Canadians: Is there some sort of reasonable explanation for this Robert Ford madness?

Pages

So, okay, you elected a terrible politician to a position of significant power. Happens to the best of us. Alright, he may have smoked a little (or a lot) of crack with some drug dealers that he happens to know. Yeah, alright, he was a really terrible person. We've had a few of those. And, sure, okay, he and his supporters are fighting the charges. Also, quite understandable. And now he's, uh, admitting to it spontaneously at a live press conference. Okay. And now here's a tape of him in the middle of some kind of mad rant where he's threatening to kill people. And of course, he's refusing to resign.

See, I get the initial mistake part, it's just that, there seem to be a pretty significant number of Torontoans who are still supporting this madman. And yes, I realize we don't have a lot of stones to throw here, what with that fellow we don't much talk about who crashed the world economy and destabilized a rather significant equatorial region. But. But, for all his faults, the man didn't admit to hard drug use while in office. Generally, at this point in a wacky scandal, the cognitive dissonance dissolves, and people start blaming the person who was in the wrong (happily avoiding re-examining the beliefs which led to supporting him). Bizarrely, you do not seem to have reached this stage. I'm reading a lot of "The media was out to get him!" and "This will all be taken care of if he just goes on a weight loss program." (No, seriously.)

I would kind of understand if this had happened in one of your more far-flung provinces. But this is Toronto, relatively cosmopolitan, boring Toronto. They're famous for banking and athletic failure. What am I missing here, Canadians? This is really shaken my faith in you as a reasonable, well-governed democracy.

Americans: Is there some sort of reasonable explanation for this Marion Barry madness?

Let's be honest - American mayor on crack is way less unusual than Canadian mayor on crack.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Let's be honest - American mayor on crack is way less unusual than Canadian mayor on crack.

Why? Our politicians suck too. Politicians mostly suck all around the world. There are some good ones but not many.

Vector wrote:

Americans: Is there some sort of reasonable explanation for this Marion Barry madness?

Well yeah. The people who elected him were largely mired in a pretty vicious cycle of poverty. Washington DC in the 90's was full of poor black people, and was mismanaged by the federal agency that was responsible for it. The residents of that city felt abandoned by their government and probably were. Marion Barry was from the area, was accepted as a hometown boy made good. He was a crook, but he was their crook.

So yeah, there are definitely parallels, but Toronto isn't experiencing near the amount of poverty, crime, and general degradation that 1990's Washington DC was experiencing. So I'm clearly missing some aspect of it.

I'd like to think that to be a leader in my country I'd need some adequate work experience and qualifications but the last couple years have proven that charisma and connections are all that matter.

I mean look at Rob Ford and the mayors of Montreal and our prime minister here in Quebec who can't speak English properly. ENGLISH for chrissakes! To get a job at a convenience store downtown you need to be bilingual!

I actually think what's going on in Quebec with the Charter of Quebec Values (or whatever the 22-word new name is) and the support it has is much more insane than Rob Ford's continued support.

But I digress. Keep in mind I don't live in Toronto and what I know is from either in the news or, more likely, from a few of the people I follow on Twitter. I could be very, very wrong so if anybody knows better please correct the mistakes I make.

From what I understand, the month-long garbage strike (and other services, but garbage pickup is understandably the most prominent) was the catalyst for Ford getting elected. Being able to use that to rail against the unions involved in providing services in Toronto had a populist ring to it because so recently garbage wasn't picked up for a month. There also seems to be a sentiment in the suburbs of Toronto that previous mayors and the other mayoral candidates had been focused too much on downtown (i.e. the left-wing kooks who should "put it in your pipe and smoke it") with focuses on active transportation, improving transit, and congestion downtown. Meanwhile the suburbs are seen as neglected (and to be fair, they may be right though that's not something I know). So that's how Ford got elected.

As for why he still maintains support, well, he can claim to have accomplishments that will resonate with the base he had. There hasn't been a big strike while he's been mayor (I assume that's more good fortune than skill), through what I believe is fancy accounting he can claim fiscal responsibility with the deficit under control, and perhaps most importantly with the subway to Scarborough he can claim to have been looking out for the suburbs by making sure they have the same transportation as those people downtown. So despite being someone who drinks too much and smokes crack he Got Stuff Done and at least the garbage is getting picked up.

Another big factor is that the way Toronto's government is structured doesn't really bring the best and brightest out running for mayor. Toronto's mayor is the figurehead but they're also merely one vote on a council of 45, so there's really not that much control over things. In the couple of "who would you vote for in a hypothetical election" polls I've seen Ford is the only conservative low-taxes/fiscal responsibility/"think of the suburbs" candidate on the list (that I notice) with the most notable other name being Olivia Chow who's currently an MP for the most-left Federal party. That's a huge block of support without anywhere to go but to abstain from voting thus far.

Anyway, that's what I think is going on. Troy Goodfellow actually lives in Toronto and answered a Ford question on his ask.fm so you might get more out of his answer than my wall of text.

Toronto mayor's have a habit of being laughing stocks. You rarely ever hear about mayors but I remember the army being called in to shovel snow and Mayor Mel talking about having a dream about being boiled by Africans. While Toronto was running for the Summer Olympics. Neither memory is probably accurate to what actually happened but I can not remember a single other Canadian mayor.

Vector wrote:

Americans: Is there some sort of reasonable explanation for this Marion Barry madness?

Black people love electing candidates that piss off white people.

Vector wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Let's be honest - American mayor on crack is way less unusual than Canadian mayor on crack.

Why? Our politicians suck too. Politicians mostly suck all around the world. There are some good ones but not many.

I dunno, man. "Suck" is one thing. I like to think American politicians go above and beyond the call of just sucking and jump right into crazyville with regularity. Maybe we just navel gaze too much, but (joking aside) it really does feel like this level of wtf is way more common among American politicians than elsewhere.

cheeba wrote:
Vector wrote:

Americans: Is there some sort of reasonable explanation for this Marion Barry madness?

Black people love electing candidates that piss off white people.

You know, I think that this isn't too far from the truth in the Rob Ford case either. I think there are a lot of people in the Toronto suburbs who hate the "liberal, elite, snobby,etc" class of people in politics in Toronto, and Rob Ford was their guy. These people represent the so-called "Ford Nation", and they just LOVED how much these Toronto elites hated Rob Ford. So now, rather than admit that "their guy" was in fact the douchebag the people they hate always thought he was, people are kind of doubling down in support of the poor, troubled mayor who has problems just like the rest of us, you know? I don't think that Ford Nation really likes Rob Ford anymore so much as they just can't admit that they were wrong in the face of their political opponents.

This article pretty much sums up the though process of Rob Ford supporters - the National Post grosses me out in terms of how much effort it's going through to apologize to Rob Ford. Ford supporters are trying to reframe the issue in terms of "You guys are such dicks for being so mean to Rob Ford!", and basically refusing to acknowledge just how unacceptable it is to have someone like Rob Ford in as Mayor - less for the crack use itself, and more for the continued pattern of lying and hypocrisy that he has exhibited throughout his political career. But, you see, we can't actually have a discussion on the merits of Rob Ford himself, it's always going to be framed in an "us vs. them" context, and those who supported Rob Ford just can't accept that those who hated him were right from the start.

As a Canadian who has frequently taken a stance against the dumb, tired, stereotypical attempts at humour often levied against my homeland, I will say that while we do have far fewer politicians in Canada that stoop to the level of ignorance and douchebaggery of those in other nations, we have plenty of idiots here too. You just hear about them less because well, Canada gets written about a lot less.

The last mayor of Toronto was the guy who owns Bad Boy Furniture, which advertises like this. The guy was an ignorant jackass who had no political experience and no idea how to run a city. And Toronto elected him twice. And then they replaced him with Rob Ford. People talk about him smoking crack, as if that's worse for a politician than being a massive racist, sexist bigot for whom corruption follows around like a bad smell and who does a weekend hyper right-wing talk show. Your mayor shouldn't smoke crack but being a bigot as bad as the biggest extremists of the Tea Party has a much greater effect on policy and his ability to run the city. But no one in Toronto seems to care about that. The worst part is that unless he gets arrested (which he won't, even though your average person who did what he did would have been tried and convicted by now), there's nothing anyone can do to remove him from office. If he refuses to leave, he gets to stay there until the next election. I shudder to think who will come next.

We have no one in higher ranks of government as bad as Ford but we have plenty of scary, ignorant politicians in Canada, you just never hear about them unless they go this crazy. Usually, even our right wing politicians stay well clear of the level of insanity that is the current incarnation of the GOP but some of them are starting to go that far. Most people who oppose that (which is the vast majority of the country) kind of sit back and go "Oh look, isn't that cuuuute!" but I don't think they realise that as Ford demonstrates, doing everything possible to show yourself to be a terrible human being doesn't stop you from getting into office. I think it's time we pay a bit closer attention. At least this Senate scandal is finally sending US puppet Harper's approval rating into the toilet. And I say that as someone who leans conservative.

Also, I'm honestly surprised the National Post hasn't been acquired by News Corp. yet for how right apologist it is.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

The last mayor of Toronto was the guy who owns Bad Boy Furniture, which advertises like this. The guy was an ignorant jackass who had no political experience and no idea how to run a city. And Toronto elected him twice. And then they replaced him with Rob Ford.

To be fair, we did have one sensible mayor in between them, David Miller. Part of the Ford "perfect storm" was the aforementioned garbage strike, which was one reason Miller didn't seek re-election. Miller had a lackluster and uncharismatic deputy who couldn't pull much support together, and then the heir apparent got slammed with an affair scandal early on in the campaign. This threw the left-leaning candidates into disarray and led to a protracted scrum between the candidates, who therefore couldn't pull together a consistent message. If you are envisioning the dynamic between the 2012 GOP presidential candidates, it's not far off.

Meanwhile, Rob Ford spun up a populist and divisive campaign centered out in the (somewhat economically depressed) suburbs, which represent a significant portion of Toronto, due to city amalgamation in the late 90s. The basic tone of the campaign was as outlined by Roke above: "Those downtowners think they're so high and mighty, don't they know that the real working man lives out in the burbs, we'll show them" He was more or less allowed to run this agenda without interference, and built up a pretty consistent message and momentum among his base for most of the campaign. Oh, and he lied about being able to find massive savings in government waste and promised to repeal a $60 car tax.

So that's basically how he got elected. His term has been marked by embarrassing gaffe after gaffe, as well as blatant racism, homophobia, sexism, and basically lying about everything he's said he's accomplished. Saved the city a billion dollars? Please. He's been a part time mayor at the best of times, and has slashed funding for social support programs including drug programs, day care, and anti-gang programs (that one's interesting isn't it?). He contracted out garbage collection in half of the city to what appears to be a money-laundering front for organized crime, and wasted millions and millions of dollars cancelling already-agreed-upon transit projects and trying to replace them with subways that will cost millions more than what was originally budgeted. All of this has been done in a manner that can be charitably described as belligerent, using a weekly talk radio show to slag off on his political opponents and openly threatening anyone who opposes his agenda. All of which feeds the resentment his suburban base feels toward downtown.

TLDR: populist, pandering bullsh*t, same as any politician

EDIT: also Rex Murphy is a complete hack.

The National Post is actually what I read for my Canadian news along with Macleans and the CBC's coverage of Parliament. I started reading the National Post after one the Globe and Mail through threw one of their economist bloggers under the bus on the whole Ipod tarrif thing. Christie Blatchford, Rex Murphy, and Conrad Black are beyond awful columnists but they have a few columnists I enjoy and the general news doesn't seem that much different to me than what I read at the Globe & Mail.

Chris Selley (probably my favorite columnist there) had a column today about how Ford's "accomplishments", how he's not a good mayor, and not really a conservative in fiscal terms either: . Though I can't think of a purported conservative in office in Canada that is actually "conservative" fiscally.

Harper is pretty good on the fiscal side.

I am consistently impressed and satisfied by the broad level of agreement among Canadian P&C posters in our occasional but important explanations about what is going on in our country. I think the Chris Selly article Roke linked pretty much nailed it as follows:

What Toronto has is a mayor whose mouth proclaims revolutionary, irreplaceable conservatism far louder than his perfectly decent fiscal record.

Also, he's a very sad drunk who smokes crack.

So no: It says here, Rob Ford is not worth supporting in order to have a conservative in charge at city hall. Conservatives can do much better, both in a candidate and in the policies he supports.

That's pretty much all there is to say about it.

Politicians are typically accomplished liars, and voters are not good at distrusting the guy or gal 'on their side'. I think this must be a universal truth.

The only reasonable explanation I have is that Rob Ford is an idiot.

I didn't vote for him, but I did vote, so I think that gives me moral grounds to complain.

Strewth wrote:

The only reasonable explanation I have is that Rob Ford is an idiot.

I didn't vote for him, but I did vote, so I think that gives me moral grounds to complain.

I did vote for him. Well, I voted for the idea he presented: run the city more like a business than the political patronage mess it had been up until then. But your assessment appears correct. He's an idiot. He doesn't appear to have the capacity to open his mouth without sticking his foot in it (or other unpleasant things). The odd thing is some of the proposals he put forward actually got done. And since he seems incapable of compromise, and untouched by common sense, the question is how did he convince a majority of the other Councillors to go along with anything? He is only one vote in 45, with no veto. I suspect Rob Ford is just a sideshow distraction for the people behind him (such as his brother Doug Ford, who's been in politics a long time), who are doing the actual politics. Rob Ford is the wizard of oz saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" as a distraction.
And, that is exactly the type of Machiavellian crap I thought I was voting OUT when I helped put Rob Ford in. Mea Culpa.

Just curious- is the fact that he smoked crack cocaine considered worse than if he'd say tried ecstasy or did a line of regular cocaine while blotto? The reason I'm asking is here in the states crack has always had a far worse reputation than most other drugs, with people getting far harsher sentences than if they had done straight cocaine.

jdzappa wrote:

Just curious- is the fact that he smoked crack cocaine considered worse than if he'd say tried ecstasy or did a line of regular cocaine while blotto? The reason I'm asking is here in the states crack has always had a far worse reputation than most other drugs, with people getting far harsher sentences than if they had done straight cocaine.

I don't think the actual type of hard drug matters. Note that here, it isn't illegal to smoke crack (or DO cocaine or ecstasy); it's only illegal to sell or buy it (and presumably producing it is also illegal). That's one of the reasons the mayor is still mayor - he didn't buy or sell it, he just smoked whatever the stuff was someone handed him while he was in a drunken stupor. He didn't break the law, just did something monumentally stupid.

Edit: actually, police are investigating, so it might turn out he did do something illegal. The 'didn't break the law' is from the mayors take on things.

Rob Ford is a mess, but I think people liked his "I'm just a regular guy, too" approach, and that he very loudly derided people in politics living high on the hog at the tax payers expense, or running an expensive popularity contest; I think people figured they were getting someone who'd stand up for the little guy. I even think that maybe he really meant for that to be his platform and to stand behind it when he started. But clearly, something changed - or maybe it just became more public, like when Tom Cruise started vomiting out stuff about Scientology and jumping on couches after he got a new PR person.

And I agree with Mousetrap's assessment, too:

Mousetrap wrote:

I suspect Rob Ford is just a sideshow distraction for the people behind him (such as his brother Doug Ford, who's been in politics a long time), who are doing the actual politics. Rob Ford is the wizard of oz saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" as a distraction.

Rob Ford is clearly not capable of making sound decisions, so someone else is doing the bulk of the work behind that curtain while Rob stumbles around in a boozy crack haze.

As a Canadian, I'm not particularly proud that he's still in office, but I'm also not surprised - idiots make it to, and overstay their welcome in, office all the time. Canada is not immune to having elected morons running things poorly.

lol Running government as a business has always had it's massive failures. Government and the structure of the profit motive combined with the lack of profit does not make for a robust fiscal environment. Government is *not* a business. (Yes, it is a large organization and shares many of it's functional characteristics with other large organizations, like businesses, churches, whatever, but a business has a different focus from government.)

Robear wrote:

lol Running government as a business has always had it's massive failures. Government and the structure of the profit motive combined with the lack of profit does not make for a robust fiscal environment. Government is *not* a business. (Yes, it is a large organization and shares many of it's functional characteristics with other large organizations, like businesses, churches, whatever, but a business has a different focus from government.)

It goes around in a circle I find. People get annoyed by a certain aspect of municipal politics and someone with a background in business steps up and claims to be the answer.

In respect to Toronto it was the garbage strike. I'm not sure what Ford's background was to claim he could handle that better but that was his catalyst.

In Ottawa it was taxes. Cue business candidate run for office on freeze taxes platform (which is ridiculous). Win in a weak field because it is just municipal race. Result? Transit strike in the dead of winter for a month because Mr. business has 0 experience negotiating with unions.

I feel for Toronto because this just won't go away. Today he put in a motion to have all councillors drug tested at his cost which was thrown out. They voted 37-5 for Ford to take a break which is non enforceable and he said no.

The damage he's doing as making the city look like a farce is the stuff you can't erase for decades.

Robear wrote:

lol Running government as a business has always had it's massive failures. Government and the structure of the profit motive combined with the lack of profit does not make for a robust fiscal environment. Government is *not* a business. (Yes, it is a large organization and shares many of it's functional characteristics with other large organizations, like businesses, churches, whatever, but a business has a different focus from government.)

Well, yes. But I was thinking more along the lines of a story my uncle used to relate to us nephews. He used to be a Conservative member of parliament in Manitoba in the Mulroney era, and related the reason he left that party to join the Reform party that started up. There was a tender for railway locomotives for the National railway. A longtime firm from Winnipeg had put in a bid, and a company from Quebec had recently bought out a collection of manufacturing firm and consolidated them to put in a competing bid. Uncle sent a message to Mulroney saying Winnipeg was in recession, and needed the business, and politically the area voted Conservative, so should be given consideration. The reply from Mulroney was 'it is in the best interest of the party this contract go to Quebec'. I was confused by this, and asked what I thought would be an obvious question: Which contract was the better contract re: what trains you would get for how much money? Uncle was confused. He had never considered that, it wasn't how the Government decided things. I have no idea how true any of the story was, but that is what I mean by run like a business. Look at the economics first, and which special interests you are rewarding second.

It just gets better.

El-Producto wrote:

It just gets better.

Wait. That's real?!

The explanation is Canada wanted to be awesome, so they willed Rob Ford into existence.

Man, I'd kill to get our jokes-for-politicians back to "crack-smoking cunnilinguist" status here in the States.

I want more people to be like that in general. This world would be a much better place if conversation ended with a punchline.

Pages