The Gods of the Copybook Headings

The Safety of Federalism

Much has been written about the recent bankruptcy of Detroit. Its scarred urban landscape. The decades of public policy folly. The absurd theatrics and outrageous corruption of its political class. Detriot is what happens when Leftism meets racial tribal politics. The city serves as an object lesson of how not to run a government.

Beyond its public policy morality tale, the half-century decline of the Motor City shows the wisdom of federalism. The city's fate is often compared to Beirut or Mogadishu, but herein lies the real difference: Those cities were doomed by the nations they lived in. Detroit choose its own fate and the rest of America has chosen its. 

While Detroit fell cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and Charlotte rose. Where northern states, arrogant with a long industrial incumbency indulged in various statist schemes, the southern states moved toward reform. The region's racial tensions were slowly reduced. The anti-market regulation that had characterized the Jim Crow era was replaced by right to work legislation, low taxes and a pro-investment mentality. While Rust Belt cities undermined the pillars of a successful economy, much of the South went in the opposite direction.

This is the genius of federalism. Not only are the states and cities the laboratories of free government, they are also its firewalls. If America was a unitary government along the lines of Portugal or France, it might all look like Texas, or it might all look like Detroit. Given that bad government is more likely than good government, a federal system acts as a partial inoculator against rent seeking and parasitism. That is until federalism breaks down.

In both Canada and the United States the federal government, through a wide variety of welfare state schemes, transfers wealth from richer to poorer regions. In effect it punishes successful public policy and subsidizes bad.  A truly federal system would not allow the success of Texas to be undermine by the failure of Michigan. A city and even a state would be allowed to fail without the rest of the country coming to the rescue. Neither the American or Canadian federal governments possess the tenacity to follow such a course. The result is a national system of encouraging moral hazard. The product, given enough time and a sufficiently dysfunctional polity, is Detroit. 

Canadian provinces have strict laws demanding that municipalities balance their books and keep down on debt, laws that might very well avert a similar fate for a Canadian city. Those laws, however, do not apply to the provinces. There is nothing to stop Ontario from spending its way into oblivion. What federal government of any political stripe would dare risk the bankruptcy of its largest province?

I know that. You know that. Unfortunately so does Kathleen Wynne. That knowledge is going to cost all Canadians very dearly in the years ahead.

Thursday Night - The Maple Leaf Forever

In Days of Yore...

Toronto Star:

A crowd gathered in front of a tree felled during Friday night’s thunderstorm to take pictures and collect a leaf or two as a memento and even mourn, for this was no ordinary tree.

Perhaps 150 years old or more, the silver maple tucked away on Laing St. in Leslieville, is famous for being the inspiration of what used to be Canada’s unofficial anthem. Historians are dubious, but as the story goes, a persistent leaf from the tree stuck itself to poet Alexander Muir’s sleeve in the fall of 1867, serving as the inspiration for “The Maple Leaf Forever,” a poem-turned-song-turned-unofficial-anthem.

 

Scenes From The Imperial Capital

A Different Sort of Tory

Davy Cameron slips Leftward and downward:

Downing Street said that Mr Cameron’s view is now that the clubs “look more to the past than they do to the future”.

Mr Cameron was previously a member of White’s gentlemen’s club and his father was its former chairman.

The Prime Minister has given his full support to Maria Miller, who has said she will boycott the Open Championship in Muirfield because of its men-only policy.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “The Prime Minister has a great deal of sympathy with the view that exclusive memberships of this sort look more to the past than they do to the future.”

In days gone past the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was the holder of an august office. The pronouncements that emanated from No. 10 had world wide effect. The fate of nations and continents hung on the very words uttered by Britain's head of government. That was many years ago, a distance in time and understanding that is utterly vast. Mr Cameron, remarkably, has captured that distance perfectly. From grander to triviality in about a generation.

It is hardly likely that Peel, Gladstone or Churchill would have thought the membership qualifications of a private club, like White's, a proper subject of Prime Ministerial commentary. But again they were statesmen.

Cameron is the first self-hating toff to serve as Prime Minister. Whereas in generations past men sought to hide or downplay their modest upbringing, we now witness a graduate of Eton and Oxford desperately trying to pretend he is an ordinary bloke. Since Davy is not an ordinary bloke, and is a very weak actor even by political standards, he comes off as being a complete fake.

The membership requirements of White's are not the sort of thing that average blokes, not even in the posher precincts of the City, spend too much time worrying about. I doubt that it is all that vexing a question even within the elegant confines of the club itself. Not allowing women into a place that men don't want them to go is consider a high crime in modern Britain. It is, of course, understood that should women discriminate in a similar manner such behaviour is to be regarded as completely acceptable. In more advanced portions of society it might be regarded as a high virtue.

Just as only white people can be racist, only men can be sexist.

A deeper thinker than Davy Cameron might question the hypocrisy of that line of thought. But Davy is mercifully free of deep thoughts. He is an ambitious man with little to be ambitious about. His burning desire has been to be Prime Minister. Why? Because it's a grand old job. But there is a great problem with pragmatic politicians: Once they get power they have no idea how to wield it.

A mere schemer might plot his way into the highest office in the land, he is not likely to stay there very long. He must offer something else to the nation. If not an actual vision, then at least a reasonable facsimile. If we cannot have Churchill we might, for a little while, contend ourselves with a Harold Wilson or a Stanley Baldwin. What any of those men would have made of Davy Cameron is hard to guess at. Perhaps a little boy keen to ingratiate himself with the headmaster, thereby earning the ire of all the other schoolboys

Whether White's wants women, or does not want women, is beneath the purview of your office Mr Cameron. Your nation is broke, its sovereignty steadily eroded by Brussels and the social fabric has been frayed by the failure to integrate large numbers of non-European immigrants. These are your concerns Prime Minister. They are the burdens of the office you so long sought. Do try to remember that. Certainly the electorate will in 2015.

Wednesday Night - Mr Smith Goes to Washington

Savages

CBC:

A Norwegian woman sentenced to 16 months in jail in Dubai for having sex outside marriage after she reported an alleged rape says she's speaking out in hopes of drawing attention to the risks of outsiders misunderstanding the Islamic-influenced legal codes in this cosmopolitan city.

I don't think there is any misunderstanding possible. These are savages plain and simple. 

Scenes From The Imperial Capital

William Lyon Mackenzie, Statist

According to CUPE Local 79:

179 years ago, Toronto was born. Our first mayor, William Lyon MacKenzie, was a champion of public service and hired the first three city employees. Today CUPE Local 79 members are 20,000 strong and taking care of our great city. Join us as we celebrate Toronto’s history this summer and Chill with Will.

Ahem. The above comes from a website promoting a series of brand awareness ads from Toronto government employees. Though why a government union needs such a campaign is a bit murky. These ads, paid for indirectly by Torontonians' tax dollars, have been plastered through out the city and on the TTC. A daily reminder that Big Brother may or may not be watching you, but he is always wasting your money.

It seems unlikely that William Lyon Mackenzie was the chillin' sort of dude. In fact he was a notorious hot-head. Nor was he fond of big government. During his brief and ill-starred rebellion Mackenzie actually had a flag made up with the word LIBERTY written on it. He was a libertarian avant la lettre and would likely be utterly horrified at the size and scope of modern municipal government. For a public sector union to appropriate him as a sort of mascot for "public service" is chutzpah at its finest.

One of the many things that rankled Mackenzie, he was inclined to react strongly to injustice, was tightly knit oligarchies who use government power to fleece the ordinary citizen. In his day they called it the Family Compact. Today we might call it the Liberal-NDP-Government Union Axis. Not as catchy, but again I'm not WLM. I'm omitting the provincial Tories as their haplessness renders them more amusing than contemptible at the moment.

The CUPE Local 79 website, which is dedicated to the "memory" of Toronto's first mayor, has these insights into his life and times:

How have times changed in Toronto? Delightful question! From humble beginnings, Toronto has evolved into a remarkable place to live — one well beyond your pal Will’s expectations. We are a city brimming with both culture and diversity. A city that rises up to provide assistance to its elderly, infirm, and financially disadvantaged. A city focused on health, happiness, and productivity – giving each resident, young and old, the ability to contribute. How very proud this makes me!

How very sick it makes me!

I haven't the slightest clue as to Mackenzie's views on diversity, the Upper Canada of his day was as white as a lily. From the records that have come down to us he seems to have been a fairly enlightened man. What he would have made of Toronto's demographics we can only guess at. We are on more certain ground as to government providing "assistance to its elderly, infirm and financially disadvantaged." Mackenzie would almost certainy have opposed government involving itself in such essentially private matters. Those incapable of fending for themselves were the responsibility of the churches, private charities and of last resort the municipal government. Relief for the poor was remarkably stingy both from necessity and principle.

The solution to "poverty" in early Victorian Canada was typically an axe and a few acres of land. There is little indication in the historical record that the rebel of 1837 was some kind of proto-socialist. That CUPE is implying as much is disgraceful. 

Here is how Wikipaedia describes Mackenzie's views. The below is taken from the period shortly after his return from exile:

For the next seven years, Mackenzie was the loudest advocate in the Assembly for the cause of "true reform". This involved a resumption of several of his political stances from the 1830s, including opposition to the clergy reserves and to state funding of religious colleges, and calls for abolishing the Court of Chancery. He now also became an opponent of government overspending, and was especially critical of state aid for railways, especially when those railways were monopolies.

I wonder what he would have thought of a public transit monopoly. Not much I suspect. His principles, unlike those of most politicians, extended to his own personal conduct:

Once Mackenzie's old friend John Rolph entered the Hincks-Morin ministry, he offered Mackenzie a plum job in Haldimand County, but Mackenzie refused, saying that he would not burden the Canadian taxpayers with an unnecessary post.

Considering that it is the business of CUPE Local 79 to expand the number of public sector employees, regardless of their necessity to the public good, we can be fairly confident that Mackenzie would have loath these people with his trademark passion.

This insipid little co-option of a Great Canadian to the statist agenda actually gets worse. In "tribute" to Mackenzie's paper The Colonial Advocate, where he coined the phrase Family Compact, CUPE Local 79 has put out a four page newsletter called The Toronto Advocate. In the second edition of the newsletter we have word that an actor playing the city's first mayor is doing a sort of tour. He is accompanied by a "trope of performers." I can only hazard a guess as to the quality of their performance.

If you want to preach statism to the masses, you're free to do so, thanks to men like William Lyon Mackenzie. But please leave the man's memory in peace. We've had quite enough vandalism of this country's history by Trudeaupian apologists. Defacing one of our greatest defenders of liberty is just too much.

Tuesday Night - Die Another Day

Stamping Back to Saskatoon

WFP:

Sending letters now comes with some rock-and-roll flare after Canada Post launched its stamp series depicting legendary Canadian bands.

Four bands — Rush, The Guess Who, The Tragically Hip and Beau Dommage — are honoured in the series, which went on sale Friday.

The bands have collectively sold millions of records worldwide and can boast large fan bases built up over decades.

Rapidly aging rock bands being commemorated by an even more rapidly aging medium of communication. 

 

Scenes From The Imperial Capital

In Government We Trust

Why are Canadians disengaged from public affairs? A former Clerk of the Privy Council hazards a guess: A lack of social trust:

High social trust implies solidarity, the sense that the members of a society share a common fate and mutual responsibility and this is reflected in greater commitment to helping others. Individuals take responsibility not only for themselves and those in their social milieu, but also for the stranger, and for the direction of their society.

Contrary to the Margaret Thatcher view of the world, we are or at least can be more than isolated, atomized individuals fiercely pursuing our self-interest. We live in relationships with others, we live in society, and the strength of those relationships and our fellow feeling matters profoundly. High trust societies work; they have less crime and corruption, more effective governments, and stronger economies.

Except Mrs Thatcher never said that. Her famous quip about there being no such thing as society was not an attack on society, it was an attack on socialism. Too often people, especially senior bureaucrats, use the word society in a hazy and disconnected way, a floating abstraction that can mean anything. Mrs Thatcher was attempting to concretize the discussion. Here is the full quote:

They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.

That doesn't sound like someone who believes in atomistic individualism. It's sounds like someone who does very much believe in society. Thatcher, however, was disgusted by how the word was being used by shirkers who insisted that everything was someone's else responsibility. In other words she believed in high social trust, except she understood that such trust cannot be sustained in highly statist societies.

The classic exemplars of high tax rate societies that function extremely well are the Scandinavia states. Strangely they are almost always the only examples cited. Britain had very high tax rates and very high social spending for decades after the war. The result was not increased social trust, instead it was gradual social disintegration. For the first time in living memory, certainly in peacetime, Britain saw the emergence of petty corruption and a black market. The council flats of Britain became rapidly degenerating slums. Trades unions held the nation to ransom.

This is how highly statist societies tend to function. It's a fair description of modern Southern and Eastern Europe, two regions that have had various shades of socialism for decades. What makes Scandinavia work is the Scandinavians.

A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%.

Culture trumps economics. Indeed it can overcome a multitude of economic sins. It should also be noted that for much of Sweden's history it was among the freest nations in the world. The country was weakly feudalized during the Dark and Middle Ages. It was a society of semi-independent farmers for centuries. If it was not quite a laissez-faire state, Sweden still has a long tradition of stable government and rule of law. Sweden's hard turn Left dates only from the 1960s. 

Pre-Trudeaupian Canada was a nation characterized by a high level of social trust, though admittedly little of that trust crossed between the Two Solitudes. Both English and French Canada were peaceful, stable and essentially humane societies. The former was richer than the latter for well documented reasons, the latter was somewhat more corrupt than the former. For the era the whole place worked very well.

Canada worked well because Canadians worked well. Our enormous social capital, which rivaled far more established societies in old Europe, was accumulated during a period of low taxes and little government regulation. In the century between Macdonald and Pearson the only serious meddling in the market was for tariffs and railways. If Canadians of 2013 are less trusting than those of 1963, then perhaps the fault does not lie in a lack of government spending.

A statist society, as Mrs Thatcher noted, is one that relieves the individual of responsibility. Not simply those individuals incapable of fending for themselves, but ALL individuals in society. You don't have to take care of yourself, or your family or your friends. The result is a nation of people who regard their fellow citizens as ciphers either to be ignored or exploited. There cannot be trust without responsibility. In a market society you improve your lot in life by co-operating with others. In a statist society you improve your lot by exploiting others through coercion.

What is more likely to instill trust in others? A government edict or a polite request?

Of course Canadians lack trust. They've been sold a false bill of goods for half a century.

Monday Night - Sherlock

Starnesville 2013

Daniel Hannan: 

The real-life Starnesville, like the fictional one, decayed slowly, then collapsed quickly. I spent a couple of weeks in Detroit in 1991. The city was still functioning more or less normally, but the early signs of decomposition were visible. The man I was staying withn, a cousin of my British travelling companion, ran a bar and restaurant. He seemed to my teenage eyes to be the embodiment of the American dream: he had never been to college, but got on briskly and uncomplainingly with building a successful enterprise. Still, he was worried. He was, he told me, one of a shrinking number of taxpayers sustaining more and more dependents. Maybe now, he felt, was the time to sell up, while business was still good.