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.
Friday, 17 March 2017
Sunday, 22 January 2017
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.