Strange Liberal Editorial

It's from the Liberal Party rag, the Toronto Star: "Polarized economy, polarized politics."

The Canadian middle-class dream is disappearing. There is more income inequality than ever before, and fewer people find themselves with the trappings traditionally associated with middle-class life

No arguments there ...

Relentless global competition has destroyed the compact Canada had with its citizens — “work hard, play by the rules and you will have the wherewithal to own a house and raise a family."

At this point I'm not so sure that global competition really had much to do with the wages of the vast majority of jobs that aren't tradeable, in service sector industries that don't export anything and aren't threatened by imports. I think it's more that a certain social-economic policy of blatantly transferring wealth from the bottom to the top was embraced by the political servants of the ruling capitalist class.

These changes in the middle-class circumstance means that fear has become a much stronger motivator than hope. The polarization of economic outcomes will lead to a polarization of political choice. From “a rising tide will lift all boats,” we are moving to a zero-sum game.

I get that. Here comes that part that bugs me:

People who do not believe that they or their children can move up the ladder turn from hope to resentment. Instead of supporting economic growth policies that might advance their standard of living, they will demand tax and social policies that redistribute income.

Just what does the writer mean by "economic growth policies"? The same neo-liberal snake-oil that has produced the ill-effects described previously? "Free trade"? Anti-union labour policies? Corporate tax-cuts? Raising tuition rates? I think it's unfair to say that the losing majority will foolishly reject the policies that are going to benefit them, when the fact is that the policies that have hurt them were sold as "economic growth policies."

Secondly, redistributing income through the tax system would, at the present time, constitute an economic growth policy. Taking money from people who have so much of it that they can't find viable investment opportunities for it, and giving it to people who will pay down debt, or purchase necessities, will give the economy a shot in the arm.

Third, so far it appears that the last thing the beleaguered working class is doing is to vote for socialist wealth sharing. They appear to be voting based on the simplistic notion that their tax dollars are all being squandered on public sector unionized layabouts and welfare queens, and that any suitably racist, homophobic buffoon promising them a tax-cut is going to help them fight back against economic uncertainty with a slightly higher amount of take home pay.

On the other hand, most relatively affluent Canadians have always seen themselves as just the top end of the middle class. They tended to identify with middle-class values and to support similar policies. They felt part of a collective experience with the middle class. In a polarized world, they are part of a minority of affluence that needs to protect what it has against the desires of others to take it.

Of course, most of them have always thought that way anyway. That's why affluent neighbourhoods were blighted with "re-elect Mike Harris" signs way back in the day. Just because he was an incompetent, an asswipe, and he killed people, was no reason not to vote for him. He saved them a few grand at tax time. Hooray!

This is one of the driving forces behind the restructuring of Canada’s party system. In the last election the Liberals tried to address these middle-class issues. However, their unwillingness to veer from conservative economic orthodoxy meant they could not propose any measures that would have a meaningful impact on the circumstances of people clinging to their middle-class lifestyles Once the middle has shrunk sufficiently that there are really only two groups in society — economic winners and economic losers — there will only be a need for two parties, one to represent each group.

If our politics cannot find the prescription for saving the middle class, increasing disparity in Canada is going to make politics and life more divisive and more confrontational.

I'd be interested in hearing this guy's economic prescriptions. Especially what those mysterious "economic growth policies" are.

It seems to me that the crux of the matter here is just why the policies of economic failure were embraced so fervently for so many decades, ... whether it was genuine delusion or deliberate class politics, to reward the rich and punish and weaken everybody else. If it was the former, then there's a chance that the Liberal Party of Canada has a part to play if it can rid itself of failed dogmas and create genuine "economic growth policies." If it was the latter, then the Liberals must content themselves with having been a party of neo-liberal managers of a system in decline. The best they can hope for is to be confronted with absolute political morons like Tim Hudak and Rob Ford, who make the right-wing label toxic enough to scare voters into lining up to keep such nut-bars out of government.

But, as the detestable Barack Obama is discovering, you can only milk that cow for so long. Eventually, people get tired of being taken for granted and they stay home on election day.

What we need is a peaceful revolution. I just don't see the Liberal Party as being capable of even conceiving of such a concept. (Or any of the mainstream parties for that matter.)