Commentary
Same ‘stuff,’ different day
There are times when history’s interminable slog is punctuated by leaps of inspiration, by epiphanies that tear back the curtain of mundanity to reveal the sublime and the nobly possible.
Let us agree that this is not one of those times.
The achingly familiar, the wearying, the tiresome, the insubstantial, and the insignificant regularly fill our news channels in all forms of media. The big clamour in Washington, D.C., is that former first lady, senator and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is running for president. In fact, one might reasonably posit, she’s been campaigning for the job since her husband left the Oval Office after two consecutive terms in 2001.
“Now the speculation can shift to the man with whom she shared (the White House), former president Bill Clinton, and what role he will play in his wife’s bid for the Democratic nomination,” a CBC post breathlessly reports. “Will he be at her side at campaign events? Headlining rallies and fundraisers for her? Will he be deeply involved in plotting strategy? Singing her praises in round after round of media interviews? None of the above, according to Mr. Clinton, at least not for a while.” Gosh, Bill, do tell.
Meanwhile, what ground-shaking rhetoric can we expect from his dear wife over the next eternity, or 20 months? Apparently, climate change is pretty awful. So is income inequality and grunt work. Soak the rich, she says, and while we’re at it, beat back those rapscallions on Wall Street.
Adds an item by The Associated Press, “Clinton now supports same-sex marriage, saying that she has ‘evolved’ from her opposition as first lady, senator and secretary of state . . . She supports abortion rights and frequently cites the Democratic line that the procedure should be ‘safe, legal, and rare.’”
Like Fleetwood Mac, this stuff never goes away, which is too bad. Still, maybe these golden oldies aren’t as tedious as some of the policy tunes our own politicians on Parliament Hill are whistling these days. Six months out from the federal election, the Conservative Party maintains but one plank in its platform: it knows how to balance a cheque book.
Indeed, says Finance Minister Joe Oliver, he intends to make that particular skill a mandatory requirement of holding office. In a speech to the Economic Club of Canada last week, he announced that he’s preparing to introduce legislation that would permit public deficits only during recessionary periods or in an “extraordinary circumstance, that is, war or natural disaster, with a cost exceeding $3 billion in a year.”
Moreover, he said his legislation would require the finance minister to justify running red ink to the Commons finance committee and let it know exactly how and when he or she planned to balance the books.
In her excellent commentary for the Globe and Mail last week, Lisa Philipps, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, observed, “So far, the bottom line is hogging too much of the attention. The hype about balanced budgets is understandable given the enormous political capital at stake . . . What’s less clear is why we care so much abut the bottom line above all else. Achieving a surplus has moved beyond a sensible policy goal to a kind of fetish.”
Off course, here in New Brunswick, we need not fret overly at the possibility of running into a lumbering mass of black ink darting from the side of the road (or developing an unhealthy preoccupation with its succulent meat). Such a creature hasn’t been sighted in these parts since 2006. The rumour is that it’s gone extinct.
Again, though, there’s nothing new, let alone inspiring or noble, about that.
Alec Bruce avbruce@rogers.com Alec Bruce writes on current affairs, every weekday. Read more of his work at brucescribe.com