Milton Friedman, the Southern Cone and "Authoritarian Democracy"

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The Southern Cone refers traditionally to the Latin American countries of Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, and often includes Brazil.

In the 1970's, the area was the hotbed of left-wing ideals, with Salvadore Allende becoming the first democratically elected Marxist, when he became President of Chile.

But not everyone saw Allende's victory as positive.

Allende was hated by the Chilean monied classes for understandable reasons: he expropriated their large estates for peasant co-operatives and supported policies of large wage increases in industry. When he nationalized all U.S.-owned copper companies whose mines had been developed with U.S. capital and technology in the early years of the century and were still lucrative, he made an implacable enemy of the United States and its president, Richard Nixon. Henry Kissinger, then U.S. secretary of state, openly stated American intentions after Allende's election in 1970 when he said, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. " (1)

Fortunately for the monied classes, Chile already had a complement of free marketeers, who had been studying under the Chicago School of Economics. In the climate of the Cold War, a school was established in Santiago, to indoctrinate young students in the principles of neoliberalism.

Figuring out how to achieve that goal was the topic of discussion between two American men as they met in Santiago, Chile, in 1953. One was Albion Patterson, director of the U.S. International Cooperation Administration in Chile—the agency that would later become USAID—and the other was Theodore W. Schultz, chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. Patterson had become increasingly concerned about the maddening influence of Raul Prebisch and Latin America's other "pink" economists. "What we need to do is change the formation of the men, to influence the education, which is very bad," he had stressed to a colleague. This objective coincided with Schultz's own belief that the U.S. government wasn't doing enough to fight the intellectual war with Marxism. "The United States must take stock of its economic programs abroad ... we want [the poor countries] to work out their economic salvation by relating themselves to us and by using our way of achieving their economic development ... (2)

The economic policy of developmentalism, then rampant in South America, was viewed as "pinko", and just a step away from Communism.

The two men came up with a plan that would eventually turn Santiago, a hotbed of state-centred economics, into its opposite—a laboratory for cutting-edge free-market experiments, giving Milton Friedman what he had longed for: a country in which to test his cherished theories. The original plan was simple: the U.S. government would pay to send Chilean students to study economics at what pretty much everyone recognized was the most rabidly anti-"pink" school in the world—the University of Chicago. Schultz and his colleagues at the university would also be paid to travel to Santiago to conduct research into the Chilean economy and to train students and professors in Chicago School fundamentals.

What set the plan apart from other U.S. training programs that sponsored Latin American students, of which there were many, was its unabashedly ideological character. By selecting Chicago to train Chileans—a school where the professors agitated for the near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus—the U.S. State Department was firing a shot across the bow

But despite the fact that they were churning out hand picked neoliberals, the Southern Cone was still progressive.

But the Allende victory, gave Friedman, and what were referred to as the "Chicago Boys", an opportunity to create a laboratory, to test aggressive free market principles.

And to achieve this, it was necessary to engage in what Augustus Pinochet, the planted dictator of Chile, would call "Authoritarian Democracy". And Milton Friedman, the man who once accused President Kennedy of trying to create a police state, when he announced that he would be regulating the price of steel (Time. April 22, 1962), would oversee the project from start to finish.

And not just in Chile:

... the next fix came from other countries in Latin America's Southern Cone, where the Chicago School counter-revolution quickly spread. Brazil was already under the control of a U.S.supported junta, and several of Friedman's Brazilian students held key positions. Friedman travelled to Brazil in 1973, at the height of the regime's brutality, and declared the economic experiment "a miracle."" In Uruguay the military had staged a coup in 1973 and the following year decided to go the Chicago route.

Lacking sufficient numbers of Uruguayans who had graduated from the University of Chicago, the generals invited "Arnold Harberger and [economics professor] Larry Sjaastad from the University of Chicago and their team, which included former Chicago students from Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, to reform Uruguay's tax system and commercial policy. The effects on Uruguay's previously egalitarian society were immediate: real wages dropped by 28 percent, and hordes of scavengers appeared on the streets of Montevideo for the first time. (3)

And the revolution spread:

Next to join the experiment was Argentina in 1976, when a junta seized power from Isabel Perlin. That meant that Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil—the countries that had been showcases of developmental ism —were now all run by U.S.-backed military governments and were living laboratories of Chicago School economics. According to declassified Brazilian documents just released in March 2007, weeks before the Argentine generals seized power, they contacted Pinochet and the Brazilian junta and "outlined the main steps to be taken by the future regime. (3)

And despite the human atrocities throughout this period, Milton Friedman is still considered to be a hero.

It's important for us to understand the mind of this man, because his Chicago School begat the Calgary School, and the Calgary School begat Stephen Harper. And the late Milton Friedman was one of the most influential men in the Canadian neoconservative movement.

Sources:

1. Long Shadows: Truth, Lies and History, By Erna Paris, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, ISBN: 0-676-97251-9, Pg. 428

2. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 68-73

3. Klein, 2007, Pg. 102

Milton Friedman and the Destruction of Argentina

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

It is just as important to study Milton Friedman as Leo Strauss, in understanding Canada's neoconservative movement.

Friedman is one of the authors of the "shock therapy" economic system, where disasters are created or exploited, by the corporate sector. Free Marketeers will call it progress. Others see it as shocking and inhumane.

Because in order for the U.S. to control a foreign nation's economy, an authoritarian is needed, and that authoritarian is often a ruthless dictator. Case in point, Augustus Pinochet in Chile.

If you read Lawrence Martin's Harperland, or Christian Nadeau's Rogue in Power, you'll see how Stephen Harper took control, using ruthless means, and is now in a position to implement Friedman's policies. A bloodless coup.

Argentina's Shock Therapy

In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher says of Argentina:

Whatever the Argentineans thought about it at the time ... the Falklands War provided a shock which brought first democracy and more recently, under President Menem, the economic benefits of free-market policies. Inflation has been brought down and a far-reaching privatization programme has been undertaken. Subsidies, regulation and tariffs have all been cut. Economic growth has sharply accelerated.

A little "shock" was good for them, says the lady who once declared that there was "no such thing as society".

In their book Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, provide a bit of insight into the pre-coup Argentina, and what Thatcher called a "black economy".

Argentina had long been an economic paradox. How did a country that was one of the world's richest in the first decades of the twentieth century, end up in such economic disorder? A good part of the answer rested with Juan Peron. He is now best remembered, of course, as the husband of Evita, but in the years after World War II he was the embodiment of populism with an almost fascist tinge. Building on the prewar popularity of fascist ideas, Peron turned Argentina into a corporatist country, with powerful organized interest groups, big business, labor unions, military, farmers—that negotiated with the state and with each other for position and resources. He incited nationalist passions, stoked pretensions of grandeur, and pursued stridently anti-American policies. He nationalized large parts of the economy and put up trade barriers to defend them. He cut Argentina's links to the world economy which had been one of its great sources of wealth—embedded inflation in the society, and destroyed the foundations of sound economic growth. (2)

Viewed through a free-market lens, Peron would have been a disaster. So many opportunities for profit going to waste.

Peron was no saint, but according to Namomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, life for Argentines was not as bad as suggested. Protectionism made many things unaffordable ($2000 just to install a phone), but the welfare state was alive and well. And like Chile, before their U.S. financed coup, the country had just undergone an intellectual revolution, where the arts thrived.

By the 1950s, Argentina had the largest middle class on the continent. Juan Peron had introduced Keynesian style economics "pouring public money into infrastructure projects such as highways and steel plants, giving local businesses generous subsidies to build their new factories, churning out cars and washing machines, and keeping out foreign imports with forbiddingly high tariffs." (3)

Naturally, this was anathema to the free marketeers, and when Peron died and his widow Isabel named leader, they sprang into action. From Henry Kissinger's records, recently made public, we learn that the U.S. were behind the 1976 coup that initiated the Argentine shock therapy.

Wages fell to 40% of what they had been and poverty became the norm.

But worse, was the wave of terror, under the planted dictator, General Jorge Videla, that followed the Chilean blueprint, to the Milton Friedman letter. According to Klein's Shock Doctrine:

When someone was targeted to be eliminated, a fleet of military vehicles showed up at that person's home or workplace and cordoned off the block, often with a helicopter buzzing overhead. In broad daylight and in full view of the neighbours, police or soldiers battered down the door and dragged out the victim, who often shouted his or her name before disappearing into a waiting Ford Falcon, in the hope that news of the event would reach the family.

Some "covert" operations were even more brazen: police were known to board crowded city buses and drag passengers off by their hair. In the city of Santa Fe, a couple was kidnapped right at the altar on their wedding day in front of a church filled with people."

The public character of terror did not stop with the initial capture. Once in custody, prisoners in Argentina were taken to one of more than three hundred torture camps across the country. Many of them were located in densely populated residential areas; one of the most notorious in a former athletic club on a busy street in Buenos Aires, another in a schoolhouse in central Bahia Blanca and yet another in a wing of a working hospital. At these torture centres, military vehicles sped in and out at odd hours, screams could be heard through the badly insulated walls and strange, body-shaped parcels were spotted being carried in and out, all silently registered by the nearby residents.

The Argentine junta was particularly sloppy about disposing of its victims. A country walk could end in horror because mass graves were barely concealed. Bodies would show up in public garbage bins, missing fingers and teeth (much as they do today in Iraq), or they would wash ashore on the banks of the Rio de la Plata, sometimes half a dozen at a time, after one of the junta's "death flights." On occasion, they even rained down from helicopters into farmers' fields."

All Argentines were in some way enlisted as witnesses to the erasure of their fellow citizens, yet most people claimed not to know what was going on. (much like Nazi Germany). There is a phrase Argentines use to describe the paradox of wide-eyed knowing and eyes-closed terror that was the dominant state of mind in those years: "We did not know what nobody could deny." (4)

As Canada is now in the throes of its own shock therapy, the need for torture chambers are not necessary.

We have our authoritarian leader in Stephen Harper, who allows no dissent. Witch hunts are now the norm, and while people don't disappear, their careers are ruined or threatened, if they dare to challenge.

The G-20 saw the worst human rights abuses and mass arrests in Canadian history; and police brutality at protests like the one over the Prison Farm closures, saw no age barrier. Those from 14 to 88 were victimized.

We are now part of the Shock Doctrine under the Harper regime, and what is happening in our country is just as shocking to many, as they were in places like Chile and Argentina.

And "the paradox of wide-eyed knowing and eyes-closed terror", was evident, when despite the horrors of the G-20, many Canadians simply shrugged and said "you should have stayed home".

Sources:

1. The Path to Power, By Margaret Thatcher, Harper Collins, 1995, ISBN: 0-06-017270-3, Pg. 583

2. The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, By Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Touchstone, 2002, ISBN: 0-684-82975-4, Pg. 242

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 63

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 106-107

The Deficit Cure: Acupuncture or Shock Therapy?

When the neoconservative movement in Canada first appeared on the radar of many journalists, it was tied to the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both of these leaders launched aggressive attacks on the welfare state, and left devastation in their paths.

Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario, all sought to experiment with the Thatcher/Reagan theories in their respective provinces.

On the federal scene, the Reform Party had their ideology in check, and were just waiting for their turn.

At the time, Thatcher and Reagan were not on tour, so Canada's neocons were taught strategy by New Zealand politician, Roger Douglas.

He held information seminars, speaking to the Harris caucus in Ontario, with Tony Clement, John Baird and Jim Flaherty in attendance; and Klein's in Alberta, indoctrinating Stockwell Day.

But the most important lecture, when it comes to the future of Canada, was presented to the Reform Party of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, at their 1991 Assembly.

Douglas was introduced by Preston Manning, the only assembly speaker to be so honoured. And Manning told the delegates: There are three basic reasons why we have invited Sir Roger Douglas to be with us ... and three reasons why Reformers should pay close attention to what he has to say ... Sir Roger is an authority in fiscal reform and has advocated and promoted many of the fiscal reforms ... He is not only a reformer in word, he is a reformer in deed. Sir Roger deregulated the financial sector, phased down agricultural and other subsidies .. phased out import controls and drastically reduced tariffs levels. He instituted a 10% flat rate consumption tax (GST)*, with virtually no exemptions ... (1)

And Roger Douglas's most important message to his followers was "don't blink". Once you start cutting, keep going.

And if you developed a case of blepharospasm, uncontrollable eye blinking, a little acupuncture would fix you right up.

Because what Douglas failed to mention was how his policies affected New Zealand.

Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work ... (1)

He should have blinked.

Shock Therapy

While Roger Douglas may present us with a little trip down memory lane, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty will probably forgo acupuncture for shock therapy.

This is the remedy prescribed by Milton Friedman, and articulated at places like the Fraser Institute. Friedman believed in taking advantage of disasters, like Katrina, but when none presented themselves, they could simply be created.

His most famous induced disaster, was the Chilean experiment.

In 1970, when a socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected president, many of Chile's elite, were not pleased.

Allende, a physician by training, understood the cost that malnutrition imposed upon the poor and set out to alleviate the grinding poverty in which so many Chileans were trapped. He ensured that every Chilean schoolchild had access to at least a half-liter of milk each day, and that their parents had access to jobs and the means to feed and educate their children. Median incomes began to rise dramatically in the first two years of Allende's term.

To pay for these social programs designed to create opportunities for the poor, rich Chileans who had lived all their lives off of rents, dividends and interest and who had never paid a dime in taxes, found themselves paying taxes for the first time and being forced to morally justify their lives of luxurious leisure at the expense of the poor. They didn't like it one bit. And they began to complain to their friends in Washington. (2)

Fortunately for them Washington was already aware of the situation, and with the help of several corporations, engineered a coup to oust Allende and place the murderous Augustus Pinochet in the presidential palace.

Friedman then took over, encouraging Pinochet to implement "shock therapy" on the people of Chile.

Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy—tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, since so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that "facilitate the adjustment." He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment." In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy," has been the method of choice. (3)

And though Friedman and his Chicago School are still being hailed as heroes by Neoliberals/Neoconservative/Free Marketeers everywhere, his remaking of Chile was an absolute failure.

.. The country's period of steady growth that is held up as proof of its miraculous success, did not begin until the mid-eighties, a full decade after the Chicago Boys implemented shock therapy and well after Pinochet was forced to make a radical course correction.

That's because in 1982, despite its strict adherence to Chicago doctrine, Chile's economy crashed: its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment hit 30 percent—ten times higher than it was under Allende. The main cause was that the piranhas, the Enron-style financial houses that the Chicago Boys had freed from all regulation, had bought up the country's assets on borrowed money and run up an enormous debt of $14 billion.

The situation was so unstable that Pinochet was forced to do what Allende had done: he nationalized many of these companies. In the face of the debacle, almost all the Chicago Boys lost their influential government posts. (4)

So despite the fact that both of these experiments in economic reform were catastrophes, we know that it will not change Flaherty's or Harper's ideology.

Canadians will probably be subjected to a little "shock" in the upcoming budget, or if not then, in the not too distant future. The convoluted belief being that if we associate pain with social programs, we will not be too quick to want to reintroduce them (Friedman was a nut), especially if they convince us that they have been replaced with something better.

Poverty being good for the soul.

So slap on the electrodes boys. I'm ready.

Footnotes:

*The Reform Party was conflicted about the GST, with most wanting it scrapped if they came to power. Harper himself convinced them to keep the GST but eliminate any exemptions.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114

2. Free Market Fundamentalism: Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle", By Scott Bidstrup

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 8

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 123

Milton Friedman and the Chilean Experiment

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In 1970, Salvador Allende, was elected President of Chile, a progressive nation enjoying the rewards of an intellectual movement. Poets, artists, thinkers, all contributed to the culture of a socialist society.

But Allende made a huge mistake. He had campaigned on the promise of nationalizing his country's natural resources, raising concern with foreign business interests. A concern that would bring about radical and unwelcome changes, initiated by corporate giant International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT).

In the wake of the Allende victory ITT established close contacts with the State Department, the National Security Council, the U.S. Information Agency, the CIA, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other agencies with the purpose of pushing the U.S. to intervene covertly in Chile. Efforts were made to prevent Allende from taking power, which he could do only with the help of the centrist Christian Democrats. The CIA immediately implemented a program of economic destabilization to demonstrate to the Christian Democrats the folly of supporting the inauguration of Allende as president. When that failed, tactics changed. An ITT memo from field operatives in Chile read: "A more realistic hope . . . is that a swiftly deteriorating economy (bank runs, plant bankruptcies, etc.) will touch off a wave of violence resulting in a military Coup." (1)

ITT had already stated that they were "prepared to assist financially in sums up to seven figures." The tactic worked, and the civil unrest caused by the destabilization, resulted in the predicted military coup.

Finally, on September 11, 1973, as President Allende watched the tanks roll in to lay siege to the presidential palace, he made one final radio address, still defiant though clearly beaten:

"I am certain that the seed we planted in the worthy consciousness of thousands and thousands of Chileans cannot be definitively uprooted. They have the strength; they can subjugate us, but they cannot halt social processes by either crime or force. History is ours, and the people make it." (2)

Sadly, he was unaware of the force of a 5' 2" bundle of evil, Milton Friedman, and his disciples at the Chicago School of Economics.

Friedman had been waiting for just such an opportunity to test his free market theories.

Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy—tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, since so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that "facilitate the adjustment." He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment." In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy," has been the method of choice. (3)

And Pinochet was the perfect authoritarian leader to impose these radical changes. Torture and massacres were the remedy for dissent.

And though fully aware of this, Friedman felt no compassion for the victims. According to Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine:

After his meeting with Pinochet, Friedman made some personal notes about the encounter, which he reproduced decades later in his memoirs. He observed that the general "was sympathetically attracted to the idea of a shock treatment but was clearly distressed at the possible temporary unemployment that might be caused."

At this point, Pinochet was already notorious the world over for ordering massacres in football stadiums; that the dictator was "distressed" by the human cost of shock therapy might have given Friedman pause. Instead, he pressed the point in a follow-up letter in which he praised the general's "extremely wise" decisions but urged Pinochet to cut government spending much further, "by 25 per cent within six months ... across-the-board," while simultaneously adopting a package of pro-business policies moving toward "complete free trade." Friedman predicted that the hundreds of thousands of people who would be fired from the public sector would quickly get new jobs in the private sector, soon to be booming thanks to Pinochet's removal of "as many obstacles as possible that now hinder the private market. Friedman assured the general that if he followed his advice, he would be able to take credit for an economic miracle ... he "could end inflation in months" while the unemployment problem would be equally "brief—measured in months—and that subsequent recovery would be rapid." Pinochet would need to act fast and decisively; Friedman emphasized the importance of "shock" repeatedly, using the word three times and underlining that "gradualism is not feasible.""

Friedman was wrong however, and it would be several years before the employment situation improved.

But that was not really his concern. Nor were the 30,000 people killed, in order to implement his plan.

It's interesting how neoconservative disciples, view the Chilean experiment. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher acknowledges the "authoritarian" style of Pinochet, but marvelled at how easy it was for the country to return to normal under a free market system. Of course she credits Friedman for the transformation.

Praise is still being given three decades later. But is it earned? Not according to Klein.

The facts behind the "Chilean miracle" remain a matter of intense debate. Pinochet held power for seventeen years, and during that time he changed political direction several times. The country's period of steady growth that is held up as proof of its miraculous success did not begin until the mid-eighties, a full decade after the Chicago Boys implemented shock therapy and well after Pinochet was forced to make a radical course correction.

That's because in 1982, despite its strict adherence to Chicago doctrine, Chile's economy crashed: its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment hit 30 percent—ten times higher than it was under Allende. The main cause was that the piranhas, the Enron-style financial houses that the Chicago Boys had freed from all regulation, had bought up the country's assets on borrowed money and run up an enormous debt of $14 billion.

The situation was so unstable that Pinochet was forced to do what Allende had done: he nationalized many of these companies. In the face of the debacle, almost all the Chicago Boys lost their influential government posts. (2)

Today Chile's economy is stable, but the country suffers from very high income inequality. Many Chileans live well below the poverty line, a situation that the government is looking to eradicate.

Salvador Allende died on September 11, 1973, the day the tanks rolled in, and his death was put down to suicide, something his family never accepted. His remains are now to be exhumed and we may finally learn what happened on the fateful day.

However, despite the obvious failure of Friedman's Chilean experiment, others are trying to replicate the disaster, including it would seem, our own government.

We now have an authoritarian in complete control, and our record debt and deficit, presents a perfect situation to begin to implement a bit of "shock therapy".

Relax. It won't hurt a bit.

Sources:

1. The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, Pg. 77-79

2. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 123

3. Klein, 2007, Pg. 8

The End of Public Healthcare. Are we Really Ready For This?

On May 8th, 2005, then leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper, made a bold announcement. He promised that if he was elected Prime Minister of Canada, one of the first things on his agenda would be to privatize the Canadian Healthcare System. (1)

This was just a week after he gave a lecture at the Fraser Institute, where he was in fact introduced as Canada's next PM.

He doesn't speak about that now, but then he doesn't really speak about anything of substance. Have his views changed since 2005? Hardly. On a visit to the United States during the debates over Obama's healthcare plan, he was asked by CBS about Canada's healthcare system, which is the envy of many other nations. He told the reporter that he really didn't know much about it, because it was a provincial issue.

The CANADA Health Act and the country's leader claimed not to know much about it? Given that he once headed up the National Citizens Coalition, a group founded to abolish public healthcare in this country, I contend that he probably knows the Canada Health Act better than most.

Then and Now

In the Spring of 2005, many were worried about the direction of our medicare. Preston Manning and Mike Harris had just released a Fraser Institute report calling for more healthcare privatization. The report said that those who could afford it, should have the "freedom" to choose their own healthcare – whether it is for-profit or non-profit.

The report failed to recognize the demise of the non-profit healthcare system for everyone, once for-profit health care is allowed to escalate.

Why should we care? I can give you an example.

When Mike Harris was premier of Ontario he began to introduce user fees. My daughter, who is disabled and on the Ontario Disability Support Program, injured her knee when at a soccer tournament for the Special Olympics. The injury required surgery, and the surgeon recommended physical therapy, during the healing process. But there was a catch. We were told that if she wanted to use the public healthcare system, she would have to go on a waiting list, and it could be months before she was called.

Or, she could attend a private clinic, partially subsidized, which would cost her $15.00 per visit. I know that doesn't sound like much, but the doctor recommended three visits a week. ODSP wouldn't cover it since there was a public option available.

$45.00 per week for someone on a pension, or who is a member of the "working poor", is a fortune. It means roughly $200.00 out of the monthly budget. She couldn't afford it so we paid for her therapy sessions. I was later told by her worker that if we gave her money for this, she was supposed to claim it, to be deducted from her benefit.

I don't think that worker ever recovered from the strip I tore off her. I was livid. She never pursued it further. (they have since laxed the rules but only slightly) Of course what this means, is that only the wealthy will get top rate care, while everyone else is at the mercy of what will eventually be a virtually bankrupt public system.

And in the spring of 2005, the hot topic at Canadian water coolers was the future of something, that we by then took for granted (2). That the letter and spirit of the Canada Health Act guaranteed the same level of medicare for everyone, and that this was now being threatened.

It didn't help the Neocons that the Alberta premier at the time, Ralph Klein, was traversing about praising the fact that there would be lots of money to be made in the industry (3). And now Stephen Harper had come out publicly with his pledge. And while Harper retracted his statement six years ago, what has he done since becoming prime minister to strengthen, or at least not further weaken, our medicare?

Our health minister has snubbed important medical conferences, prompting the question: "Does Canada still have a federal health minister? And, more important, does it have a government with the slightest interest in maintaining the national health-insurance program called medicare? For all practical purposes, the answer to both of those questions is a resounding “No.”

Erroll Mendes, lawyer, author and Professor of law at the University of Ottawa, was interviewed recently about the Contempt of Parliament charges against the Harper government, and he brought up another important point. Renegotiation with the provinces and the Canada Health Act, is scheduled for 2014.

With Stephen Harper refusing to provide the costs of big ticket items like the fighter jets, corporate tax cuts and his new law and order agenda, how will Parliamentarians know whether or not there is any money to sustain medicare?

Which brings us to another concern. Instead of allowing Parliament to examine the issue, Harper has handed it over to the unelected senate. A senate that he now controls.

Healthcare vs Sickcare

Another issue with the corporate sector taking over the industry, is that the focus will be on what Liberal health critic, Carolyn Bennett, calls "sickcare". An auto mechanic doesn't care what kind of car you buy or its gas mileage. Their only interest is fixing it when it breaks down.

With health becoming a for-profit industry, again the focus will only be on fixing you when you break down. We will be reduced to a series of pay scales, based on the plan that we or our employer has purchased. There will be free plans for the poor, but what quality of care will they receive?

But healthcare is about more than just tending the sick. It's also about prevention of illness, and under corporate care, prevention is a word to avoid at all costs.

Those in the medical profession understand the need to eat healthy and maintain a healthy lifestyle. But poverty is one of the root causes of illness. So healthcare must also address feeding and housing the poor, if we want to keep everyone as healthy as possible.

The working poor or those engaged in precarious employment, often have no sick leave plan, so they go to work when they shouldn't, not able to lose even a day's pay. Under a corporate system none of these things will be factored in. The more sick people, the more profit. Healthcare should not only be an election issue, but it should be the election issue. And remember, just because Stephen Harper no longer discusses it, does not mean that he has changed his plans. He's just hoping we won't notice until it's too late.


Sources:
1. Stephen Harper Promises To Privatize Canadian Healthcare, Lilith News, May 17th 2005

2. What separates a wrestling match from a health care, Globe and Mail, April 28, 2005

3. "Tories to Klein: keep your mouth shut", cupe.ca, April 28, 2005

The Remaking of Canada. Are we Really Prepared for This?

Like many people living in Canada, I am ashamed of our current government. I am ashamed and I am appalled by the actions it has undertaken, and continues to undertake, in our name. I have never been particularly patriotic, but I do have a Canadian passport and I do pay taxes to the Canadian state. By virtue of these simple facts, I am responsible, like any citi­zen, for my government's initiatives. For this reason, I have to take action because feeling ashamed is not enough. I have to understand who I am dealing with, exactly what it is that they want, and why this government, with considerable success to date, is changing the face of our Canadian institutions.

That is the opening paragraph to Christian Nadeau's new book, Rogue in Power, and his words are chilling. I've often wondered myself just what Stephen Harper does want with us, and why a majority is so necessary, given the enormous amount of control he currently has over every aspect of government, and all Canadian institutions.

In fact, can I still call them 'Canadian institutions', or are they 'Harper institutions' now? Much of the political discourse today centers on the bogey-man coalition, with the Harper team keeping it alive to deflect attention from other things, like their Contempt of Parliament charge. And unbelievably, there are many in the media applauding his strategy. But what is that doing to our democracy?

During an election campaign we should be presented with the issues and that's the only thing that should matter. Yes, politics is a blood sport, and attack ads par for the course, but the Conservatives have been engaged in visceral assaults on their adversaries for five years, especially on the Liberals. As Andrew Cohen writes in the Ottawa Citizen:

There is a story of a meeting between Stephen Harper and a visiting head of government. During the conversation, which took place in the Prime Minister's Office, the two leaders eventually discussed the parliamentary opposition in their respective countries. What struck the visitor was Harper's antipathy toward the opposition, particularly the Liberals. "I don't like my opponents," the visitor allowed afterwards, "but I don't hate them. He hates his opposition!"

Hatred is a strong word. Whenever we spat "I hate you!" in the schoolyard, teachers told us to watch our tongues; you disliked the bully who washed your face with snow, but, really, you didn't hate him. You have to wonder about how little personal regard Stephen Harper has for his opponents and how it affects how he runs a government and fights an election. More than any other politician in this country, this is a man with animus.

Others in his circle have said that he can't be nice. "It's not in his DNA".

We know that the coalition flap has a shelf life, and after that I shudder to think what his next move will be. To date his policies are only getting negative attention. Can we expect even more poisonous darts thrown Ignatieff's way?

The fact that he's still standing says something of the Liberal leader's strength of character. I'd have been reduced to whimpering mass months ago.

Ezra Levant already wrote of an Ignatieff ancestor who was anti-Semitic. How relevant that is today is beyond me. When I was doing my family history, I discovered that some of my Acadian ancestors, who helped to settle Louisiana, owned slaves. It hardly makes me embrace slavery.

But what does all of the poison, all of the anger, the hatred, the bullying, the secrecy and contempt, really mean? What is the endgame? Is it simply power or is it something more? Nadeau believes that "the primary danger represented by the Conservatives lies in their profound belief in certain ideas and values and in their willingness to impose those ideas and values on Canadians." But I think that's only part of it.

Tom Flanagan has said in the past that Stephen Harper himself is not a social conservative. He only sees the Religious Right in his party as a means to an end. But he is willing to allow them to impose their version of morality on the rest of us, for his sole benefit. His new tax plan for families, only helps the nuclear family. Husband, wife, children. Not single families, same-sex relationships or any other configuration. This is clearly written to draw that conservative Christian-Judeau support. They are the ones with the websites and mailing lists who can bring him the votes.

Most religious organizations are worried about the poor and homeless, not whether gays want to marry and raise families.

This same strategy, was no doubt behind his decision to drop license fees on guns, which will reduce our revenue by $21 million. Gun enthusiasts see his party as the only one willing to take up their cause. It's interesting that the budget only mentions 'sports shooters' and 'hunters'. Not farmers this time.

So if all of his policies are designed for the sole benefit of religious fundamentalists and the gun totin' crowd, what happens to the rest of us? And why should we care?

There is a reason why Stephen Harper draws on the radical right for support, and it has nothing to do with his moral values. His is a government that operates solely for the benefit of multinational corporations. Canada or Canadians rarely cross his mind, except to exploit for political gain, in a fierce, albeit ambivalent nationalism.

In the video provided at the bottom of the page, you'll hear Harper first tell the Canadian media that we will not be expected to "surrender our sovereignty", yet in his speech to the G-20, he's pretty clear that he understands why people oppose the notion of global governance, because it "means a loss of national sovereignty". He also goes on to say that there is no longer a Canadian economy only a global economy.

Did we miss the memo? Or do Canadians really not care if we are still a united Canada? For all the hoopla over the Bloc wanting to break us up, it would appear that there may be nothing to break up. His speech certainly doesn't sound like a commitment to this country. His only commitment is to a Global economy. Multinational corporations.

Policy is designed to keep us passive. And if he can't pacify us, he'll turn us off the entire process, by making Parliament so toxic we no longer have the will, or even the desire, to save ourselves.

Journalist Russell Wangersky has a suggestion: "So, while you’re out there, caring about your wallet and the economy and little else, ask yourself this: regardless of how you’re going to vote, is that the kind of place you really want to live? It’s certainly a different country than the one I grew up in, and treasure."

We cannot give this man another mandate. It's that simple. Sources:

1. Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is remaking Canada by Stealth, By Christian Nadeau, Lorimer Press, ISBN: 978-1-55277-730-5

Harper's Claim That Canadians Don't Care About Contempt Charges, is Only Showing Further Contempt

Stephen Harper claims this week that Canadians don't care that his government was charged with Contempt of Parliament. And indeed, given it's toxicity, in some respect he's right. I've been a little contemptuous of it myself.

However, let's imagine for just a moment, a board meeting at a corporation, where the pitch for a new product line is being presented. Those involved in the design believe it to be a good product. But when board members notice that there is no cost analysis, they question those with the sparkly eyes.

"What's it going to cost?"

Now imagine being told that the cost was none of their business. Or when pressed, a box of receipts was dumped in the middle of the table, with the message "figure it out for yourself".

How long do you suppose it would take for board members to call security?

Here's another scenario. Your company enters into an agreement with a supplier. Contracts are drawn up and duly signed. But then an employee decides to change the contract AFTER those involved bargained in good faith.

By changing one word to 'not' it nullifies the entire thing. But worse yet, it is made to appear as though the signatories agreed to 'not' being paid, or 'not' being granted the contract for future services.

How long do you suppose it would take for that employee to be fired? Because that's what Bev Oda did.

As Thomas Walkom wrote recently in the Star: Yes, contempt of Parliament does matter

Contempt of Parliament means that you hold contempt for those that we elected to represent us. Thus it means that you hold contempt for us.

I would like to ask Conservative candidates this question. If your boss and your party have such little regard for Parliament, why do you want us to put you there? Wouldn't it be more like a sentence, than the honour it is supposed to be?