Austerity and the politics of the Ford scandal

Considering all his budget cuts and bigotry, it’s no surprise people are taking pleasure in the scandal surrounding Rob Ford. But while 60% think he should resign, polls also show his popularity has increased from 39% to 44%. The scandal seems to present opportunities for the left, as the Toronto Sun anxiously wrote in its article calling for Ford to resign: “Ford’s enemies on council, beyond calling for him to resign, are going to use his personal troubles and controversies to try to discredit his agenda of fiscal conservatism.” We certainly do need to discredit his agenda, and have through a series of mobilizations. But the scandal can just as easily erase these memories, and substitute right-wing moralism that fuels his support and reinforces his agenda. We should remember why he was elected, how he was challenged, and the real scandal of the Ford agenda if we want an alternative.

Why was Ford elected?

Ford was elected in a landslide victory, which confused many. Two years into the economic crisis there was visible resistance to austerity—24,000 city workers went on strike in 2009, and 40,000 people marched against the G20 in 2010. Any left candidate giving electoral expression to this sentiment could have won the election. But the left in office, supported by the left candidate, did the opposite: David Miller fought against the city workers, and then passed a unanimous motion applauding the police for the largest mass arrest in Canadian history during the G20. The silence of the left on council opened up a right-wing backlash that Ford rode to office—similar to the Tea Party’s emergence in the wake of disillusionment with Obama.

With no left alternative to the crisis, Ford articulated a right-wing populism that tapped into people’s anger against austerity (defending “the people” and “the tax payer”, demanding “respect”, and calling for an “end to the gravy”), but channeling it into a right-wing direction. As a result the millionaire mayor was elected by contradictory groups—the 1% eager to impose austerity, and much of the 99% with a confused opposition to it.

How was Ford challenged?

This contradiction, revealing the limits of right-wing populism, was important to recognize. In the opinion polls Ford had massive support, leading many to claim Toronto had surged to the right, and that people were unwilling or incapable of resisting austerity. But seeing opposition to austerity—even in a section of those who voted for Ford—was crucial to mobilizing against him. On International Women’s Day, in March of 2011, thousands marched for jobs and services, and on April 9 a labour and community mobilization brought 10,000 people into the streets, to demand “respect for communities, public services and good jobs.” As John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council and one of the speakers, said: “This is not a rally against an individual politician. This is a rally that talks about the kind of city we want to have together, the kind of city we want to invest in together, the kind of city we want to build together.”

This was also important for distinguishing between the right and the wrong reasons to be against Ford. When he announced he was running, NOW Magazine wrote about it under the title “fat chance”, and early in his term had a cover of the mayor naked—aiming to make fun of his body size. As I wrote at the time, “There's plenty of reasons to criticize Rob Ford—from his racism and homophobia to his attacks on transit workers and public services—but his weight is not one of them. NOW defended itself on freedom of speech grounds, but that's besides the point. Free speech shouldn't pander to fat phobia or any other form of oppression.”

A focus on Ford’s policies continued to mobilize people throughout the summer—at Pride, through a Toronto library petition that went viral, at marathon deputations and neighbourhood meetings. As a result of sustained mobilizations, a poll in September 2011 found Ford’s popularity fell from 60% in February to 42% in September, with a majority of Torontonians in all wards against the cuts. Left counselors reflected the anger in the streets, and right-wing counselors like Karen Stintz began trying to differentiate themselves from Ford. Ford announced a delay in cuts, but resistance continued—including a video against the cuts, a second labour/community rally on September 26, and marches by the Occupy movement in October and November—when Ford’s approval rating was at its lowest. But the tendency to personalize Ford’s policies continued—through slogans like “stop the crazy train”, which depoliticize the austerity agenda and reinforce the oppression of people with mental health issues.

In January 2012, with a third mass rally outside, city council passed an amended budget dampening the austerity agenda. Ford then went after city workers, hoping for a repeat of the right-wing backlash that catapulted him to power. But the library workers fought back in the spring of 2012, receiving strong public support. A year ago, opposition from below and splits from above made Ford vulnerable to legal challenge, which almost removed him on a conflict of interest charge; since then the right-wing have been increasingly anxious about his ability to impose austerity.  

What's the real scandal?

The Toronto Sun’s call for Ford’s resignation began with a glowing tribute to him for having slashed budgets, contracted our garbage and revoked transit workers’ right to strike, but concluded: “He is now a liability to his own agenda of fiscal conservatism, because the longer he stays in office, the more City Hall will become a circus, preoccupied with the mayor’s personal issues and credibility rather than with spending taxpayers’ money wisely…That’s why we will continue to support Ford’s fiscal agenda, even though we can no longer support the man.”

The liability to his agenda of fiscal conservatism should be…his agenda of fiscal conservatism, which sparked mobilizations of thousands of people, who fought back against his policies and undermined his support. But the mainstream media’s main target has not been his scandalous policies, but his size, drug use and denial.

Fat phobia is in full swing, through cartoons and the front page of the Toronto Sun exclaiming “Dead weight”, with a photo of Ford’s abdomen. The media’s moral outrage over drug use is rekindling support for Ford, as a pollster exclaimed: “if you saw him during that media scrum yesterday, it might have generated some sympathy.”

It’s certainly hypocritical for a millionaire mayor to escape justice. But it’s the “justice system” itself that is the greater scandal: disproportionately incarcerating poor and racialized people, and criminalizing drug use and people with addictions. The police have taken advantage of the anger over the killing of Sammy Yatim to give more tasers to police, and could use the Ford scandal to reinforce the “war on drugs.” The media praise for the police chief—who presided over the G20 mass arrests and an epidemic of extra-judicial killings of people of colour and people with mental health issues—shows how a drug scandal amidst the 1% can still reinforce the 1%.

What next?

For the right-wing, this is Ford’s crime: that he sparked opposition to austerity, and drew attention to the hypocrisy of the system. That is why they want him out, so they can calmly continue to impose brutal austerity. As Karen Stintz explained in her mayoral announcement: “I believe in the fiscal agenda of Rob Ford, but I worry that another four years of Rob Ford may not move the city forward.”

For the left, this means that moral prescriptions—that Ford “must take responsibility for his actions” and “face up to the truth”—ignore the real austerity scandal, and let Ford off the hook. Ford simply announced on his radio show that he is apologizing but will weather the storm, will run in the next election and that people can judge him on his record. That has appeal for people disillusioned by mainstream politics, cynical about media scandals, and wooed by Ford’s statements about implementing the policies he promised.

The problem is that he did implement the policies he promised, and it's that record that needs to be challenged. It’s his policies (shared by the rest of the right-wing on council) of cuts to jobs and services that he should apologize for, and reverse. To weather the rest of his term, and beat him and Stintz, in the next election, the left needs to return to the issues that mobilized so many people in the first two years: not moralism about drug use or attacks on Ford as a person, but opposition and alternatives to austerity. 

Ford removed, the fight against austerity continues

Today Torontonians celebrate Rob Ford’s imminent removal from office, after he was found guilty of conflict of interest. This is the result of pressure from below and splits from above, and should give confidence to the fight against austerity.

The technical reason Ford has been removed from office (if his appeal fails) is conflict of interest, and there’s a detailed timeline of the legal proceedings. But like the removal of Richard Nixon in the context of the anti-war movement, what’s more important about the removal of Ford is the anti-austerity movement. Ford was elected just two years ago in a landslide victory that caught many off guard. Toronto had organized two massive anti-austerity movements—the 2009 city workers strike and the 2010 G20 protests—and yet Ford came to office attacking these movements, leading many to assume that Toronto had shifted to the right or that people were simply stupid.

Austerity and right-wing populism
But Ford’s victory was not a rebuke to those movements, but a result of them having no electoral expression. When the economic crisis began, “left-wing” mayor David Miller’s attack blamed city workers and provoked a strike in the summer of 2009, which opened the gate to Rob Ford’s backlash—just like Obama’s participation in the austerity agenda opened the terrain for the tea party movement. Ironically city workers received less support from council than they did in their strike against Mayor Mel Lastman, allowing Ford to lead an unopposed charge against workers.

While other candidates spoke about continuing the same policies, Ford was the only one who spoke to people’s anger at the crisis—though channeled in the wrong direction. Ford filled the electoral void with a right-wing populist campaign that abstractly spoke to people’s anxieties about the economic crisis (“respect” and “ending the gravy”), and promised not to cut any public services.

Ford was massively popular when he was first elected, for contradictory reasons, and would never have been removed from office without grassroots activism that exposed his agenda, mobilized support against it, and provoked splits on council.

Timeline of resistance
As I wrote in April, 2011:
“On his inauguration on a cold December day, 150 people protested. On his first council meeting, a temper tantrum about ‘left-wing pinkos by his invited guest Don Cherry sparked protest by councillors, while thousands of people across the city got ‘left-wing pinko’ buttons that they continue to wear with pride. In March organizers of International Women's Day confronted Rob Ford about his cuts to public services, and that weekend thousands marched for public services and jobs…On April 9 unions joined with student and community groups to bring 10,000 people into the streets of Toronto, transforming Ford's motto ‘respect for taxpayers’ into ‘respect for communities, public services and good jobs.’”

This mass demonstration so soon into Ford’s term exposed Ford’s hallow rhetoric and showed the desire to protect jobs and services—which continued through the summer. As I wrote in September of 2011:
“Instead of dividing the city, Ford's boycott of Pride in June backfired and isolated him. In July a petition by Toronto Public Library Workers Union became a lightning rod when Margaret Atwood called on her supporters to sign. On July 28, the first marathon deputations spoke overwhelmingly against cuts revealing that the so-called ‘Ford Nation’ of citizens demanding austerity was non-existent. Instead August revealed a "Jack Nation" as thousands of Torontonians covered City Hall in a rainbow of progressive messages to honour the life of Jack Layton and pledge to continue the fight for a better world. In September, hundreds gathered at local organizing meetings—the Stop the Cuts meeting in the west, and a town hall meeting in the east—to discuss the cuts and organize against them. Left councillors have reflected the growing anti-austerity sentiment—like Adam Vaughn’s critique of KPMG—while Ford's inner circle has started to crack, from Karen Stintz opposing library cuts to Jay Robinson opposing arts cuts.”

Ford’s falling popularity, as a result of grassroots organizing, also had provincial repercussions—derailing Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak’s election campaign. Ford scrambled to reassert his agenda but the resistance continued. As I wrote in January of this year,
“In September a poll found a majority of Torontonians in all wards were against the cuts and that Ford's popularity was plummeting. Ford announced a delay of some cuts, hoping the opposition would dissipate, but on September 26 a second labour/community rally organized by Respect Toronto brought thousands more to protest outside City Hall. In October and November, Occupy Toronto organized a series of marches to City Hall—hearing from library workers, social housing advocates and others against the Ford agenda—and on December 3 hundreds of labour and community activists held a mass meeting in Scarborough to protect jobs and services. This year of organizing by labour and community groups won a majority on council to revoke millions of cuts, as a third mass protest occurred outside City Hall.”

All this grassroots, rank-and-file organizing pushed council to pass an amended budget—a slap in the face to Ford—followed by further rebukes on everything from transit, to public housing, to plastic bags. Many of these came from people on the centre or right of council, showing increasing splits and power struggles that isolated Ford and facilitated legal proceedings against him.

Ford tried to revive his agenda by going after city workers. Despite the bitter experience of the 2009 strike, city workers from CUPE 416 and 79 gave a strong strike mandate, but received no lead from the leadership. Library workers, on the other hand, had built a strong campaign connecting the fight for jobs with the fight for services—and when they went on strike they received widespread support and pushed back against the cuts—showing how rank-and-file organizing, connecting jobs with services, is key to fighting austerity.

The struggle continues
Ford has vowed to appeal, and to run the next election if necessary. But if he is removed there’s no way the right-wing will back him next election. The arrogance that led to his conflict of interest speaks to the general overconfidence with which he has been ruling, one that misread his initial victory and triggered such broad opposition. The right-wing will try to reorganize around someone who can do a smoother jobs of promoting attacks on jobs and services.

Ford’s inner circle and right-wing allies are deserting him, but not his agenda. Karen Stintz, TTC chair, was a firm supporter of revoking transit workers’ right to strike; Doug Holyday, who will take over Ford’s position, has already been speaking on behalf of the increasinly-muzzled mayor and will try to revive his agenda.

The splits at the top that isolated Ford to the point of being vulnerable to a legal challenge have not ended the austerity drive against jobs and services that the rest of the right-wing on council shares. But Ford’s imminent departure from office does show that the austerity agenda is vulnerable to pressure from below, and should give confidence to rank-and-file movements to keep organizing and fighting back.

photo essay: Toronto IWD march

On March 3, women from across Toronto took to the streets for International Women's Day.

The march included labour and community groups, opposition from inside and outside Parliament/City Council, and people of all ages.

As the organizers explained, the austerity agenda is worsening the lives of women, who already face endemic problems of violence. "Over the past year, the 99% has faced attacks on our rights as workers and the right to decent jobs, while austerity-driven political agendas have moved forward to slash public spending, targeting the very services upon which we rely during times of economic uncertainty.  Women and other marginalized people are disproportionately affected by cuts to public services, which deepen socio-economic marginalization. Our services mitigate socio-economic inequity and are vital to an equitable society." 

This year's theme--"Reclaim our city: good jobs, services, dignity. Together we are stronger"--built on the organizing of the past year.

Women have been at the heart of resistance movements, from the Egyptian revolution to anti-austerity fights in Toronto. Last year, IWD organizers were one of the first to confront Rob Ford over his cuts that threaten women's access to public services. Since then a year of organizing has dented the Ford agenda--stopping some budget cuts, stalling the sell off of social housing, and leading to a rebirth of the public transit debate. Ford is trying to get around the opposition by attacking the jobs on which public services depend, like contracting out cleaners. The march connected the fight for public services with the defence of the jobs that provide them, and included cleaners and library workers at the front of the march--who are campaigning to save jobs and public services.

Slogans also make links were also made to broader issues, like "childcare not warfare". While Harper is wasting billions on fighter jets, battle ships and wars from Afghanistan and Libya to threats against Syria and Iran--he still refuses to fund a national, publicly-funded child care program.

The march passed by City Hall, where people left messages in chalk connecting local with global, from "save transit city", to "status for all", to "free Palestinian female prisoners" (for more information, come to Israeli Apartheid Week)

By uniting women and men from across the city in defence of good jobs, public services and dignity, IWD left a strong message for Ford, Harper and the rest of the 1%: expect resistance.

Mass organizing dents Ford's agenda -- now it's time to defend jobs

With a majority of 23-21, an amended budget passed at City Hall last night revoked millions in planned cuts to Toronto public services -- from pools to daycare spaces to shelter. This is the result of a year of mass organizing, which now needs to protect the jobs on which further public services depend.

Timeline of resistance

The change in council was the result of a year of mass campaigns uniting labour and community groups. As I wrote before:

"On his inauguration on a cold December day, 150 people protested. On his first council meeting, a temper tantrum about 'left-wing pinkos' by his invited guest Don Cherry sparked protest by councillors, while thousands of people across the city got 'left-wing pinko' buttons that they continue to wear with pride. In March organizers of International Women's Day confronted Rob Ford about his cuts to public services, and that weekend thousands marched for public services and jobs. On April 9 unions joined with student and community groups to bring 10,000 people into the streets of Toronto, transforming Ford's motto 'respect for taxpayers' into 'respect for communities, public services and good jobs.'

Many people saw the election of Ford as a sign of a right-wing surge across the city that could not be stopped. But by bringing thousands of people into the streets just a few months into his mandate, the April 9 showed there was mass opposition to austerity and division, and this mood has continued to grow.

Instead of dividing the city, Ford's boycott of Pride in June backfired and isolated him. In July a petition by Toronto Public Library Workers Union became a lightning rod when Margaret Atwood called on her supporters to sign. On July 28 the first marathon deputations spoke overwhelmingly against cuts revealing that the so-called 'Ford Nation' of citizens demanding austerity was non-existent. Instead August revealed a 'Jack Nation' as thousands of Torontonians covered City Hall in a rainbow of progressive messages to honour the life of Jack Layton and pledge to continue the fight for a better world. In September hundreds gathered at local organizing meetings -- the Stop the Cuts meeting in the west, and a town hall meeting in the east -- to discuss the cuts and organize against them."

In September a poll found a majority of Torontonians in all wards were against the cuts and that Ford's popularity was plummeting. Ford announced a delay of some cuts, hoping the opposition would dissipate, but on September 26 a second labour/community rally organized by Respect Toronto brought thousands more to protest outside City Hall.

In October and November, Occupy Toronto organized a series of marches to City Hall -- hearing from library workers, social housing advocates and others against the Ford agenda -- and on December 3 hundreds of labour and community activists held a mass meeting in Scarborough to protect jobs and services. This year of organizing by labour and community groups won a majority on council to revoke millions of cuts, as a third mass protest occurred outside City Hall.

Protect services to protect jobs

While Ford has been attacking city services directly through budget cuts, he is attacking them indirectly through job cuts. It was the attack on striking city workers that Ford rode to office, and his early actions included contracting out garbage workers and taking away transit workers' right to strike. As Ford has faced increased opposition to cuts to services, he has began scapegoating workers -- claiming that, "the gravy is the number of employees we have at City Hall." While some services were saved through the budget, there is an escalating campaign against the jobs on which services depend -- from York transit workers, to library workers, to city workers. To save the Toronto services on which we all depend, we need to protect the jobs that provide them.

How do we build the "occupy" movement?

Fuelled by the economic crisis and inspired by the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread around the world. 

    Today marks one week of the movement across Canada and Quebec. Like all movements, there are a series of debates emerging that will determine its direction and success. Is occupation a tactic or a principle? Should the focus be on the internal procedures of those actively occupying, or outreach to broader communities and struggles? How do we build a movement of the 99%?

THE MOVEMENT OF THE 99%

     The occupy movement marks the re-emergence of the anti-capitalist movement. Building on years of struggle against war, climate chaos and economic crisis, it identifies these and other issues as symptoms of a massively unequal system that benefits the one per cent.

     The 99% includes poor and working class people, students, racialized and oppressed groups. The very issues at the heart of this new movement--police brutality, racism and other forms of oppression, the struggle to pay tuition and defend good jobs--creates barriers for most of the 99% to maintain a permanent outdoor occupation with police presence and long meetings during working hours.

     That is why the main strategy of the one per cent so far has been to wait for those actively occupying to become isolated. How do we build the occupy movement into a real movement of the 99%?

LESSONS FROM EGYPT

     The Occupy movement has been inspired by the Arab Spring, but the corporate media have perpetuated a distorted view of the Egyptian Revolution: that it was a spontaneous event, organized purely over social media, that drove dictator Hosni Mubarak from power only through the occupation of Tahrir Square, and that is over.

     Firstly, the Egyptian Revolution was a product of a decade of struggle in which occupations was one of many tactics. When the Iraq War began thousands occupied Tahrir Square, and then built other movements--from political movements for civil liberties, to economic struggles over wages.

     Secondly, while social media played a role at the start of the uprising, the state and corporations turned off all internet and cell phones, yet the revolution grew because people used  more traditional methods--meetings in neighbourhoods, workplaces and faith groups which are more accessible to a broader layer of the population.

    Thirdly, while the mainstream media were focusing on Tahrir Square, the revolution was spreading to the factories. It was when workers across Egypt began mass strikes that Mubarak was driven from power.

   Finally, while Mubarak is gone and Tahrir is no longer occupied, the Egyptian Revolution is continuing the deepen through mass strikes and protests, and occasional occupations like at series of campus occupations last month.

     The ongoing Egyptian Revolution demonstrates that societal change is a process, not an event, in which movements rely on a variety of tactics--including occupations--and where the success depends on the active participation of the working class. Had the Egyptian revolution remained confined to Tahrir Square it would not have succeeded. It needed Tahrir to spread.

LESSONS FROM NEW YORK

     The Arab Spring inspired Wisconsin workers and students to occupy their state building for three weeks against budget cuts. Some were disappointed when the occupation ended, but it was part of the process of radicalization that triggered the occupy movement, which has gone through different phases.

     In the summer, people in New York launched “Bloombergville”, a protest camp to oppose mayor Bloomberg’s budget cuts. People camped for weeks, but without outreach to broader community and labour allies the occupation was isolated and disintegrated.

     Occupy Wall Street learned the lessons and has been successful because of outreach beyond the park.

     As a participant to both occupations told The Real News,

“what the unions and community groups bring along with them is a lot of people who have been organizing in marginalized communities and a lot of people who are hardest hit by economic crisis and also racism and sexism and all the other oppressions that we all face. So they bring those struggles here, and they also bring concrete demands because they fight around those concrete demands all the time. That’s incredibly important for this kind of movement to ground itself in very concrete struggles that are actually taking place all the time.”

     As a result of labour solidarity, bus drivers have refused to transport arrested protesters. 

OCCUPY CANADA

     Despite claims by the Canadian state the occupy movement is not relevant here, people across Canada and Quebec know better.

     Canada is built on occupied Native land, and there has been growing solidarity with First Nations people--and participation from aboriginal activists in the occupations--fighting for self-determination against a government that denies its own colonial history, ignores missing and murdered aboriginal women, and maintains brutal conditions that spread illness and suicide on reserves.

     For years people across Canada and Quebec have also mobilized against Harper’s regime of war, Islamophobia, tar sands and austerity--and against the local “one per cent”, from the BC Liberals to the Toronto regime of Rob Ford.

     In the context of a global economic crisis, social democracy is incapable of delivering reform--and people have watched governments elected from the left (from Barack Obama in the US, to George Papandreou in Greece, to David Miller in Toronto) impose the same neoliberal agenda.

     The “orange wave” for the NDP, riding on the wave of inspiration provided by the Arab Spring, expressed people’s hopes of a better world--rather than support for the NDP platform that vowed to continue the military budget. The recent Ontario elections were much more about competing party platforms, and as a result drew the lowest voter turnout in the province’s history.

     But the occupy movement shows this is not because of apathy. Thousands of people have joined the occupy movement—the first political experience for many—as they look for an alternative outside the dominant institutions of the system that can’t offer real change.

DEBATES

     But like all movements there are fault lines that could fracture the movement.

     On the question of demands there are two potential dangers. The media are asking for a few simple demands that the system might accommodate, eliminating the systemic critique at the heart of the movement.  On the other hand, some participants are calling for no demands in a way that reduces the movement to the procedural form divorced from the radical content and the movements that inform it.

     A related problem to the exclusive focus on procedure is that it reduces the movement to the minority able to occupy for long hours, isolated from broader communities and struggles.

     This can give rise to seeing this group as the agent of change--through a frenetic calendar of events that the majority of people don’t have the ability to participate in, or elevating the occupation from a tactic to a principle. 

     As the temperature drops, it will become more unsustainable to maintain outdoor occupations, and prioritizing this over outreach beyond the occupation will cut the movement off from broader struggles. At Occupy Toronto there have been efforts to build beyond the park--joining the Ryerson Social Justice Week on day three, and marching with labour and community allies against the local 1% regime of Rob Ford today.

     As we’ve seen from Tahrir to Wisconsin, occupations are simply one tactic in a broader movement for change. The main strategy needs to be the active participation of masses of people—in the streets, campuses, and workplaces. Only through self-emancipation can we create a world for the 99%, by the 99%.

photos: Rally for Toronto

Ford faltering: build the September 26 Rally for Toronto

As Toronto Mayor Rob Ford confronted a second wave of deputations against the cuts, cracks are emerging in his austerity agenda. He has been forced to reduce and delay some cuts, while members of his executive are speaking out against others. This is a result of months of growing opposition, and the Rally for Toronto on September 26 can magnify the resistance for the weeks and months to come.

THE PROCESS OF RESISTANCE

     Stopping the cuts is not an event but a process, which has been building since Ford took office. As I wrote in April, 

"On his inauguration on a cold December day, 150 people protested. On his first council meeting, a temper tantrum about “left-wing pinkos” by his invited guest Don Cherry sparked protest by councillors, while thousands of people across the city got "left-wing pinko" buttons that they continue to wear with pride. In March organizers of International Women's Day confronted Rob Ford about his cuts to public services, and that weekend thousands marched for public services and jobs…On April 9 unions joined with student and community groups to bring 10,000 people into the streets of Toronto, transforming Ford's motto "respect for taxpayers" into "respect for communities, public services and good jobs".

     Many people saw the election of Ford as a sign of a right-wing surge across the City that could not be stopped. But by bringing thousands of people into the streets just a few months into his mandate, the April 9 demonstration showed there was mass opposition to austerity and division, and this mood has continued to grow. 

     Instead of dividing the city, Ford’s boycott of Pride in June backfired and isolated him. In July a petition by Toronto Public Library Workers Union became a lightning rod when Margaret Atwood called on her supporters to sign. On July 28 the first marathon deputations spoke overwhelmingly against cuts revealing that the so-called “Ford Nation” of citizens demanding austerity was non-existent. Instead August revealed a “Jack Nation” as thousands of Torontonians covered City Hall in a rainbow of progressive messages to honour the life of Jack Layton and pledge to continue the fight for a better world. In September hundreds gathered at local organizing meetings—the Stop the Cuts meeting in the west, and a town hall meeting in the east—to discuss the cuts and organize against them.

     Left councillors have reflected the growing anti-austerity sentiment—like Adam Vaughn’s critique of KPMG—while Ford’s inner circle has started to crack, from Karen Stintz opposing library cuts to Jay Robinson opposing arts cuts.

BUILD SEPTEMBER 26

     The specter of mass cuts, and the months of activity building against it, has produced a clear opposition to cuts in every ward, while Ford’s popularity is plummeting. Ford is responding in two ways. Firstly by backing off or delaying some cuts, hoping the anti-austerity momentum will dissipate or turn on itself before the November budget process begins. But the deputations made clear that there is a tremendous mood of unity. As Roy Mitchell said in his deputation, after presenting Ford with the “unity award”:

“Your work in unifying us ensure that we will not fight amongst ourselves. Library supporters see the value in day care, people who support livable wages also support the arts. Affordable housing is no less important than children getting healthy food at school. We have learned that the only way to make our city work is to safeguard these services and support each other in saving them.”

     Ford's other strategy--and central pillar of austerity in addition to attacking communities and services--is to attack workers and blame them for the recession. As Ford claimed recently, “the gravy is the number of employees we have at City Hall.” It was the attack on striking city workers that Ford rode to office, and his early actions included contracting out garbage workers and taking away transit workers right to strike. These attacks on jobs is part of the attacks on services.

     On Monday September 26 at 5:30pm at City Hall, there will be a mass Rally for Toronto—to save city services and defend good jobs. This is an important event in the growing process of resistance on both fronts—to reinforce the united anti-cuts opposition that will need to continue to build towards the November budget process, and to defend the jobs of working people who provide the services Torontonians care so much about. The bigger September 26 the more united and confident people will be to build all the campaigns against the cuts that will be necessary in the weeks and months to come. Posters can be downloaded from labourcouncil.ca, a promotional video has gone viral and momentum is building.

See you in the streets!

Beck, Ford and the limits of right-wing populism

10,000 protest Ford's austerity agenda

This has been a bad week for right-wing populists: falling ratings forced Glenn Beck to leave his Fox News program, while 10,000 marched against the neoliberal policies of Toronto's mayor Rob Ford. Both are major shifts from just a few months ago, when Beck dominated American television while Rob Ford won a landslide election. Many people saw these as evidence that the political views of the majority had lunged to the right. But Beck and Ford illustrate the contradiction of right-wing populism, and the possibilities for change. 

"LEFT" POLITICIANS AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

     The economic crisis of 2008 hit almost 10 years after the anti-globalization/anti-capitalist movement of 1999, and 5 years after the massive anti-war protests of 2003. For years majority opinion has been against war and growing numbers critical of neoliberal policies. But the response of politicians across the political spectrum has been to continue the same policies--escalating war, bailing out banks and corporations, cutting public services and attacking wages and pensions. 

     While the anti-war and progressive movements in the US helped elect Barack Obama to the presidency, he escalated war (continuing the occupation of Iraq, sending more troops to Afghanistan and launching drone attacks on Pakistan), continued the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay, and gave $700 billion of public funds to corporations while ordinary Americans continued to face home forclosure and unemployment. Meanwhile Toronto's left-wing mayor David Miller--who the labour and other progressive movements had helped elect in 2003--decided in 2009 to balance the books on city workers, blaming them for the recession and demanding concessions.

RIGHT-WING POPULISM FILLS THE VOID

     Glenn Beck, the Tea Party and Rob Ford are right-wing populists, whose appeal grows from people’s frustration with the economic crisis combined with the inability of the left in office to articulate a progressive response or support fightbacks when they emerge. As a result people's legitimate frustrations get deflected onto immigrants or unions instead of the corporations who created the crisis. Obama’s continuation of Bush policies undermined progressive movements that had elected him and opened up space for Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement--which provide reactionary outlets for people's economic hardships, but fail to improve people's lives. As Gary Younge explained:

"When Tea Party supporters talk about 'taking our country back', they are – in part – expressing nostalgia. They literally want to take it backwards to a past when people had job security, and a couple on a middle-class wage could reasonably expect their children to have a better life than their own. The party they have been voting for and the candidates they are supporting now have actively and openly worked to undermine those aspirations. Their frustration at the Democrats' inability to deliver on their promises should be eclipsed only by their fear that the Republicans do manage to deliver on theirs. No wonder they are so angry. They keep treading on their own toes."

     Meanwhile the people of Toronto organized two massive movements against austerity--24,000 city workers on strike in June 2009, and 40,000 people marching against the G20 in June 2010--but the left in office turned their back on this mood, so right-wing populism filled the void. Despite having a “left” mayor in office during the 2009 strike, Toronto city workers ironically had less support from council than when they struck against right-winger Mel Lastman (when progressive councilor supported the strike), while council voted themselves a pay raise. Without a progressive response to this hypocrisy, Ford captured people’s anger with a right-wing response--attacking both workers and city council salaries. The silence of the left city councillors opened the floodgates for Ford’s right-wing backlash, which spilled over from city workers to transit workers, and now garbage collection and social housing.    

     Mass resistance against the G20 austerity measures and the $1 billion “security” enforcing it provided an opportunity for the left council to recover and reunite with progressives. But after the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, city council passed a unanimous motion to “commend the outstanding work” of the police. Facing no progressive response, Ford could carve out an even more reactionary position, arguing the police were too restrained in their brutality and that there should be no inquiry. 

BUILDING ALTERNATIVES

     But movements that challenge austerity are providing an alternative to right-wing populism. While Beck and the resources of Fox news marshalled less than 100,000 people to Washington in August 2010, left-wing comedians Stephen Colbert and John Stewart got double that number a few months later--showing the scale of people's frustration with right-wing divisive politics. Much more significant in terms of the grassroots groups and the issues they raised, was the "One Nation Working Together for Jobs and Justice" on October 2, 2010. Though ignored by the mainstream media, Democracy Now reported that

"More than 400 groups, including labor unions, as well as civil rights, gay rights, and environmental groups, endorsed the 'One Nation Working Together' rally. Organizers said the gathering drew a crowd of 175,000 people. The focus of the day was jobs, justice and education for all. The rally’s sponsors said they also hoped to demonstrate that they, not the tea party, represented the nation’s majority."

     The rally was a prelude for developments this year. If people took Glenn Beck and Fox News to represent American opinion they might think that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker could easily get away with union busting as part of a resurgent right-wing. But the explosive resistance in Wisconsin has provided a left-wing response to the crisis and inspired the nation. The April 4 Days of Action featured 1,200 events across the US in solidarity with Wisconsin workers for "the freedom to bargain, to vote, to afford a college education and justice for all workers, immigrant and native-born."

    Meanwhile Rob Ford is encountering growing resistance within months of taking office. On his inauguration on a cold December day, 150 people protested. On his first council meeting, a temper tantrum about "left-wing pinkos" by his invited guest Don Cherry sparked protest by councillors, while thousands of people across the city got "left-wing pinko" buttons that they continue to wear with pride. In March organizers of International Women's Day confronted Rob Ford about his cuts to public services, and that weekend thousands marched for public services and jobs. Shortly after it was revealed that Ford has given a cheat-sheet to his supportive councillors, instructing them how to vote. This is a sign of weakness. According to councillor Joe Mihevc,

"The Fords talk about running the place like a business but it’s been more like a military. My kids would call them control freaks. The risk is that people get tired of being told what to do. And I can tell you, there are a few who admit they’re having trouble sleeping at night. This isn’t what they were elected to do."

     While the mayor wants to build "Ford Nation" as a replica of the Tea Party, the labour movement can tip the balance in favour of progressive activism.  On April 9 unions joined with student and community groups to bring 10,000 people into the streets of Toronto, transforming Ford's motto "respect for taxpayers" into "respect for communities, public services and good jobs". Like the labour fightbacks in the 1930s--a few years after the 1929 Wallstreet crash--resistance to the Great Recession is a process, not an event. On January 29, 10,000 striking workers and their allies across the province marched against concessions by US Steel. While some on the left dismissed the mobilization, it built unity and confidence for workers to stand up against austerity, and along with the inspiration from Egypt and Wisconsin helped motivate people to protest April 9. This mobilization in turn has raised people's horizons to the mood for a fightback, providing confidence for local campaigns and giving momentum for the May 1 rally on Parliament hill, on the eve of the federal election, which will help challenge austerity from whichever government tries to impose it.

Fat phobia, the "obesity epidemic" and the medicalization of inequality

     Recently Toronto's progressive weekly newspaper, NOW, had a photoshopped front cover and feature pages showing rightwing mayor Rob Ford posing naked. This was clearly aimed at making fun of his weight, a recurring theme. When he announced he was running, NOW wrote about it in an article titled "fat chance", and during the election campaign right-wing rival George Smitherman suggested he "doesn't have the fitness for the rigour pace" (comments reinforced by media photos of his abdomen).  Last week while I was leafleting for the April 9 rally to protest Rob Ford's policies, one passerby grabbed a leaflet and called Ford a "fat fuck", a term reproduced on youtube clips and internet sites.

     There's plenty of reasons to criticize Rob Ford--from his racism and homophobia to his attacks on transit workers and public services--but his weight is not one of them. NOW defended itself on freedom of speech grounds, but that's besides the point. Free speech shouldn't pander to fat phobia or any other form of oppression. As one blogger noted,

"Ask yourself if NOW would ever do a Photoshopped cover of a female mayor in her underwear? The naked truth is that NOW would never have dared such a cover with Barbara Hall as mayor...Or if George Smitherman was the new mayor, can you imagine a cover with his worship wearing nothing but chaps and making fun of his sexual orientation?"

THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF THE "OBESITY EPIDEMIC"

     One of the reasons fat phobia is so accepted is because it's become medicalized, giving it a veneer of legitimacy.  We're told that we live that we're gripped by an "obesity epidemic", which kills 300,000 Americans a year, a "threatening storm" that an article in the New England Journal of Medicine blames for a future decline in life expectancy. The policing of body size has entered daily medical practice with the "metabolic syndrome", a concept aimed at describing the inter-dependence of diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure; to assess for this every family doctor is trained to measure their patient's blood pressure and lab tests...plus weight circumference. We're then supposed to council patients to "chose a healthy lifestyle" based on low-fat foods, on the notion that this will reduce obesity and its associated health problems. But this picture doesn't fit reality.

     Despite the focus on evidence-based medicine, much of the "obesity science" is arbitrary. Gerald Reaven, a leading scientist on insulin resistance, exposed the pseudoscience behind the metabolic syndrome, especially its inclusion of waist circumference:

"Not only are the cut points for the five chosen criteria arbitrary, there is no reason to believe that the individual elements of the metabolic syndrome are equally reflective of either the presumed basic defect or the risk of cardiovascular disease...although being overweight/obese increases the chances of an individual being significantly insulin resistant, by no means are all overweight/obese individuals insulin resistant, and, of greater clinical relevance, weight loss in overweight/obese individuals who are not insulin resistant does not lead to substantial clinical benefit."

 The site size-acceptance.org has also busted the "300,000 deaths a year" myth, noting that the authors of the quoted study objected to the misrepresentation of their findings, and that furthermore: 

"[the study] may have actually built upon the results of the 20 year long Cooper Institute Studies of 20,000 men which showed that fitness level and amount of exercise determined the morbidity risk rate regardless of what people weighed i.e. fat couch potatos and thin couch potatoes seemed at equal risk whereas fat exercisers seemed at no more risk than thin exercisers and at much less risk than thin couch potatoes."

     Not only does the supposed problem "fat = unhealthy" not stand up to scrutiny, but the supposed solution of lecturing people to "stop eating fat" doesn't reduce weight or the supposed obesity-related illnesses. The Women's Health Initiative followed 50,000 women for years, telling one group to eat a low-fat diet while the control group followed their usual diet. The results:  "Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or cardiovascular disease. And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets." Despite the simplistic call for "good lifestyle choices", people can choose health in the same way that they can choose housing, income, working conditions, the food they eat, the air they breathe. In the market, people's ability to make choices depends on their socioeconomic condition.

 

 MASS OR CLASS?

     Last month, Scientific American published a study on the "diabetes belt" through the US:

the diabetes belt

"Going past national statistics, a new map shows more than 640 counties in mostly southern states had higher-than-average rates of diabetes, suggesting the need for more targeted prevention...the 644 counties in the diabetes belt match up to known risk factors for the disease, including: a high obesity rate, sedentary lifestyles, lower education levels, and more non-Hispanic blacks...The 15 states that have counties in the diabetes belt are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia." 

the poverty belt

But there is a clear marker, almost universally ignored, that matches both diabetes and those "risk factors": poverty. These 15 states include 11 states with the highest poverty rates: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Lousinana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Fortunately not all the medical literature ignores poverty and income inequality. In another article in the New England Journal of Medicine--"Class, the ignored determinant of the nation's health", the authors reveal that:

"On the whole, people in lower classes die earlier than do people at higher socioeconomic levels, a pattern that holds true in a progressive fashion from the poorest to the richest... Unhealthy behavior and lifestyles alone do not explain the poor health of those in lower classes. Even when behavior is held as constant as possible, people of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to die prematurely."

     This is not to say that personal agency is not important. On the contrary: challenging the social and economic conditions that constrain choice is the best way to promote personal agency. Instead, many studies on obesity take these conditions for granted, controlling for differences in race and occupation—either explicitly, or implicitly by enrolling white middle-class people. This means filtering out the health impacts of racism and class, two of the most potent determinants of health. The premise is that these are natural and unchangeable, and should be eliminated from analysis, and that instead we should blame the difference in weight amongst ourselves. (For other good blogs on the obesity-shaming epidemic go visit here and here.) While this perspective is not medically useful, it serves economic and ideological purposes. 

BIG PROFITS

     The fear mongering about obesity can't be separated from the market that profits from it--from the multibillion dollar diet industry, to commercialization in general that thrives on reducing people's self-esteem so it can sell them a product. Meanwhile, the Canadian guidelines for the treatment of obesity were written by the president of Obesity Canada (an organization sponsored by food and drug companies) who owns stocks in Glaxo-Smith Klein and Eli Lilly, two pharmaceutical giants who happen to sell anti-obesity drugs. Like all free market industries, the pharmaceutical industry is made up of rival firms competing for market share. In the field of health this produces a pressure to pathologize (especially women). Obesity was turned into a "risk factor", and now its own disease, making fat phobia a very modern phenomenon.

MEDICAL SCAPEGOATS

phrenology

     But medicalized discrimination is far older. Far from being objective and neutral, medical ideology plays an important role in policing society, by pathologizing those who don't conform to narrowly-defined norms. Instead of focusing on economic conditions that collectively put us at risk of diabetes and heart disease, the obsession with obesity personifies these diseases, presenting them as the result of individual, lazy, and reckless behavior. The obsession with obesity recalls other instances in which groups of people have been labeled as “abnormal” or “at risk” because of their shape, origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, and religion.

     The obsession with measuring people's waists in order pass to judgment on them is reminiscent of the early pseudoscience of phrenology, which measured people's heads as a basis of justifying social inequalities. Almost every oppressed group has at one time in history been blamed for an infection disease: First Nations blamed for TB, European Jews blamed for chlamydia, Mexican-Americans blamed for typhus, African-Americans and sex-trade workers blamed for syphilis, Haitians and gay men blamed for AIDS. Homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disease until the Gay Liberation Movement. Transgender people continue to fight against being pathologized. People with disabilities call for a broader definition of health instead of mainstream medicine's desire to “fix” them. Muslims are resisting attacks on civil liberties that use the language of “public safety” in order to restrict their rights to movement, attire, athletic competition, occupation, and voting.

"social hygiene" warning

     In all these situations the “target of intervention” has been the supposedly monolithic and deviant behaviours of oppressed groups rather than the social and economic conditions that place them, and others, at risk. The results have been social stigma or repressive laws, rather than accessible health care, better housing, and higher wages. In the 19th and 20th century when infectious disease dominated there was a "social hygiene movement" that provided medical justification for a moral crusade against deviant sexuality (everything from dancing to prostitution, along with homosexuality and inter-racial partnerships) but as the major medical problems for industrialized countries have shifted to diabetes, heart disease and cancer, the source of the blame has shifted from people's hygiene to their size. This ignores the real problems that threaten to undermine life expectancy: income inequality, lack of health care, unhealthy food driven by competition in the food industry to make things as cheaply as possible, and cuts to social services that deprive schools or community centres of fitness opportunities. (For a discussion of how biomedical reductionism affects our understanding of cancer, see my other posts here and here).

TOWARDS A HEALTHY WORLD

     The most important determinants of health are: 

1. Income and Income Distribution 2. Education 3. Unemployment and Job Security 4. Employment and Working Conditions 5. Early Childhood Development 6. Food Insecurity 7. Housing 8. Social Exclusion 9. Social Safety Network 10. Health Services 11. Aboriginal Status 12. Gender 13. Race 14. Disability

These are the issues on which to challenge Rob Ford; not his body but his policies that undermine the key social determinants of health. That's why thousands of people--representing a healthy diversity of bodies united in the demand for a better and healthier world for all--will be protesting this saturday. Fat phobia not welcome.