On Honorifics

or, Call Me Comrade

Just for a change, I thought I’d write something non-political. Shocking, I know. I do think about things other than politics though, and today I’m thinking about honorifics. Apparently I really do need a life.

A new client entered my office today, and addressed me as Mrs. I’m not married, and I admit that I felt a bit offended by this honorific. I mean, how old do I look? Of course, I wouldn’t accept being called Miss either. If you must use an honorific, please call me Ms. I find it inappropriate to use any form of address that denotes a woman’s marital status. You’d never use one for a man. Besides, it’s none of your damn business whether or not I’m married.

Because I didn’t have much else to do, I reflected further on the subject. While I much prefer being addressed as Ms than by any honorific that denotes my marital status, I’m suddenly wondering why a form of address needs to denote a person’s gender. By using honorifics that differentiate between men and women we’re indicating that a person’s gender is somehow important. Seriously, why could gender possibly matter? In any situation formal enough to require an honorific, a person’s gender probably isn’t – or shouldn’t be - important. I mean, if you’re asking someone out you’re probably going to use their first name. Honorifics are usually used to show respect, or even deference, and men and women deserve the same respect. So, why do we use different honorifics?

There are other, more specialized honorifics, generally used to denote occupation or educational level attained. Common examples would be Doctor, Professor, and Reverend. I regularly employ these kinds of honorifics, as I was brought up in a proper home and taught to always address people with the proper level of respect that they deserve. I would never address anyone warranting one of these titles in an informal manner. However, as I reflect on this lesson, I wonder: why address someone with a greater degree of respect based on their occupation or education? There’s no question that a title like Doctor or Professor is more prestigious than Mr or Ms. But why accord greater respect to someone just because they had the opportunity to achieve a high educational level? Not everyone has that chance, and I don’t believe that it’s right to act more deferentially toward someone with an MD or PhD than toward a janitor or taxi driver. However, the use of different honorifics seems to only reinforce class differences.

I always prefer to be addressed by my first name (and please, don’t call me honey, sweetheart, or darling unless you know me really well). However, if you insist upon calling me by my family name, then I think that Comrade would be an appropriate honorific. Think about it – it’s completely egalitarian. There’s no differentiation based on gender, marital status, occupation, or level of education. It’s perfect. Well, almost – the word has certain connotations, and I certainly couldn’t imagine using this honorific for everyone. If I ran into the Prime Minister tomorrow, it would be pretty difficult to call him Comrade Harper. I guess, because I can’t think of any appropriate egalitarian honorific, I’d have to call him Stephen. I think that’s fair.

I definitely think that first names are the best type of informal address. Still, if you feel you must address me formally or want to use an honorific, please call me Comrade.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

I’ve been meaning to write a follow-up to my last post for almost a week now, but am finally getting around to it. How can we form an NDP government in 2013? My opinion – and it is only that – is that we need to take a look at the flaws in our campaign strategy. I have already posted about my disappointment that the NDP resorted to mudslinging, but there is more that I feel we need to change. In my last post I talked aout the errors made by both parties, and the detrimental effect on voter turnout. Today I turn my attention to the BC NDP, for I have complained enough about the BC Liberals.

I admit, I care far more about federal politics than provincial. That said, I very much want to see an NDP government here in BC in 2013. So, how de we get there from here? The biggest flaw I see in our strategy is that we went after Liberal voters, trying to sway them to the NDP’s side, instead of trying to appeal to the citizens who chose not to vote at all. With 52% of voters in that category, we easily could have won if we had gotten more of them out to the polling stations to cast their ballots in our favour.

The BC Liberals and the BC NDP are two very different parties. So, why did we sound so similar during the election campaign? While Gordon Campbell was trying to present himself as soft and cuddly, we focused on getting tought on crime and cutting taxes for businesses. There were significant differences in our platforms - the BC NDP wanted to raise the minimum wage, for example, while the BC Liberals wanted to privatize BC Hydro. Nevertheless, both of the parties tried to come across as centrist in order to appeal to the broadest cross-section of voters. In other words, both parties went after the exact same votes. The BC Liberals, a decidedly right-wing party, hid their true colours by not talking about most of the details of their platform or record. The BC NDP took the strategy one step further, actually releasing a centre-right economic plan. Instead of focusing on poverty and inequality, like the democratic socialists we’re supposed to be, we talked about getting tough on crime. Isn’t that the same fear-mongering strategy usually favoured by the right?

We may have diverted some votes away from the BC Liberals with our strategy, but not enough to form government. I believe we would have been better off conceding those votes to Campbell and his cronies and instead going after the disillusioned people who found nothing appealing in any of the platforms. After all, as the Green Party is very much a conservative party in ideology, there were three centre to right parties to choose from. There was no-one on the left. And, in my ever so humble opinion, that’s where the NDP should have been. We need to go back to our roots and start offering real solutions to make society more equitable and just, instead of simply slinging mud at our opponents. We should simply let the BC Liberals have the right-wing vote; and instead focus on the left.

The Perils of Mudslinging

Just over a week has passed since the BC Provincial Election, and NDP leader Carole James has confirmed that she intends to stay on as leader through 2013. This is of course the date of the next Provincial Election, and the next opportunity for the NDP to attempt to form government. Perhaps more importantly, this will be the next chance we have to combat voter apathy.

Frequently in the last week, as after every election in my lifetime, I’ve heard people whining that there was no-one to vote for. Sadly, that “all politicians are corrupt” message, with which I was raised, goes unchallenged by our mainstream media. This message, so ingrained into the consciousness of our society, is perhaps the most detrimental conviction we could hold. This is not to say that no politicians are corrupt – I’d find it easier to believe that the moon was made of organic tofu – but our blanket denigration of everyone involved in the political process does more harm to democracy than any insane dictator ever could. I was raised in a strictly non-political household by a terribly apathetic family, and the “all politicans are corrupt” mantra was close to the only thing related to politics I ever heard from my parents. So why did I ever become so interested in politics? Perhaps simply to piss off my parents. Or, more likely, because I don’t accept any stereotype at face value.

If all of the candidates are corrupt, then why bother voting at all? What if they’re all incompetent – should we vote then? I doubt I’d bother myself. Unfortunately, with our focus on negative campaigning, these are the messages we’re sending to our youth. The more intelligent members of the electorate are digging beneath the headlines and looking into the different platforms and policies, but those that don’t care enough to do the research are growing increasingly disenchanted with the democratic process. So, what do we do about the declining voter turnout? Here’s a novel idea: perhaps we could (gasp!) say something positive for a change.

The BC NDP campaign focused on calling Gordon Campbell “arrogant and out-of-touch”. Sure, they talked a bit about the Liberal record, and about the scandals they have been involved in, but mostly it was just a labelling exercise. Instead of pointing to the horrible things the Liberals have done (and there are many examples to choose from), the NDP pointed to the Liberals themselves as being horrible. I believe this was a mistake. The NDP could have taken the high road, but instead chose to just throw mud at their opponents. Worst of all, the NDP didn’t focus nearly enough on the solutions. They did in fact have solutions, outlined and fully costed in the NDP platform, but they didn’t talk about them. Instead, they focused their effort on drilling the words “arrogant and out-of-touch” into people’s brains. Clearly, this was a mistake. The NDP campaign in Burnaby-Deer Lake actually spoke about a real issue, namely the prison that the Liberals had proposed to put in the riding, and won. Because the debate here was about issues, rather than simple catch phrases and mudslinging, Kathy Corrigan scored a decisive victory in the riding that had previously been the safest Liberal riding in Burnaby.

Meanwhile, the BC Liberals resorted to fearmongering. They dug up increasingly ridiculous (and often factually inaccurate) examples from the 1990s, because they had no ammunition from this decade to use for their negative campaigning. Apparently they didn’t think their record was much better than the NDP thought it was, because they kept very quiet on it. Sure, their campaign slogan was “Keep BC Strong”, but this was just bandied about with nothing to back it up. Why would the Liberals want to talk about their record when they could instead try to portray the NDP as incompetent at managing the economy? It didn’t matter if it was true; the NDP wasn’t saying enough about their own platform for the electorate to see anything except the Liberal version. This seems to have worked; presented the choice between an arrogant and out-of-touch Premier and a Premier who couldn’t manage the economy during a recession, the electorate went for the arrogant guy. Each leader was so busy giving people a reason not to vote for the other that each seems to have forgotten to give the people a reason to vote for him or herself. Unfortunately, this seems to have been the excuse that people needed to simply not vote.

The true victim of all this mudslinging was democracy. In this election we saw the lowest voter turnout in BC’s history. So, whose fault was this? I do not for a moment believe that either Carole James or Gordon Campbell is to blame. The geniuses doing strategy for their parties, however, have a lot to answer for. Many people will blame the NDP’s defeat on their leader. Unfortunately, this just proves how little people seem to understand politics. The BC NDP caucus has provided a united opposition to the BC Liberal Government, and Carole James deserves much credit for this. However, she did not choose the campaign strategy. If anyone should take the blame, it is the NDP’s provincial executive, and those insiders who decided upon the asinine campaign strategy.

During this campaign I did a lot of canvassing (okay, that’s a significant understatement). One of the campaigns that impressed me the most was Spencer Herbert’s in Vancouver-West End. He had a positive, unique campaign, which brought in lots of new ideas. The most impressive was his “We ♥ West End” campaign. What a novel concept – dealing with renovictions and the increasing unaffordability in the West End from a positive starting position! It was pure genius.

To me, however, the “We ♥ West End” campaign was not the most inspirational part of the campaign. No, the thing that impressed me most was much smaller. Each BC NDP candidate had the same leaflet printed by the central campaign, customized with different pictures but containing the same basic information. It was a tri-fold leaflet, and fully one-third of the leaflet was devoted to mudslinging. Spencer’s very dedicated team of volunteers cut off the third fold off this tri-fold leaflet, so that only the positive parts of the leaflet were left. These were then stuffed with a fabulous purple insert talking about Spencer’s impressive record. To me, this refusal to stoop to mudslinging was the most refreshing part of the entire election. This is the kind of vision we’re going to need if we’re going to combat this epidemic of voter apathy, and if the NDP ever hopes to once again lead this province.

There is one other thing that needs to change – we have to start taking responsibility for our own actions. We have to stop just blaming the political parties for the low voter turnout. Each and every one of us decided whether or not to vote. We have to ask ourselves what we’re doing wrong as a supposedly democratic society, instead of pointing fingers at the big bad politicians. If we’re too lazy to decide for whom to cast our ballots, that’s our fault for not working ourselves to change the way things are done. After all, bad politicians are elected by people who don’t vote.

48%

The ballots have been counted and the results are in: the BC Liberal Party will once again form government, and Gordon Campbell has been re-elected Premier. Needless to say, I’m disappointed. This is not the time for recriminations, though, nor for grandstanding. Tomorrow we will look forward to the next four years, and must be ready to hold all of our elected representatives – Liberal and NDP – accountable to the public. Tonight I will mention only one betrayal. No, I am not speaking of the BC Liberals or Campbell and his cronies. I speak instead of the public. In this election only 48% of eligible voters cast ballots. Less than half of the population felt that it was important to go out and participate in democracy. To this, I ask: what the hell?

Go Out and Vote

Not voting is in no way a protest, nor a revolutionary act. Not voting does not challenge the political system, nor the establishment parties. Not voting merely delegates the authority to make decisions to those who show up.

Tomorrow is Election Day in BC. Already we have seen the highest ever turnout for voting in the advance polls. However, high turnout in the advance polls doesn’t necessarily translate into a high overall participation rate. I certainly hope that voter apathy won’t dampen the turnout rate tomorrow, but I fear it might. In the 2001 Provincial Election only 55% of eligible voters cast ballots, a record low for BC. We did slightly better in 2005, yet still only 58% of people voted. This is pathetic – 42% of citizens simply couldn’t be bothered to have any input into the future of their province. This is a trend that needs to be reversed.

Yes, I am a member of a political party. That said, I’ll be the first to admit that no party is perfect. All of the parties have annoyed me at times.  However, I’m not going to give up on politics and stay in bed. I believe that it is both my right and my duty to go out and vote, and I believe the same for all eligible voters. That’s right; even if you’re a Liberal I still think you should cast your ballot. Your vote is your opportunity to impact the direction of the government. It also gives you the right to complain. If you don’t vote, I don’t ever want to hear you whine.

I have canvassed all of my friends, and I’m sickened by just how few are voting. They generally all give me variations on the same couple of reaons. The first is that they really don’t know anything about the parties’ platforms. Give me a break; that’s the most pathetic excuse I can think of. All of the parties are basically begging people to read their platforms. Information on the leaders and candidates is everywhere. It’s so easy to be informed, if only you want to. Yes, it’s possible to ignore what the parties have to say. But what they say impacts you, so get your head out of the sand and pay attention.

The second reason for not voting is even funnier. Too many people I know have decided not to vote because they don’t want to “buy into the whole system”. Some feel that they would be selling out. Even more amusing, others think that voting delegates others to make the decisions. Well, yes. That’s the point. If you don’t vote, all of the decisions will be made by those who do. By not voting you’re simply allowing other people to decide your future. In my mind, that’s what selling out truly is. Let’s learn to take some responsibility for ourselves, people, and go out and vote.

Seniors have the highest participation rate in elections; higher that any other group in society. Is it any wonder that the parties talk about seniors’ issues in every election? Young people have the lowest participation rate. Would the BC Liberals have made all of the cuts to post-secondary education had students made up a higher percentage of voters? I don’t know. The BC NDP is pledging to reduce tuition fees – how many young people know this? l hope that they inform themselves, so they know exactly what they’re not voting for if they choose to stay home tomorrow.

Post-Debate Analysis

I’ve already said that I think Carole James won last night’s Leaders’ Debate. I’ve also said that I found Gordon Campbell patronizing, and that I was offended by some of his condescending remarks. While I have my opinions, I am always interested in hearing what other people think. Besides, I’m no-one important, and it’s always good to know what the professional pundits have to say. Nobody pays for what I have to say.

Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight described Carole James’ performance as “spellbinding”. In his estimation, “Premier Gordon Campbell … looked stiff, uncomfortable, and evasive a lot of the time.” He felt the verdict was “A knockout victory for the NDP’s Carole James.”

The Times Colonist published an excellent article this morning claiming that the “Budget questions [gave] James the edge.” Author Les Leyne also found Gordon Campbell’s performance patronizing, proving that I’m not the only one who felt that way.

The Vancouver Sun printed two articles that both commented on the strength of Carole James’ performance in the debates. The first article, written by Vaughn Palmer, claimed that the “Premier faces challenge from a more confident NDP leader.” I simply have to reprint a quote from the article which perfectly highlights Campbell’s disrespect:

“Ms. James, you should understand — this is a big job and it is hard to get a handle on it,” replied Campbell.

The tone was patronizing, stopping just short of, “now see here, little lady.” He never did answer her question.

The second article indicates that “James plans campaign surge on strength of leaders’ debate.” It provides insight into the outcomes of the debate for the NDP.

Michael Smyth of The Province gave us his debate thoughts in his blog “Victoria’s Secret.” He described the NDP leader as “poised, polished, and collected;” a direct counterpoint to his view of Campbell as a “picture of frustration.” As well as posting his thoughts online, he declared on CKNW radio immediately after the debate that “She was the clear winner.”

Other bloggers are talking about the debate as well. Bill Tieleman, who is perhaps most popularly known for his weekly column in Vancouver’s 24 Hours newspaper, summed up the debate by declaring Carole James the clear winner. He found Gordon Campbell on the defensive and “chippy at times,” and “Jane Sterk mostly on [the] sidelines.”

“Gordon Campbell Fires Himself During the Leaders Debate.” Not literally, but this excellent blog entry from Politics, Re-Spun highlights how condescending and chauvinistic Gordon Campbell was throughout the debate. It also points out his laughable dependence on neo-liberal economics, even at the expense of real people and real lives.

I must also give a shout out to Stacey of theleftcoast.ca, who was sitting across the table from me at Steamworks during the debate, and live-blogging the entire thing. His comments on the debate are fabulous, and the most interesting to read. If you check out only one blog, make it this one.

While Campbell is attempting to shrug off media coverage of the debate, it’s clear that he realizes the impact of his poor performance. He follows the polls, and knows an Ipsos Reid poll found that it was NDP leader Carol James who won Sunday evening’s debate. Perhaps this is the reason that he has suddenly decided to refuse to debate James on a scheduled CBC Radio debate. Of course, Liberal strategy seems to be to avoid debates as much as possible. After Campbell’s performance on Sunday, one can understand the reasoning here.

Since so many people were blogging, twittering, and facebooking about the debate on Sunday, it seems appropriate to end by mentioning such forms of new media. Supporters of all three of the parties were using them to update friends on their observations and opinions throughout the debate. The updates were coming fast and furious, as party faithful and interested observers took the opportunity to share their thoughts with the world (or at least, their fellow geeks. Yeah, I know, I’m one of them). I’m going to steal former federal NDP candidate Becca Coad’s facebook status update as an example, since I really liked it and everyone knows I’m biased anyway. As of Monday afternoon:

Becca Coad loved how Carole James sounded like the Premier of BC during the debate last night. May 12th baby!

The Future Premier

The Leader is in the building! Carole James just gave a rousing speech here at Steamworks, sounding like the strong leader we all know she is. She decried Gordon Campbell’s lack of respect – not towards her, but towards the people of British Columbia. With his “Aren’t we wonderful?” attitude, he ignored the everyday struggles of real people. He disrespected rural British Columbians, he disrespected seniors, he disrespected college and university students, he disrespected working families… and he disrespected every intelligent person in this province. Carole sounded like a premier tonight – it’s too bad we can’t say that about the outgoing premier.

Patronizing

Okay, so the debate is over. I’ve been asking around, and following the commentary on the internet. Twitter, facebook, the blogosphere, and anything else I can get my hands on. It appears that I’m not the only person who thought that Carole James was the clear winner. And that’s good, because I’m biased. The word if the day is “Patronizing” – that’s how everyone is describing Gordon Campbell’s performance. Perhaps it was because he was debating two women, or perhaps that’s just the way he is. I don’t know. Patronizing is the best description I’ve heard; Campbell was smug, condescending, and arrogant. He didn’t take the questions seriously, nor did he give any credence to the struggles of ordinary British Columbians. Instead, he put forward a bunch of feel-good “Aren’t we wonderful?” comments. It’s too bad his record doesn’t support his boasts.

In a pathetic attempt to win the sympathy vote, Gordon Campbell talked about his dear mommy, his own struggles with student debt, and a bunch of other completely irrelevant anecdotes. I guess by spinning personal stories, he hoped to pull the wool over our eyes. Apparently BC voters are too smart for that – even non-partisan citizens, as well as unaligned political pundits, are calling Campbell on his patronizing tactics. And now, breaking news: CTV just declared Carole James the winner in the Leaders’ Debate!

 

Best lines of the night:

“Gordon Campbell’s environment plan is about as green as an oil slick.” – Carole James

“I’m actually feeling like I’m not even here.” – Jane Sterk

Leaders’ Debate

I am currently sitting at a table in Steamworks Brew Pub watching the Leader’s Debate on live TV. The atmosphere here is incredible; people are excited, and far more energetic than you’d expect on E-9. Even though we’re not in the studio, it’s amazing just how loud the cheering is when Carole James speaks. 

Rural BC is the topic of the first question for open debate. Gordon Campbell is very sympathetic to the plight of rural British Columbians, but as Carole James correctly points out, his government put in place the policies that gutted the forestry sector and neglected the health and social needs of our Northern brothers and sisters. She puts forward a well thought-out plan to actually do something about the problems facing rural BC, which provides a stark contrast to Campbell’s self-congratulatory recital of the Liberals’ accomplishments over the past eight years. I must ask, if the BC Liberals have been doing such a good job, why did the crisis in rural BC become an issue in the first place?

Poor Jane Sterk is really struggling over her talking points. “Uh…um…” I almost feel sorry for her. When she responds to the question on crime she completely overlooks the social and economic causes. Instead, she blames the entire issue on the prohibition of marijuana. I think she’s actually channelling Marc Emery. Campbell brings out the old fear-mongering trick, claiming that the NDP never cares about crime. What he fails to mention is that his government closed down courthouses across the province, including the one in my home city, Burnaby. If he really cared about dealing with crime, he would be be working to reduce the backlog in prosecution, rather than to increase it.

The environment is another important issue, and a heated topic of debate. I have to admit, it’s during the debate over this question that I most want to slap Gordon Campbell. As he justifies his carbon tax, he claims that future generations will thank his generation for the sacrifices they’re making to protect the environment. Um, Gordo? Your carbon tax has been completely ineffective. Gas usage and carbon emissions have both increased since you brought in your gas tax. And now you want my peers and I to thank you? You’re selling off our rivers and streams, and planning to privatise BC Hydro! These are the public goods that my generation should be able to rely on! I object to having my future privatised. That smug smile is really getting to me. I’m relieved that Carole James has stated in plain language that BC Hydro will not be privatised under an NDP government, and our most important natural resources will stay in public hands.

On the subject on tuition, Gordon Campbell points out that he had to take a student loan when he was in school. Boo hoo. The average student debt load in BC is now close to $30 000. That’s nowhere close to comparable to what the student debt level was when Campbell and his cronies were in university. Carole James claims that the NDP will reduce tuition fees. There’s no point in having university spaces in this province if they aren’t affordable.

The debate has now ended. I’m feeling slightly nauseous. If Jane Sterk was channelling Marc Emery, Gordon Campbell was channelling Stephen Harper. Each of his points, all of his arguments – they were all wrapped in a sweater-vest.

Trailer Park Tricks

I had the pleasure of canvassing today with Debbie Lawrance, BC NDP candidate for Surrey-Panorama. I have canvassed in many neighbourhoods and with many different candidates, but today was different. We went to a mobile home park. I was impressed with Debbie’s priorities, and that she would choose to focus on a demographic usually neglected by political candidates. I have never before done any canvassing in a mobile home park, but as Debbie pointed out, we want to make sure that no-one is being disenfranchised. It was an eye-opening experience; we came shortly after each of the park’s residents received notice that their rents were being increased by 33%. There was no hearing before the Residential Tenancy Board, nor does it seem there was any other process. Tenants were simply informed that come June they were going to be expected to pay this exorbitant increase.

Mobile home parks are governed by the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, which contains provisions for allowable rent increases. According to these, rents may be raised by the inflation rate plus 2%. The maximum allowable rent increase, as posted on the Residential Tenancy Office’s website, is 3.7% this year. Manufactured home parks may also add what is called a proportional amount, or the change in local government levies (taxes) plus the change in utility fees, divided by the number of manufactured home sites in the manufactured home park. This total increase allowed under these laws could not come even close to 33%.

Sadly, residents of a manufactured home park have very little security of tenure. There are far too many loopholes in the laws ostensibly designed to protect renters. As upset as many people seemed at the park today, no-one was willing to challenge the landlord. If they could not afford the rent increase they simply planned to move. I can understand their reticence; it would not be hard to find an excuse to get rid of a long-term renter. We’ve already seen such things happen in apartment buildings in the West End, and now Kitsilano as well. Apparently the latest victims of inadequate rental protection are in Surrey. I can’t help but worry; many of the tenants we spoke to were seniors, and I’m sure that the extra cost of rent will be taking food off of their tables.