The acrimony at city council seems to be stepping up a notch these days. There is definitely jostling going on for the 2010 race for mayor. There are larger factors at work, though, that explain the ever-increasing divide at city council.
The U.S. is the largest economy in the world and as such is the ideological compass for the world. Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the compass has been pointing heavily in the free-market direction. It was privatize this and cut government that. This was a time when government was asked to step aside to unleash the wisdom of the market. The compass pointed to the far right.
Recent events have shown that not all is right. The first hint was in the 2006 U.S. mid-term elections. The Democrats won 51 per cent of the Senate seats and 53 per cent of the seats in the House of Representatives.
A seismic shift to the left occurred during the recent financial crisis. In the spring of 2008, Bear Stearns, the fifth largest investment bank in the U.S., was allowed to fail and be bought up on the cheap by J.P. Morgan. By the fall of 2008, though, the U.S. government bailed out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG. The wise market began to look pretty dumb. The god of the market was knocked off the pedestal and government intervention was suddenly back in style.
A further shift to the left happened when Barack Obama was elected U.S. president last fall. Through shear eloquence, Obama was able to reframe the political conversation from “me” to “we.” With this, Obama ran on a platform that included real environmental and health care reform. In particular, Obama wanted to make the health care system more affordable and accessible. He also proposed to create five million green jobs in the next 10 years to make the U.S. a world leader in renewable energy and on climate change.
Of note, though, Obama received only 53 per cent of the vote from his fellow Americans, not an overwhelming endorsement. How far left the political spectrum has shifted in the U.S. is debatable. Has there been a systemic shift to the left that will be felt for many years to come or is this just a temporary phenomenon based on the charisma of Obama?
The winds of change have swept across the Canadian border. In January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a $40-billion stimulus package over the next two years. Incredibly the Conservative government is projecting a $34-billion deficit in the next fiscal year. Harper implemented this despite vowing in October 2008 that he would not run a deficit. The Conservatives also bailed out General Motors and Chrysler to the tune of $4 billion.
Harper has been forced to run a deficit and bail out businesses. The choice was to remain in power and implement policies not on the Conservative platform or to be voted out. Harper decided he wanted to keep his job. Clearly the federal political spectrum has shifted left, but the political failure of Stephane Dion’s Green Shift and the fact that we still have Harper as our prime minister shows Canada still leans to the right.
Has there been a shift here in Alberta? The Alberta Government still seems hell bent on privatizing more of our health-care system. In addition, during the recent oil boom, Premier Ed Stelmach repeatedly refused to touch the brake on the economy. The times though are slightly a-changin’. Despite being illegal, the Conservatives are forecasting a $4.7-billion deficit this year. Government intervention is still a dirty word, though. There is no stimulus package here. In fact the Conservatives are decreasing their spending by two per cent this year. And a deficit is forecasted because of an estimated 11 per cent decrease in revenues.
The winds of change have even blown through Calgary, but those on the far right on city council are not budging. This makes sense. Calgary is the epicentre of the free market ideology in Canada. Calgary’s bread and butter is the oil and gas industry. Another factor is that the economic downturn hasn’t seemed to hit Calgary that hard yet. As of the end of March, unemployment in Calgary was 5.8 per cent, compared to 8.3 per cent across Canada. The price of oil has rebounded beyond $60 per barrel.
The world is moving left and is leaving free market and anti-environmental ideologues behind. Feeling threatened, those on the far right on council are staging desperate last stands on issues like Plan It, the pesticide bylaw, and the Memorial Drive Promenade.
The writing is on the wall. If Harper and Stelmach have had to do an about-face on issues, then eventually even those city councillors on the far right will have to, as well.


Comments: 5
Cherimac wrote:
on May 28th, 2009 at 8:30am Report Abuse
shorbay wrote:
We do not, nor have we, had free market economics in North America since prior to the Great Depression. Socialists (and I don't mean leftists, I mean true-blooded "take from the rich and give to the lazy" communists) continue to set up anyone with a conservative tag (ie. Bush and Reagan) as champions of a free-market strategy, because it serves their agenda of painting right wing economic ideas as responsible for what we are going through. Yet the aforementioned men both ran interventionist governments that engaged in crony capitalism and colluded with central banks and corrupt international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. Just because jokers on Fox news are convinced these men are Saints of the free market, doesn't mean that rational minded individuals see them as much more than tax shifters!
Taken as a whole, the military industrial complex, fueled by constant war and the Great Society have allowed government to grow and have caused democracy to suffer.
That is fine, be appeased. Settle for your hand outs and slavery, but anyone who cares about freedoms and personal responsibility knows that whether it be Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or a Bush behind the wheel, our prosperity and independence will only further slip from our grasp until we return to true free society principles.
on Jun 6th, 2009 at 2:28pm Report Abuse
fang wrote:
You're involved in a semantic debate surrounding the terms "free market". But you resort to an argument style that consists of stating that you, the-enlightened-elite, know what this oh so important key to "prosperity and independence" means but that the rest of us, the stupid dribble drinking sheep, don't.
So, I ask (again) where are the facts that show that a growing government hurts democracy?
Where are the facts that show the "true free society principles" will increase our prosperity?
Claiming that the "true free society principles" will grant independence is a tautology - of course having a society with more freedoms makes the members of that society more free ... that's the definition of free. So what's the point in stating that?
I also resent your "rich or lazy" generalization - I am neither rich, nor lazy.
Bah - I really think you have a lot of good to contribute to this discussion (you're obviously knowledgeable on the subject as per our previous conversation) - so it's really frustrating to see you resort to calling everyone who's not rich lazy and to see you write another 4 paragraphs that are devoid of useful information.
ps. I still haven't read those books - but I still plan to.
At the very least - link to your previous comments to back you up - in that thread we covered a set of books to read and other pieces of useful information that support your claims. :)
on Jun 6th, 2009 at 6:21pm Report Abuse
shorbay wrote:
I appreciate your response and your constant resistance to over-generalized statements! However, as you know from before, my big issue is simply that I feel I need to challenge the automatic assumption that what we have experienced under Bush, Reagan and other "conservative" or "free-market" leaders really echoes the ideals of those who truly embrace liberty and open market systems.
To be honest fang, I believe in the ideal of free market capitalism (in the same way someone on the left might have a romanticized idea of a Utopian society), but I don't think it takes a catalogue of links and references to prove that the market does not run unfettered by corruption and government intervention. The drug war, the federal reserve, manipulation of interest rates, layers of government departments and regulations, are all barriers to a free society.
For the record I am not an outright libertarian; there are certainly flaws in the notion of a perfect invisible hand. However, the regulations I consider necessary for providing correction for glitches in the system (such as monopolization) are few and far between. For the market to work, not only would we have to regulate less, we would actually need to revisit regulation and law that already exists! Take bankruptcy laws for instance, and the very notion of incorporation. This sort of meddling has taken away (to some degree) the element of risk that is necessary in a free market system - just as unconstitutional bail-outs have done. We complain that corporations and big-wigs on wall street are unaccountable, but it is often our very own government and legal systems that make them so!
In my opinion fang, most times in history where a government has stepped in to take control of some area of society it has been to serve their own ambitions, which usually amounts to an increase in control, taxation, size and power. Under Bush and Obama the scary aspect of their rule has been that, in many cases (such as declaration of war) they are pursuing expansion of government jurisdiction without even a nod to congress. I am sure that this executive branch power grab has to be at least a little terrifying to most people.
Do you really trust the government that much? Pull up a picture of Stephen Harper's face and ask yourself if you think he serves any interests other than your own. The military-industrial complex simply states that the larger a government grows the stronger an interest outside forces will have in controlling that government. As someone who I gather sits on the left side of the fence, I am sure that you especially know all about the power and lack of accountability that can be attributed to corporations. That power and avarice pales in comparison to banking institutions and the big money families who sit behind the curtain throughout the world. JFK talked about this, Eisenhower obviously addressed it, the very framers of the US constitution tried to build a system that could protect against it.
on Jun 13th, 2009 at 8:33am Report Abuse
fang wrote:
To be honest - I think I probably agree with you more than you think.
I just like to have all the information at my fingertips - and I hope that future readers who stop by and have similar questions to me would ask the same.
In any case, I can't make you link to or support your claims. In the end it's up to you.
I don't trust the government that much - and I love this statement:
"We complain that corporations and big-wigs on wall street are unaccountable, but it is often our very own government and legal systems that make them so! "
I totally agree. Have a good weekend man, it's beautiful out.
on Jun 13th, 2009 at 3:50pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)