A Promise Broken

It has been identified by many commentators that middle-aged to old, low educated, white men seem to be very angry and that anger is leading to some very undesirable outcomes like the election of Donald Trump, Brexit and the resurgence of racism and bigotry in society at large.

There is a fair amount of analysis out there as to why this is.  Alot of it is accurate and alot of it does partly explain why they are so angry but one thing that seems to be missing is the explanation that if you are a white male who was born between 1950 and 1975 a promise was made to you when you were a kid and that promise has been broken.

When I was a young teenager, in the late '70s, I remember having a conservation with one of my father's friends about my plans for the future.  I do not remember the details of all of the conversation but he did say to me "You are white and you have your health so you will be OK".  I do not know why that statement stands out for me.  It just does.

However, it does explain why the old white guys are so angry.  From about 1950 to the mid to late '80s white men were essentially told that if they finished high school and kept their noses clean there would be good well paying jobs waiting for them.  They would be able to make a living and start a family with few problems.  The promise made sense because they were witnessing it with their own fathers, who were the only breadwinners but who were able to raise families on that one income.  No other demographic was made this promise of course.  

Around about the early 1990's that promise was broken.  Globalization took those jobs away.  What jobs were replaced were replaced by low paying jobs or jobs that required much more education than highschool to qualify for.  White men who made life decisions trusting that the promise would be honoured were left high and dry.

At the same time things began to change in society at large.  The seeds planted during the civil rights movement began to grow and no longer were white men given first crack at all of the good jobs.  Men of colour and women began pushing their way into jobs that were exclusively the domain of white men just a few short years previously.  

That is when the anger of the white man began.  Thirty years of conservative economic orthodoxy have allowed it to fester and to grow until it has finally come to a head.  All it took was a catalyst to make that anger boil over and create the issues we are now observing.

It is interesting that the ones who broke the promise are the ones who identified and then exploited the anger they created to advance their interests.  It is also interesting that the very changes in society they fought against are now being used by them to misdirect the anger they created away from them.

Old, low educated, white men are not the only demographic who are struggling but they are the only demographic that was promised a good life if they made certain life choices.  They held up their end of the bargain but were then cheated out of that good life.  That is probably the biggest reason why they are so angry and resentful and that is why they support those who claim they will take the country back to the way it was, to make the country "great again".  When they here that they hear that the promise made to them so many years ago will be honoured. 

Rachel Notley was Bob Raed

I am a little late in commenting on the defeat of Rachel Notley's government in Alberta but then again this comment really does not have a time limit because I am not going to comment on the actual defeat.

Instead what I will be commenting on is Ms. Notley's similar rise and fall to Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario in the 1990s.  Both were surprising and unlikely victories and both of them failed to win a second mandate.

Not a profound observation but what I find really interesting about both is how each governed.  In both cases they were elected because the electorate was really fed up with the usual governing parties and in both cases the two victorious NDPs went on to govern just like the usual governing parties.  They were given historical mandates and instead of governing like NDPs they governed like parties they defeated.

Both Bob Rae and Rachel Notley did enact policies and laws that were near and dear to the NDP but they only did so around the edges.  With regard to the fundamental way in which Ontario and Alberta were governed neither of them attempted to change it.  Instead, Bob Rae suddenly become concerned with deficits and did all sort of things to attempt to bring it down, during a recession, truly an impossible task.  Which of course set him up for failure.  Rachel Notley became just as obsessed with the oil industry and pipelines as the previous Alberta government despite the fact that their troubles were not hurting the overall economic health of her province.

In both case they could have pursued truly different ways of dealing with the issues facing their provinces and in both cases they just did what their opponents would have done.

I understand the reason why.  Governments get elected to get elected again.  So, they try not to rock the boat.  However, in these two cases they should have known that their chances of being reelected were slim out of the gate and acted accordingly.

With that in mind both could have taken more risks and pursued policies that would have allowed them to make their marks on their provinces.  Certainly they would have probably still lost their second elections but they probably would not just be remembered as lessons of why you should not elect NDP governments.