Watching former Ontario treasurer Dwight Duncan on TVO Thursday night, where he was acting as an expert commentator on the election, meant observing a man passing through several stages of emotion.
But here's something that may help perk all those demoralized Ontario Tories about there: In a weird way, their defeat doesn't matter. They'll get their agenda through, anyway. In substance, if not in name.
Who won is, in a big way, immaterial. Oh, the result matters to the participants, of course, and in terms of the dismal message it sends about how tolerant the Ontario voter is of Liberal abuse and mismanagement. But in the big picture, who is premier or what party won the most seats wasn't the real issue.
Now a 'strategic adviser' at a Bay Street law firm, he started off all analytical and non-partisan, noting how PC leader Tim Hudak was really a good guy in private but suffered from his inability to connect with the electorate. He moved on to pleasant surprise as the returns started rolling in and the Liberals proved to be doing better than expected. By the end of the show he was gleefully proclaiming a 'disaster' for the Tories and resolutely refusing to concede Ontario is certain to be downgraded by the credit-ratings agencies, despite repeated prodding by host Steve Paikin and a look on his face that suggested he totally knew it to be true. Another minute and you expected him to apply for his old job back.
His evident surprise at the election result - a solid majority for a government any reasonable assessment would suggest richly deserved defeat - was shared by right-wing Toronto radio host Jerry Agar, whose head all but exploded on-air Friday morning as he launched into a diatribe about union power and suggested Liberal voters were just flat-out stupid.
Though coming at the result from different directions, they were plainly motivated by the same thought: Wow, how could this possibly be happening?
How could a government saddled with such an astonishing list of mistakes and misdeeds avoid being annihilated by a disgusted public, much less handed a bigger and better mandate? What weird sort of mental process could lead voters to tell pollsters they desperately wanted a new government, and then vote to bring back the old one while crushing its main opposition? Ontarians seem able to hate their government, while simultaneously wanting more of it. Is this some sort of new public mania, masochism by democracy?
Viewed philosophically, the results could be considered an expression of utter irrationality, or a demonstration of pure reason. (That's the great thing about philosophy; it can go either way). It seems totally unreasonable that 13 million people could re-elect a government responsible for reducing the country's top economy to a deeply indebted have-not province increasingly dependent on Ottawa for financial support (not to even mention the scandals and police investigations.) But, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense. In essence, Premier Kathleen Wynne's campaign consisted of a single promise: no matter how bad things get, voters won't have to pay for it.
No one will lose their job. There won't be any tax hikes, except maybe on really rich people who no one cares about. Unions will be placated, even though the province can't remotely afford it. The deficit won't do any damage - and if it does, the Liberals will figure out a way to hide it or smooth it over, like they did with North America's highest electricity rates.
Who could resist an offer like that? What bugs conservatives is the underlying illogicality of the position. You can't just refuse to pay debts: eventually someone has to produce the cash, and the longer you wait the harsher the reckoning. It's not fair to simply pile new borrowings on old, sticking a later generation with the bill. And in a society that prides itself in promoting justice, how can a government be given blanket absolution for so many misdeeds?
It's irrational. In a modern, educated, informed society like Canada, it shouldn't happen. Right?
Well, yes, except that Thursday's vote suggests that short-term self-interest and aversion to discomfort still easily trump broader considerations. People don't want to pay bills, even if they know they should, and if they're offered an escape, they'll take it. Maybe they realize someone, some day, will have to pony up, but as long as it's not them, and not today, so what? In return, they're willing to let the government off the hook for its own foibles: what difference does it make if the Liberals blow a billion dollars on non-existent gas plants, as long as there's no direct cost on the individual voter? True, Ontario's Sunshine List of public servants earning above $100,000 may be swelling like a beached whale - almost 11,000 at Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation alone, all of whom presumably will be owed commensurate pension payments, meaning they keep getting grossly overpaid, even in retirement - but income taxes haven't gone up noticeably, so what's the issue? Ontarians don't really mind people gaming the system, as long as it doesn't show up on their pay cheque.
It's both rational and irrational, at the same time. Because voters are human, and humans make no sense. In the pundit industry we keep forgetting, or ignoring, that.
Post By http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/13/kelly-mcparland-ontario-election-result-makes-perfect-sense-in-an-irrational-world/
0 comments Blogger 0 Facebook
Post a Comment