A Review of Bob Rae’s The Three Questions

[Former Ontario premier Bob Rae is generally regarded as one of the top three contenders for becoming the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. I wrote this book review for university back in 2000 when Mr. Rae was still professing to be a social democrat though no longer a member of the New Democratic Party, with intelligent if derivative notions about public policy. As columnist Richard Gwyn has commented recently, "he now sounds almost hostile to ideas"].

While Bob Rae’s book The Three Questions is certainly about politics, it is hard to agree with the publisher’s classification of it as a book of philosophy, unless it is philosophy in the broad sense of a statement of principles. It is not a book of political theory, if anything its tone is decidedly anti-theoretical, but concerned as it is with the practical responsibilities of government rather than an examination of first principles this is not a drawback. The chief significance of the book is not that it has anything new to say about politics, because it does not, but that it comes from a former Ontario premier and leader of the province’s New Democratic party. For that reason alone its message to Canada’s left is important.
Rae begins his book with a definition of social democracy:
The essence of social democracy is its belief in the equal right of every person to enjoy the good things of life, its commitment to freedom, and its recognition of the enduring value of human solidarity (8).

This definition is vague enough to be endorsed by social democrats, left-liberals, and red tories alike, and Rae gives no indication that he would have it otherwise, quite the reverse. Its very vagueness is an indication of his bias toward pragmatism and moderation throughout his book, not for their own sake, but rather driven by what he believes to be true about human nature. He bases this understanding on words of the great ancient rabbi Hillel, which form the broad framework for his argument:
“If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” The first question points to the enduring value of self-interest, which we ignore at our peril; the second to the need for generosity and justice in a world that values greed too much; the third speaks to a need for action and the danger of doing nothing, a vice to which we are all, in our private and public moments, too prone (9).

The “enduring value of self-interest” is something that Rae refers to constantly through his book, presumably to drive the point home to those on the left who believe politics can be based primarily on altruism. It is self-interest that is the basis of the market economy that is “the surest way to economic growth” (20). If what Rae is proposing can be described as socialism, it is socialism as the amelioration of capitalism rather than its replacement, which can be said to be what separates social democrats from radical socialists.
The most powerful recent manifestation of capitalism is the phenomenon known as globalization, “the economic reality of our time” (ibid.). Rae does not try to explain the main causes of globalization, beyond vague statements about technological change, but one thing is clear, and that is that he believes it is unstoppable and irreversible. The inevitability of globalization is of course the conventional wisdom of those who either stand to benefit from it or are free market ideologues, but it is unfortunate that Rae unlike other thinkers on the moderate left does not challenge it. He does at least make some recommendations as to how the worst aspects of globalization can be dealt with, touching on the “need for more effective international groupings of labour to match both the reach of transnational companies and the emergence of stronger intergovernmental agreements” in policing labour practices in different countries (a job that can also be done to some extent through television and the Internet), as well as arranging consumer boycotts and with other organizations doing research and education (43).
According to Rae the advocates of government spending face two problems. The first is “globalization itself, the end of capital controls, and the fact that virtually all industrial economies are more or less open. The second is the end of inflation” (64). In one of the more informative sections of the book, he points out how tax increases were “concealed, or at least buffered, by inflation”. However he does not satisfactorily show how “sustained tax fatigue in a number of countries has coincided with a dramatic reduction in inflation” (66). The more likely cause was a sustained attack through interest rate increases by countries’ national banks, an attack that in Canada’s case was particularly harsh in its consequences for the economy. In any case Rae (alluding to personal experience as Ontario premier) is correct to state that raising taxes is, with inflation over, political poison. However he does appear to be cautious about cutting taxes, as he rightly rejects the notion of a law against government ever running a deficit (66-71).
After outlining the problems facing social democrats in Canada, Rae makes an effective attack on the right. While for him the ideas of the radical left are unworkable and impractical (as well as electoral suicide), the ideas of the radical right are entirely selfish and inhumane. He correctly points out that private philanthropy, George Bush Sr.’s “thousand points of light”, are no substitute for the welfare state (91-2), and quotes some of the figures showing the increase of poverty and decrease in real income for most Canadians (ibid: 95). He dismisses workfare as “a return to the Poor Law philosophy of 1834”, unless it includes meaningful job retraining and education (103). He claims that the founding father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, “has more in common with modern social democracy than he does with the libertarian excesses of the Progressive Conservative government in Ontario” (181). Putting aside Burke’s reverence for the free market (which C. B. Macpherson among others has documented), there is in Burke something in common with social democracy, namely opposition to political radicalism and extremism, “the importance of a strong civil society, efficient government, and a respect for mutual obligation” (181-3).
There are, Rae believes, better approaches:
Devolve as much power to local governments as possible, but insist on co-ordination. And governments, in turn, should devolve as much power to the community as possible. Governments steer better than they row. Focus whatever tax relief can be afforded on the lowest paid, and give people every incentive to work, earn, and learn. Reduce the work week and working time. Reward patient capital. Discourage speculation if it re-emerges. Don’t punish success, but give every incentive for private generosity. Don’t reduce taxes to the point where the public sector can no longer provide decent health care, vital infrastructure investment, and education. Canada can ensure its competitive advantage through its strengths in health care, infrastructure investment, and education. (98)

There are additional policy prescriptions. He supports the European idea of employee and union representation on corporate boards (58). The localization of health care at regional and municipal levels (114), and that Liberal promise, federal pharmacare (115). Above all he stresses what apparently for centre-left political leaders is the main policy mantra, education, education, education. He advocates government programs in early childhood education (119), and more teacher involvement in school curriculum reform. As for the environment, he recommends a largely stick approach for consumers (user fees for garbage bags, toll roads, fuel price increases; 126-7). For all his talk about moderation and pragmatism, Rae seems to be quite the progressive after all. The question is how these laudable policies are to be pursued in the face of opposition from a business class whose values are largely if not entirely American, and therefore unlike in Western Europe (excluding the British Isles) antagonistic toward unions. Reducing the work week and working time and discouraging financial speculation seem particularly difficult goals to attain in a country that is next to one where democracy has been and is being undermined by moneyed interests. The best course appears to be “more co-operation and co-ordination with other countries, more international rules that are based on more than just the convenience of capital” (200). In short, an attempt at least to globalize social democracy as Rae has defined it.
While “prosperity and the public good” (to quote the subtitle of the book) are Rae’s main interest, he is also concerned with Canadian federalism, particularly as it relates to Quebec. He states that Canada has no absolute rights of self-determination for any province (148) and that there is no one type of federalism (154). Not sharing Pierre Trudeau’s antagonism toward Quebecois he appears to lean toward an asymmetrical federalism without saying so (154-8). Rae is as much a pragmatist in constitutional matters as he is in economic ones, saying, “constitutions…are always messy processes that are easier to knock down or tear apart than they are to construct” (158).
In the concluding part of his book, Rae undertakes a defence of politics. The remark he makes about government bureaucrats who feel that they are “the permanent government” is nicely put: “Administration on its own is a dangerous thing. It has to be led and informed by politics” (173). He rightly attacks “the greatest witch doctors of them all, the pollsters”, and the advocates of a laissez-faire philosophy of government (175). He even addresses however briefly television’s role in the trivialization of politics and the “dumbing down” of society (176-80). The choice for Canadians is stark:
We are now faced with difficult questions. Do we want to live in cities where there are streets and neighbourhoods where not everyone can go? Do we want to live in communities with rising levels of crime in which the answer to social problems is to incarcerate more and more (and more) people, and build bigger jails? Do we want to live in communities where those who have anything at all have to hire security dogs and create walled cities and communities around them? Or do we want to live in a community which is strong economically, with healthy markets and a strong sense of innovation and growth but an equally strong commitment to a sense of community health, to equality, and to a sense of inclusion? (185)

Or to put it another way, do we want to live in the United States or do we want to live in a social democracy? Rae does not say so, but the state of politics in the U.S. would appear to indicate that the only viable form of democracy is social democracy, at least in Rae’s sense. His arguments while not profound are largely correct, and set the course that a Left serious about political power must follow.

2DTV - Tony Blair - Tony Says

Hard to believe now that he once called himself a socialist. A clip from Britain's 2DTV show, unfortunately not on TV, as far as I know, on this side of the pond.

9/11 and Nineteen Eighty-Four

As we remember the terrible events of five years ago today, we should pause to reflect that different people will invoke memories for different reasons. Up to now I have made no references to George Orwell other than in my first post, but I think today it is appropriate to do so, particularly in regards to his most famous novel, the dystopian satire (that it is a satire should not be forgotten) Nineteen Eighty-Four. Why do I refer to that novel? Because I believe that because among its many important insights, it gives us insight into the way war can be used by government to manipulate a country's population, particularly a war whose outcome or time of ending remains undetermined. In the novel the three great totalitarian world powers Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia are at apparently perpetual war with one another over the rest of the world not under their rule i.e. the northern half of Africa, the Middle East, southern India, Indonesia, and northern Australia. The fact that the war is apparently without end means that the civilian populations of each of the three superstates are under a condition of perpetual mobilization i.e. rationing, surveillance, suspension of civil liberties etc. so the state maintains its hold on absolute power on the basis of being at war.

Since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon we apparently have a new kind of war apparently without end, the "War on Terror". Fighting terrorism is far more suitable to being made into a perpetual war because terrorists are not a conventional threat, they do not operate in the open as a military force but in the shadows until they strike, and so even when and where they are not apparently a clear and present threat they can be said to be, because after all they are a hidden enemy that may stay hidden for a long time, so it is argued a country's population, particularly one a section of which has been attacked, must be on constant guard, if not official alert, be prepared to give up some of their civil liberties or condone them being taken away from others suspected of being terrorists. And in the process by keeping a population in constant fear of being attacked, a government is able to maintain its hold on power. Just as the totalitarians of Orwell's novel were able to maintain their power by means of an apparently perpetual condition of war, so the neoconservatives of the United States, most of all those who make up the Bush administration, have so far been able to do so by means of what they have said will be a war that will last for a very long time. The threat of terrorism is real, but it will not be defeated by military means but by the means the Western Europeans used to defeat their own domestic terrorist threat in the 1970s, e.g. the Baader-Meinhof Gang and Red Brigades, through concerted intelligence, police, and special forces work. How many Americans realize this?

In his farewell message to the nation on 17 January 1961 Pres. Dwight Eisenhower warned of the danger of the "military-industrial complex", the first time that term was ever publicly used. Its participation in the "war on terror" is undeniable. Eisenhower midway through his great address said, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." So far I am afraid the great majority of Americans have been neither alert nor knowledgable in the ways that matter regarding the threat of terrorism or of the one Eisenhower revealed. We should remember the victims and true heroes (the firemen and police and other rescuers who went into the collapsing WTC, the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93) of 9/11 but we should also remember the ways that event was and continues to be exploited by those in power.

My Kind of Socialism III

Anthony Crosland (1918-77) is perhaps best remembered now as the author of The Future of Socialism (1956), which called for the reformulation of the UK Labour Party's policies and principles in modern social democratic terms, though he was also a leading member of the party and held several cabinet positions in Labour administrations until his sudden death. Whatever one might think of his revisionist views, it seems to me he had the essentials of democratic socialism right, as I believe the following quotation shows. Any individual, group, or government that claims to be democratic socialist, or social democratic in the sense of moderate democratic socialism (as opposed to simply welfare capitalism or liberalism) should have their words and actions measured and judged by the standards Crosland set out four years after his most famous book was published. This is not only my kind of socialism; I agree with Mr. Crosland's conclusion:

I start with three assumptions. First, while British socialists may differ about particular policy issues (for example, the exact form and extent of future public ownership), they would all subscribe to the following basic socialist values:

(1) An overriding concern with social welfare, and a determination to accord a first priority to the relief not merely of material poverty, but of social distress or misfortune from whatever cause.

(2) A much more equal distribution of wealth, and in particular a compression of that part of the total which derives from property income and inheritance.

(3) A socially 'classless' society, and in particular a non-elite system of education which offers equal opportunities to all children.

(4) The primacy of social over private interests, and an allocation of resources (notably in the fields of social investment and town and country planning) determined by the public need and not solely by profit considerations.

(5) The diffusion of economic power, and in particular a transfer of power from the large corporation (whether public or private) both to workers (either directly or through their unions) and consumers (through the co-operative movement).

(6) Generally, the substitution of co-operative for competitive, and other-regarding for self-regarding, social and economic relations.

(7) In foreign affairs, the substitution of disarmament, international action and the rule of law for nationalism and power politics.

(8) Racial equality (both at home and abroad), the right of colonial peoples to freedom and self-government, and the duty of richer nations to give aid and support to poorer ones.

(9) An increase in the rate of economic growth, both for the sake of a higher standard of living and as a pre-condition of achieving other objectives.

(10) A belief, not merely in parliamentary democracy, but in the rights and liberty of the individual as against the State, the police, private or public bureaucracy, and organised intolerance of any kind.

These ten values, or aspirations, constitute the basic principles of democratic socialism. There may be legitimate disagreement about their precise interpretation, and about the exact means - the particular institutional changes or forms of economic organisation - through which they can best be realised in our society. But no one can call himself [or herself] a socialist who does not assent to the basic values.

From Can Labour Win (Fabian Tract no. 324, 1960)

Happy Labour Day

Labour Day was officially established in the U.S. by Pres. Grover Cleveland in 1887 as an alternative to the proposal to celebrate the worker on May 1, which Cleveland feared would be used, as many on the Left openly wanted, to commemorate the May 4 Haymarket riot in Chicago the year before. It was not however an invention of the establishment. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:

The idea for such a holiday in the United States is attributed to Peter J. McGuire, a carpenter and labor union leader who later cofounded the precursor of the AFL-CIO. In 1882 he suggested to the Central Labor Union of New York that a celebration be held to honour the American worker. Acting on this idea, about 10,000 workers paraded in New York City on Sept. 5, 1882, under the sponsorship of the Knights of Labor. The date of the celebration was chosen simply because it filled up the long gap between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

What the article leaves out is that Mr. McGuire got the idea from Canada. The origins of Labour Day lie in a parade demonstration by workers on 15 April 1872 in Toronto to call for the abolition of then existing laws which decreed that trade unions were criminal conspiracies in restraint of trade. Those laws were finally repealed in that same year after a union parade in Ottawa on September 3 paid a visit to the home of PM John A. MacDonald. The April 15 march became an annual event though of no set date, though the Ottawa event would certainly have been an excellent one to commemorate. Mr. McGuire happened to see it on 22 July 1882 as an invited speaker, being the founder and general secretary of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters which had organized the previous year. The full story can be found here, with the non-Canadian dimension here. The message to be taken from the origins of Labour Day is clear: it is a day not only to celebrate workers and their achievements and contributions to society but also their rights as workers, above all their right to unionize. This message is clear in the Labour Day most of the world celebrates, but in ours, among those who are not union members, that message has been lost. It is high time we who are not union members, i.e. the vast majority, recovered it.

Banned in Boston...And Everywhere Else

This animated short was not shown for more than twenty years after the date of its production. Considering that it was at a time when movies were showing the after-effects of people being shot in the face (who could forget Scarlett O'Hara's disposal of the Union soldier in Gone with the Wind?), that this was banned shows how under the rule of the Hays Code the American film industry was so timid in portraying sexuality, particularly the feminine kind, in contrast with violence. To this day there is a notably similar discrepancy between the treatment of the two subjects as far as the industry-controlled MPAA film rating system is concerned.