Of course I am not
going to defend Rob Ford - he is a fairly loathsome and rather detestable
politician and mayor, not to mention a pitiful excuse for a human being. This is
self evident, so I will not bother giving you an enumerated list. That said, I
do find the sheer amount of crowing from Ford's opponents in the media and
amongst my social network in regards to the recent revelations to be smug,
self-indulgent, and potentially destructive for the future of Toronto. What troubles me is that it seems
none of his political opponents gave Ford a chance to be the mayor of Toronto;
the citizens of Old Toronto, especially in the media, did not like the very idea
of Rob Ford from the moment he began his run as a candidate. Rob Ford himself, was not so important as what he represented. The numerous articles featuring muckraking and yellow tactics, from the Toronto Star in particular, show this
problem. At the same time they published op-eds decrying the 'Americanization'
of Toronto politics, they ran front page
articles attacking every item on Ford's political agenda from day one. While
this was going on, left-leaning City Councilors, or those from Old Toronto, refused to work with Ford on
anything beyond basic proposals. Sounds like a rather 'American' tactic to me -
is this not what Congressional Republicans have been doing to President Obama?
And we've all read the many articles from Toronto media gleefully pointing at that
ongoing scandal.
Of course, in the case
of Rob Ford, the Star's muckraking seems justifiable, given the sheer amount of
slime this man left around the city - and there is no end in sight. I am not
criticizing that at all. What I am criticizing are the motivations of the Star
and many on the Toronto Left. They weren't opposed to Rob Ford per se,
they were opposed to what the man represented: a viable mayoral candidate from
the "suburbs" of post-amalgamation Toronto. For them, Ford represented
everything that was wrong with the 1998 amalgamation: his personality
(bombastic, proud, and confrontational), his conservative populism (clearly
learned from Stephen Harper & George W. Bush), and his (rather successful)
tactics. The fact that he caught Old Toronto with their pants down, with the
vote of 'sensible people' divided between two essentially indistinguishable
candidates, adds to their injury. His rather 'American' nature certainly didn't
sit well with a lot of people, either. The only bigotry and outright hatred
that anyone can get away with in the Canadian media is in regards to Americans and American
culture, so Ford was (and is) a perfect target. Only, in this case Ford is so
detestable it's even easier than usual to get away with it.
Rather than the opposition
to Ford, what is notable about this situation is the anger towards the process
of amalgamation itself, and the continuing changes taking place in Toronto, a city that, even fifteen years
later, is woefully unprepared to deal with these challenges. The mayoral system
itself is a prime example: Toronto's mayor is little more than Head
City Councilor, which explains why it is so difficult to effect change in this
city. Even if Ford didn't have the Star nipping at his heels, or obstinate
Liberal and NDP Councilors to deal with, he would not have had much opportunity
to implement much of his far-reaching conservative agenda. Scratch that - his
agenda wasn't so much 'conservative' as 'suburban'. The agency most responsible
for integrating the amalgamation of Toronto is arguably the TTC, which is run
by political appointees. By default, any candidate appointed to such an agency
would adhere to the status quo in order to keep their job - and the status quo
runs counter to the ideal of amalgamation, creating a united city. Viable,
effective, long-lasting mass transit is the best means for transforming Toronto into a single city, instead of the
many cities shoved into one, as exist now. Look at Ford's signature proposal,
building new subways as opposed to light rail, despite the far greater cost.
Much of the opposition to this plan came from Old Toronto, while his support
came from suburban districts. This divide is painfully obvious - it is between
people from the suburbs who have to deal with the atrociously crowded (and
slow) Go Transit, the SRT or long-distance buses every day, and those who
imagine 'light rail' to mean 'streetcars' and wonder why "suburbs"
need subways. Of course anyone having to use Go Transit or the SRT would want a
subway instead! But instead of there being a clear and thoughtful debate on the
virtues of mass transit and the need to build more of it in a just and
effective way, it devolved into the Left screaming about how Ford doesn't care
for Old Toronto. This is certainly true, but in regards to this issue they
tossed the baby out with the bathwater, and concentrated on their larger goal:
to hell with anyone who favors following amalgamation to a successful end.
To be clear, just in
case anyone gets a bright idea, I do not support Rob Ford, nor would I
ever defend a man like him, someone who was unsuitable to run for mayor, and
far too inept to run the fifth largest city in North America. What I do defend
is the city of Toronto becoming an actual metropolis, a city
connected by more than a common government, which for me is what Ford
represented. The beautifully ironic part of all this is that Ford represents
areas which aren't really suburban anymore - Etobicoke and Scarborough are
becoming (or already are) just as urban as Old Toronto, but without the
necessary infrastructure.
So to the denizens of
Old Toronto and my friends rejoicing in Ford's well earned misery, and the
media celebrating their supposed triumph, my message is this: after you've had
your fun, get off your high horse and examine what good ideas Ford had about
our city, and recognize that it's time we had One City, indivisible, instead of
bickering boroughs who have long outgrown their britches.
