The Softwood Pinocchio: Why Emerson Must Go!

In the February 21st Vancouver Province columnist, Allan Ferguson, states: And while I continue to believe that, in a purely pragmatic way, Emerson is the ideal choice as minister of international trade I now acknowledge that for many good honest, people his defection is gnawing away at the little faith they have left in our political system. Ferguson has boldly gone where too many others have gone before, down a well worn path. He has dared to use the “p” word- “pragmatic”. We are told time and again that politics is the exercise of pragmatism-realistic down to earth, hardnosed decision making. But the problem for Canada is that we have seen too many Liberal and Conservative governments as practitioners of this warped pragmatism. Pragmatists practicing pragmatism is a slippery slope as it can be also be defined (especially in a uniquely Canadian context) as political slither, a lack of vision and following the line of least resistance. As Canadian born Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith has pointed out: The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking. So “Pragmatism” and following the “conventional view” become the mantras of lazy politicians and pundits. It becomes the universal catch-all word for excusing anything and everything. Pragmatism in the Canadian context is the last refuge of scoundrels. Pragmatism, for Canada’s political elites does not favor the best interests of Canada but rather the hegemonic self-interest of the USA. In his treatise on the death of Canadian nationalism, Lament for a Nation, George Grant comments: The Second way to justify the Liberals is that politics is the art of leading people toward accepting necessities. So the question becomes is it necessary, is it pragmatic, that Canadian institutions and policies of proven worth for Canada and Canadians be sacrificed on the alter of American hegemony? For Canada’s indolent political elites the answer is yes they must be sacrificed; but from a Canadian perspective- a Canadian pragmatism these institutions and policies must be preserved. It is merely a matter of political will, but a political will sadly lacking and pathetically corrupt. Politics is also defined as the exercise of power; but Canadian politicians are oddballs in that they do not exercise power but accommodate its transference. Instead of practicing governance they retreat from it. As pragmatism has become a tiresome cliché David Emerson becomes a political naïf when he tries to defend his position as being a “corporatist”. If Mr. Emerson had an astute press agent he never would have been allowed to utter the word! The underlying subtext to today’s political debate is the common good versus the corporate good and right now the corporate good is in ascendance over the common good/public good. In the early 1970’s NDP leader David Lewis stood in the House of Commons and coined the phrase “corporate welfare bums”, and went on to write a book by the same name. The phrase has passed into history but it is even more applicable now than it was in Lewis’s day. In The 30 odd years since Lewis coined the phrase the right has spent much time and energy attacking and destroying the social welfare state. At the same time we have seen the ascendance of the corporate welfare state where corporations who tout the free market economy are the new welfare bums-the billion dollar babies- blessed with massive government subsidies, the beneficiaries of preferential legislation, and deregulation- such that insider trading and corporate cronyism are epidemic. If Lewis were alive today he would be astounded to learn that CEOs' salaries have gone from being 50 times that of the average employee to almost 500 times. When Enron collapsed, top executives walked away with millions of dollars while many employees lost their entire life savings. The NAFTA is not so much about free trade as it is about regulated trade and a corporate bill of rights and privileges. The reason George W. Bush wants to privatize Social Security is that tens of billions of dollars would flow to the stock market-if it crashed so too would the fortunes of millions of seniors. He tries to justify this privatization with the mendacious claim that the Social Security fund is approaching insolvency, but actuaries and economists claim it is solvent for decades to come- who are you going to believe? Now in Canada, given the opportunity, the Harper government could very well privatize the Canada Pension Plan after it reduces our Medicare to the polyglot American style system that favors corporatism, is multi tiered, leaves millions with no insurance at all, and is not nearly as cost effective as our system. Harper’s neo-conservatives are simply Liberals on ideological steroids. The reason the corporate welfare state has escaped the vicious attacks handed the social welfare state is government has become the hand maiden to the corporate welfare state. The media, for its part, has effectively been co-opted as cheerleader to this rambunctious corporatism. The corporate welfare state is brought to you by neo-conservatives. They praise the mantra’s privatization and deregulation- the vehicles of unmitigated greed. These practitioners have proven that they cannot be trusted with the keys to kingdom yet they escape scrutiny because they control the agenda, the media, and most importantly effective political opposition is lacking. Neo-conservatives, and their corporate welfare state, also want to eliminate, or at least minimize government as it quite simply gets in the way of unmitigated greed- so they can act without any consideration for the public good or public consultation-and this is just what is happening in the US now. And this leads us to Benito Mussolini and that nasty little word-fascism- as corporatism too easily mutates into fascism. In, Lament for a Nation, Grant states: Yet what is socialism if it is not the use of government to restrain greed in the name of the social good? Grant might agree that our venerable democratic/capitalist system only works where the extremes of the left and right are avoided- there must be a discipline that includes checks and balance- the moderate middle way. Now Fortress North America is at a very dangerous tipping point. David Emerson has made himself poster boy for the corporatist welfare state. By scorning his constituents he made a tacit declaration that he does not believe in democracy, but oligarchy- rule by a small elite. What happened in Vancouver Kingsway is stark testimony to where his loyalties lie. When he steps up to negotiate an agreement on softwood lumber, Canadians can rightly be skeptical as to whether he will truly protect our interests. The PM for his part sends a doleful message. This could be the first of many such crass expediencies. MPs have just vetted Justice Marshall Rothstein as a candidate for the Supreme Court of Canada. This was largely a perfunctory exercise as Canadian judges are generally held in high regard. It appears Justice Rothstein passed with flying colors. David Emerson has been vetted in the court of public opinion. A chorus of objections have been raised and the same standard must apply. Emerson must stand down. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 3, 2006]