Anyone who knows me understands that being politically incorrect (PI)  has been a special strength all my life.   Unfortunately being so blessed is not good for my relations with the chattering class and other such elitist groups, and, as I found out in my four years as Mayor, does not work in politics either.  Even today, as a recovering politician, I still manage to get into a little trouble with my unique ability to make things clearer to the regular people by being PI.

Case in point, Ottawa Citizen editorial writer, David Reevely took me to task for using the word “Spics” in describing Spanish speaking Americans and asking why the Jewish community was not getting involved with the U.S. primaries in his blog : Would the real Larry O’Brien please stand up?  OK “guilty as charged” and he was right to call me out on the use of “politically Incorrect” words on twitter despite my avatar clearly illustrating that with  @larry_obrien1 you will get a politically incorrect viewpoint on twitter.

Wow. I didn’t know “politically Incorrect [sic]” meant straight-up racist.

This is obviously a complicated issue, but experts seem to agree that globalization and the shift of manufacturing overseas is a major contributor. The New York Times has published a couple of long reads lately that shed light on the issue beyond numbers. They are worth the time to really understand what is happening on the other side of the world, where Chinese workers scramble to produce our iPhones. This series is both heartbreaking and fascinating.

What struck me most was the human cost of producing this technology. People are dying in the worst case scenarios, while thousands are living in conditions that deny the basic needs that affirm one’s humanity- check out the excerpt below. (Back in the U.S., the series also tells the story of an individual who lost the manufacturing job that secured him a place in the middle class.)

 

The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.

Foxconn employs nearly 300 guards to direct foot traffic so workers are not crushed in doorway bottlenecks. The facility’s central kitchen cooks an average of three tons of pork and 13 tons of rice a day. While factories are spotless, the air inside nearby teahouses is hazy with the smoke and stench of cigarettes.

 

 

 

Dismal conditions in factories are nothing new, but I point to these articles since they do such a great job of putting a human face on a problem that is usually explained with numbers. This series is also proof that long form journalism is alive and well and worthwhile. It also raises some questions: is this a cultural issue as well? Could we imagine a manufacturing plant such as this in Canada?

Don’t worry, I’ll still be writing for the Commons. I don’t suspect I’ll really be getting into the nitty gritty of Canadian politics at the new site.

This ban, which was enacted in 1938, is out of place and unenforceable[.] Canadians should have the freedom to communicate about election results without fear of penalization[.]

Not only is Uppal correct that the ban is out of date and unenforceable, I would add that it is completely out of touch with how the majority of Canadians currently vote.

The stated reason for banning the early release of election results was to make sure that results in, say, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, or Ontario wouldn’t impact voting in Western Canada. Uppal goes on to note that the window for such influence is relatively small, but it is also fairly naive to assume that such strategic voting is primarily motivated by early election results.

I can’t speak to voting trends in 1938. But it essentially a matter of fact that in 2012 and the years recently preceding it that most Canadians either vote along partisan lines, in which case early election results don’t matter, or strategically. Pure “conscience” voting is a pretty rare bird these days. And the strategic voting of most Canadians starts well before election day and is influenced by a host of issues quite apart from early election results.

If we wanted to avoid strategic voting, we would probably do better to place a ban on political polling — a move that seems pretty remote.

But perhaps most importantly is the role that networks like Twitter and Facebook are playing in enabling political discussion and engagement. Many of the traditional avenues for civic engagement are in substantial decline. The old political trope of families discussing politics around the kitchen table hardly applies when it is rare these days for the average family to even eat dinner together at a kitchen table.

In the rapid pace of our atomized lives, social networks like Twitter and Facebook are filling that void and providing a space for us to once again practice the age old cacophony of democracy. I’m reminded of the Pew study that found Facebook users to be among the most politically engaged of all Internet users.

Our civil society is being renewed, it would seem, on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. And in that regard, any concerns that the early release of election results pose pales in comparison to placing limitations on this vital conversation.

Two days ahead of the South Carolina primary, this evening’s showdown among the last four standing Republican candidates could help consolidate Newt Gingrich’s recent surge or catapult Mitt Romney back into what was once a seemingly insurmountable lead.

It will also be interesting to see how Ron Paul manages to insert himself into the Romney-Gingrich duel and also how Rick Santorum seeks to capitalize on Rick Perry’s withdrawal from the race earlier this morning.

These four men—and the others who have since dropped out of the race—were once young adults in high school. One was a band leader, another a cheerleader, still another was a track athlete, and another wore very long sideburns.

Take a look at what each of them looked like in this short but still quite fascinating blast from the past.

So Andrew Coyne is right: the issue of dual citizenship is not about NDP MP and French citizen Thomas Mulcair at all. It speaks to a larger debate not exclusive to Canada: statehood versus nationhood and how this manifests in individuals in the form of citizenship. Not surprisingly, the Economist takes a rather flippant and pragmatic approach, i.e. statehood, nationalism and citizenship are mere technical arrangements.

But statehood and being a legal resident of a state, which are concrete ideas, prompts one to ponder the less definable notion of nationalism, and this is, as Coyne alludes to, an issue of political symbolism.

In reality, being a member of a state is more than a series of financial arrangements. It is an emotional and personal status that people live and die for.

So in this context, I am still thinking about the propriety of holding dual citizenship while serving the public as an elected official. Something from Max Weber helped me to develop my thoughts on top of Coyne’s persuasive argument- that giving up another citizenship is a necessary sacrifice for holding public office.

Weber writes that a nation is a values-based concept that cannot be defined empirically, and that it is proper to except both solidarity and sacrifice from its members.

“The significance of the nation is usually anchored in the superiority, or at least the irreplaceability, of the culture values that are to be preserved and developed only through the cultivation of the peculiarity of the group. It therefore goes without saying that, just as those who wield power in the polity invoke the idea of the state, the intellectuals, as we shall tentatively call those who usurp leadership in a Kulturgemeineshaft (that is, within a group of people who by virtue of their peculiarity have access to certain products that are considered ‘culture goods’) are specifically predestined to propagate the national idea.”

In this context, it is making more sense to me that sacrifice (giving up citizenship in another country) is involved with nationhood.

But I have a problem mainly with the questioning of loyalty of a dual citizenship holder intent on running for public office in Canada. Most people who run for office are motivated by a genuine desire to serve their community. You could also argue that politics involves a lot of personal sacrifice already.

Furthermore, does holding public office not necessitate sacrifice? Does it not illustrate a public display of loyalty already? Does holding another passport automatically degrade one’s loyalty to one’s country of residence? I would think that, perhaps ideally, loyalty and sacrifice are implicit qualities required to represent one’s fellow citizens in a democracy, but maybe not.

And here are a few more scenarios to consider:
Let’s say an MP has dual American/Canadian citizenship. I could see a problem if he or she were debating a bill on, say the Keystone pipeline. There is a clear conflict of interest there.

What about a Hatian/Canadian MP who travels back and forth, helping to rebuild infrastructure and fundraise? Would we have a problem with that? Should her or she renounce one citizenship?

Should all those running for office declare their citizenships? Should this happen at all levels of government?

Should we legislate citizenship requirements for potential holders of office as globalization proceeds? If so, should we distinguish between people who actively sought dual citizenship, like Mulcair, and those who received it by familial ties?
Somehow, I’ve ended up with more questions than answers.

Click here if you’re interested in past posts about marijuana.

I have never understood why a person who holds dual citizenship is characterized as having some sort of nefarious intent. (Full disclosure: I have dual citizenship as my mother was born in England). It seems to me that there is no higher indication of commitment to one’s country than running for office. How does the possession of another nationality erode this commitment?

And let’s not forget the whole globalization thing. The Economist has a provocative piece in the Jan. 7 issue on citizenship. They argue that, hell, why not gather not one more, but two more passports, on top of the one issued to you by your country of birth. As they write, “Loyalty to political entities need not be exclusive: indeed, it often overlaps…the old notion of one-man, one-state citizenship looks outdated: more than 200m people now live and work outside the countries in which they were born- but still wish to travel home, or marry and invest there.”

The article does not discuss citizenship in the context of holding office, but the point is that globalization is re-shaping the notion of nationality and citizenship. Protectionism sends the trajectory of the debate in the wrong direction. They go on to say that “Rather than making a fetish out of passports, a better approach would be to use residence (especially tax residence) as the main criterion for an individual’s  rights and responsibilities?”

This is the provocative part, and a separate debate. But here in Canada, it seems that the cloud of suspicion around a second nationality needs to be eradicated. This attitude is parochial, provincial and outdated.

A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;

My question to the people who hold such a belief is as follows: Exactly how and when can and should the government get involved to help these people in need? Are there specific policies that you would favour over the solutions that someone on the left would prefer? How would you limit them to the people in genuine need, rather than allowing people to simply leech off the system, which is a common conservative critique of programs favoured by the left?

I ask this out of curosity as much as anything. From what I’ve seen, the left has frequently justified government social programs for the same reasons as cited in the Conservative Party’s principle above-namely, to respond to those who require assistance and compassion-but these same programs have been criticized by conservatives and classical liberals. Hence I’d like to know what kind of policies conservatives and classical liberals would implement in their place, and how they’d provide necessary support and compassion while avoiding the pitfalls of the programs favoured by the left.

The provincial and federal governments are giving the City of Ottawa (among other municipalities, I would imagine) millions of dollars to fund housing for the poor. City staff are suggesting, typically, that the best way to help the poor is by funneling such funds to corporations – either by aquiring or building new rental units.

One councillor, thankfully, sees this policy for the misguided failure that it is. Allan Hubley is proposing that, rather than filling corporate wallets, the city should give the money to those in need in the form of rent supplements.

“Stop building and get a better handle on the units that we have,” Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley said in an interview.

…

Hubley says the money would be better used for rent supplements rather than adding more buildings to the housing portfolio which would require additional labour and upkeep.

“It’s not affordable for the taxpayer,” Hubley said, adding that new housing money should also pay for maintaining existing assets.

The city shouldn’t compete with private rental providers, he said.

 The report throws out the old canard that the vacancy rate in Ottawa is only 1.6% (a figure of which I have always been skeptical), and another councillour, Stephen Blais, is arguing – implausibly – that bumping aggregate demand for rental housing won’t work… unless the government does it. Sadly, there’s no explanation as to why developers love money that comes from the government but hate money that comes from poor people; that would have been fun to read.

I’ve written on this topic before, and I don’t feel like re-inventing the wheel, so here’s what I wrote last year about “affordable housing” policies:

I’ve said it before (as have many others); if you truly want to help the poor, give them money. If we determine that a certain demographic requires welfare (or whatever you prefer to call it), then we should, generally speaking, give them money to secure the wealth and the necessities that they desire and require. We shouldn’t just shuffle them into a bureaucrat-determined home, regardless of their wishes. Give them the money and let them make their own decisions. Don’t worry about making the housing affordable; worry about helping people afford housing.

No doubt, the city will take it’s usual course of action. But I’m sure this time it will eradicate homelessness.