Ford, Strikes, And Lessons Learned

On Crises Notwithstanding

I am going to disappoint a lot of people and say that I’m decidedly unsure that the strike action that is starting as I publish this in Ontario is going to work.

It’s not that I don’t think Educational Assistants aren’t important – my mother was one, at one point! – or that they aren’t underpaid (of course they are!). It’s that I don’t think the left understands how much parents will be livid – and rightly so – about a return to online school, which we know won’t work, because it hasn’t. I do find this fight fascinating, even if I don’t think that either side is in the right completely, for one reason.

The left needs to stop thinking that there will be an electoral price for bad process.

…

One of the defining features of liberalism, at its core, is its lack of radicalism. I’m not saying liberals can’t want change, but their theory of how that happens is inherently anti-radical. What separates the average NDP member from the average Liberal in this country, or the average Bernie primary voter in 2020 from the average Buttigieg one, is not particular disagreement about their preferred policy end state, it’s how to get there.

Incrementalism is either described as insufficient and weak or responsible and prudent, all based on where on that divide someone falls. The reason some liberals are less radical is there’s a fear amongst them that how they act is as important as whether they act, so you see institutionalists refuse to want to overstep for fear that there will be backlash to the very idea of the movement. In the US, it’s why Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to impeach Trump the first time – she’s an institutionalist who didn’t want the House to become a chamber where every time the other side wins they just get impeached. Pelosi – rightly or wrongly is irrelevant here – worried there would be a political price for the act itself, whether people agreed with the outcome or not.

Conservatives used to think this, but have increasingly cared about this less – between the Australian right shamelessly dumping Tony Abbott because they were going to lose their seats in 2015 to Boris throwing out all his Remain MPs in 2019 to Trump’s whole Presidential run and then Presidency, the right has correctly judged that they will pay no price for what would otherwise by controversial processes to get to good outcomes.

We know the left can understand this fact – Pierre Trudeau’s “Just Watch Me” was a fairly on the nose argument for ends justifying means, and his son’s use of the Emergencies Act to clear the occupation of my city was eventually the same – but they’re tentative and frankly impotent often, mostly because they think they will pay a price in terms for being heavy handed, even if people like the thing they’re being heavy handed to invoke.

That sort of fear is inherently a good thing – fear of backlash leads to better government in this country, and fear of losing elections is generally the whip that the Canadian people use to refocus floundering administrations. The Liberals these days do seem a bit sharper, a bit more responsive, a bit just generally better the last couple of months, I think in some measure because their polls were a bit shit over the summer and into Poilievre’s honeymoon.

The problem is the Canadian right has started acting like this, with Ford’s use (or abuse, your mileage may vary) of the Notwithstanding Clause the natural extension of this. For Ford, this may be as simple as students need to stay in the classroom at all costs and therefore anything he can do to get that outcome is fair game, but it’s also a timely reminder to the left that these are the rules of the game, and we should play accordingly. The Liberal MP for Kingston and the Islands scolded some provincial NDPers for their willingness to act up and intentionally get themselves booted from the Provincial legislature this week, because to him, that was beneath responsible Parliamentarians. The problem is, when one side’s stripmining the Constitution for parts, I don’t want a respectful debate, I want a street fight.

The thing is, this strike is obviously necessary and the Ford Government are obviously scum, but they made a bet that people will care more about outcomes than process. That bet is fundamentally correct. What that means is that the federal Liberals and various provincial parties need to understand that.

What does that mean in specific? It means the Liberals need to start focusing on policy outcomes and basically running roughshod over the jurisdictional obligations to solve it. If I have to hear more Liberals explain that housing policy is the domain of the provinces and cities, and not their job, I will yeet something into the sun. Are they technically correct? Sure. Does it matter? Not a one.

The Ford government is showing there is a path forward for a government that is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure the outcomes they want. I’m not here to argue that the Federal Liberals should argue for reductions in workers rights, but I am arguing there’s a lesson here. If Ford faces backlash, it won’t be because of the Notwithstanding Clause, it’ll be because kids are out of the classroom because he’s cheap. Again, it’s about outcomes, not processes.

If this means the Feds need to threaten to withhold federal funds to municipalities who don’t build more homes? Do it. If it means the Feds have to take a more bold stance in the imminent fights with Danielle Smith? Do it. The outcome is worth more than any process fear – and Doug Ford’s own actions mean the Tories can’t even fucking attack them for it without coming off as massive hypocrites.

In trying to be tough, Ford’s going to be hurting the kids he cares so much about. Potentially more lastingly, he’s set the precedent that the ends justify the means no matter what.

Justin Trudeau should take note.