In a former Toronto election, a long-shot candidate emerged unexpectedly from a crowded pack in the early fall to mount what would become a formidable challenge in a marathon race. That candidate carried an extremely sharp critique of the outgoing mayor, survived a major gaffe and constructed a case for support on a highly symbolic issue. He convinced voters in many parts of the city, including areas in which he was not expected to succeed, that he would stand up for the interests of ordinary families in the face of a corrupt and remote civic administration.
I’m guessing Spacing readers have all passed the “who-is-he” quiz by this stage. But my point is that there are intriguing parallels between David Miller’s 2003 election and the one we’re stuck with for 2010, notwithstanding the very stark personal contrasts between the outgoing mayor and Rob Ford.
George Smitherman’s ill-fated candidacy is the most obvious point of comparison, because in so many ways he’s re-enacting all the mistakes of Barbara Hall’s campaign – no surprise, as he was the author of her attempted come-back.
Like Hall, Smitherman has utterly failed to explain why he wants to be mayor, beyond an oppressive sense of deservedness. Like Hall, his platform is massive and unfocused. Like Hall, he’s shown a problematic inclination to abandon his natural constituency in order to pursue suburban voting blocs. They both even sought refuge in “I Love Toronto” ad blitzes in lieu of a concise statement of purpose.
So with Ford now sitting on top of a commanding lead and all the associated momentum such numbers imply, is it possible for Smitherman to halt his fall and make a concerted effort to win over undecideds and progressives? Or will Joe Pantalone’s base of support continue to grow as the centre-left abandons George?
The longer the centre-left ruminates over this looming game of electoral chicken, the better things look for Ford. So both camps will be pressuring the other to bow out gracefully so a single anyone-but-Ford candidate can emerge.
It’s a tough call, but I’d argue that Pantalone should fall on his sword. In an odd way, Pantalone is to 2010 what John Tory was in 2003. Setting aside the obvious differences in personality and campaign skills, Pantalone in this race is the candidate considered too close to the outgoing regime, and thus tainted. Miller (and others) successfully leveraged votes by linking Tory to Mel Lastman in 2003.
Sure, the deputy mayor can and will grow as voters — especially those who never believed in the possibility of a Ford mayorality — wake up from their stupor. But can he grow enough? I don’t see how. Pantalone lacks the killer instinct and the rhetorical skills to clarify the choice facing voters. He may have the ground forces to pull the vote (so does Smitherman), but he can’t win without persuading at least some Ford supporters that their guy may not be everything he cracks up to be.
So the core question for those who still support Miller is whether they set aside the lingering bitterness about the Transit City fight and others skirmishes with the provincial Liberals to back Smitherman, or do they cling to Pantalone and focus on maintaining a solid block of centre-left council seats to contain Ford if he wins?
I’m guessing neither intends to bow out, so progressive voters will have to resolve these tactical questions on their own, and quickly.
photo by Shaun Merritt
19 comments
Smitherman’s policies aren’t enough different from Ford’s for to consider him as an “anyone but Ford” candidate. They both have the stupid unfunded subway plan; both want witch hunts for waste at city hall, without addressing the largest budget items; both are ungreen, and anti-bike. Smitherman doesn’t fit the bill of a progressive candidate.
Having been a member of the liberal party doesn’t make you a lefty; more likely it indicates a power-hungry centrist.
This election really is about choosing the candidate who will do the least harm and wait for the next election. In fact, it’s flat out scary to pick your poison with these candidates.
To me, I think politicians or in general, people running for council/public office are people who want the notoriety but can’t cut it in the real world doing what it takes to deserve the notoriety.
Fascinating article John.
The parallels you draw are definitely reasonable (setting aside, all the setting asides).
It is however quite shocking how much Miller’s 2003 hot button issue of blocking the island airport expansion differs from Ford’s amorphous gravy train one. The former being basically a civically minded, ‘the City won’t be sold out’, the latter being something akin to “the taxpayer wants there money back”.
Miller certainly saw and sees the City as a collective, something of a common project, that requires all hands on deck. Ford, it seems has reduced things to the individual. He’s tapping into the selfish gene in each of us.
The brilliance of it, is that when candidate effectively taps into that personal “me first’ part human nature, he/she transforms into a kind of avatar for the voter. Ford becomes in effect the embodiment of each voter. In contrast when you appeal to the collective like Miller, you’re asking citizens to act like citizens, to think about their communities to join and build with others. The candidate/ mayor then, is a leader rather than an anomalous stand-in.
You can argue whether Miller actually delivered the fruits of his leadership to Torontonians, but I’d argue that at least with Miller world view, the Mayor role is not a selfish one, inherently it’s about enabling and fostering cooperation. Ford’s world view, by contrast, doesn’t even entertain that possibility.
And sadly, as you point out, Smitherman has been trying to straddle both approaches, and we can see where that’s got him so far.
Hi, Myles,
while I agree with you on Miller’s good intention, but I have to blame on him the current mess of this campaign. As somebody here on Spacing said, Miller’s biggest legacy is Ford. You can blame Toronto voters for being selfish and non-civic, but please remember, pretty much the same group of voters voted Miller in twice. No matter how well-intentioned Miller was, he failed miserably and left the city deeply divided.
Yu – I would argue the division comes from Miller leaving the electorate feeling unfulfilled. That’s the best word I can think of to describe the disconnect between the promise of his campaigns and the perceived result. But I think that only applies to the optics, not to his actual performance. Which is fitting, as no one is terribly interested in Miller’s actual record.
“Smitherman’s policies aren’t enough different from Ford’s for to consider him as an ‘anyone but Ford’ candidate.”
The difference isn’t in their policies. The difference is that Smitherman probably knows some of him promises are impractical and are only making them to get elected. Ford actually believes what he is saying, despite the fact that it doesn’t make sense.
If it is a choice between a hidden agenda and a stupid agenda, I’d have to go with the hidden agenda.
No one will step down. It is because they all put thier own self interest first.
Myles, I think that it is presumptuous to try and paint those whom support Rob Ford as self interested, and those whom supported MiIler civic minded and concerned about the collective good. The tab for the increases in city spending has not come due. No one is position to judge the effectiveness, or value, of his ‘legacy’ because it’s true cost has been concealed. If Mayor Miller had increased taxes as much as spending, and not utilized reserves and accounting tricks, we would have been in a much better position to render judgment. That being said, it is safe to assume that due to Rob Ford’s message finding a receptive audience, most residents do not find value in Miller’s initiatives. Unaware they are only paying for a portion of them. Many are tired of of hearing how well the city is doing, while their jobs disappear. They don’t value Transit City because it will not get them to work, if their job is outside of the city. They have grown weary of being aligned with ‘progressives’ whom allowed inflated city wages to grow far faster than inflation and their own. The see massive cost overruns in projects, bungled food carts, expensive and unfunded ice arena’s while their community centre’s get run down
This is a city that cries poor while spending the most, and charging the least. You cannot build a city on that foundation. It gets increasingly difficult to maintain.
Perhaps the appearance of Miller’s “failures” in leaving the electorate unfulfilled can leave some hope in the city because Ford will still only get one vote and will need to foster some consensus to implement his plans. Rob Ford being elected mayor would not (necessarily) be the result of council also shifting to the right.
Just like Toronto still existed after Mel Lastman was finished in office and when David Miller is done, it will still be here when Rob Ford is finished too.
Glen, what would you suggest Toronto do to reduce its expenses and/or increase its income? No doubt you understand most of Rob Ford’s suggestions aren’t big enough to make a sigificant difference.
Glen will give you a long winded answer, but it will focus on selling more hides and skins of dead animals for silly fashion trends.
http://where.ca/toronto/guide_listing.cfm?listing_id=1391
My surprise is that Ford still gained even after his mess of a transit plan, which essentially calls for re-allocating money, completing a whole new set studies, and completing one subway line from Downsview to Kennedy all for 4 billion and within five years.
I would have thought that magnificent vision of cost-overruns, delays, and a money losing subway line (for the next several decades), would have disqualified him with the fiscally responsibility set.
So at least our taxes now will be slightly lower, only to pay for it in higher transit fares …
Sorry guys, but this election talk has turned quite depressing. I’m staying put in NYC. We’ll be waiting for you in five years when you emerge from the Ford era ready to join the world again. (Hopefully you will still own a streetcar at that point…)
Darwin, I am fully opposed to Rob Ford’s plan to cancel the LTT and VRT. I also agree with your contention that his plans for cuts will not sufficient to effect any dramatic change. No candidate has said anything to make me believe that we are going to address this city’s fiscal health. Toronto is uncompetitive and has an unemployment rate approaching 11%. That should be the number one issue this election. Instead we have fantasy PT schemes (and I include TC here) and promises of tax freezes, yet decreasing employment density outside of the core. .Reconcile these two papers to see what I am getting at…….
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/edp/edp060504/it010.pdf
http://www.urbancenter.utoronto.ca/pdfs/publications/RP209_Hess_et%20al_May_2007Ch2a.pdf
That being said, the problem is two fold, the revenue side and the expense side. To quote Don Drummond (whom I would ask to be budget chief)……..”Clearly Toronto’s budget situation is a very serious one. It can be looked at in two ways. The city is either spending money above and beyond what its sustainable revenues warrant, or Torontonians are not paying enough in taxes and fees to sustain the city’s spending track. The reality is that both perspectives contain some truth, though it’s essential to exhaust all opportunities for efficiencies and cost reductions first.”
read the rest here…
http://www.td.com/communicate/speeches/09jan10.jsp
My resentment at the current admin comes from the perpetuation of this. While all the candidates leave something to be desired, the one I see as being closest to addressing the issues are Rob Ford. As I said here before, he might be like the Giuliani we need before getting our Bloomburg.
@iskyscraper – If Bloomberg hadn’t forced an overturn of term limits you might have just as big of an idiot running the show in NYC…
Quite true! But I am no fan of term limits and was pleased at the political manipulation that extended them here. They only make sense for political offices where a number of factors combine to demonstrate a history of impossible-to-unseat incumbents. City council, maybe. Local assemblymen and state senators in New York, definitely. High profile offices like governor, AG mayor, no way. No need to fix something that isn’t broken and if there is good turnover over the years, why impose the artificial constraint of term limits? Remember that approach when the topic comes up in Toronto soon.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist…but it’s a blog, isn’t it?…but I think John L. is being disingenuous. There is not in this campaign a one-to-one correspondence between electability and numbers at the polls.
Campaigns are very dependent on gaining coverage and column-inches, particularly in the newspapers (now that Toronto is basically unserved by TV news broadcasts). The candidates simply have to get their faces and names in front of the electorate as often as possible. It seems crude, but it is successful. And the newspapers have cut off this critical oxygen to the Joey Pants campaign. Yesterday’s G&M sported pictures of the Smitherman/Ford dichotomy, only two of the five leading candidates on the front page. The online edition was more coy — it eliminated the picture and the headline.
But the damage would have been done. And it’s been like that throughout the campaign. Day-after-day coverage in the G&M, the Star, the Post and the Sun could have been summarized as, “What are Rocco and George going to do about Rob Ford now?”
It was the same for David Miller for the last 18 months. He couldn’t get a word in edgewise. Mayor Mel got his picture on the cover of the paper for cutting the ribbon at a Port-a-Potty, but Miller wasn’t even pictured when he put the first shovel in the ground for the subway extension to Vaughan. Sauce for the goose, it seems…
Even when he made a statement, it was only reported in paraphrase, often by a reporter or in order to be rebutted by a member of Council’s “Opposition”. Miller was never allowed to speak for himself.
I was home on vacation when the garbage strike ended, and watched the live press conference Miller gave. He was seething. But not at the union. He was angry at the press, particularly when they asked him questions which he had answered numerous times over the previous month or two, but which they had never reported. The reporter for the Star got a particular earful for failing to report his statements, and rightfully so.
So for John Lorinc to suggest that Joey Pants doesn’t have the chops for this campaign, I would retort, how would we know, John? He is only ever heard from in the debates. Similarly, I would say to the other posters, and in the subsequent reply in another piece on Spacing: your posts are thoughtful, but this campaign is being stage-managed by the newspapers and the interests behind them.
But John L. can’t say that, can he? He can’t point out that the G&M fired their City Hall bureau chief, John Barber (sorry, demoted to writing book reviews) because he was no friend of either Ford or Smitherman and had lambasted them in his columns. John L. can’t say that because he still wants to freelance for the G&M.
And who can blame him?
But his credibility on the issue of the election, and perhaps a number of other issues, is strained.
Very well said Gerry! The media now seem to think they should be opinion shapers, not sharers. Maybe ’twas ever thus but their meddling and kingmaking seems more explicit these days, perhaps because media concentration has reduced the diversity of voices to a few megacorporations.
Drat! Spacing’s eagle-eyed readers have outed me as the master puppeteer, manipulating both city hall and the Thompson family. Note to self: be more circumspect in the future…
The campaign is not over, we are all desperately trying to learn about the candidates despite the increasingly transparent skewing of the press, and all we see in the papers day-after-day are the silly pronouncements of a fat, blond motormouth who until a few months ago was regarded as the biggest monkey in the zoo. Yet you are already busy discounting the one mayoral candidate who should merit at least some credibility, being the only one of the front five with first-hand experience of putting together the City’s budget.