Neoliberalism As Water Balloon on Vimeo

At the request of one of my esteemed commenters (incidentally an avowed Liberal but of the rarest kind: intelligent and thoughtful), I am spending time on practical and prosaic considerations beckoning in these hard times. Thanks to the blog Relentlessly Progressive Political Economy for first drawing my attention to this brilliant video, in which even Liberals will be able to detect fundamental contradictions in the very system they hold so dear!

more about "Neoliberalism As Water Balloon on Vimeo", posted with vodpod

Translating Kinsella #3 (Updated)

Once again, for the benefit of the spin impaired and the Kinsella challenged, a summary and translation of the week that was in Kinsella land.

Thanksgiving weekend marked the release of Narcissiev 2.0 (the imperious and arrogant Liberal leader gets a bit of a makeover to appear more modest, compassionate, a kind of newfound sympathy for the poor and working class folk). If I didn't know better (you know, Kennedy's open support for Bob Rae and all), I'd think he'd taken some lessons from Gerrard Kennedy on how to manipulate the public into thinking you actually care about poverty rather than votes.

The work week begins with a shot at the NDP, who apparently weren't quick enough to layout the possibility that Harper will attempt to engineer his own government's defeat with the HST. What Warren doesn't tell you, however, is that the only reason this is now a very real possibility is that the Liberals' ill-timed attempt to bring down the government, their failure to bring anything to the table, and their incessant internal squabbling have offered Harper an opportunity at forming a majority government the next time Canadians go to the polls. If Harper is secretly licking his lips to have an election, we have no one but the Liberals to thank!

Which brings me to the overspun phrase of the week in Kinsella land: "less unpopular". When Kinsella refers to the Conservatives having become "less unpopular" what he really means is Liberals are free falling and Conservatives are steadily edging toward a majority. I ask a similar question that I asked last week. If Harper is reviled, and the Conservatives are less unpopular, what does that make Ignatieff and the Liberals? Wouldn't that make Ignatieff the profoundly reviled leader of a grossly unpopular party???

Not to worry, Kinsella's week was only beginning, and he quickly found a bone to chew on for the remainder of the week: Conservative pork barreling and a politics of arrogance and entitlement. Now, all decent people should be indignant at the Conservatives' deployment of tax payer dollars, especially when Harper railed so strongly against the Liberals when they engaged in likewise cynical and disingenuous politics, while running on a platform of accountability and transparency).

However, here's my question. Does a man who brazenly puts on his website that he ran the war rooms of Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty not sound stupefyingly hypocritical when claiming to be aggrieved by Harper's Conservatives? Relegating the Sponsorship scandal aside and to the past (although let's face it, the not so distant nor the not so irrelevant past which today's Liberals want us to think it is), Kinsella has present ties with the McGuinty Liberals.

McGuinty Liberal governments have been arrogant and corrupt to the core and plagued by scandal after scandal. The recent eHealth boondoggle was only the most recent and largest (to date that is) of the reckless and grossly negligent use of public treasury by the McGuinty Liberals. McGuinty's governments have deployed "slush funds", and have been repeatedly scolded by the auditor general for lacking transparency and accountability in their accounting practices and their disbursement of public treasury. McGuinty governments are no less arrogant nor any less filled with overweening entitlement than Harper's Conservative government. McGuinty Liberals may appear a little more contrite when caught acting grievously negligent with our money, but don't let that fool you. From a Liberal point of view, it is not pork barreling that is wrong, it is getting caught; for that may cost them the only thing a Liberal values: YOUR VOTE!

As someone who very carefully observed and documented the negative attack by Kinsella et al on my now MPP, Cheri DiNovo, I have to say that perhaps even more dismaying than the kind of politics exhibited by Liberals, was the lesson drawn by Liberals. For this young brood of Liberals, which takes their cue from Kinsella (the Cherniaks, the Bowie's, Derek "Born with a Tail" Raymaker etc.), the chilling lesson was not that attempting to destroy a person's long earned reputation and good name is wrong, but that their error was the way in which they attempted to defame and dishonour this person in public. As they claimed at the time, they should have just released "the information" to media and let the media run with it and not they themselves.

Update:
Michael Narcissieff v2.0 codenamed TIN MAN FINDS HEART seems well under way. Seems that having not managed to dupe adults, "Miky" has opted for a longer term strategy (pretend you're Mr. Rogers, snow the kids with your false pretense and hope they vote for you when they're older). Problem is, in the couple of photos I've seen from this ridiculous photo-op, the children haven't appear the least bit impressed. As far as the announcement is concerned, Stageleft has the best riposte. What's next, a raise the minimum wage campaign, an outcry for affordable housing, for increasing welfare and disability benefits. Remember when Ignatieff sought "real" reform on employment insurance to protect workers. Well he quickly abandoned that when he thought he might have a shot at winning a forced election. Not even a child is fooled by Ignatieff's recent LEFT TURN.

Not quite the same as covering a Beatles song with Yo-Yo Ma backing up, but I believe

A little less Narcissieff Beta version 2.0 released .

Not wanting to bad mouth the Daily Bread Food Bank because I've volunteered and worked with them in the past and they do amazing work, but Daily Bread definitely knows which side of the toast is buttered. Being essentially a Liberal run organization (the last two executive directors were Liberal MP Gerrard Kennedy and Kennedy campaign booster Gail Nyberg), it is often out of step with other anti-poverty groups and often the first to lend some credibility to the Ontario Liberals' disingenuous attempts to deal with housing and poverty.

Note the political mileage that Gerrard Kennedy has extracted from sitting as ED of the Daily Bread Food Bank. Sitting on a board usually means very little, but for Kennedy it has enabled him to masquerade as an anti-poverty activist and extricate votes from "progressive" swing voters.

Still, hat's off to Daily Bread which despite being hijacked by Liberals keeps equality and justice alive. Pretty much my feelings about democracy. Despite neoliberals (Conservatives & Liberals) best efforts to either pervert or mitigate it, a democracy of the people will prevail.

Update:

"Michael" is such a compassionate man of the people; not an elitist bone in his body (unless you're Ukranian but that's a story for another day). For a more kindhearted advocate of the poor and downtrodden, perhaps only..... Gerrard Kennedy.

As well, for all you social conservatives don't fail to notice that Michael & Zsuzsanna are well suited to your nukelar (cf. Dubya) family values discourse. One "Hail Mary directed at "progressives"; one "Our Father" aimed at social conservatives (I mean, Ward, June, and Wally Cleaver- don't think "the Beav" can vote yet).

No counterspin needed, the recent spin attempts unwind themselves.

Translating Kinsella #2

For the benefit of the spin impaired and the Kinsella challenged, I thought I might provide another installment of translating Kinsella. The tortured and defiled word of the moment is "brilliant", a word used by Kinsella to describe Paul Martin's cheap shot at the Conservatives. You see, in Kinsellaland "brilliant" means predictably partisan, shallow analysis, and a word to be bandied about when trying desperately to survive an unthinkably abysmal couple of weeks. This isn't, however, about piling on; rather about counterspinning. So here we go in the week that was Kinsella's "musings" (remember back when the blog was named Kinsella's "musings" as if reflection not deflection were the impetus for the writing).

The week begins with textbook disavowal, under the guise of Kinsella's media rules: "When the National Post editorial board says you are making political mistakes, it means you aren't, at all. Keep doing what you are doing." Deny, deny, deny in the hope that it is a lie.

Then, having been outdone at manipulating the Canadian public by Stephen Harper, Kinsella must have been beside himself. That gratuitous photo-op could have been "Michael's", and the Liberals not the Conservatives could be flirting with a majority. In referring to Harper as "reviled Conservative Prime Minister", what is he saying about Ignatieff, whose approval ratings have steadily declined and are well below Harper's?

To be honest, what really made me take notice this past week was Kinsella's shameless deployment of a true working class hero of the Left, Pete Seeger, singing "Michael, row the boat ashore". While in keeping with contemporary Liberal ideology's penchant for saying, promising, and doing whatever it takes to win, it still seems a little hypocritical to reach that far Left for inspiration. Secondly, the song itself is a kind of "we shall overcome" anthem, referencing the archangel Michael, field commander of the Army of God. So Warren needed his batteries recharged, we can all appreciate that. I just hope he didn't identify with the role of the Liberal archangel in the service of the Liberal Cause. Or worse, that he didn't see "Michael", Ignatieff that is, as the archangel.

The rest of Kinsella's week is essentially consumed with flailing attacks on Harper, ending the week finally on a much less abrasive, almost conciliatory tone. One might think Ignatieff is about to set sail in an different direction. Seems as though Ignatieff is tired of being "framed" by the Conservatives. Apparently we're about to see a more cooperative and congenial Ignatieff. It's almost as though Ignatieff might have come around to the realization that the political pursuit of "the common good" is not necessarily equatable with repeating old cards about Conservatives, nor the self-evident entitlement of the Liberals to govern. Apparently, you have to bring some ideas to the table. Perhaps rather than a coronation in Vancouver, the federal Liberals could have discussed, I don't know, policy. Anyway, I suspect that since Ignatieff is seemingly about to adopt Jack Layton's position, we might see less bravado and fewer chickens up on Kinsella's site.

BTW, to appease Mr. Kinsella's newfound interest in economics, I would humbly send him over to The Progressive Economics Forum should he want to experience a real discussion on economics, and yes, sometimes punctuated with real brilliant insight.

Hearts & Minds Issue #3

Long overdue, but below is the third issue of Hearts & Minds. If there's a more engaged and intelligent riding association than the Parkdale High Park NDP Riding Association, I'd love to see it. While this newsletter results almost entirely from the heroic volunteer effort J. MacNeil, I contend it is as good as anything else out there.

It is such a shame that Peggy Nash was undone by strategic voting in the previous federal election (sadly many of them women who fell for Kennedy's "charm", I mean bullsh*t; there's more in the name than in the man to be sure).

Visit the Parkdale High Park NDP Riding Association website for more information or to subscribe for this excellent newsletter.

Hearts & Minds #3

To all who call themselves "progressives" yet vote Liberal, Please Read!

I would like to think that being "progressive" entails a whole series of critical renegotiations (one's relation to capitalism, to democracy, even to politics itself) as well as certain political demands (electoral reform, justice, civil rights etc.). Yet, I'll settle for this one. To all self-styled "progressives" who vote Liberal, please re-examine your assumption that the Liberals are in fact "progressive". That may be the most singularly dangerous piece of unquestioned self-evidence circulating out there. Thanks to Jan from the Bruce for drawing my attention to this excellent piece exposing the federal Liberals led by Ignatieff as hollow and false champions of the "Left".

I urge "progressives" to read fully and carefully the linked article, particularly those who voted "strategically" in last year's election (one of the casualties of which was incumbent Peggy Nash being ousted by Gerard Kennedy- that is, a first rate parliamentarian and true champion of the Left, respected by all, being replaced by a second rate politician and false "progressive"). Here's a sample:

On Friday, the Liberal Party of Canada threw down the gauntlet and submitted a vote of no confidence in the minority government led by Conservative PM Stephen Harper. Many progressives might think "why not?" Harper is, after all, a wolf in wolf’s clothing, managing to run a neoconservative, neoliberal government with voter support of his party in the mid-30 percent range, and all the rest of Canada to his left.

Unfortunately, Harper’s challenger, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, is just as much a wolf, but poses a much greater danger to the Left because he dresses as our shepherd...

Until Friday, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals had supported the Conservative government in 79 consecutive confidence votes since 2007. That wouldn’t be so concerning if the Liberals had been winning major concessions for progressives, but no such luck.

At a basic level, Ignatieff has acted in ideological accord with the Conservatives. Ignatieff is short on details of how he would have behaved any differently than Harper, even when agitating for an election. If he is a progressive at all, it is in hindsight only: whether in the States or in Parliament, Ignatieff goes along when policy is being made, denies problems as they occur and complains unconvincingly about the consequences.

Ouch! In today's Globe & Mail

On the bright side: it's not like it was a top Liberal making the salient point that "Michael" is a little too Narcissieff.

Rick Salutin
Narcissieff in the mirror of politics
Judgment day: Michael Ignatieff will make a seriously bad candidate

Perhaps Michael Ignatieff's views weren't as sinister as they once seemed. When, for instance, he wrote in favour of what's been called torture lite, which means torture that doesn't leave marks; or supported the war on Iraq, which he halfheartedly recanted; or the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which really only applies to the right of powerful nations to attack weak ones; or selective bombing of the Balkans in the 1990s. Maybe he just had a twerpy impulse to follow where those in power – the Clintons, Bushes or Blairs – led.

So let's turn to the consequential question for Canadian politics – not what he thinks but how he'll campaign. This was always the doubtful element: Can he lead the Liberal Party to victory? Remember that he never won the leadership. He began as a strong favourite, frittered that away and lost to Stéphane Dion. Then he seized power last winter without having to face challenges from Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc. He has yet to show he can win.

My own sense is that he'll make a seriously bad candidate, due to what I'd call his narcissism. This isn't so much about adoring yourself, as being so self-absorbed that your sense of how others react to you goes missing. A therapist I know says it usually involves “a great deal of self-referencing. A real other doesn't exist except as an extension of themselves.” This won't be useful when you're asking for people's votes, against other candidates.

For instance: “I've been lucky in my life to meet famous people.” And, “I just pick up the phone and call some of my friends in his [the Obama] administration.” As if we should be impressed, or envious. He recounted how witty he and the Prez got with each other (“He said, rather amusingly …”). And how the President complimented him on things he'd written, which “made this particular Canadian author feel pretty good.” That stuff may go down well with adoring audiences at author readings but, in politics, it's better to have your flunkies leak it for you. We're not at Harbourfront any more, Toto.

He told CBC Radio's Eleanor Wachtel that politics is “the most incredible adventure of all the adventures I've had in my life. … It's been unforgettable no matter how it turns out.” But for people in the country, how it turns out is what counts; he can save all the savouring for his next memoir. He told Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker: “I've been a spectator a lot of my life but this is about acting. … You have to be ready for combat, and you have to lead troops.” It's not that it's wrong to reflect on life's twists and turns, but he seems so captivated and preoccupied. Instead of revelling in the fab experience of being an actor, how about just Doing Something?

It's this misplaced emphasis that suggests an emotional tone deafness. The narcissism makes you oblivious to signals sent by others about how they perceive you, leading, one fears, to bad times on the campaign trail.

It's not the same as egomania, which can work in politics. Egomania requires you to be aware of others in order to dominate or manipulate them. With narcissism, you barely notice them, you bask in your own presence and assume everyone does. Even Stéphane Dion didn't seem narcissistic. Just arrogant: a guy who felt so superior, he was sure everyone would follow his lead. But narcissism blocks the reality of others, hence the stream of off-putting remarks.

Narcissieff himself seems to have a sense of this. “What is it that a great politician knows?” he asked Adam Gopnik. “I'm trying to learn that.” You might expect him to have had a clue before running to be PM, but at least he's asking. Trouble is, a narcissistic makeup can stand in the way of finding an answer. It cuts off the natural ability to pay attention to others. He looks, someone said recently, as if he's Voguing a politician.

Translating Kinsella

As promised, in the wake of the wanton and desperate spinning on Kinsella's Blog, I thought that periodically I might offer, free of charge, a translation of said blog for the Kinsella impaired (i.e. those who aren't Liberals).

So, yesterday Warren woke up to find that the following had appeared in the Hill Times:

"He's [Ignatieff] put absolutely nothing on the table. It's just empty rhetoric," a top Liberal who supported Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) in both of his leadership campaigns told The Hill Times last week. "It's not enough to say, 'That in good times we're going to bring forward the progress...' If he goes into an election and doesn't really have anything substantive to put on the table, we're looking at a massacre."

Although, this appears to be one of the most sensible and indisputable statements regarding Ignatieff's tenure so far, Warren was not too happy. Predictably Warren saw this as an unwarranted attacked, a betrayal etc., as if even a wisp of criticism of "Michael" will be tolerated by Kinsella. More predictably still was Kinsella's reaction. He responds with intimidation and threatens to hunt down this Liberal mole and put that mole out of his/her misery. He writes: "I intend to find out who you are, little Hill Times source weasel, and I intend to take a chainsaw to your political ambitions, however modest they may be."

No need to counterspin the unveiled threat, but we should note that the bluster, the sturm and drang, is an obvious attempt to distract from the fact that the Hill Times has made a very serious and damaging point regarding the Liberal campaign. Moreover, not to be missed, is Kinsella's attempt to co-opt Susan Delacourt for his cause. My reading of her piece is not that she too wants to hunt down and expose this mole, but that she is simply noting that this kind of instability and infighting is inherent to the Liberal brand, particularly when they're not in power. After all, inherent to Liberal ideology is the sense of entitlement to govern without having to "put anything on the table".

Anyway, a simple translation of Kinsella's blog for the last couple of weeks: a frenzied attempt to overhype his candidate because even a Liberal minority is a long shot in the coming "guerre" as he likes to call it. So disregard the pleas for tickets to sold out events, and the exaggerated claims (Iggy will clean up the economic mess- you mean the one the Liberals are largely responsible for???). Liberals are desperate for an election not because they realistically think they can win this one, but because their chances only get worse from here on out.

So why won't the Liberals form the next government? I think Chantal Hebert nails it with this piece. And like a good Liberal, on the day that Hebert's piece came out, Kinsella sidesteps the insightful article and instead attempts once again simply to change the channel by launching attacks and selectively quoting from the press.

p.s. still on the search for truly intelligent life in the Liberal blogosphere. "Impolitical" is OK, but are there any Liberal blogs capable of being incisive, astute, and simply well written?

Any intelligent Liberals out there?

Perhaps I should be posting on craigslist or tweeting this, but would someone kindly point me in the direction of an intelligent Liberal blog? It's as if pursuing the centre of the political spectrum necessarily requires limited or middling intelligence. The problem with middling intelligence (shared by the likes of Kinsella and his Sancho Panzas (Cherniak, Bowie, et al) is that it's just enough intelligence to embolden them, but sadly not quite enough to allow them to know better.

I mean, the right wing of the blogosphere may have plenty of drivel, but one can also find there the very intelligent and clever offerings of Edward Michael George or Ghost of a Flea, for instance. I may often disagree vehemently with them, but I can't but respect their writing. Sadly, I have yet to encounter a Liberal blogger whose intelligence I feel compelled to respect.

Anyway, I may soon have to start a Kinsella counterspin/ translation blog. For the last number of months, the spin has been so wanton and irresponsible that it begs to be countered. For example, when the Ontario Liberals retained one of their safest seats anywhere in yesterday's by-election (since being established in 1999, the Liberals have always taken the seat with over 50% of the vote), Kinsella interprets that as being up "against formidable odds".

For now, I'm just glad Kinsella has stopped referring to Ignatieff as "Michael" and followed that up by removing that creepy photo of Ignatieff (you remember, that one in which Ignatieff looks about 35 years old, has windswept hair, is wearing what I believe is a football jersey (gag!) and looks like a college student in search of a keg party). I'm guessing the purpose was to make Ignatieff more down to earth and accessible (remember Dion's problem shedding the image of the "professorial" aloof politician?). Whatever it was, the choice to use that photo appeared a little freaky. Check out Kinsella's posts around January or February of this year and you'll see what I mean. He continually gushes over "Michael" like a teenage girl. But hey, if that's the face that launches you into dreamland, so be it. I'm not here to judge.

_______

Update: I've added hyperlink above to said photo for the benefit of those who asked.

Oh those stalwart and "progressive" Liberals

I'm not convinced that being a senior Liberal staffer turned Robert Meinzer into an alleged vile predator who has been accused of nine offences relating to an alleged rape and extortion that occurred last summer -- including breaking and entering, assault, forcible confinement, sexual assault, choking, assault with a weapon, extortion and anal intercourse. But I'm pretty sure the hypocrisy and sense of entitlement that comes with being a Liberal didn't help.

I'd like progressive Liberals to step up for electoral reform, but I'd settle for their not viciously attacking women.

What's thinner than a hair? For that's exactly what differentiates Liberals from Conservatives these days. I'm not implying that Conservatives are knuckle dragging misogynists (I reserve that for Liberals), I'm simply pointing out there's precious little that's "progressive" and whole lot of "con" about the Liberal brand. In fact, in Liberals and Conservatives we're really dealing with an incestuous brood of ignorant neoliberals that are increasingly indistinguishable from each other.

I still harbour the fantasy that one day the ideological political struggle will be embodied by libertarians on one side and democratic socialists on the other. Liberals and Conservatives are not only incestuous first cousins; they are entirely redundant and unnecessary.