A Two Party Political System and Extremism

There are a host of structural differences between the American and Canadian political systems due to the difference structures, America being republican with the direct election of the chief executive official and Canada being parliamentary with the indirect election of the chief executive.  Beyond the structural and resulting differences thereby created by the different structures, one of the differences, not created by the founding structure but which has evolved and become well settled is that in the United States there is two party system. In the United States, while a third party is theoretically possible both regionally and nationally, due to the entrenchment of the two party system with rules designed to hinder the formation of a statewide or regional third party, the rise of a third party is functionally impossible short of a split taking place in one of the two current parties.

 

By contrast, in Canada, and in Great Britain and Australia, multiple parties with regional and national appeal are not only possible but are common. Three or four options is such a common occurrence in Canada that having candidates on the ballet from three major parties is taken for granted by Canadians. While it is theoretically possible for Canada to have dozens of parties with wide national or provincial appeal, having more than three or four nation-wide or provincial-wide parties having broad appeal is rare for when a party becomes too small its effective voice for impacting change is so minimal that the party thereby ceases to be viewed as a viable option.  

 

A common argument for two having only to parties is that it ensures the winning candidate and party has the support of the majority of the citizenry. Such reasoning is based upon math, but we it does not mean the victorious candidate or party has a mandate. We should not fool ourselves into thinking this way for as evidenced in the current political environment few winning candidates truly has the support of the majority. The 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia is an example of where many voters vote not for the candidate but against the other candidate and for lesser of two poor choices.

 

This dynamic of voting for the lesser of two evils or poor candidates is more than rarity in America politics due to the extremes having strong sway and/or those with deep money yielding a victor in the local primaries who the general public cannot support. Well motivated organized extremes can readily have significant impact in a primary given that only a limited number of centrist voters become engaged in the primary process. Hence, a small group, a hundred or so, which are well organized and solidly funded, can color the results far beyond what their numbers would at face value indicate.

 

While in any system a drive to an extreme can occur, a two party system is particularly prone so such a drift. The extremes on the both left and right push their parties to away from being more centrist, and thereby leaving voters voting against a candidate than for a candidate, the lesser of two evils rather than embracing a candidate who reflects for the most part the views of the major of their constituents.  I like other’s too often find myself voting for a candidate that is not close to where I stand. And there are times when I’ve voted against someone who is closer to my economic and social views but cannot support that candidate because the party at large has become too far removed from my position. Hence, in a two party system, the choice sometimes comes down to going o the devil you least dislike.  

 

Unfortunately, when elected the individual and party come into power they think they have a mandate to do some more extreme things when no such a mandate exists except within the fringe that gave them the primary victory.

 

An ongoing via third party tends be a brake against extremes heavily influencing the other two parties for if the left of one party takes their party too far to the left while the right of the second party takes the second in the opposite direction, it is highly likely they will discover that they have ceded power to the more centrist party. For a party to remain on the extreme too long invites ongoing marginalization or even extinction as the majority of the voters will look to the party or party that is towards the center. For a party’s survival, the pragmatic center will ultimately pull their party away from the extreme.  Voters will more frequently be voting for a candidate they can affirm rather than choosing between the lesser of three evils.   

Vancouver Bans Doorknobs!

Vancouver British Columbia has banned doorknobs and the round water facets. New construction and renovations are to have leavers on doors and facets, with public space progressively switching to levers in the coming years and businesses being encouraged to do so too.

 

My libertarian side decries such legislation as both an unnecessary governmental overreach, and an unnecessary expense forced upon businesses and the public. That’s my reactionary self focused side coming to the fore as in my every day life such ergonomic friendly devices provide me little value to my life, do not give me any greater freedom and mobility. That’s me being centered upon my own life, my current needs and protecting my pocketbook without giving any thought to how such handicap and senior friendly levers provide the elderly and those with physical handicaps with a greater level of mobility and independence.

 

When I think of my parents and mother-in-law, the value of levers becomes increasingly apparent. When I think of the minor touches of arthritis I feel on damp days may well become more serious out twenty years, the levers become more attractive.

 

My short-term self interest and that quieter bent against governmental interference argues that if I need such levers, then I should be free to install them in my home but I should not regulate their installation elsewhere. Then pausing I realize that my argument against such a law is arguing against my future self-interest. While my home could have levers, if they are not commonly found elsewhere then I start to become a prisoner in my own home, for while I could move readily around my own private space, going into the public space to move visit government facilities, medical facilities, churches, businesses and friends would be another matter. If I lacked the muscle dexterity required to turn a doorknob I could not open doors and thereby my mobility and independence is undermined. So functionally places with round knobs would not be places I could readily visit.

 

So when my community minded side pushes to the fore, my less self-centered side, I start to think about the overall value to the community, to my aging parents and for my ultimate self-interest, I view of Vancouver’s law more warmly. When I note that the dexterity and mobility of myself and friends will be far less in two decades, I wish other jurisdictions would take similar steps for our overall collective good. The cost differential between the traditional knob system and a lever system is minimal. Vancouver’s law is not unwarranted government intrusion. Rather it is a proactive law helping the community to become more senior and handicap friendly.           

Guns Rights, NRA, and Democracy

For what it’s worth, I’m adding my voice to the gun control debate. From when I first shot a rifle at the gun range in the basement of Mississauga’s Thomas Kennedy High School I’ve enjoyed shooting rifles. I affirm the right of hunters and recreational target shooters to own guns. I also seek to understand the Second Amendment within its original context rather than the twisted recasting that has current sway.    
 

After yesterday’s drivel from NRA’s Wayne Lapierre, I cannot remain silent. He has drawn me into expressing my views to my elected officials. Some gun advocates say that this is not the time to discuss such issues. When would be the time? Two months later following another shooting? Six months later? There is bound to be another shooting that would be used to justify the “now is not the time” posture. The “now is not the time” statement is commonly made after shootings. Yet I remain perplexed why many of the same people don’t refrain from speaking out and taking action doing similar when people are killed by drunk drivers, or underage drinking parties, or major accidents with loss of life occur at poorly designed intersections, or when mass transit safety is a concern following an accident, or with regard to abortion, in rare cases of voter fraud, etc. They would never accept, “now is not the time” argument on these type of issues. Many of those who advocate “respectful silence during a time of grief” after a shooting are the first to call for action and push for redress to limit its recurrence. I don’t see any reason to treat Second Amendment rights under different rules than other issues.


The NRA’s reasoning is flawed, and we would never accept such flawed reasoning on any other issue. Nonetheless, it is accepted widely and embraced because it taps into our own fears and paranoia, both national and individual. Therefore, we want to accept such reasons to justify gun ownership. If I understand LaPierre’s reasoning, it runs this way…gun ownership provides the foundation to keep America free. Furthermore, America is a dangerous country, so much so that all its citizens must be armed to protect themselves from each other; if more citizens were armed, gun crime would decrease as people would be afraid to use guns illicitly; and as gun free zones schools are particularly vulnerable because they invite people to take guns there and to use them against helpless victims.

The NRA argues that government legislation should not prevent law-abiding citizens from buying whatever guns they want. I have two problems with this argument. First, it opens the door wide open to enabling criminals and the emotional unstable to buy guns too. Just as we do by locking our doors and by having keys to start our cars limit theft, having some gun purchase barriers/qualifications helps limit the opportunity and the frequency of criminals and the unstable securing guns. Second, it also overlooks that a good number of those who have used a gun in suicide, to commit homicide and even many of these mass shootings that catch our attention, were law-abiding citizens up until the moment they pulled the trigger.

What Lapierre is proposing for arming schools with armed officers is exactly what Columbine High School had when the shootings occurred there. In fact, that school had two armed police officers on duty at the moment of the shooting. The shooters knew their school had armed officers, but that knowledge did not instill any fear in them. The shootings still took place. The mall in Washington state had armed security, yet the shootings still occurred. The shooter in the Sandy Hook had guns in his home, which were owned by his mother. Instead of her guns protecting her, as the NRA argues should have been the case, they were used against her.

When the shooter of President Ronald Regan drew out his weapon, he knew there would be a multitude of Secret Service agents and local police officers with weapons ready to be used. The shooter who attempted to shoot President Ford faced the same and she knew it. Robert Kennedy had similar protection. Yet in all three cases, did all that well armed protection deter the shooters? Evidently, the armed protection was not a deterrent, which argues against LaPierre’s reasoning. Also arguing against Lapierre’s reasoning is the Fort Hood shooting, a place where thousands of people were well armed, and still unable to prevent a tragedy.

More Americans have guns in their homes than at any other time than in over a hundred years. According to LaPierre’s reasoning, gun crime should be decreasing. We should be at our lowest point. Have the number of gun crimes decreased? No, they have not; in fact, they have increased. The severity of the shootings higher than it was in the 70s and 80s when large gun clips were not available to the general public.

Switzerland and Israel are two countries with trained civilian military who, until recent years, took their military arms home. Both countries were experiencing unaccepted levels of accidental shootings, domestic homicides and suicide. After they changed their policies regarding military guns in home, the rates of such instances in all three types of gun activity dramatically decreased.

Israel discovered that when a soldier had a gun in the home and became depressed, that the gun was too available to be used in a moment of depression and heightened emotions. Removing the gun allowed time for the heightened emotions to diminish and moments of depression to work themselves out. Is gun availability in the home a factor behind law enforcement being the highest profession for suicide by gun? It’s a question that needs attention.

Part of me pities Lapierre for having such a negative feeling about the society in which he lives and works. Imagine living in such fear, believing that your society is so dangerous that you must be heavily armed at work, as you drive around your community, as you shop, as you travel, as you go out to restaurants and entertainment venues and as you live in your home. I cannot imagine living with such fear. I could not work in an office where I felt I needed to have a weapon at hand, because I did not think highly about my workmates and had a gun just in case they started shooting and I had to be willing to kill some of them. The same applies to how I view my neighbors or who will be with me tomorrow morning in church. I live and work in the neighborhood in which he works, travels and lives. The NRA headquarters is just two hundred yards from my home and I have never had a fear walking and driving in the community. But alas he has such fear. Then I remind myself that LaPierre is a paid mouthpiece, albeit a highly paid one, for the gun manufacturers and dealers who underwrite the bulk of the NRA budget and much of LaPierre’s salary. He is paid by gun manufacturers and dealers to spin a story to help protect their business and pump gun sales.

I think it is a sad commentary that an organization is advocating that every school become an armed camp. In a time when schools are cutting teaching positions due to budgetary constraints, it is being argued, implicitly, that more teaching positions should be eliminated so armed police officers can patrol school hallways and guard school doors. I do not want my children, or future grandchildren, stepping off school buses and having to walk past guards carrying military grade rifles; I don’t want students to be compelled to pass through metal detectors as they enter their school, nor do I want them to see their teachers standing before them with guns on their hips. What a horrible message to send to them day after day, year after year. What a horrible message to send about a free democratic society, that they are no safer in the community than children in conflict torn countries.

As an aside, the NRA boasts about its membership numbers, which have, sadly, increased since the Newtown massacre. I look at such boasting with askance. If you own a gun and wish to go to a gun range, you are likely going to have to join the NRA as a condition of using the range. Like the closed union shops with union membership required to work at the plant, NRA membership is required to practice with your gun at gun ranges, and though the majority of NRA members hold that registration, background checks and clip limits are reasonable protections, the NRA uses their dues to advance views that many of their members do not support. Yet, while conservatives decree the unions for having closed shops, no one word of protest is heard about the NRA requirement to use a gun range…a most interesting inconsistency that suggests that when it comes to the gun industry in America, it is allowed operate by a different set of laws.

To hold that the gun is the foundation is our democracy is a most unfortunate commentary on the nature and fragility of American democracy. History continues to teach us that armed, biased local militias and thugs stifle democracy, not enhance it. Further, does this not imply that countries that have gun control laws are not true democracies? The Canadians, Japanese, British, French, Germans, Swiss, Italians, Austrians, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Fins, Australians, all vigorous democracies with gun control, would disagree with such a position. The ballot and free speech, not guns, are the true foundations of democracy. American democracy is well and strong, it is no so fragile that it needs a gun to protect it!

I favor reasonable registration of all firearms, background checks, limits on the type of guns and clip sizes available to civilians, and mandatory firearms safety certifications. Would such laws eliminate all gun violence? No, and to think otherwise would be delusional. Do car registrations, required annual safety inspections and safety standards, driver licenses and licensing standards eliminate all accidents? No, but accidents rate would be much higher with poorly trained (or untrained) drivers. And vehicle safety standards help remove unsafe cars from the road, thereby make driving our roads a much safer experience for all. The same things apply for gun use and regulation.

At the top I noted that I enjoyed target shooting. It is a sport I would like to enjoy again, but, unfortunately, to do so functionally requires that I be a member of the NRA. THAT I will not do, for I repudiate that organization’s irresponsible policies, as well as its warped views of my neighbors, workmates, and society in general. Unlike Wayne LaPierre, I choose to respect rather than fear my fellow humans.

Keystone and the Decision to Depend On Mideast Oil

Though America has said it wants to rely less on imported oil from the troubled Middle East, it is a shame that America in the Keystone decision has elected not to buy oil from its economically and politically stable neighbor.

Nearly two weeks ago the Obama administration announced that it was delaying approval of the Keystone pipeline as yet another study needed to be conducted (reminds me of governments pushing a topic into an endless series Royal Commission as a means to delay something unduly or even kill it without saying so). The Obama administration has made a misstep on this matter. Studies have been done which have addressed various environmental concerns.

True no pipeline is risk free of spills occurring. No off-shore or even on-shore, oil rig is risk free of spills, nor are tankers that come along our shores and to our ports. The hundreds of thousands of gasoline trucks that travel contain higher risks of that a modern pipeline using the state of the art technologies. Do we stop trucks from traveling the road, tankers bringing crude to our shores, or do we stop drilling? No. Instead we manage risk in a thoughtful manner by learning from past miscalculations and utilize the best technology that is reasonable.

Will the Obama’s administration stall the development of the Alberta oil sands? Anyone who is an opponent of the Keystone is badly mistaken if they think it will end or even slow down the development of the oil sands project. Let’s make no mistake the oil in the tar sands will be coming out of the ground! It is a matter of to whom will the oil be sold, to the USA or to Pacific Rim countries which have robust economies that rely heavily upon imported oil such as Japan, China and Australia.

The question Canada should be asking of the American administration is simple, is the United States prepared to take delivery of the oil within five years? If the answer is not yes, but maybe eventually after we study the matter further for a few more years, then the Canadian response should be straight forward…announce that Canada will sell elsewhere and to that end will be adding to its pipeline infrastructure to the west coast as Canada has made a commitment to sell its oil to Japan, China and other Pacific Rim countries. Of course the American reaction to loosing such a quantity of oil so close at hand will be negative. The Canadians can readily reply that America was the preferred buyer but when America was not willing to commit, Canada elected to allow the free market determine that the oil would be going to other countries.

For Canada there are two economic advantages for selling tar sands oil to China and Japan. Both countries are willing to pay a significantly higher price than the Americans. Hence, Canada would have more net income, some of which could be used to decrease the crude it sells for internal consumption. Lower internal crude prices would enable Canada to have lower gas prices than the US and thereby giving Canadian firms another competitive advantage as a result of lower energy costs. Also, the pipeline would travel further across Canadian soil and the tanker port would be on Canadian shores all of which mean more jobs for Canadians than would be an pipeline running to the USA.

Pump Prices and Taxes

Most of us are aware that Europeans paid three to four times more for gasoline than Americans or Canadians. Last year seeing the difference during last year’s visit to Italy reinforced that impression afresh. Like most I have assumed that the primary difference was that these countries relied exclusively, or almost exclusively upon costly imported oil whereas Americans and Canadians have a greater amount of their own national oil that was cheaper to recover and transport. Hence, the cheaper oil helps to bring down the overall price at the pump. I have also been aware that there may well be differences in taxes too.

Whenever we drive north of the boarder we are immediately cognizant of the difference in gasoline prices at the pump between the United States and Canada. The difference is remarkable given that both countries consume about the same amount of oil produced from national resources. As with the US, every region within the Canada has different prices that are influenced by competition, volume of sales and the costs of transporting gasoline from the refinery. Differences in state/provincial taxes are also a factor, and in the US so are local taxes also, a factor that further accentuates differences.

While the level of imported oil is a factor, taxation differences account for the differences between the US and Canada. According to the Tax Policy Center, if one eliminates tax differences, there is only a 5% price per gallon between the US and Canada, much of which can be accounted for by transportation and volume factors. On the federal level taxes, excise taxes are 110% higher in Canada than in the US (only Mexico has lower excise taxes than the US). Federal sales taxes are also 110% higher in Canada than in the US which has the lowest the lowest sales in the world (Canada, the second lowest).

Using August 2005 as a defining point, an American Petroleum Institute study indicates that US excise and federal sales taxes increased the gas coming out of the refinery by 29% (state and local would be on top) whereas in Canada the same taxes increased the gas by 58%. The same report indicates that the UK and Germany actually had a lower cost per gallon coming out the refinery but the pump costs were greater due to taxes. In the UK the two federal taxes increased the costs of a gallon coming out of the refinery by 179%, and in Germany, by 162%. In Australia the taxes increased the costs by 88.5% and in Japan, by 99%.

While Canada has about 10% of the population of the US and Canada, it has 20% of the miles of the number of miles of its larger neighbor. This means on a per capital basis, Canada’s highway system is about twice that of the US. This is not surprising given the number of small rural and remote communities scattered across such a vast country. In Canada gasoline taxes are higher due to the ratio between highway miles and population. Also in Canada there is an expectation that gas taxes cover a greater share of construction and maintenance costs and with less funding coming from general revenue. In the US, a higher level of general revenue goes into the highway system than occurs in Canada.

In the US, gasoline taxes do not come even close to covering road construction and maintenance costs. Over the last three decades general revenue has covered a growing share of such costs. For the most part taxes of have remained fixed, so much per gallon, even as construction and maintenance costs have increased. While the simple solution would be to increase taxes and modify the tax structure, pump prices are a politically sensitive issue. Any politician who advocates such changes puts his election prospects at risk. Even before the current anti-tax/cut taxes to the bone environment, changes were not likely to occur. Politicians have felt it was easier to draw the funds from general revenue and delay maintenance if it put the road system at risk.

Given a more extensive system on a per capita basis, snow removal factors, the harsher environment and standards to meet that harsher environment, and less general revenue allocated to roads, it is not surprising that gasoline taxes are higher in Canada.

If gasoline taxes in Canada and went to pay fully for the highway systems, the price at the pump would likely increase by 50 to 100%, and come within 25% of Europe pump prices where gasoline taxes cover the full cost of highway building and maintenance. It will be interesting to watch over the next five to eight years as to what will happen to the quality of the road system in the US and Canada in an age of slashing general revenue and budgets.

As a little footnote, for the Canadian reader….the 401 between Guelph and Oshawa is the busiest highway in the world.

The Necessity of the Separation of Church and State

As a Canadian who is also an American citizen, one of the most puzzling things about American society is how the separation of church and state is understood. The concept has gone well beyond the separation Canadians understand.

In Canada the government is religious neutral. It does not promote or support one religious faith above another. It recognizes that every resident has the right to congregate for worship and worship as they so wish without governmental interference. People are free to hold any religious views a person so wishes. Likewise her residents are free to reject any and all religious believes as conscious so dictates. In return what the government and the country expects is that its faith communities to be respectful of those that hold different beliefs, to carry out religious dialogue in a civil manner and to respect the law of the land.

In return, the government protects the individual’s and group’s right to religious express if that expression is not contrary to the law of the land. Each group’s property is treated the same and allowed certain property tax exemptions and its income is tax exempt if it falls within designated bounds. Gifts to all recognized religious bodies treated the same with no group being favored above the other.

In other words, in Canada not only is government and religion not antagonistic towards one another, they frequently partner together to provide significant good for the overall welfare of the community. In the United States there is an antagonistic edge towards church and state relationships.

When the Unites States was created, it appears that the founders had similar religion neutral practices in mind. In various commentaries penned by them regarding the founding documents are references to religious neutrality and the recognition that other than Judaism other religions such as Islam may well be part of the American milieu. They also recognized that it would be left to subsequent generations to work out religious neutrality in practical terms as the country evolves and changes.

The religious neutrality has been an ongoing challenge, particularly in the last six decades. As the nation became more pluralistic court ruling and other laws were specifically designed to be religion neutral. Unfortunately some the the reaction from the conservative church became anxious that the Lord's Prayer and other Christian expressions were being removed from schools and other government locations. The intent was for neutrality but various elements in the church saw it as a threat to the church and the "dechristianization of the Christian nation." While there was some cause for concern as there was some rulings and legislation that appeared to be an effort to create a religion free environment, the bulk was an effort toward religious neutrality. As with many other conflicts the more conflicted the spirit, the further both parties pushed each other apart so that increasingly a religion free environment seemed to the goal.

Today there is a growing reluctance to see religious communities be involved in any venture that involves public funds. A religion free rather than religion neutral stance appears to have greater force. Some on the left fear that the funds will be used to proselytize while some on the left see the funds as providing an opportunity for the government to dictate religious belief, conduct and employment policies. The church does not have innocent hands.

What I find most interesting is those who are most fearful of governmental interference in her beliefs and practices are frequently the very same groups that are aggressively attempting to force government legislatures to design various laws around their religious teachings. The Roman Catholic bishops and the right to life elements of the church are demanding that government funding for abortion for any cause (including incest, rape and immediate physical health risk to the mother) be explicitly prohibited in the health reform legislation. This is an example of religious views being pushed out upon the country which on the whole does not support such an extreme position.

One bishop has gone as ask a Roman Catholic Congressman not take communion because he is willing to allow for federal funding of abortion. Communion within the Roman Catholic Church is one of the primary sacraments of grace, and the Church is withdrawing that primary vehicle from the Congressman because he will not agree with the Church on this one point. There is no separation of church and state.

Another example of a branch of the church that is attempting to force its views upon the community as a whole is the ballot and other initiatives regarding gay rights and gay marriage. While the initiatives are carefully crafted in their wording, and positioned to be defending “the traditions marriage”, what underlies it all is inflexible religious teachings and homophobia. As an aside, any cursory understanding of western and world history through the course of history shows us that the “traditional marriage” is anything but traditional, but is for the most part a modern North American creation.

Interestingly these groups do not see their political lobbying as being wrong or as entrenching a particular set of views upon the country at large. If the Jehovah Witnesses had greater political clout and were pushing for blood transfusions not be permitted or paid from public funds, would these same groups not take issue with the JWs for imposing their religious views upon the country as a whole? I doubt that they would remain silent.

It is such political activities of the religious right that pushes for people to have a stronger demarcation between church and state within the United States. In the last year I have come to see that the more dogmatic views of the separation of church and state is necessary in the United States whereas it is not in Canada. The separation is necessary to protect the state and the citizens of the country at large from a highly active and forceful religious group from having undo sway and having that brand of religion receiving preferential treatment, or worse tyranny of one religious viewpoint dominating society and how the country is governed.

Highway of Heroes Video

This video speaks for itself and how Canadians honor their fallen.