On Jagmeet Singh’s social democratic credentials: a response to Rick Salutin


In a column at Rabble, Rick Salutin has harsh words for the candidates in the NDP leadership race, and especially for Jagmeet Singh. In Salutin’s view, Singh does not even belong in the NDP and would be more at home among the Liberals, or the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservatives. Two claims are cited in support of this conclusion. First, Salutin claims that Singh favours income testing pensions, putting us on a slippery slope towards a two-tier health care system in which the poor are insured by the state while the rich are insured privately. Second, Singh is vocal about individual rights, whereas the NDP is traditionally supposed to be more concerned about what Salutin calls “collective rights”. In this post, I will explain why both of these complaints are without foundation.

As originally stated, the first of these claims is manifestly false. Singh’s proposed Canada Seniors Guarantee involves consolidating a number of seniors’ benefits, including the Old Age Security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement — both of which are already income tested. And it increases the progressivity of these programs, so that low and middle income seniors will receive larger benefits, while high income seniors receive less (or nothing at all). But the Canada Seniors Guarantee would not affect Canadian Pension Plan benefits. Salutin’s claim that Singh favours income testing pensions as such is not true.

But perhaps this is too nitpicky. Even if the specifics are off the mark, Salutin’s underlying concern still merits a reply. This is the charge that once we allow income testing in one program, we undermine the basis for universality in other programs. This works in two ways. First, Salutin claims, income testing undermines the society-wide solidarity that generates support for programs like the universal health care system. Second, once income testing is allowed in one program, progressives can no longer consistently mount principled objections to two-tier healthcare.

How does income testing undermine solidarity? “[B]y separating the benevolent haves from the needy, petitioning underclasses,” Salutin claims. The thought here seems to be that directing income support to the poor makes them dependent on the contingent, arbitrary attitudes of the well off; such dependency is incompatible with the underlying relationship of mutual recognition and respect between equals that distinguishes solidarity from other forms of assistance. But Salutin’s charge seems more apt as a complaint about charity — that “cold, grey, loveless thing”, as Clement Attlee put it. I don’t see how it applies to a state-run income support program funded from the public treasury and administered as an entitlement with simple, transparent, legally defined criteria. The latter, it seems to me, expresses rather than undermines solidarity. If Salutin wants to maintain his objection to targeted aid, he needs to do a good deal more work to make clear the connection between the kind of objectionably paternalistic relationship exemplified by private, discretionary, charitable assistance to the poor and a system based on a right to public social assistance, administered to the poor as a matter of social justice. Unless this connection can be established, the first of Salutin’s objections fails.

Salutin’s second objection fallaciously deploys the slippery slope argument against income testing any part of the welfare state. Salutin begins with the reasonable assumption that his readers are committed to universality in the health care system. He then claims that if income testing is permissible for some benefits, it must be permissible in the health care system. The basic form of this argument (what philosophers call modus tollens) is deductively valid, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. So are the premises true?

I share Salutin’s commitment to a universal system of public health insurance, so I accept the first premise. But the second premise is false. Of course, there is good reason to think that universal social programs help build a supportive political climate for the welfare state as a whole (including those parts of the welfare state that are not universal). Perhaps this is a sufficient reason to preserve the universality of the public health care system. But as as anyone who has paid attention to the debate on two-tier health care should know, there are other equally (if not more) compelling reasons to preserve the current system.

In fact, the left’s defence of universal public health insurance has largely focused on the negative consequences of a two-tier system for those who would continue to depend on the public system. If the private sector is given a larger role in health care, the quality of care available available through the public system will suffer. Those who continue to use the public system will be those who cannot afford better insurance — people with low and middle incomes. The principle that justifies universality in the public health care system is the principle that we ought to give priority to the needs of the worst off — the same principle that justifies directing income assistance to those with low and middle incomes. Far from putting us on a slippery slope to the end of universal public health care, Singh’s proposal essentially involves the consistent application of the very same principle that justifies universal public health care.

Salutin’s second charge against Singh is that he has been especially vocal about individual rights rather than “collective rights”, the latter supposedly being a more a more appropriate object of concern for social democrats:

Singh’s lawyerly stress on individual rights is strongly Liberal too; if anything’s distinguished the NDP, it’s been backing collective rights, such as medicare, unions etc. With Singh, it’s really a question not of what differentiates the NDP, but: Why aren’t you a Liberal? Maybe he wound up at the wrong meeting, the night he decided to get involved.

It is not clear exactly what Salutin means by collective rights; he provides no definition, and judging by the examples he provides, he does not seem to have in mind the more familiar categories of group rights or social rights. Social rights, of which access to health care is a textbook example, are generally borne by individuals, not groups. And union rights are a straightforward consequence of the individual right to freedom of association — no doubt one of the reasons why it took so long for freedom of association to be recognized as one of the basic liberal rights! But no matter how idiosyncratically Salutin wants to draw the distinction between “individual” and “collective” rights, he appears to be profoundly ignorant of our movement’s history. In reality, social democrats have never been indifferent to individual rights of any kind. The earliest struggles of the labour movement — from which parties like the NDP developed — were about securing civil and political rights as often as they were about wages and working conditions. Under Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan CCF enacted the first Bill of Rights in the country — 35 years before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Likewise, BC’s Human Rights Code was passed into law by BC’s first NDP government, led by Dave Barrett. Far from marking him as an outsider, Singh’s work defending people’s rights —as a lawyer, activist and elected representative — is in keeping with the best traditions of the party.


Jagmeet Singh on poverty and inequality


Today, the Toronto Star issued an endorsement of Jagmeet Singh. Obviously I agree that Singh is the best choice to lead the NDP, and I think the editorial board makes a number of interesting points in its endorsement. However, I found this part puzzling:

[Singh] doesn’t appear to have a deep interest in policy issues; during a meeting with the Star’s editorial board it wasn’t clear that he fully appreciates the differences between policies aimed at eradicating poverty and those designed to fight economic inequality. They are different problems that imply very different solutions.

Here is the exchange this passage is apparently referring to:
Q: Your platform is quite strong on anti-poverty measures but contains less specifically aimed at inequality, what would you do to address that?
A: There is policy we put forward towards poverty reduction focused around those who are the most unequal in society: seniors in poverty, the working poor and Canadians with disabilities. We also coupled that with the Better Work Agenda focusing on people who are in precarious work, as well as how we can build better work. We also want to end unpaid internships with no exceptions and to reinstate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to ensure there are high standards of labour rights protections for workers at the federal level — which would encourage more equity and fairness for workers.


In response to the Star’s question, Singh points out that his antipoverty policies are also effective at reducing inequality. They reduce inequality by improving the position of the worst off. Unless specifically aiming at reducing inequality means aiming at reducing inequality while specifically aiming not to achieve any other worthwhile policy goals (an absurd definition, in my view), it strikes me as a mistake to say that Singh’s antipoverty policies are not aimed at reducing inequality.

Perhaps there is another way to interpret what the Star is concerned about. One way to reduce inequality is to improve the relative position of the worst off, and antipoverty policy is one way to achieve this kind of improvement. But inequality between the highest and lowest positions in the economic structure is not the only kind that matters; we are also concerned about how income and wealth are distributed across the range between the highest and lowest positions. Even if the lowest position has been raised as high as possible, we may still have reason to be concerned about inequality because everyone occupies either the highest position or the lowest. We should, I believe, give priority to the eradication of poverty. But we should also, to the furthest extent consistent with this priority, try to to fill out the ranks between the highest and lowest economic positions. And it is true that an exclusive focus on poverty reduction means neglecting this worthwhile goal.

But if this is what the Star means when it talks about inequality, its criticism of Singh still misses the mark. Right after mentioning his proposed poverty reduction measures, Singh mentions policy meant to fight precarious work. Precariousness affects workers beyond the bottom of the economic scale, and it presents an obstacle to those at the bottom trying to move up the scale. It follows that measures against precariousness are in fact measures intended to fight inequality in this second sense of the term. This is also true of ending unpaid internships, which are (if I’m not mistaken) mostly an issue for degree holders with relatively high expectations of future earnings, not the poorest of the poor. And it is true of improved labour rights protections, which secure the positions of workers across the income distribution. Moreover, Singh has also proposed a raft of tax reforms aimed at making the system more progressive, including higher income taxes on the top one percent of earners and a hefty new estate tax.

The Star’s complaint that Singh has not only ignored inequality, but does not even understand what it is, turns out to be completely baseless (not to mention condescending). In my view, Singh’s response to the board’s question demonstrates a stronger grasp of the issues than the board itself.


Free trade and “right to work” laws


This weekend, the Globe and Mail reported that Canadian representatives are demanding an end to US “right to work” laws as part of a renegotiated NAFTA. Much of the reaction on Twitter was highly critical; I probably wouldn’t have seen the article at all without these mocking tweets.

Despite the name, “right to work” laws have literally nothing to do with the right to work. They simply exempt employees at unionized firms from having to pay for representation. Because employees exempted under RTW are still represented by a union and covered by a collective agreement, they reap almost all the benefits of membership without sharing the burdens. Unions need money to function, and RTW deprives unions of their major source of funding. As a result, union density (the proportion of eligible labour market participants who are members of a union) in RTW states is extremely low.

The case for including the demand to repeal RTW as part of NAFTA negotiations is as follows:

1. RTW laws are designed to suppress unions — they illegitimately infringe union rights.
2. Union rights, as the saying goes, are human rights.
3. RTW laws illegitimately infringe human rights. (from 1 & 2)
4. If unions are suppressed in a given territory, firms in that territory have lower labour costs, all things being equal.
5. American firms have lower labour costs because of laws that illegitimately infringe human rights. (from 3 & 4)
6. Firms with lower labour costs have a competitive advantage over firms with higher labour costs, all things being equal.
7. RTW laws give American firms a competitive advantage by illegitimately infringing human rights. (from 3, 5 & 6)
8. Free trade agreements should prohibit governments from illegitimately securing competitive advantages for firms in their territory.
9. A free trade agreement with the US should prohibit RTW laws. (from 7 & 8)

To be clear, this is not the only basis on which one could justify the demand to repeal RTW. One might also argue that it ought to be included in the agreement as a social protection measure, for example. But I think it is the argument that’s hardest to refute for people who support free trade (if only because the category free trade supporters has more members than the category free trade supporters who also demand social protection clauses).

The argument is deductively valid, so the conclusion can only be false if one of the premises is false. The vulnerable points, I think, are premises 1 and 8. RTW laws have many supporters, including Coyne. These supporters will obviously deny premise 1, the claim that RTW illegitimately infringes union rights. Premise 8, on the other hand, may be challenged on purely pragmatic grounds, as Emmett Macfarlane does here:

The pragmatic objection is not very successful, as it turns out. Macfarlane’s claim seems to be that we don’t include human rights conditions in trade agreements because this would rule out trade with too many countries. But every part of this claim is false. The NAFTA regime already includes measures intended to secure labour rights. Obviously this has not prevented Canada from trading with countries with much worse human rights standards.

What about Macfarlane’s claim that the goal of trade negotiations shouldn’t be to increase costs? As the argument I provided above makes clear, Canadian negotiators are not aiming to increase costs. Still, it is true that increased costs are a foreseeable consequence of the negotiators’ demands. With this in mind, Macfarlane’s claim can be restated as follows: “Trade negotiations should not pursue goals that are expected to increase costs.” As a normative claim, that might be true. But as a descriptive claim about free trade negotiations, it is certainly false.

Free trade negotiations are aimed at lowering trade barriers. Consider state subsidies, one kind of barrier often targeted in free trade negotiations. If a foreign government subsidises its country’s steel industry, for example, this presents a barrier to Canadian steel producers trying to do business in that country. Canadian negotiators will probably demand an end to the steel subsidy, even though this means higher costs for Canadian firms currently benefiting from cheap, subsidised foreign steel. RTW is a similar kind of non-tariff barrier. The goal of free trade negotiations is fulfilled if repealing RTW eliminates a barrier to international trade, whether or not the costs to some firms or consumers are increased as a result.

What’s the point of lowering trade barriers, then? The answer is that trade barriers are bad for competition, and competition leads to lower costs and more innovation overall. If our hypothetical foreign steel producers lose their state subsidy, for example, they face greater competition from Canadian producers. To stay profitable, they will need to find a way to compensate for the lost subsidy. Perhaps they will invest in new production techniques or find new suppliers so they can continue to sell cheap steel and still turn a profit. Or they might choose investments aimed at improving the quality of their products so as to justify higher prices. Or they might get out of the steel business altogether and enter some other industry instead.

The same logic applies to the elimination of RTW. Some portion of the competitive advantage American firms currently enjoy is attributable to the suppression of union rights. If union rights were protected in the United States, American firms would face greater pressure to develop new products and production techniques because they could no longer count on artificially low labour costs to sustain profitability. According to conventional wisdom, this pressure should keep costs lower over the long run. And the applicability of the conventional wisdom to this particular case can only be denied if one denies that American firms are capable of developing new products and production techniques. Such a denial would entail that new depths of poverty are the only kind of innovations we have left to look forward to under capitalism. And this conclusion would call far more into question than just the “right to work”.

Three ways to resist Mulgan’s pre-existence argument

Brother Edward, condemned to seek redemption for the crimes of another life

Last time, I explained Mulgan’s argument that benevolent theism implies that persons exist (and exercise moral agency) before they are born, and why the success of this argument would have dire consequences for benevolent theism. In this post, I’ll take a brief look at three strategies for resisting the pre-existence argument that are available to benevolent theists.

1. The pre-existence argument depends on accounts of personal identity and moral responsibility that are false.

On Mulgan’s view, pre-existence (and only pre-existence) can explain away the appearance of gross unfairness in the distribution of evils (roughly, the fact that bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people). For pre-existence to provide the necessary explanation, we must be entities that existed and exercised moral agency before birth, and, from birth to death, continue to bear full moral responsibility for our choices before birth. Neither psychological nor physical or hybrid views of personal identity could ground the claims of identity and responsibility that pre-existence requires. We can have no psychological or physical relation to our hypothetical pre-existing selves. Only a brute relation could make me identical to and responsible for the choices of a pre-existing self. But positing brute facts should be a last resort when all other explanations run out. And given the availability of promising alternative accounts of identity and responsibility, there is no need to resort to brute explanation. If a brute relation is needed to explain how we could be responsible for choices we made before birth, but there is in fact no such relation, then we cannot be responsible for choices we made before birth. This means that pre-existence cannot increase the proportion of deserved evils in the world and is therefore superfluous.

2. A world that is made better by desert is made worse by sin.

Mulgan argues that if moral desert has any value at all, a world in which all evils are deserved is better than a world with undeserved evils. Given the choice between creating worlds with and without undeserved evils, God must select the latter. But only sin (which I use here to mean wrongful action) can make agents deserve to have evils visited upon them. This means that world in which all evils are deserved will contain far more sin than a world in which some evils are undeserved. If moral desert has some value, it seems plausible that sin has disvalue. Thus, any increase in the proportion of deserved evils will always be offset by a corresponding increase in the amount of sin and therefore could not possibly make the world better overall. At the very least, then, if it is permissible for God to create a world with any evils in it at all, it is permissible for God to create a world in which any number of evils are undeserved. This makes pre-existence entirely unnecessary.

3. The claim that all evils are deserved generates a paradox.

One could only deserve evils in virtue of having committed sin. One can only commit sin by visiting undeserved evils on another. But Mulgan’s account of pre-existence requires that all evils are deserved; the point of pre-existence is to show how this could be the case. If evil is always deserved, then there can be no sins, and if there are no sins, no one can deserve to have evils visited upon them. But plainly there are evils in the world, and if there are evils in the world and no one deserves to have evils visited upon them, then there are undeserved evils in the world. So the claim that all evils are deserved generates a paradox, and is therefore necessarily false.

Does benevolent theism imply pre-existence?


In Purpose in the Universe (previously discussed here and here), Tim Mulgan argues that benevolent theists’ attempts to resolve the problem of evil by invoking postmortem existence (i.e. an afterlife) are only successful if humans also enjoy some kind of pre-existence (or reincarnation). This additional metaphysical baggage gives ananthropocentric purposivism (AP) — whether in theistic or non-theistic form — an edge over benevolent theism. Although it is not decisive, it does strengthen the argument that, all things considered, AP is more likely to be true than benevolent theism.

Here’s how the argument works. Benevolent theists may respond to the problem of evil by pointing out that a benevolent god could ensure that everyone enjoys a postmortem existence that is sufficient in duration and quality to greatly outweigh any evils befallen during one’s life. The benevolent theist can accept that there are evils in this world, while denying that there are any unredeemed evils.

Mulgan responds that a problem of evil remains, however, even if postmortem existence is of the highest quality and infinite duration. Every life could still be improved by preventing any evils from occurring in the first place. Even if we can’t assume that a benevolent god would follow a principle that commits to maximizing the quality of each life, or the quality of some state of affairs, it does seem safe to assume that a benevolent god would avoid gratuitous satisficing. Satisficing occurs when there is a threshold above which any outcome is acceptable; gratuitous satisficing occurs when such a threshold is observed even though one could achieve an optimal outcome at no additional cost. For an omnipotent being, it appears that satisficing is always gratuitous. For God, “good enough” doesn’t cut it. If divine benevolence rules out gratuitous satisficing, no postmortem paradise is sufficient to provide a solution to the problem of evil.

Suppose, however, that some other defence against the problem of evil seems promising — a free will theodicy that posits contra-divine freedom (i.e. the freedom to act contrary to God’s will), for example. A CDF-based theodicy may explain why there are evils in a world created by a benevolent god. But it struggles to account for the manifest unfairness in the distribution of evils. Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. CDF does not explain this.

If evil exists because of CDF, and we have CDF because CDF is valuable, God has good reason not to create a world without evil. But does God have good reason to create a world with an unfair distribution of evils? Mulgan thinks not. God could create a world that is just like ours, except that people in this world enjoy pre-existence. The details of how and where pre-existing people exist can be set aside. We need only specify two salient characteristics of pre-existing people. First, they exercise robust moral agency before birth. Second, they are morally responsible for the exercise of that agency at all times, including after birth. If God could create a world with pre-existing people of this kind, then he could create a world in which there is no unfairness in the distribution of evils because there are no undeserved evils. Evils would be deserved in virtue of one’s conduct during pre-existence. If moral desert has any value, then a world where people get what they deserve is better than a world where people don’t get what they deserve. And even if there is only a marginal difference in quality between these two worlds, the prohibition on gratuitous satisficing requires God to create the world with pre-existing people. Therefore, Mulgan argues, benevolent theism implies pre-existence as well as postmortem existence.

If Mulgan’s argument is successful, benevolent theism is in trouble. In fact, I would go further than Mulgan does; if benevolent theism really does imply pre-existence for these reasons, then benevolent theism is almost certainly false. Many will balk at the apparent metaphysical extravagance of pre-existence. The relation between pre-existence and worldly evil Mulgan describes also depends on highly controversial assumptions about personal identity and the grounds of moral responsibility. But more importantly, I cannot accept the moral attitude towards victims of the most profound abuse, oppression and misfortune that this view encourages. Like Mulgan, I’m generally more confident in my considered moral judgments than my metaphysical judgments. If a metaphysical view implies that the victims of the Holocaust deserved everything they got, I am warranted in rejecting that metaphysical view. If benevolent theism is to continue as a live option in a religiously ambiguous universe, Mulgan’s pre-existence argument must be confronted.

Referendums vs. democracy: tax policy edition

Screen Shot 2017-08-15 at 7.32.48 PM

The August 4 episode of PolitiCoast has an excellent interview with Professor Lindsay Tedds, a tax economist at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Administration (and a blogger at Dead for Tax Reasons). The interview takes up almost the entire running time and covers a wide range of topics that will interest regular readers of this blog, including basic income, the minimum wage, the NDP leadership contest, and some sharp but fair criticism of the new provincial government’s tax policies. It’s well worth a listen!

Here I want to focus on Tedds’s comments around the 29 minute mark, where she argues forcefully for replacing the outmoded Provincial Sales Tax with a value-added tax — effectively reintroducing the Harmonized Sales Tax. There is already a political consensus that the PST is seriously flawed and in need of reform. And as Tedds points out, two independent reviews of BC’s tax system have recommended replacing the PST with a new VAT. This recommendation is consistent with conventional wisdom on tax policy that cuts across the political spectrum. During the politically charged debate over the BC HST, progressive economists like SFU’s Krishna Pendakur and the CCPA’s Iglika Ivanonva both expressed support for the principle of value-added taxation. And as I have noted previously on this blog, all of the Nordic social democracies fuel their comprehensive welfare states with value-added taxes at far higher rates than the short-lived HST.

Regardless of VAT’s merits, it is generally assumed that this option is political poison. Tedds’s frustration at this fact is evident:

I really hate that we can’t go back to this simply because — what was his name? — Gordon Campbell screwed up the implementation of that. The PST is a terribly inefficient tax to have; we would do much better with a GST/HST and we could implement it such that it was [progressive].

Campbell’s disastrous implementation of the HST is an important part of the story. But the main problem, I think, is the fact that the HST was repealed in a referendum, and referendums are perceived as uniquely authoritative democratic instruments. This perception is, however, deeply misguided.

The normative core of democracy is not government by ballot, but government by discussion. In representative democracy, even when even when it is said that “the people have spoken” in determining the outcome of a general election, the verdict is always provisional and in any case concerns only the composition of a body selected for the purpose of carrying on discussion. But all too frequently, the purpose and function of referendums is to end discussion by means of the ballot. In a referendum, the conceit is that “the people” speak rather than discuss, and that having spoken, further discussion is superfluous at best, and an affront to popular sovereignty at worst.

The idea that referendums represent a purer form of democracy, then, could not be further from the truth. Democratic government depends on mutual recognition that our judgments are fallible and thus subject to revision. Certainly there are some key features of a democratic regime that are, as Rawls put it, “not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” But these are rare exceptions, and I find it hard to believe that certain technicalities of the tax system are among them. When prominent political actors treat the public as though we are incapable of conscientiously revising political judgments after further consideration or in light of new information, they treat the public as though we are incapable — or unworthy — of democratic government. It is up to us to determine whether this treatment is warranted.

Why I’m supporting Jagmeet Singh for leader of the NDP


The deadline to join the NDP in time to vote in the upcoming leadership election is August 17. Before the window closes on this crucial phase of the campaign, I want to let my friends and family know who I’m supporting and why, and to invite everyone who is eligible to sign up for the party and join me in supporting that candidate too. Just to cut the suspense, I’m supporting Jagmeet Singh. But before I explain why, I’m going to take stock of the other candidates, all of whom have considerable merit.

During this campaign, Niki Ashton has powerfully articulated the message that the NDP must preserve and strengthen its identity as a party of the left, embracing traditional social democratic policies such as expansion of the universal welfare state and a major role for socially owned enterprise in economic development. Beyond the specific policies it contains, her platform also demonstrates keen insight into the scale and diversity of the injustices and other problems facing Canada today. And as a campaigner, Ashton has clearly come a long way since the previous leadership contest.

Nevertheless, it’s hard for me to shake the feeling that Ashton is in some sense fighting the 2012 leadership campaign all over again. In that election, Ashton was the only one to depart significantly from the moderate policy consensus among the other candidates and offer an openly socialist platform that made few concessions to conventional wisdom about the requirements of electability. But this time around, Ashton’s view that the NDP must provide a strong left-wing alternative does not distinguish her from the other candidates, all of whom have assembled impressive packages of progressive policy. This has not stopped her campaign from leaning heavily on the message that Ashton has a special claim to represent a progressive direction for the party. The effect is bewildering; it’s as though Ashton is paying no attention to the circumstances of the contest or the content of the other candidate’s campaigns. This does not bode well for Ashton’s prospects as leader of a campaign in a general election.

Ashton’s ability to lead effectively is also called into question by her failure to attract significant support from the party’s elected officeholders, despite having been an MP for nine years. Members of the federal caucus must work closely with and under the direction of the party leader, and their prospects for re-election depend on the leader’s ability more than any other single factor. This gives members of caucus a greater stake in the outcome of the race than almost anyone else, and their familiarity with the requirements of the job gives them unique insight into relative merits of the various candidates. While support from caucus is not a decisive factor, her shortcomings in this respect do contribute to my reluctance to support Ashton’s candidacy.

Finally, I am skeptical of Ashton’s interest in growing the party. Thus far, her appeal has been directed narrowly at people who identify strongly with the political left and are predisposed to support her platform. Identifying and mobilizing current supporters is an important part of a winning electoral strategy. But it cannot be the whole of a winning electoral strategy. People who do not thrill to the mention of socialism and are skeptical of certain policies must be brought on board. Ashton’s failure to reach out and broaden her message is the single most worrisome aspect of her campaign thus far. Taking all of these issues into consideration, I cannot support Ashton’s bid for leadership.

Of the four candidates still in the race, Charlie Angus is the longest-serving MP, having first been elected to office in 2004. His record in parliamentary politics reflects deep convictions nurtured by his roots in the Catholic Worker movement; his tenure has been especially noteworthy for his tireless advocacy for First Nations. Angus has a reputation as an excellent constituency MP, but he does not hide from the responsibility to exercise his own judgment in deciding how to cast his vote in the House. Among people who were members of the party before the start of the campaign, Angus is believed to have the highest level of support, and not without reason; he’s has been around for a long time, and he’s earned a lot of trust.

Considering Angus’s relatively long career in Parliament, however, it strikes me as worrisome that he has been able to attract so little support from his colleagues; Angus has the endorsement of only one current MP. Moreover, his platform has not left much of an impression. Angus would be my third choice for leader, more because his campaign has not given me any reason to rank him higher than because of any glaring defects.

Guy Caron has been the breakout star of this campaign. Like many people, I suppose, I was completely unaware of Caron before he declared that he was entering the race with introduction of a universal basic income as his flagship policy. He immediately made an impression on me as a charming, compassionate and intelligent person with an exciting policy agenda, which was lent extra credibility by his background in economics. Caron’s early entry into the contest helped set a high standard that other candidates’ policies would be expected to meet. But as the campaign has proceeded, Caron has shown that he’s not just a wonk; he has thrown himself into the work of organizing and carrying his message to people across the country, with special attention to neglected rural communities.

Considering his relatively low profile prior to launching his leadership bid, Caron’s difficulty in attracting support from politicians at other levels of government is not surprising, and it makes what success he has achieved in this regard (comparable to Ashton’s) all the more impressive. Despite some minor misgivings (particularly regarding his criticism of Jagmeet’s Singh’s proposed reforms to OAS), I would be happy to see Caron win, and if he doesn’t, I hope to see much more of him in national politics in the years ahead. Overall, Caron would be my second choice.

My first choice for leader is Jagmeet Singh. Singh was hyped as a possible candidate long before he entered the race, but I was skeptical that he’d step forward. Ontario will have a general election in the not too distant future; if the NDP won, Singh would be a shoo-in for a senior cabinet post, and if the NDP lost, Singh would be a shoo-in to replace Andrea Horwath. Staying put in provincial politics seemed like a better bet. Obviously, however, Singh did enter the race, and despite a shaky start, I think he’s more than lived up to expectations.

On the policy front, Singh has impressed me most with his commitment to building on proven antipoverty programs, including expansion of the Working Income Tax Benefit and increased benefits for low- and middle-income seniors and persons with disabilities. Transfers are the single most effective tool for cutting poverty and inequality, but with the exception of Caron, the other candidates have mostly neglected this option. Singh’s transfer programs have the edge over Caron’s, in my view, because they are phased out more gently. Caron’s basic income is only available to persons whose income falls below the Low Income Cut-off (LICO, a regional poverty measure defined by Statistics Canada). For every dollar earned above the LICO, the basic income payment is reduced by a dollar. In other words, people who fall below the LICO face a marginal tax rate of 100% on all employment income. A policy that imposes the highest taxes on those with the lowest incomes in the name of fighting poverty is perverse. It is also likely to discourage people from seeking paid employment. Singh’s transfer programs, on the other hand, are designed to be phased out gently. Under the new Working Canadian Guarantee, for example, full-time minimum wage earners will still have their incomes topped up.

Aside from paying for transfer programs, taxes can also help fight poverty and inequality directly. Singh has committed to a more progressive income tax system, higher taxes on capital gains, a new estate tax, an end to tax exemptions for expensive perks, and a new Royal Commission on tax fairness to recommend further reforms. These policies would reduce inequality by “levelling down” the top end of the distribution. But as Emmanuel Saez has argued, higher taxes on top earners weaken their bargaining power relative to lower earners and shareholders, encouraging downward redistribution and investment. The same measures that “level down” those at the top can also “level up” those at the bottom. There’s more to Singh’s platform than taxes and transfers, of course. But I think his policies in this area are representative of the thoughtfulness that pervades his entire agenda.

As noted above, it takes more than good policy to make a good leader. You also need the confidence of your colleagues. And Singh has this in spades. Compared to the other candidates, he has attracted the most support by far from New Democrats in provincial legislatures and the House of Commons.

A prospective leader should also be capable of growing the party in terms of both membership and electoral support. It goes without saying that the NDP cannot form government without dramatically increasing its share of the vote, and it can’t achieve this without the support of a huge number of volunteers. Generating enthusiasm among current members is important, but it’s not enough; we need to attract new members too. The historic winning coalition Singh built in Brampton — and his re-election with an increased plurality — speaks to his ability to draw support from beyond the ranks of party diehards. As Tom Parkin’s account of Singh’s advocacy for the reformed Ontario sex education curriculum demonstrates, Singh is ready and willing to step out of his comfort zone and make a sincere appeal even to an unfriendly audience. This is an indispensable quality for the next leader of the NDP.

So far, this race has made me feel excited and optimistic about the future of the party. No doubt this is partly because as long as the leadership contest is going on, the media and the public are paying an unusual amount of attention to the left-wing alternative. But this won’t last. The balloting will end, a winner will be named, and the left will no longer be able to count on the public’s attention. We need a leader who will make people take notice when we can’t just assume that people will take notice. We need a leader who can win the confidence of the country, not just the party. Jagmeet Singh is that leader.

Please join and vote: http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/membership


Nuclear weapons in philosophy and film

bscap0008ld2From Missile by Frederick Wiseman

I’ve been interested in nuclear weapons and warfare since I was very young. The first novel I remember reading was Z for Zachariah by Robert C. O’Brien (better known for the wonderful Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH); I read it over and over, and even made a paper doll of the radiation-proof “safe-suit” from the book for show and tell. With nuclear war is back in the news (just in time for the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing) I figure I should say something about it, but I struggle to articulate anything meaningful on the subject.

One thing I want to get across, though, is that there is a serious risk of nuclear war any time nuclear weapons exist in any quantity on this planet, not just when nuclear war is in the news. Effective mutual deterrence depends on the rationality of nuclear-armed states; if states are guaranteed to behave rationally, then they are guaranteed not to enter into a nuclear conflict with one another. A corollary of this is that nuclear war is only possible if states behave irrationally. If states behave irrationally, they behave unpredictably. So the circumstances most likely to lead to nuclear war are inherently unpredictable (except insofar as some circumstances make irrational behaviour more likely). It follows, I think, that we should feel no more secure when nuclear war is off the front page than we do when nuclear war is on the front page. We should feel secure only when significant progress has been made towards total nuclear disarmament.

That said, here are some of the things which have influenced my view of nuclear weapons and warfare, and which I would want to influence others.

50 Years After Hiroshima by John Rawls

Rawls was the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. But before that, he was an infantryman in the Pacific theatre during the World War Two, and witnessed the devastation in Hiroshima first hand shortly after the end of the war. His wartime experiences led him to abandon his plans to enter the Episcopalian priesthood, turn down an officer’s commission in the Army, and devote himself to the study of philosophy. This short essay on the ethics of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just war doctrine and the nature of statesmanship is the only thing he ever wrote for a popular audience.

Some Paradoxes of Deterrence and The Toxin Puzzle by Gregory Kavka

In the first of these short and accessible papers, Kavka argues that nuclear deterrence raises a number of moral paradoxes. Strict utilitarians and uncompromising Kantians can avoid these paradoxes, but only at great cost to the plausibility of those doctrines, and it is unclear how they can be so revised as to provide a satisfactory solution. If our moral thought breaks down when trying to deal with the ethics of deterrence, maybe we should try to escape from reliance on deterrence as a means of securing peace. In the second (very short!) paper, Kavka casts doubt on a central assumption of nuclear deterrence: that we can rationally intend to perform an irrational act.

The War Game by Peter Watkins (writer & director)

Watkins’s first film was made for BBC television in the mid-Sixties, but it was not broadcast for another twenty years because it was judged to be “too horrifying for the medium”. Here Watkins uses his signature documentary style to chronicle a fictitious nuclear attack on Britain at the human scale. The result is extraordinary. It is tempting to agree with the sentiment behind the BBC’s judgment, if not the impulse to censor.

Threads by Barry Hines (writer) and Mick Jackson (director)

A feature-length cautionary dramatization of full-scale nuclear war (before, during and after) as seen from Sheffield.

“There Will Come Soft Rains” by Ray Bradbury (story) and Nazim Tulyakhodzayev (director)

An animated adaptation of Bradbury’s story about an automated house going about its business after the end of the world. The story had previously been adapted for the American radio programs Dimension X and X Minus One.

Missile by Frederick Wiseman (director)

Sadly, this film is not easy to find online, but you might have some luck through the library. In this film, the prolific documentarian’s subject is the 4315th Training Squadron, where US Air Force officers are trained to operate the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile. Wiseman’s signature style eschews narration, talking heads, title cards, and music, yet he still manages to convey a critical, nuanced and sometimes darkly humorous perspective on this institution and the context in which it operates. A review can be found here.


The paradox of the paradox of redistribution


The paradox of redistribution* refers to the fact that welfare states in which a greater proportion of spending goes to universal programs tend to be more redistributive than welfare states in which a greater proportion of spending goes to targeted programs. If programs are evaluated one by one, it might seem that targeted programs will in almost every instance make the poor better off (not counting programs that deliver public goods* like environmental protection, law enforcement and national defence). But the paradox of redistribution suggests that the poor will actually be better off when targeted programs are a relatively small proportion of overall spending. Effectively targeting the welfare state at the poor means giving up targeting in the design of many of the individual programs that collectively constitute the welfare state.

Chart from Social Democratic America by Lane Kenworthy

The paradox of redistribution only goes so far. It does not tell us that all programs ought to be universal rather than targeted. That conclusion would be absurd, given that some programs are needed to address special needs that not everyone has; it is not possible even in principle for such programs to be universal (unless they are conceived of as a form of insurance; regardless of this view’s merits, it is incompatible with the definition of universalism from which the paradox of redistribution arises). Nor does the paradox tell us which programs ought to be universal and which ought to be targeted. It does, however, mean that the efficiency of targeting in a particular case is not dispositive with respect to the wisdom of targeting in that case. If our standard of justice demands that we design the welfare state so that on the whole it provides the greatest benefit to the least advantaged, it may be prudent to design some programs according to other criteria.

This raises a problem for those who categorically reject means testing (i.e. income or wealth targeting) as a matter of principle rather than political prudence. If universality is a fundamental principle of justice, it is unjust to give priority to the poor. But as a matter of fact, the paradox of redistribution shows that welfare states that incorporate a greater degree of universality do give priority to the poor. If giving priority to the poor is unjust, then we should adopt a less redistributive welfare state. And the way to do this, apparently, is to make more programs targeted at the poor. Thus it appears that no feasible welfare state is consistent with the categorical rejection of income and wealth targeting as a matter of principle. Call this the paradox of the paradox of redistribution.

*Thanks to Luc Turgeon for referring me to this fascinating paper by Olivier Jacques and Alain Noël.
**In the technical sense of nonrival, nonexcludable goods.

Is Old Age Security a universal program? (Response to Walkom)

Baseless accusations of infidelity to party principles? That’s a paddlin’

At the Toronto Star, Thomas Walkom has a column describing Jagmeet Singh as “unorthodox” due to his support for a substantially increased, income tested seniors’ benefit (the Canada Seniors Guarantee). In Walkom’s view, this policy would mark a departure from the NDP’s traditional commitment to universal social programs. It would also conflict with the NDP Policy Book’s commitment to “maintaining the universality of Old Age Security.” However, Walkom also admits that Old Age Security is already an income tested program. Benefits are clawed back so that high-income OAS recipients must eventually return all payments to the government.

How can Old Age Security be income tested and universal? The only plausible response, I think, is that OAS can be understood as a form of insurance against poverty in old age. This insurance policy covers every single Canadian, because any Canadian threatened by poverty in old age is eligible to receive OAS payments. In this respect, OAS is a universal program, but it is income tested because of the very nature of the risk it insures against (i.e. low income in old age).

This raises a problem for Walkom’s critique. The NDP’s commitment to maintaining the universality of OAS is only coherent if OAS is in fact currently a universal program. If OAS counts as a universal program in virtue of providing universal insurance against poverty in old age, then Singh’s proposed Canada Seniors Guarantee must count as a universal program as well. Just like OAS, it provides universal insurance against poverty in old age, albeit with more generous payments. So if the NDP has a coherent policy on universality and the OAS, Singh has not in fact departed from that policy. If, on the other hand, OAS is not a universal program, the NDP does not have a coherent policy on universality and the OAS from which to depart. In neither case can Singh’s proposed reform of seniors’ benefits be characterized plausibly as out of step with the traditions of the NDP.