The following is my Eye Weekly Psychogeography column first published in last week’s issue. It was an open letter to George Smitherman to start actually displaying some love for Toronto. Yesterday his campaign’s first print ads appeared in the Toronto Star and Globe titled “I Love Toronto.” The question is, will his actions in the coming weeks match his ads? People will be watching closely. Photo by Shaun Merritt.
Dear George,
You’re running for mayor! Neat. Why? The job is terrible. People are always yelling at you (maybe you’re into that, though), they’re always looking at what you’re spending on lunch and, worse, you don’t even get a mansion like the mayor of Detroit or New York does.
But here you are, running to be our leader. You started your campaign by putting on hockey skates and taking a few spins around the ice at Nathan Phillips Square. It was like Tie Domi was running for mayor! That was cool. You knew where the heart of Toronto was and you went and did something that was quintessentially Torontonian. Seemed like you were going to shoot for the net and all that, but then pretty soon you started skating in the other direction, hitting the boards and talking like you didn’t like this place at all and behaving downright un-Torontonian. This is why I’m writing.
As your surprise challenger, Rob Ford, started gaining momentum with his angry-man campaign, taking his rhetorical blowtorch to ideas, civics and even hard facts, you went beyond just looking like Domi, getting all tough and grumpy. The election has evolved like the cold war, but instead of matching bomb for bomb in an arms race, you’re trying to out-anger Rob Ford — only you’re no match. He’s the enforcer in this municipal league, but the enforcer is never the team captain. You want to be the captain, yes? Like Wendel Clark or something? He was all tough, but also the leader. (Sorry I’m not using any current hockey references, but this is Toronto.) The enforcer doesn’t make decisions; he just punches things, breaks noses and scores the odd goal along the way almost by accident. It’s probably fun to do that for a bit, and some people might cheer, but it must hurt to be angry all the time.
So George, why are you running the same campaign as Ford? It’s a bit early to count the other guys out, but with Rocco Rossi running a campaign of wedges and divisions and Joe Pantalone saying everything is alright and not getting much attention doing so, there is this huge, gaping void in this election waiting to be filled with ideas and, lest I sound like a hippy, love. So why go angry-man? You seem like the only guy in a position to go big and positive in this slate of candidates. The way things are now, given the chance, many Torontonians would check “none of the above.”
I’m scared, George, like a lot of people are, of Rob Ford’s weird lead because, even in this city of newcomers, he’s the most foreign thing we could imagine representing us. We’re on the lookout for hope.
Elections are funny and reality can get short-circuited. It’s been said that Canadians are radical centrists, and by extension, that applies to Torontonians, downtowner or suburbanite. But because there is a void in the middle (of ideas and love), that loud- talking — and, yes, charismatic in his own way — Rob Ford is able to get all kinds of attention. The good part is that it’s easy to fill the centrist void, if you really want to, and the divisions between Torontonians are smaller than we’ve been led to think. Some of us ride bikes, some drive cars (some do both, lots have neither), but all of us want to live in a good city that works.
Why is your default always so grumpy and gruff, George? Maybe when you were a minister in the provincial government, you were used to yelling and snorting about. Ontario is a big province; you likely had to speak up. The thing is, Toronto is a city and cities are different. Municipal politics and the mayor are very close to the people — you don’t have to yell so much. Unlike a provincial minister, who was one cog in a big machine of government, the mayor is much more of a paternal/maternal figure once elected. The mayor sets the tone. When hurricanes come or when big propane tanks blow up, the mayor gets on the TV and tells everybody what’s happening, and why it’ll be OK. There’s no smashing or anger. There’s leadership.
Maclean’s magazine’s political columnist, Paul Wells, has four rules of Canadian politics and the third is “The candidate in the best mood wins.” Let’s think back to Mel Lastman (I know you remember him, because you worked in Barbara Hall’s office, and he kind of defeated her). He was always in a great mood (well, mostly) and he was elected twice in post-amalgamation Toronto. It’s unfair when people today are calling Rob Ford the new Mel Lastman. Mel wasn’t angry and, while right-of-centre, he wasn’t big on talking about cutting and chopping and destroying the way Ford does. So be a little like Mel Lastman. You like to say off-the-cuff things that get you in trouble too, so you’re already on your way.
But don’t be like him too much. Don’t be dumb. You’re smart. In debates you seem to know the most about how government actually works, more than most of us would ever want to know. That’s good, but it’s hard to talk about that, so it’s easier to be like angry Ford. But Toronto isn’t a dumb city when given a smart option. You need to work hard on the charm. Make us like you. You have moments when you stop acting like you’re running for mayor of Rob Ford’s city and you talk smart, in your regular-guy kind of way, and you actually sound like you really like Toronto.
You really have to stop running against David Miller. If he were running for a third term, he wouldn’t be coasting; he’d be talking about what’s next, filling the election with ideas. Cities are forever works-in-progress because, if they weren’t, they’d be boring urban morgues. They are imperfect machines that always need tuning and new parts. We know Toronto isn’t perfect, but we also know it isn’t falling apart and people keep moving here and there are many construction cranes on the horizon, so when you play the Rob Ford game, which you’re not too good at, it seems like you’re talking about a make-believe city. Inherently, we know you know better.
I know you’ve got ideas, George; you keep publishing these statements on things, but until you decide to really embrace Toronto and show us that you are deeply in love with it, most of us aren’t going to notice. If you can do that, it’ll be infectious. Love Toronto deeply and tell us how you’re going make it even better. Pretend the Leafs won the cup. If you do that, maybe a few more people might notice and that stuff Rob Ford is saying suddenly won’t make any sense.
Follow @shawnmicallef on Twitter.
26 comments
Wow.
You just gave words to all of the frustration I’ve been feeling about Smitherman. He could be great, but he just isn’t doing it right now, and with Rob Ford on the horizon, I’m really scared for our city.
How very downtown-centric of you. If Ford were truly “the most foreign thing we could imagine representing us” he wouldn’t be in the lead.
Not downtown centric at all. How “paint the inner-suburbs with one brush” of you.
Maybe you should be scouting the women’s hockey league for talent. Sarah Thomson would be a better team captain than any of the players you mentioned.
Re author’s comment that: “Municipal politics and the mayor are very close to the people — you don’t have to yell so much. Unlike a provincial minister, who was one cog in a big machine of government, the mayor is much more of a paternal/maternal figure once elected. The mayor sets the tone. When hurricanes come or when big propane tanks blow up, the mayor gets on the TV and tells everybody what’s happening, and why it’ll be OK. There’s no smashing or anger. There’s leadership.”
Actually, the experience in the amalgamated city has been that the Mayors we’ve had so far have only been very close to SOME people but definitely not all. Miller’s handling of the Sunrise propane tank incident alluded to in this article is an example of that. Maybe if this advice had been given to the current Mayor about a year or two ago, he would have had a shot at a third term.
Also, while I don’t like Ford, I don’t find him any more (or less) angry than someone like Miller or Fletcher or any number of people that currently serve on council. Also, I agree that it’s a bit presumptious of anyone or any group of people to say that he is the “most foreign” thing to represent “us”. I guess it all depends on how you define “us”. I count myself among those who are hoping he doesn’t become mayor — though I’m not so warm to the alternatives either. But I don’t kid myself by thinking that my views define what is most “foreign” in Toronto. Given Ford’s support, there’s obviously a lot of people (including many immigrants I know) who don’t consider him the most foreign thing at all.
SAMG, I disagree that it’s presumptuous for one to say Mr Ford is the “most foreign” thing to represent us. Among other reasons, in my experience, the vast majority of people know almost nothing about municipal politics, so it is very possible that a good amount of Ford’s ostensive support in polls is partly a result of ignorance as to the entirety of his perspective, character, history, etc.
Considering how xenophobic, parochial, regressive, demagogic, etc. he clearly is, it would be a great insult to Toronto to even entertain the notion that he represents Torontonians.
It obvious from Shawn’s column and comment that he speaks for everyone in Toronto because the rest of us are too stupid to think for ourselves. This kind of “you aren’t voting the way I think you should therefore you are stupid” attitude that is the most offensive thing to come out in this campaign so far.
You should be ashamed.
Hehe PMK, I didn’t tell anybody to vote for anybody in this column. This was a letter to George.
Thanks for being, generally, angry-guy/gal. It helps illustrate things better than I could on my own.
I’d much prefer Shawn Micallef to speak for Toronto than Rob Ford! It’s not even close. Rob Ford is foreign. He’s like a wealthy suburban American who has no grasp on urban issues.
Thanks for being a stuck-up, self-important elitist snob who can’t handle criticism. It illustrates why Rob Ford is going to win.
First PMK, you should sign your real, full name when you call people names. Second, I like criticism, but like it most when it directed at something I actually said. Can you do both those things? Post like man, man!
I get a big kick of a Rob Ford supporter deriding someone for being self-important. Have they spent any time listening to their own candidate.
OH…and I’ve done some digging. PMK is actually Kory Teneycke!
He has a lot more free time to rabble-rouse on civic affairs blogs now that he’s unemployed.
Alexander… again, I don’t like most of what I’m hearing from Ford… but that said, I still disagree with your view that it isn’t presumptuous for one to say Mr Ford is the “most foreign” thing to represent us. If you want to put down the substantial support he has garnered down to people’s “ignorance”, as you seem to suggest, then I would say that is presumptious also. Calling Ford “foreign” or his supporters “ignorant” is, in my view, basically an excuse to avoid looking at the political failure that has been the Miller years. When politicians are unable to bring citizens on board with most of what they are doing, that is a political failure. The upshot is that 2 terms of Miller seems to have provoked a backlash that is likely to see citizens electing someone you (and I) would never have thought could possibly be elected mayor. Mike Harris set back the provincial Tories at least 10 years in Ontario — and I would say Miller has done the same for the so-called “progressive” movement in Toronto. Rather than continue with the name calling, I think those who say they are anti-Fords (myself included, though I don’t consider myself pro-Miller) need to give some thought as to what caused this backlash and how it might be overcome — not for this election, but for 2014.
samg> I did not call Ford’s supporters ignorant. Ford’s polling is in the 30%’s range. It’s quite safe to say a majority of Torontonians would think his style of leadership is foreign to the Toronto they know. None of this discounts a desire for constant improvements to the city and how it’s run, either.
Shawn, I didn’t say you thought Ford’s supporter’s were ignorant …the comment was directed to Alexander. Also, I still don’t see on what basis you can claim that it’s “safe to say a majority of Torontonians would think his (Ford’s) style of leadership is foreign to the Toronto they know”. Your comment can actually be read two ways. If you are saying that Ford only has 30% support (ie not a majority) and hence as “foreiegn”, then someone might counter that Pantalone (with around 9% support), sounds a heck of a lot more foreign. If the stress in your statement regarding Ford is “foreign to the Toronto WE KNOW”, then what the polls seem to be suggesting is that voters are simply not happy with the Toronto we know (ergo Pantalone’s showing) and are looking for a change. In either case, I think your use of the word “foreign” is quite suspect. Finally, I’ll make the point that if we have learned anything in this great, supposedly multicultural society of ours, it’s that just because something is “foreign” doesn’t mean it is bad … though I do think Ford will be a bad mayor. But then unlike you, I don’t think he is the “most foreign” thing we can imagine as mayor.
PS. I do like your hockey analogies.
I think it is funny how an open letter, suggestions really, to George Smitherman is full of Rob Ford references. Spacing needs to be more objective. Mayor Miller says things like ”
This government has cut business taxes by more than $190-million since 2006. If the measures recommended in this budget are adopted; that number increases to well over $250-million.”, and is not called out for being utterly dishonest. If Rob Ford did the same, I would be certain we would read about it here first.
The fact that Rob Ford is plain spoken, consistent and open about his agenda for years, is foreign. In a good way.
Comparing David Miller to Mike Harris is like comparing Rob Ford to Pierre Elliot Trudeau; it’s patently ridiculous.
I will agree that while Miller was long on vision he was indeed short on political savvy. Despite his glowing love for the city, he was never able to wrestle the kind of funding out of the province or the feds that Toronto desperately needs, which arguably should have been his #1 priority. I’ll grant you that the upper levels of gov’t weren’t eager to give up the cash, but I contend that Miller’s sales pitch was always weak. Instead of creating popular support, he lectured the uppers levels about their duty and we’ve seen the results.
Bitch and moan and misrepresent all you want…Toronto doesn’t have a spending problem, it has a funding problem. Yet not one Mayoral candidate has built their campaign around restoring the provincial and federal funding necessary to build and maintain Toronto.
Instead, fueled by the aggravatingly popular ignorance of Rob Ford, the prevailing wisdom of most candidates has been to solve our financial shortfalls by gutting the city. THAT is Mike Harris thinking. All Mike Harris knew how to do was tear things down. You certainly couldn’t make the same argument about David Miller. So comparing Miller to Harris is probably the most discreditable thing anyone could say.
It’s taken years for Ontario to start recovering from the Harris years and Toronto has never really recovered at all. How long will it take to recover from the Ford years?
I shudder to think.
When Shawn referred to Ford as ‘foreign,’ I interpreted it as his policies are so non-Torontonian. In the last countless provincial and federal elections, the GTA has been an anti-Conservative stronghold, with only few exceptions. In Toronto proper, the Conservatives have not held a seat since the last decade. To see someone who embraces radical neo-right politics so openly doing so well in the polls in this city is very surprising.
Thank you, Ben. Yes – this is not a tear down city. It’s smart, not anti-intellectual.
I’m ok with people wanting to say that Ford will be a bad mayor…. but I still think applying the label the “most foreign” to him is suspect, albeit cute. If you look at the areas covered by the current amalgamated city, you have a lot of areas that municipally, voted for toe the line on the budget administrations (which is not foreign… Miller would be foreign to this pattern). How these areas voted provincially or federally, doesn’t negate that pattern.
If I’m taking so much exception to the use of the term “most foreign” applied to Ford, it’s because I see more than a hint of the typical connotations of “inappropriate” or “to be guarded against” that often accompanies that word. I’m not saying that Shawn intended this. I think he was trying for a cute, yet insightful phrase — but the phrase does seem to play on those associations, associations which I find objectionable. I don’t have any trouble with people saying Ford will be a bad mayor — I too think he will be a bad mayor. But I do have a problem with people calling him “the most foreign”.
Also, while I acknowledge Ben’s point about areas in TO not voting Conservative at the Federal or Provincial levels (at least not recently), this statement says very little about how the areas covered by the current amalgamated city voted at the MUNICIPAL level. On that score, one would see that prior to amalgamation, most of the areas outside the OLD City of Toronto tended to elect tight-fisted, stick to the basics municipal administrations — and most of the councillors that have been elected in those areas seem to continue that trend. In that sense, if one wants to use the word “foreign” as in “atypical”, then it would be Miller and not Ford who is most “foreign” to these areas. I will not go into whether the area covered by the amalgamated City are “tear-down” areas — but I think it’s safe to say that many of the things introduced on Miller’s watch would never have been “built-up” in the first place in many of the areas outside the down-town core. I’m not saying this is good or bad but merely want to point out the obvious that making claims about Toronto not being a “tear-down” city are not so straightforward.
Finally, if one wants to stick to the civic administrations since amalgamation, I will point out the obvious and say that there isn’t enough history that’s happened for anyone to say what is “most foreign” (used in the sense of “atypical”) with respect to the amalgamated city.
Sorry for my rant but I really think the use of that phrase “most foreign” is objectionable.
samg – I understand what you’re saying. If Toronto’s wasn’t such a multicultural place, I may have picked a different word to say the same thing. But it’s got a bit more hump here, y’know.
Excellent letter Shawn! I think you have captured my feelings on this election better than anything else I have seen in the media. Let’s hope that some of the candidates read this and the election turns into electing a leader who can artfully represent this city that so many of us, in fact, love!
Shawn, even if I disagree with your use of the word ‘foreign’ applied to the frontrunner, I want to say I think it shows a lot of guts on your part to engage publicly with readers regarding what you’ve written.
Shawn, you just summarized my feelings exactly. This election should be a slam dunk for George. It’s hard to watch what’s happening from outside the 416, and not being able to do anything about it.