Politics under dark economic clouds

Like many readers, I have found the global economic crisis troubling.

One doesn't need to play the stock market to share in the anxiety of those who do, as both jobs and retirement plans often hang in the balance. That the jeopardy in which we find ourselves was brought to us by greedy recklessness and ideological narrowness is inexcusable. Regardless, the impact of the global crisis must be faced by all levels of government in Canada, and by many households.

Our provincial government (with its "what, me worry?" attitude) finished the fall sitting of the Legislature with nary a word about our provincial state of economic health or of the measures that will need to be taken if we are to manage through the storm. Writing today, I await the economic statement of our federal government.

In the past 24 hours speculation is rampant regarding a preposterous measure anticipated in the Finance Minister's speech; that public support for political parties be ended, this serving the partisan advantage of the Conservatives. Such a measure would profoundly alter electoral competition in Canada, democratically for the worse.

At the very least it would re-ignite the "dysfunction" in Parliament the Conservatives said they went to the polls to fix. And it would support the perception that when Conservatives are in power they serve only their own, reminding us of the sort of humour that Nova Scotian Conservatives have relished of late. In neither Ottawa nor Halifax, boys, are we laughing.

The difficulty for Conservatives is the Harper crew works from an ideologically over-determined theory of the economy. For them the writings of Keynes and Galbraith might as well have been from Chairman Mao.

However, it turns out Keynes and Galbraith were closer to the truth about the positive role that government can play in the market economy than Stephen Harper seems willing to let himself understand. He seems instead to hold fast to the view that the business cycle is a natural phenomenon, that it is useful in determining "winners and losers", that it must be allowed to run its course freely.

What is to be done?

So how should chart our way forward? The federal government may not need to act immediately, though overreacting in the current crises is likely better than under-reacting. But if so, they should just say they have decided to wait and they will take responsibility for this decision if it proves to have been mistaken.

They need, that is, to stop trying to massage the message. The Harper crew has so little communications skill that trying it on this crisis will surely make matters worse. They need just to speak honestly and directly about what they plan to do and why, and leave the games at home.

Deciding how to act in a situation of high volatility, with high reputational stakes, is not easy for any government. To my mind, after the collapse in the auto industry is addressed, public spending needs to be increased and spread widely.

While fast-tracking infrastructure spending is sensible, it shouldn't be the only sort of spending, as it buoys only one sector of the economy. Transferring more federal dollars to municipalities may be the best way to ensure we get the most from our anti-recession spending.

Secondly, while spending has value to the economy, too many Canadians are in personal debt crisis. We can't perpetually spend our way out of the threat of recessions, as the Bushites have been so keen and so wrong to advocate. If the recovery is to last, we need to legislate limits to the interest rates set for credit card accounts while enhancing the processes available for folks to dig themselves out from their current level of personal debt.

Finally, to my mind, making those who are now worse off better off is the common sense road to long-term economic recovery in Canada, just as it will be to our south. Poverty is, simply put, no more rational economically for a society than it is acceptable ethically