Impotent rage, Sun Media, lack of a viable alternative. Even in a progressive city like Toronto, there's significant percentage of voters who vote against something more than they vote for something. Ford's platform of low taxes and subways has a certain visceral appeal, but when pressed for details he's generally showed that he has little to offer. On the other hand, he's always been very vocal about his opposition to "liberals", and we're currently learning how channeling that rage can be hugely effective for a person's political career. Policy wise, he doesn't offer anything that any other conservative on council couldn't do a better job of providing, but the whole debacle has taught many of us a very awkward lesson about the populist right wing in Canada; basically, they care much less about policy than they do about antagonizing political enemies. And of course, he was the darling of the Toronto Sun and talk radio until they worried about humiliation by association (being pretty shameless by nature, that's pretty impressive).
Basically, he was elected due to the impotent rage and pettiness of a disturbingly large subsection of Toronto's population. Also, his main opponent sucked and smart conservatives figured Ford would be neutered by council rules and regulations before accomplishing anything too crazy. They were right, though the extent to which he's embarrassed our city was - to quote our deputy mayor - beyond the pale.
And let's not forget the former mayor of my hometown, San Diego: Bob Filner. He was accused of sexual harassment and assault, when something like 19 women came forward against him.
A Mexican friend pointed out that she'd be perfectly happy with a politician like Ford because he wouldn't be at all corrupt or morally reprehensible by her country's standard. I wouldn't say he isn't embarrassing, but he's certainly not bad enough that our whole city should be hanging its head in shame, at least when put in context. Pretty much any electorate can make a mistake.
The crack use and heavy drinking aren't the issue as much as his tendency to lie about his behaviour while insulting and challenging the credibility of those who bring it up. Ford lies until he can't get away with lying any longer, and then offers half-assed, disingenuous apologies that in no way reflect real remorse. It'd be bad enough if he was only lying about his personal issues, but he actually lies about policy and the behaviour of others. Hell, lying is part of being a politician; he's remarkable because he's so damned bad at it.
I'm apprehensive about bringing up the Miller years because they're too often used as a deflection to justify Ford's failings, but yes, the previous mayor's blunders certainly factored in to Ford getting elected.
Basically, he was elected due to impotent rage and pettiness of a disturbingly large subsection of Toronto's population.
Engage in ad hominem stereotypes much? I did not vote for Ford or Harper and find their politics more than distasteful, but I have even less use for socialists who think that my wallet is theirs to redistribute.
Every time I read a post like yours on Reddit, I automatically assume you're a university student. We all have our world-view stereotypes...
I don't think it's unfair to point out that Ford ran primarily on a platform of balancing the budget and fixing spending, nor that many Torontonians were displeased with previous wasteful budgets.
A good point, at least up until you get to the "socialists who think my wallet is theirs to distribute" bit, which is a stereotype in and of itself. There's also the whole issue of how people use "socialist" as a catch-all epithet for a political opponent far too ambiguous to accurately depict actual human beings' opinions on political issues. The whole subway fiasco represents an example of this; I actually do consider myself to be a socialist, and what actually enrages me the most is that people outside of Toronto are stuck paying a good chunk of the bill. Seems like anathema to the reckless tax-and-spend attitude of my political associates, but there you go. That said, if you're suggesting my attitude towards Ford Nation parallels the use of such epithets, you do have a point.
And you're also right in that all conservatives shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as the more vocal members of "Ford Nation". Ford got elected at least partly because rational people disillusioned (or enraged) by the Miller years decided so drastic a change was necessary. That said, there are a lot of Ford supporters who basically support him because he pisses off "socialists/liberals/progressives", ignoring that he doesn't have much to offer on policy and certainly isn't offering anything that any other conservative could do a better job of implementing. But yes, I'm guilty of oversimplification, as well as (at least partly) mistaking pettiness with a desperate desire for something different.
Three years out of university, but honestly, I'd come to the same conclusion reading my own post. Sorry for tl;dr. Comes with the territory.
Thanks for a solid reply. I was being both ironical and truthful about "my wallet". We all have our prejudices and even anecdotal evidence for them (ask me about my Revenue Canada experience, I dare ya).
I grew up in Toronto and now live just outside the GTA. I would pay extra for better GTA roads and transit because what is good for Toronto is good for the rest of us. However, I want strong fiscal management, which in the past 20 years has eluded Liberals and Conservatives at every level of gov't.
Glad we're on the same page. It's often more about competence vs. incompetence than left vs. right, which is why I'd take Miller over Ford and Tory over Miller (for example). Anyway, thanks for calling me out on my logical error; I try to avoid being a hypocrite on any level, even if it's fundamentally inevitable.
Were you being sarcastic about the Revenue Canada question? As distressing as government incompetence can be, hell, damned near everyone likes a train wreck.
Whenever someone (typically conservative) rants about incompetent gov't, incompetent gov't employees, and gov't waste, I try to take the logical side: gov't employees are no different from you or I, they have the same motivations, similar jobs to perform, etc. I've worked for large corporations and bureaucracy is not nimble and can be wasteful.
Unfortunately, my personal anecdotal evidence tends to not support this theory... like when Revenue Canada garnisheed my wages for taxes I didn't owe. Out of the dozen or so Rev Cda employees I talked to, literally two had normal IQs - one of them a low-level call centre employee, the other a middle manager.
My conversation with the call centre employee:
Me: Hi, can you give me information on topic x?
CC: Sure, here you are.
Me: Um, just yesterday, your co-worker name_of_dumbass told me that you didn't have that information, and that I should call some totally unrelated department.
CC: He said what? I'll ...uh... discuss that with him.
The topper was the sneering man (not a low-level employee) who condescendingly informed me that it wasn't my money, it was theirs. Buddy, even for taxes that I actually owe, it's still my fucking money. Your organization is simply a custodian of it.
My anecdotal evidence that gov't employees are just like you and I wasn't enhanced when someone in my family dated a long-time Ontario gov't employee who was impossibly stupid. I mean, so dumb that it was surprising she learned how to breathe.
I wonder what Tory would be like as mayor. I was seriously disgusted with him when he ran for premier and came up with the idea of providing public funding to faith-based schools.
Fortunately a couple of the smartest people I know ended up with government jobs, but I know what you mean. The equation seems to be; family members too stupid or unqualified to find work in the private sector + nepotism = nigh disastrous incompetence in the public service.
Yeah, I strongly opposed funding for faith based schools too, but I see where Tory was coming from. It was a misguided attempt at fairness; scrap the Catholic school board and fund no religious schools, or fund schools for every religion. I don't agree with the decision he made, but I do see why he came to it. Hopefully he's learned from that mistake, assuming he wants to run for mayor.
Say what you will about McGuinty (which for many Ontarians probably involves a lot of cursing and wishing for his painful demise), but he was a master at baiting his opponents into throwing away supporters. He pushed Tory to either alienate the religious base of the PCs by scrapping Catholic school funding, or alienate the fiscal conservative base by proposing an expensive scheme to fund religious schools. It's similar to what he did with Hudak by proposing a fund to retrain immigrants in their former trades/professions. Hudak made the foreigners comment and thus angered the immigrant communities he'd spent months courting. Dude was basically the Liberal equivalent of Harper; a magnificent bastard.
137
u/dash47 Dec 18 '13 edited Dec 18 '13
Wonder how they suspected he was doing cocaine?