National Post Letter

The old poli sci major in me could not allow John Ivison’s column to stand. Please see the letters section in today’s National Post for my response to the argument that it is somehow “illiberal” for governments to impel individuals to get vaccinated.

Re: Trudeau shows liberal principles have left the Liberal Party, John Ivison, Jan. 12

The essence of liberalism is not, as John Ivison claims, that “individuals should not be forced to conform to other people’s beliefs,” but rather John Stuart Mill’s harm principle: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

Choosing not to get vaccinated against a dangerous and highly transmissible virus puts the lives and safety of other people at risk. This places vaccination squarely within the rightful exercise of government authority.

We can agree or disagree on the specifics of any given policy, but let’s not muddy the terms of debate. For Justin Trudeau or anyone else to employ legislative power in favour of vaccination falls well within the parameters of Mill’s liberalism.

David Taub Bancroft, Vancouver


Kidney March 2020

Hello out there in Blog Land!

I realize I haven’t posted in a while, but for a change of pace I thought I’d let you know that I am participating in this year’s Kidney March, a 100 km walk to raise funds for The Kidney Foundation of Canada. The money goes towards research, organ donation initiatives, and patient services for those living with kidney disease.

Due to the pandemic, this year’s march will not look like it has in the past. Rather than congregating with hundreds of others in Alberta, I will be putting in my 100 km here at home in a physically distanced fashion. I also get more time in which to do so.

During these difficult months, kidney health is just as important as ever, which is why I would like to appeal to you, dear reader, to sponsor me on my trek. Any amount you can give is greatly appreciated. Please donate to my march by clicking here.

Thanks for reading!

Friendly Canadian Input on the US Election

The sun is shining. The flowers are blooming. We are in a year that is divisible by four. I think we all know what that means. In a matter of months, our American friends will once again start hanging chads or whatever it is they do to hold a presidential election, and the entire world, as usual, will be watching.

I hope my southern neighbours (yes, we spell it with a “u” up here) will not take offence (with a “c”) if I offer a little advice. Barack Obama is without doubt a much better choice than Mitt Romney, but he is still far from ideal. For this reason, I recommend that American voters consider all their options in November and not hastily rule out third party candidates such as presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

This, of course, leads us to that perennial (or at least quadrennial) topic of political contention, strategic voting. In my quaint little Canadian elections, I have yet to fall victim to this temptation, for I question its long-term value. Yes, strategic voting can be a useful way to prevent the worst of the worst from taking power, but is that all we should aspire to? What incentive do Obamaesque moderates then have to take strong progressive stances without the pull of small third parties putting the fear of God in them and threatening to siphon off their votes? Even if the Greens and their ilk have no realistic shot at victory in the current election, they can have an excellent influence on those who do win.

So does that mean that strategic voting (or tactical voting, more accurately, keeping in mind the military distinction between tactics and strategies) is never justified? No. Sometimes there is so much at stake in a single election that the conscientious voter must temporarily abandon the long view.

So what is at stake in 2012?

One word (umm, give or take): health care.

With Obama’s health law no longer at risk of being tossed out by the Supreme Court, the fight is set to move onto centre stage of the election campaign. Mitt Romney has promised that if elected President, he will immediately kill Obamacare with an executive order, and while his constitutional ability to do so has been questioned, he probably does have at least some ways of sabotaging the young law with or without a compliant congress.

As I have argued in this space before, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is far from perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction. For the first time in American history, it is illegal for health insurance companies to deny someone coverage simply because he or she has a prior condition. Many an entertaining semantic tussle could be waged over whether or not this truly qualifies Obama’s law as “universal health care,” but whatever it is, this year’s election is the Republican Party’s last and best chance to destroy it. They know that if they don’t dispose of Obamacare before the benefits start to kick in over the next few years, they never will. Voters might discover that they actually like it.

So with the fate of tens of millions of uninsured Americans hanging in the balance, it is crucially important that Romney not be elected President. Does that mean that all progressives need to vote for Obama? Thankfully, no. The Electoral College is an archaic institution, but its one redeeming feature is that since only a few “swing states” decide presidential elections, most Americans can safely follow their hearts without risk of splitting the vote. Simply by browsing one of the web’s many electoral maps, progressive voters can devise informed voting strategies based on where they live.

But do not think that just because I wish to prevent the other guy’s election, Obama is off the hook. It is up to environmentalists, civil libertarians, and corporate accountability advocates (even if they live in swing states and wind up voting for Obama) to maintain — indeed, crank up — the pressure. From now until election day and beyond, the President must be lobbied, petitioned, and constructively protested until he agrees to make up for the shortfalls of his first term — chief among them the appalling lack of action on climate change. If Romney is the one to be sworn into the Oval Office, however, it will all have been for naught.

In summary: a vote for Obama in the swing states, a vote for Jill Stein in the safe states, and unrelenting pressure on all who wield power. That, my American readers, is a surefire formula for success. Now if only you would be so kind as to advise us on our own government problems.

Do you still do regime change?

Update 14/07/2012: This post has been republished here at

What Obama Should Say If His Health Bill Loses in Court

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform bill, had its three days in the Supreme Court last week, and by most accounts it did not go very well. Nothing is certain until the Court delivers its ruling in June. But if it does declare the bill unconstitutional, this is what — in my yes-we-canniest of dreams — I would like to hear the President say:

My fellow Americans,

The Supreme Court issued a decision today that I don’t think was right. It declared that Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to compel Americans to purchase health insurance.

I personally believe that this “individual mandate” was a crucial part of the health care law. It’s not there just because I think it’s good for Americans, just because Washington fat cats like me know what’s best for everyone. It’s there because health care reform requires insurance companies to provide coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions. Without the individual mandate, people would only bother to buy insurance once they got sick, insurance companies would go out of business, and the entire industry would collapse. The individual mandate was never about big-government paternalism; it was about protecting private enterprise.

But you’ve all heard these arguments before. I won’t repeat them. Nor will I reprise the regrettable performance I gave during the emotional aftermath of the hearings last spring, and complain of judicial activism just like conservatives do whenever they lose a case. The Supreme Court justices are good people who were just doing their jobs.

What I will do in the face of the legal lemons I have been handed is make lemonade. I will propose an alternative foundation for universal health coverage. And to my political opponents who have accused me throughout my Presidency of orchestrating a government takeover of health care, I’ve got news for you:

You ain’t seen nothing yet!

If there is any sector in our economy in desperate need of government intrusion, it is those profiteers of death, those deniers of coverage to the sick and the poor, in the health insurance industry. So here today, I am announcing that I will stake my entire re-election campaign on the pledge to enact a single-payer health care system for America.

I have always preferred single-payer to the compromise on a compromise we actually wound up with. Also known as “Medicare for all,” it would be funded entirely through taxation, and would therefore not require the individual purchase of insurance policies. As in most other industrialized democracies, health coverage would be automatic, rendering the mandate unnecessary and sidestepping any Constitutional objections.

Of course, Republicans will scream “socialism,” just like they always do. But before you get swept up in their vintage red-baiting rhetoric, please consider what kind of health care plans they will offer up instead. I can tell you right now what Republicans will give you, whether in the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office: more of the status quo. A country in which, despite its riches, 50 million people lack health insurance, and tens of millions more are inadequately covered; in which people are forced into bankruptcy — or worse, into early graves — by medical bills; in which your friends, your relatives, your neighbours, your co-workers, live one unlucky diagnosis away from destitution.

If a drop of socialism in our capitalistic sea is what it takes to right this wrong, then slap a beard on my face and call me Fidel. Some things are more important than political labels. I believe that most of you understand this, and if the Republicans don’t, then it is up to you to teach them on November 6.

Thank you. And may God bless . . .

Et cetera, et cetera.

Dr. Harper’s Health Care Prescription

English: Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister

Where should progressive decentralists stand on Medicare in Canada?  Should we resign ourselves to the much-dreaded vision of a patchwork of provincial systems, or should we insist that universal health care trumps the virtue of dispersing political power far and wide?

Stephen Harper has contended recently that health is solely a matter of provincial jurisdiction, that he wants the federal government to provide transfer payments with no strings attached.  I will admit that I like the idea of fewer federal standards imposed on the provinces.  Just because I happen to favour a fully public health care system with no user fees — and I do — that does not mean that I should be able to force all my preferences on Manitobans or Nova Scotians.  But there is a difference between fewer federal standards and no federal standards whatsoever.  To receive quality medical care wherever you are and regardless of your ability to pay ought to be considered a basic human right.  This could potentially manifest itself in many diverse forms in the provinces, but Harper is making it ever more apparent that he is unwilling to protect so minimal a right at all.

Furthermore, while I believe in decentralization of decision-making within limits, I also believe in centralization of funding.  In a country with regional economic disparities, robust federal funding is necessary to ensure that all provincial governments have the ability to implement health care systems of their choosing, and to respect the basic rights of their residents.  Some might argue that having one group of people provide the money while another decides what to do with it is a recipe for unaccountable spending, and there is some validity to that.  But let us not overstate this concern.  Provincial governments are, after all, accountable to provincial voters.  It is a little known fact, but there happens to be a sizable overlap between provincial voters and federal taxpayers, and they have an interest in ensuring that their tax dollars are well-spent.  As far as I’m concerned, substantial federal spending on provincial projects optimally combines the principles of decentralization, equity, and accountability.

And what does our Prime minister have to say on the subject?  Harper has unilaterally announced a plan according to which federal health transfers to the provinces will continue to increase, but at a lower-than-accustomed rate.  On top of that, he has decided to change the funding formula to an equal per capita allotment for every province.  Previously, poorer provinces had received more funding per person than rich ones on the grounds that their revenue-raising capabilities were more limited.  Under the new formula, however, the rich (i.e. Alberta) will get richer at everyone else’s expense.

So does the recent series of health care announcements by the Harper government pass the — okay, my — progressive decentralist test?  The answer is an emphatic “no.”  The funding that Harper promises is neither sufficient nor fair, and it is unclear just how close he will come to sacrificing the human right to health in the name of provincial jurisdiction.  Too close for comfort, we may reasonably project, given his well-established distaste for social programs.

Dr. Harper’s cure, in other words, appears far worse than the disease.  Back to the prescription pad!