Reviews/Comptes rendus
Shall We Dance? A Patriotic Politics for
Canada
by Charles Blattberg. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press , 2003. Pp. xi, 196.
In the aftermath of the US presidential election of
2004, some observers concluded that North Americans are losing confidence in the politics of deliberation. It certainly appears that we are now less
likely to believe that laws for the common good
emerge from the free exchange of opposing views.
We are less tolerant of dissent, less civil in debate;
we deride our opponents; we threaten and shout.
Instead of searching for common ground we take a
stand and fight off challengers.
Charles Blattberg is worried about this incivility
and in Shall We Dance, offers a remedy. Indeed he
offers more; he believes he can show us a way to
make our politics and political constitution into a
“home” that includes all citizens without exception.
The book is engaging, helpful, and I might almost
say, indispensable. I cannot bring myself to believe
that the remedy will work, but I know that thinking
about it and about Blattberg’s analysis of Canadian
discontents adds immeasurably to our understanding of current issues.
At the heart of his argument is a distinction between political “negotiation,” and the form of deliberation he calls “conversation.” On Blattberg’s
account, Canadians rely too much on negotiation. It
is a procedure that demands compromise, and for
that reason appeals to many, but it also produces
winners and losers, and the losers are always resentful. Conversation is preferable because it seeks
shared understanding, reconciliation, and the integration of ideas. In the true political conversation,
no one feels alienated; everyone is included in both
proceedings and decisions. There are no losers. And
because there are no losers there is less discontent
and thus less incivility. Blattberg contends that,
“almost everyone of us feels somewhat alienated
from the constitution itself or from the many other
citizens who can’t seem to reconcile themselves to
117
it” (p. 6). But we could change. “Canada’s history offers the luxury of giving conversation a greater role”
(p. x).
The term “conversation” is used today by a
number of Canadian theorists as a synonym or alternative for “deliberation.” Jeremy Webber introduced it in Reimagining Canada (McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1994). Others use “dialogue”
(James Tully, Guy Laforest, and Charles Taylor; see
Taylor’s Modern Social Imaginaries, Duke University Press, 2004). Blattberg’s definition is stricter
than Webber’s. Indeed, he quarrels with Tully,
Laforest, and Taylor as well; all would allow too
much by way of compromise and negotiation. Their
idea of “conversation” is not sufficiently inclusive.
To illuminate his position on inclusiveness Blattberg
draws on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s idea of the “expressive rule.” Wittgenstein takes us beyond classical
liberalism, and beyond definitions of communitarianism that suppose a top-down, a priori understanding of political virtue or political tradition. In
one of the most insightful passages in the book,
Blattberg describes Wittgenstein’s argument this
way: Wittgenstein requires that citizens “agree with
the rules of their country’s constitution — agree both
as individuals, as if rules were an expression of their
selves, and with each other about them, to the extent that they can be said to share a form of life”
(p. 9). The whole section is a model of clear
exposition.
Is there a form of political conversation that will
give us this degree of inclusiveness? Is Blattberg
hoplessly utopian? Is Wittgenstein? If you are looking for material on political deliberation for a course
pack, I recommend at least pages 7 to 9. They require close reading, but students at all levels, including non-theorists, will be able to master the
argument and will profit from thinking about the
issue in Blattberg’s terms.
One of the most engaging things about the book
is that it is itself a model of the good conversation.
It is written with attention to the reader’s imagined
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 1 2005
118 Reviews/Comptes rendus
comments and queries. Blattberg explains, teases,
and “converses.” Another excellence is that the argument is informed by wide reading and by concrete knowledge of Canadian political history. Scan
the book’s index: familiar Canadian names and
events are listed beside internationally famous ones;
references to the pages of yesterday’s paper follow
mention of the great ages past.
How can author and readers converse, you may
ask? Reading Blattberg, one begins to think it is
possible. There must be room in our political life
for this kind of open discussion with the past and
with each other. How much revision of our traditional political institutions it might require remains
an open question.
JANET AJZENSTAT, McMaster University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI , NO . 1 2005
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Inventing Tax Rage: Misinformation in the
National Post
by Larry Patriquin. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing,
2004. Pp. 204.
Larry Patriquin, author of Inventing Tax Rage, believes that high taxes are in the best interest of most
Canadians. He says so in the very first sentence of
his book and then supports the argument by debunking the case for lower taxes on nearly every one of
the subsequent 166 pages.
The book is divided into four distinct sections,
starting with an introductory chapter and a treatise
on Marxist political philosophy. The third part of
the book, spread over ten chapters, is the most substantial and detailed. This is where Patriquin lays
out his case against lower taxes by exposing what
he sees as supporting propaganda by writers at the
National Post. A concluding chapter reiterates the
case against the Post, the “Canadian Right,” capitalists, and the federal government for their joint
effort in denying economic and democratic rights
to the working class of this country (a group so large
as to include everyone from the “upper-middle class
down to the poorest individuals”).
It is precisely the use of such terms as “means of
production,” “exploitation,” “class power,” “class
consciousness” and the like that the reader is tipped
off that this is not a dispassionate or analytical study
of tax policy.
Rather, Patriquin has assembled rhetorical devices
and discredited Marxian theories (proven wrong both
in the economic academy and in the practical experiences of the twentieth century) to take a run at the
Post’s predilection for calling for lower taxes. He tries
to lay claim to the moral high ground by setting out
universal rules of argument or debate that the Post has
consistently broken. Unfortunately, by breaking such
rules himself, and grandly claiming a “new style of
argumentation on political matters,” Patriquin comes
across as both hypocritical and naïve. For someone
trying to focus on facts and analysis, his citations are
119
also sadly almost bereft of peer-reviewed research, but
full of references from left-leaning commentators.
A successful argument usually starts with some
basic data, facts that accurately reflect reality, as
Patriquin points out in chapters titled “Misleading
Statistics” and “Facts that Are Not Facts.” Why then,
if the author wishes to lecture the Post on debating
form, is he factually mistaken on a whole number
of fundamental economic issues?
For example, he claims that the vast majority of
people in Canada, the United States and the United
Kingdom have received little from economic growth
over the past 20 years. He believes that the standard
of living for 95 percent of Canadians is at US levels. He sees no evidence for a considerable productivity gap between those two countries. He thinks
that taxes have no impact on any economic behaviour of note. All of these claims can be easily refuted with data from national statistical agencies and
standard academic sources.
Sometimes, the underlying logic of Patriquin’s
rant against “neoliberalism,” members of which,
according to him, are suspect for their support of
free trade and free markets, breaks completely.
For example, he says that “the Reagan government engineered one of the biggest tax cuts in the
history of capitalist societies” and fingers Margaret
Thatcher as a prime mover behind the neoliberal
agenda. Elsewhere, to bolster a different critique of
the Post, he flexibly contradicts himself by saying
that British taxes are “roughly where they were a
generation ago, in the mid-1970s” and “the US and
UK have not lowered their taxes since 1980.” What
is it: higher or lower taxes? It is a simple matter to
consult the data and the historical record.
Patriquin also breaks his own taboos on using
loaded terms and exaggeration when pressing many
strongly worded conclusions. I wonder whether most
people find it even faintly reasonable to assert that
“governments intentionally create high unemploy-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 1 2005
120 Reviews/Comptes rendus
ment to reduce workers’ overall incomes” or “Government programs take away their [conservatives’]
‘right’ to decide who will be fed and who will
starve.”
And who could believe that federal Liberal tax
cuts were “engineered on the basis of unwarranted
assumptions, incomplete evidence, hysterical rhetoric and outright falsehoods” because the government
was “pummelled to the ground by the media equivalent of the schoolyard bully”? Apparently, the Liberals consciously “ignored the voters’ preferences”
found in their own polling as part of their (winning)
election strategy in 2000, in order to march to the
orders of the newly minted National Post.
This is not to say that Post writers have never broken Patriquin’s debating rules. They clearly have (as
have any other media sources that one can name) and
the author presents numerous instances where arguments are made without full supporting evidence.
But this should not surprise anyone. After all, this
entire book is based on 15 months’ worth of National Post clippings that “concentrate on opinion
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
pieces and columns … as well as on some unsigned
editorials.” The Post would not be a newspaper if
its columnists and editorialists were not opinionated.
Nor would it be in business for long if its writers
were uninteresting, pedantic or unwilling to engage
in public policy advocacy. Patriquin has essentially
uncovered evidence that opinion pieces are —
opinionated.
So, what is better for the people of Canada, high
taxes or low taxes? You will not find that answer
here. Instead, what one finds is a repeated drumbeat of war against the notion that people can make
a coherent and sensible case against this country’s
high taxes. The main point that Patriquin makes in
his book for the desirability of high taxes is that
someone else pays the freight for those who receive
government spending. This promotes nothing but the
politics of envy and compulsion, and is one major
reason why tax rage is a very real factor worth
discussing.
MARK MULLINS, Director of Ontario Policy Studies,
The Fraser Institute, Ontario
VOL . XXXI , NO . 1 2005
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants,
Ministers, and Parliament
by Donald J. Savoie. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2003.
The sponsorship scandal and its revelations about
the relationship between the public service and the
political arm of government makes Donald J.
Savoie’s book about the public service, ministers,
and Parliament especially timely. In the scandal,
some civil servants broke “every rule in the book”
(to quote Auditor General Sheila Fraser) and deputy
ministers turned a blind eye as their political masters conspired with lower level officials to award
contracts within their departments. At the same time,
other civil servants, reflecting the nobler traditions
of the Canadian public service, fought to follow
proper procedures, only to be told that such attitudes
would jeopardize their careers. Clearly the independence of the civil service has been compromised
and the lines between the political and the bureaucratic became blurred and Savoie tells his readers
how and why this has occurred.
Savoie begins by describing how the traditional
bargain between the public service and politicians
has been broken. In this bargain, civil servants eschewed partisanship in return for anonymity, selection by merit and job security and politicians
accepted the independent and apolitical nature of
the civil service in exchange for the competent and
wise advice that comes with experience. The bargain was broken by various factors, including: politicians suspicious that the civil servants were
running the show — just as Sir Humphrey did in
the British comedy series Yes Minister — by the imposition of business methods as part of the New Public Management movement, and by the growing lack
of public respect for government generally. Moreover, as government has grown more complex, interdepartmental and consultative decision-making has
become more cumbersome and accountability harder
to track. And the policy space that was traditionally
the exclusive domain of the public service has be-
121
come crowded by think tanks, pollsters, interest
groups, lobbyists, and partisan policy advisors
housed in ministers’ offices.
Canadians should be concerned by the vivid and
accurate picture that Savoie paints. Rather than giving independent, if politically unpalatable advice,
civil servants have increasingly tried to anticipate
what their political masters want to hear, and become staunch defenders of their ministers and fire
fighters battling the latest crisis for the government
of the day. The principle of hiring based on merit
has been compromised by affirmative action programs. The non-partisan and independent nature of
the civil service has been undermined by the rule
that allows political aides with three years experience to get priority placement in the public service
(a policy that would have been regarded as scandalous in the Saskatchewan government in which I was
a minister for ten years). In practice, consultative,
consensus-oriented decision-making has led to a bias
in favour of Ottawa-based stakeholders and lobbyists, helping to fuel the alienation of regions like
western Canada and doing little to engage the average voter. As the central agencies like the Prime
Minister’s Office increased their power, Parliament’s
power and stature has declined. And the principle
of ministerial responsibility has been replaced by
the practice of blaming officials for problems and
expecting them to provide public explanations.
Savoie, whose book is based on extensive interviews at both the political and bureaucratic levels,
correctly diagnoses the problem and gives several
possible solutions. Though he does mention some
changes to the civil service, he correctly argues that
reform has to begin with the elected parts of government. Parliament has to be strengthened; it has
to reassert its power to hold government to account;
also, its capacity must be enhanced. Canadians
should be shocked to learn that while the Privy
Council Office and the Department of Finance, with
few program responsibilities, have 1,600 civil servants, their representatives in the House of Commons
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 1 2005
122 Reviews/Comptes rendus
have only 80 non-partisan advisors. He is also right
in urging that ministers be given more power to make
policy choices and accept their responsibility to
defend these before Parliament.
Savoie’s advice is timely and wise. With a steadily declining voter turnout, a demoralized civil service experiencing retention problems, an increase in
the power of central agencies at the expense of
elected ministers and Members of Parliament,
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
change is critical. My only concern is with the editing of Savoie’s book. It should have been shorter,
more focused, and less repetitive so that it could be
more easily read. It should be read by all decisionmakers in Ottawa who would be well advised to begin implementing his key recommendations.
JANICE MACKINNON , Professor of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan and former Saskatchewan
Finance Minister.
VOL . XXXI , NO . 1 2005