This Evening Muse offering is a continuation of Media Musings Part 2: A Facebook Exchange, a sequence of comments related to an article in The Narwhal under the headline:
Appeals not allowed, again: Ontario orders Waterloo to sprawl into farmland
My initial response was an expression of exasperation, but also of resolve:
[There is] no point in protesting or even reasoning with these people. We are living under a dictatorship. But although they wield all the power, they're weak, out of touch with 21st-century realities, and out of tune with the heart and soul of Ontario. Our best recourse is to join hands, set aside all differences … and look for ways to work together to bring this province back to its senses, and to recruit, elect and appoint a new kind of leadership.
At one point in the exchange, a friend proposed starting a new party. I suggested that if we did launch a political movement, we should begin with a resolve not to run any candidates under our own banner, and to welcome members of other parties friendly to the cause, including ones that have been elected to office.
This relates to what I’ve been imagining as an omni-partisan movement dedicated to achieving better integration and balance within and among the various spheres of democratic order in Canada: municipal, regional, provincial, federal.
Omni-partisan is different from non-partisan, which suggests a haughty neutrality. It gives the impression that you think you’re above it all. There’s a place for habits, loyalties, affiliations and differences; it’s almost impossible to avoid being partisan in one way or another. In normal circumstances, a polarized approach can be beneficial: There’s a time to move forward, and a time to rest; a time to build, and a time to maintain and repair; a time to breathe in, and a time to exhale. Left and right can each contribute to forward movement like our feet do when we walk.
But there must be agreement on directions and objectives. Disagreement, obstruction, disruption and disorientation within a body politic are symptoms of disease in the same way corruption, tyranny and civil strife are. Such afflictions can be debilitating, especially in extraordinary circumstances -- in a time of war, for instance, or a public emergency. That’s when differences are set aside so that everyone can start pitching in to defend the realm.
The omni-partisan movement was conceived as a relatively slow process: I imagined taking a year or so to develop the concept, set the preliminary steps, and work towards a launch in March, 2024.
With the Ontario government appearing to be going rogue on multiple fronts -- the latest news is that they’re ready to step in and take charge of Waterloo County/Region schools -- we may no longer be able to afford to be quite so patient and careful. Moreover, with the resignation of NDP MPP Laura Mae Lindo, citizens in Kitchener Centre will be voting in a provincial by-election soon. We’ve got work to do, options to consider, decisions to make.
The last time the people of Kitchener Centre chose a Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidate to represent us in Queen’s Park was in 1999. Since then, we’ve gone red four times, and orange in the last two elections. Federally, we’ve chosen mostly Liberal representatives, with a blue interlude during the Harper era. The needless federal election the Liberals called in 2021 yielded a surprise result: Kitchener elected Green candidate Mike Morrice to represent us.
I’m pleased to be able to say that, except for the two times the new-fangled Conservative Party of Canada won Kitchener over, I voted with the winning plurality in every one of the 14 provincial and federal elections that have been held since the turn of the millennium. It was almost always a plurality; only once during that period has my vote, or anyone else’s, been in alignment with an actual majority here in Waterloo Country: the election of Liberal Karen Redman in 2000.
We don’t know yet when the by-election will happen, but if we get to work right away there may be enough time to put together a loose coalition of people committed to harmonizing differences. We could experiment, not with strategic voting, but with what could be called deliberate voting: That means collectively deciding, through an extended deliberation process, what the best possible result would be so that we can all vote together to help move things forward. Since it is consensus, or general agreement, that we’re seeking, precise numbers and scrupulous counts won’t matter so much. We’ll know if and when we get there.
At this point, before we even know who the various candidates will be, one possibility has an obvious appeal: Choosing a Green candidate to represent us in Queen’s Park to match the one we sent to Parliament Hill would look really good on the Kitchener Centre electoral district and its people. The fact that this would be complementing the representation our Grand River Country neighbours in Guelph sent to the provincial legislature last year makes the prospect even more attractive. A “Double Green” Kitchener would be front page news that would make Canadians everywhere sit up and take notice in ways that a red or orange victory could not.
While the Ford administration has proven to be a threat to almost everything worth caring about, their environmental record is the most shameful, offensive and damaging aspect of their time in power. A Green victory in Kitchener in 2023 would send a strong, clear message that this is unacceptable. It would encourage everyone who cares about any and all fundamental civic concerns from coast to coast to coast to keep on trying, especially concern over the kind of world we’re leaving for future generations.
But the best possible result must also be the most viable: it has to be a candidate who can win. Mike Morrice has special qualities. He worked extraordinarily hard building momentum over two election campaigns, and got lucky when the Liberal incumbent withdrew from the race. And unfortunately, from a strategic perspective at least, the Green Party has chosen to keep their provincial and federal organizations separate (the New Democrats are the only party that integrates the two spheres).
It’s hard, at this point, to imagine a blue victory in Kitchener Centre. But there have been instances where a relatively small Green vote could have made all the difference for a red or orange candidate who came in second. A Green Wave could make this spoiler phenomenon a more common occurrence in 2026. Remember how that Orange Wave during the federal election of 2011 helped give the Canadian Conservative Party the first majority in their brief history. We’ll have to think this over very carefully.
An omni-partisan approach assumes that we’re going to need all hands on deck — green, orange, red, and even true blue — to redeem our province by 2026, and to save Canada from what threatens to be an even worse fate when the next federal election comes around. Blurring, blending and combining party affiliations could open the door to a range of promising possibilities.
Kitchener’s Greens decided which candidate they’d be endorsing on Tuesday, May 2: They’ve chosen Aislinn Clancy, the rookie City Councillor representing Ward 10. Veteran Ward 9 Councillor Deb Chapman has announced that she is willing to serve as the New Democratic candidate. Orange is the other viable choice, and we’re fortunate to have both.
There’s a symmetry emerging here that looks interesting, and perhaps even promising. I hope they run a mutually respectful campaign. For the Green Party to win, they’ll have to persuade a lot of people who voted Orange and Red last June to try something different this time. Going on the attack is no way to find friends.
Attacking the people in power can also be counter-productive. The problem with calls of corruption greed, cronyism and so forth is that they end up sullying, not just Doug Ford and his ministers, but also the offices they hold. It's the same with insults such as "moron," "drop-out," "drug-dealer," “timbit” and so forth. This plays right into the hands of the neo-con/lib, "government is the problem" types who prop up this regime.
Instead of a contest, let’s think of the candidates as a set of options to consider. Instead of mulling things over and deciding who to vote for privately, I’m proposing that we deliberate together as the campaign unfolds, with a view towards reaching something approaching a consensus in order to be able to vote in concert.
If there were a contingent of engaged citizens with diverse views large enough to be considered the nucleus of an omni-partisan movement in Kitchener Centre, one or more of us could throw a hat into the ring for the Liberal nomination with the slogan “let’s sit this one out.” The LPO needs time to rebuild. Ontario and Canada from coast to coast to coast need a viable, big tent, pragmatic, time-honoured Liberal Party.
A conciliatory stance in Kitchener Centre could be a wise strategy for the Liberals if it set a precedent for 2026 and other future elections. One way to accomplish this would be to delay the nomination process as long as possible, and then decide to back either Aislinn Clancy or the Kitchener Centre NDP candidate. Omni-partisans could help them decide.
Another contingent of omni-partisans could join the Kitchener Centre Conservative riding association with the slogan “let’s put the progressive back in the picture, and make conservation an essential element of what conservative means.” Ontario and Canada from coast to coast to coast need a viable, big tent, pragmatic, time-honoured Progressive Conservative Party almost as much as they need a healthy Liberal Party.
Meanwhile, omni-partisans could help develop and promote procedures for allowing dual or even multiple party membership. There were once Red Tories, why can’t there be Green Tories? There could be Liberal Greens and Green Liberals. Some Liberals were said to be courting Guelph’s Green MPP Mike Schreiner to run for the leadership of their party. Why couldn’t Liberals who are so inclined be invited become Green without having to abandon their Clear Grit heritage entirely?
New, progressive and co-operative democracy, of course, goes with almost everything. Unmitigated socialism in the traditional sense is more problematic because of all the negative associations. But nothing decent, hopeful, loyal or true is compatible with a regressive, disruptive, dictatorial, re-colonizing neo-lib/con insurgency that plays on peoples fears and resentments to win office. It is certainly not compatible with true blue “King and Country” Tory preferences; nor with small town blue chamber of commerce progress as prosperity views; nor with the interests of blue blood downtown elites; nor with modern corporate culture; nor is it compatible with any view that draws on Catholic, Evangelical, mainstream Protestant or even good, old-fashioned service club values.
These renegades in blue disguise are impenetrable, having abandoned public consultation and dialogue almost completely, even during election campaigns. They chant their slogans and run their ad campaigns, but no longer bother showing up at all-candidates meetings, debates or town hall sessions. And maybe its better that way. Engaging with what is essentially a negation is futile, and, because this malaise is contagious, even dangerous.
Green, on the other hand, is universally relevant, and therefore transcends the traditional left versus right political spectrum. Green considerations could be the key to a peaceful resolution of the culture wars; to reconciling the ways brought here from overseas with those of the peoples and nations who have always been here; to achieving harmony between the cities, the suburbs and the countryside; between old ways and new ways; the NIMBY and the YIMBY; between the massive “boomer” demographic — my generation — and the young people who are reaching adulthood or beginning a work career now, in the wake of the pandemic.
My sense is that Green would work better as an additive, a leavening agent or a catalyst than as an alternative or an opposition. It’s a pity the word “woke” has developed such negative associations. What we really need here and now is an awakening, a revival, an outpouring of the spirit, not a “new deal,” and certainly not a revolutionary vanguard guided by conviction implementing a total solution.