Joseph Planta's Commentary - thecommentary.ca

Tuesday, 17 May 2005

Whom I'm voting for today

By Joseph Planta

Planta votes for BC NDP candidate David Chudnovsky in Vancouver Kensington

VANCOUVER - There was a moment, admittedly, a couple of weeks ago, where I seriously wondered if I should state in this space the candidate I was voting for in today's election. In the past, I've outlined who I would vote for and why, federally, provincially, and municipally. I've felt it important that I share my thoughts just as freely as I would share my thoughts on a book I was reading, a play I had seen, or a public figure that we were all looking at a given moment.

During the campaign, I have made efforts to interview all of the candidates. You can hear those on the interview segment I host here on THECOMMENTARY.CA. I was surprised how up to a day or two ago, I hadn't completely made up my mind as to whom I would vote for. In the end, I was pleased that all of the candidates-the five that will be on the ballot-deigned to be interviewed. Their appearances did not influence my decision as much as I found their responses to my questions useful in deciding whether I would vote for them or not. Whatever their political persuasion or background, I was appreciative that each took the time to speak with my audience and me on this website.

Nonetheless, having been in a position of meeting and questioning the candidates on a wide variety of areas, I was struck by how all five were in it for legitimate reasons. They're not in it to line their pockets at the public trough, and I don't think any of them are in it for the ego trip of saying they ran in an election once upon a time. I'm pretty cynical as it is, but my bullshit detector didn't sense an ulterior motive amongst the lot of them. Only to represent the riding and/or work for the betterment of the community.

(First, a word on my record in endorsing candidates. I haven't been much of a success frankly. Federally, I've gone bust twice, endorsing the Alliance and Conservative candidates in 2000 and 2004 with not a winner amongst the bunch. Provincially in 2001, I voted for the NDP candidate and that turned out a less than spectacular choice. So, even I wouldn't put money on my selection. Then again, this isn't an Oscar pool, so picking the winner is futile considering the stakes in voting.)

As for all of the candidates, to a person I was struck by their willingness to commit to serving. In our cynical world, it is easy to dismiss every politician as some scheming shyster. Committing to public life is an often a thankless task. No matter your ideals or your level of honesty, there's someone around the corner willing to expunge your ideas as nothing less than balderdash, and ready to denigrate your character for the advancement of their own ideals. Not surprisingly, there were aspects of each candidate that I did not agree with. But I gave each an honest listen to. I challenged each, and I think I was fair.

After doing the interviews with each of the candidate, and then listening to them again, I whittled my selection to two candidates, if not three. The two that I considered briefly but tossed out were John Gordon of the Marijuana Party, and Charles Boylan of the People's Front.

Gordon is conceivably a one-issue candidate. There's nothing wrong with that of course; we saw in Britain a one-issue candidate, George Galloway elected in London recently. The legalisation of marijuana is not a priority of mine. Gordon did make a thoughtful case though. Education and healthcare would be well funded and reformed what with the boon of funds gained from the taxation of marijuana once legalised. Roads will be paved and long-term care facilities raised thanks to all the money pouring in from the taxing of pot. However, should marijuana be legalised, what makes anyone think that growers and 'retailers' will jump at the opportunity to be taxed. Cigarettes and liquor are taxed now, but everyone knows a way to get around that if they wanted. Invariably, the black market will remain, though perhaps not as hidden. And the dismissal of the negative effects of marijuana socially and physically is rather irresponsible, if not misleading. Though I found Gordon to be intelligent and honest, I am not moved to vote for him.

Boylan made some very good points. His campaign however is rooted in the re-engineering of our society. Perhaps it's a utopia for him and his ilk, but as someone who would have voted for Bush were I an American, I find it difficult to see myself voting for Boylan and the People's Front today. Boylan is given credit however for thinking beyond the election cycle and the one term that candidates often fail to look beyond. These are legitimate ideals that Boylan holds, but for the most part they are untested. As an instructor at Langara, Charles will appreciate revisiting a class I took there with Peter Prontzos in the Political Science department. Prontzos made the point that no socialist government has taken root long enough, without facing some external opposition. So without tangible evidence, it's obvious that socialism is just as bad as capitalism, in that no middle ground is achieved. There will forever be greedy bastards in our society. However, their place in a socialist utopia is not guaranteed.

Now, I was quite impressed by the candidacy of Cody Matheson of the Green Party; in that he's a newly graduated student from UBC, and that at 22, he's already seeking political office. He brims with freshness and idealism. His activism is a consequence of this government's policies as well as those of the NDP's that he subscribes to the tenets of the Greens. Despite claims to the contrary, it's clear that his youth is a hindrance to his candidacy. Doubtless, he would make a good MLA should he be elected, he does not have the profile in the community that the frontrunners have, and merely getting by on the coattails of his leader, may not do it for him in Kensington. You can't blame Matheson for not having a profile. He's been at school, but if he were serious about serving in public life, the best mode would be to wait it out until 2009, and in the interim build his profile in the community. Tip O'Neill said that all politics is local, and in this race in Kensington this time around, it's clear it apt here.

The choice for me, after knocking off the other three candidates, was between two-David Chudnovsky and Patrick Wong. In full disclosure, I went to school with Chudnovsky's son Ben, and knew him well years ago. That however was not enough to vote for his dad.

I am for the most part a conservative. I would have voted for Bush over John Kerry and Al Gore. I once belonged to the NDP, but that was in my youth. I switched over, taking a membership in the Canadian Alliance, and though I'm not a member, voted for the Conservatives and Stephen Harper last year. Suffice to say, the NDP would not be where I would vote. I voted for them in 2001 simply because the result then was a forgone conclusion and it was necessary that there be some semblance of an opposition. The agenda of Gordon Campbell, though the ends are generally to my liking, was poorly executed. I have never been an environmentalist, but the record of this government in the environment has been wrong. All you have to do is listen to Rafe Mair and hear about the appalling stewardship of our environment under this government, and you'll only have to read Alexandra Morton for but one aspect of the environment desecrated by this government.

I didn't vote for Patrick Wong in 2001, but I kept an open mind this time around. I was struck by his genuine service, working to get grants and funding for all sorts of projects, as well as the toll political life takes on ones family, who often bear the brunt more than the politicians themselves. However, what I found lacking from Wong was a clear idea of what drove him to public life. I get no sense that he has ideals or an underlying philosophy behind his record. Sure, he's done much, I'll give him that, but what his philosophy is for leading British Columbia, I couldn't tell you. What his philosophy for governance does he have? What ideals of reforming government and society does he possess? To borrow from Preston Manning, what 'big' ideas can he present that drive his desire to lead?

Other pundits have made mention of Wong's interventions when he served on committees of the legislature. Most if not all of his questioning had merely to do with the expense of programs, which is probably thanks to his background as a chartered accountant. Sure, we have books to look after, and expenditure to curb, but if you were to look at the odds of the race province-wide, you'd see that the Campbell government has many worthy members who'll step in to worry about the nickels and dimes that flow from government coffers. There will be I am sure cabinet ministers wiling to saunter through Kensington over the next four years, willing to glad hand and push cheques into organisation's hands.

Where Wong lost my vote was during an all-candidates forum on Wednesday, 04 May, where regrettably, Wong lost his temper. Perhaps that's a bit strong, as he didn't get mad as much as let his emotions get the better of him. When criticised for being unresponsive to some constituents concerns, he merely deflected the comment, raised his voice, and proceeded to attack the other candidates for their lack of achievement for the community, whereupon he proceeded to rant on about the grants and scholarships he's procured. It was specious, and nearly a spectacle.

During the interview I did with Minister Wong, he made mention of his community involvement by arranging forums whereby the concerns of some constituents over a rehabilitation facility being build on Fraser Street could be heard. It has been reported elsewhere that his intervention was not merely to facilitate, but rather it had the effect, unintended or not, of inflaming the already volatile situation.

From the beginning of his term, I've seen many e-mails from constituents who have been dissatisfied and appalled at the lack of responsiveness from his constituency office. Some of those concerns were voiced at the forum I attended, and it's been a prevalent concern that communication is few and far between. I've heard from others who have found it difficult to meet with him thanks to his constituency office being locked even during business hours. If re-elected Wong must pledge to do better in this regard.

That leaves me with David Chudnovsky. It's either vote for him or spoil my ballot. He's known in political circles and he has a record in the public sector that has gained him much experience. It has also gained him the scorn of the Premier, who invoked his name during the radio leader's debate. I too have been concerned that his baggage having been head of the BCTF, one of the more antagonistic unions against this Premier these past four years, and brought it up during our interview. My concerns would be as unfounded as thinking an American cardinal couldn't be pope because the White House would influence him. The NDP has little chance of forming the government tonight, so Chudnovsky would have little chance of influencing the education policy of the province. What he can do as an opposition member is bring forth his ideas having slogged in the trenches for a number of years. And the reason why I'm voting for Chudnovsky is this: we've seen how a lack of numbers on the opposition benches hinders the holding of the government's feet to the fire. With a decent opposition in place, it'll be better all around.

And so, when I head to the poll today, I will be marking an 'x' beside David Chudnovsky's name. I don't hold my nose as I did in 2001, and I do so with a bit of optimism. Though my views are perhaps different from those of Chudnovsky's, I have the feeling that he'll make a fine representative in very short time.

Whoever wins, what's clear is this. It's not about what sorts of public largesse you can funnel into the riding. It's really about making sure you're in contact with the constituents, listening to them especially if their views are different from yours, with empathy and civility. Constituents have surprisingly long memories.

-30-

Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca

An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE.