disclosure of donors and amounts.  This is a situation where, to use the old saw, sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Don’t add yet one more set of rules to our already burdensomely complex electoral processes.  Don’t require taxpayers to pay for still more legions of Elections Act officials.  Tell the public how much money is being donated and by whom.  And let voters be the judge of how much is too much.