Voting for Vision: How I wish I could have

Barak Obama’s victory, less than two weeks ago, and indeed the election itself, was a stunning defeat for Politics… in Canada.

Over the past few months (years), I, a Canadian, with no impact on the US Federal Election, was completely engaged in the US election process. So, it seems from Facebook status updates and blog posts, were most of my friends and peers.

While the same was true for the Canadian Election the previous month, with posts and blogs, newsletters, calls to action and more, we were all voting against Stephen Harper far more than we were voting for Stephane Dion, for Elizabeth May, or for Jack Layton. Had any of these others won, I don’t think I would have been, as I was the night of November 4th, dumb-struck and in awe, eyes welling with tears, as the networks announced President Elect Barack Obama. No, I would have sighed, declared it a victory for nobody and gone to bed. Just like it did do on our (Canadian) Election night.

I HATE voting against something. It makes me sick. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and churns my stomach. When I cast a vote that is against, I do so knowing I must, knowing that to not vote against a party, platform, or person who stands for so many things with which I disagree is akin to voting for that person. I vote against knowing that to not vote is not just akin but fundamentally the same as voting FOR this person or people with whom I disagree (not voting is actually quite abhorrent to me – too bad that about 40% of Canadians think not voting is just fine, thank you). And so I vote, as I must, against that person. But not FOR someone else. Not really. My votes become strategic, like so many others. Strategic to keep someone else out of power. Strategic to keep a lid on ideas fundamentally different from mine. Strategic to cripple in some small way one party’s ability to rule without check or balance. But, not, sadly, not for a different vision, and not really, for the person or party beside whose name I place my “x”. Certainly not, as so many US voters were lucky to have, for a vision of a new, rejuvenated, Canada.

All through the day, November 4th, so many people stood in long lines to vote FOR Barack Obama or vote FOR John McCain. True, some voted for McCain perhaps out of racially based fear, or other fears promoted by the McCain team and perhaps also some people voted for Obama out of anger stemming from the economic meltdown, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or otherwise. But so, so many people voted for a vision, and they were offered visions from which to choose. They were offered options and choices. And they were able to walk into their polling stations, exercise their civic duty, and vote for one of those two visions. And they did.

How I wish I could have voted for a vision of Canada on October 14th that I believed in. How I wish I could have shared with my friends and peers that feel of comraderie, of collective hope for the future. Instead, we were all “faceless for the arts” and promoting letter campaigns, and supporting a vision of Canada that was “Anything But Harper”.

That is so fundamentally sad that I am ashamed now to admit it and put in it writing. Oh, it worked alright. But it was Stephen Harper, mostly of his own doing and not a much more than a pinch of ours, who kept himself from the majority he so desperately wanted. Had he not blown his chances in Quebec with his stupid cuts and comments on arts and culture, he stood a good chance of winning the few extra seats he needed for that majority. Instead, his appeal to a perceived western base that centred on knocking the arts lead to a resurgence in support for the Bloc leading to the saving of the nation from a conservative majority by the one party whose constitution seeks the separation of a big chuck of that same country. How, my fellow Canadians, did we manage that?

So here’s my call to action. If you are not a member of a political party, please consider joining one. I don’t care which one, but all the party platforms are available online. Read them, understand them, and pick one that is reasonable close to what you believe.

Then, take part in that party’s programs and consultations. Make your voice heard, and share your thoughts and opinions. Make yourself part of any leadership races or reviews. Help pick someone in whom you believe and for whom you will volunteer to spread a message or vision you honestly support. Do your civic duty, and on the day when you are called to that duty and get off your sofa go vote. Maybe if we all do that, we’ll be able to walk into our polling stations at the next Canadian election and make our mark beside a name and party in which we believe, and not feel sick or disgusted, but smile as we leave the ballot box because we know we’ve voted for something.

Like they did.

Arts Cuts, Social Conservatism, and very different versions of Canada.

Hello Everyone,

For today's post I decided to try my hand at a video blog post or "vlog". Please ignore my ugly mug.

Darrin.

Culture Spending Cuts - CCA Bulletin

Dear Island Artists,

You may have heard, or read, about recent cuts to certain Federal Arts and Culture funding programs. It goes without saying how I, and I'm sure you, feel about this. I've written in my blog, been in touch with the press, spoken directly with MP Wayne Easter's staff, written to the PM and Minister Josée Verner, and been quoted in the Guardian. All good in terms of raising awareness, but all of little consequence compared with what you all could do if you did the same things.

I am urging you, imploring you, to please take action on this matter. Please read the clear and succinct bulletin below from the Canadian Conference on the Arts then make your voices heard.

Darrin White
Executive Director

CCA Bulletin 27/08

August 20, 2008

Culture Spending Cuts

Part One: Trade Routes and PromArt Cuts in Context

 

While many of us were enjoying the summer, the federal government has announced a series of cuts of around $40 million to cultural programs and the elimination of others. Today, the CCA is publishing a comprehensive list of the programs that are affected by those cuts and we will be providing further information on these measures in the next few days. Today, the focus will be on the elimination of the PromArt program at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the phasing out of the Trade Routes program at the Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH).

 

Just the Facts

There has been a steady stream of criticism about the recently announced budget cuts to the TradeRoutes Program and PromArt program. The vast majority of newspaper, radio and television commentaries have been negative regarding these decisions.

 

The Department of Canadian Heritage has said that the decision to abolish TradeRoutes was based on the results of a value for money review. The program resources ($9 M) are largely consumed by the salaries and living expenses of cultural trade officers stationed across Canada and various major cities around the world. While a relatively small amount of money was actually dedicated to making grants and contribution, artists, producers and arts professionals who use their services have indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the assistance provided.

 

The DFAIT PromArt program ($4.7M) is also abolished without explanation, apart from the curious spin the government decided to give to the announcement. It follows the initial 2006 cuts to the program of $11.8 million over 2 years. 

 

The often relatively small amounts granted under both programs have had a leverage effect for many artists and organizations as they sought support to develop markets abroad, contribute to our national image and lend valued support to other general trade development efforts of our missions abroad.  At the time of writing, there is no clear indication that the government intends to replace these programs with more performing ones.

 

Tell me more

When the Hon. Sheila Copps, former Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced the TradeRoutes Program, she outlined specific outcomes that program would achieve – targets for export increases of television, film, sound recording, etc. The value for money review likely assessed actual program performance against these anticipated results as a part of the decision-making process. If that is indeed the case, it is surprising that the government did not refer to such reviews to explain its decisions.

 

While theTradeRoutes Program may have had some design flaws, the objective of developing international markets and audiences for Canadian cultural goods and services is an entirely worthy one consistent with the role of the federal government. With the Vancouver Whistler 2010 Olympics on the horizon, the need for a strategy to capitalize on the huge world audience for the Games both before and after the event should be apparent. Australians have noted that the lack of a follow-up strategy to their hosting the Olympics was a serious strategic error that could not be corrected.

 

Preoccupied with the impact of the cancellation of TradeRoutes, the CCA has invited the Chair of the Standing Committee on Heritage to call Minister Verner to provide much needed information on the reasons of the government to cancel the program and on its intentions, if any, to continue supporting the development of cultural markets abroad, as it does for almost any other sector of the Canadian economy.

 

The PromArt program at the DFAIT is another matter entirely. Ever since the 2006 severe cuts, rumours have persisted that the program was headed for the scrap heap. Over the past year, the CCA has been addressing the issue of public diplomacy and the role of the arts and culture sector in any national strategy. It is not a purely Canadian idea: amongst other nations, the United States and Great Britain have renewed their commitment to supporting the arts as an effective tool of public diplomacy.

 

Government spokespersons have mentioned groups like “Holy Fuck” and commentator Gwynne Dyer or filmmaker Avi Lewis as indications that the recipients of support from the program may not reflect well on Canada internationally.

 

There are two critical errors in this rationale. First of all the program is operated by public servants who make funding recommendations to senior officials and all such decisions are ultimately made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is not a case of some “wonky” peer assessment process deliberately trying to be outrageous or casting the Department in an unfavourable light. If the recipients appear controversial, it is not their fault – they did not jerry-rig the system to receive support. Secondly, it has been established that with a number of the “outrageous” examples quoted, recipients had not in fact applied for the travel grants but had responded specifically to an invitation made to them by the Department itself!

 

Just as unexplainable is the fact that the Department has also signaled that it will no longer contribute to the Canadian pavilion at the Venice Biennale, leaving the National Gallery and the Canada Council for the Arts to foot the bill out of their existing budgets. This international event is one of the most prestigious visual arts exhibitions in the world and Canada made a very forceful impression at the 2001 Biennale when Janet Cardiff and Georges Bures Miller has been awarded the jury special award. Similarly SweaterLodge, a project by Pechet and Robb Studio of Vancouver, drew a lot of international attention at the 2006 Biennale. Foreign Affairs now seems to be content to leave the task of building Canada’s reputation and image abroad as a creative nation to other players who are apparently expected to make the difference out of their existing funds.

 

Furthermore, whatever has happened to our much-vaunted commitment to cultural diversity? The ability of Canada to demonstrate not only racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity to the world must also include creative and artistic diversity. DFAIT has always had some discomfort with the arts and with Ministers such as the Hon.Lloyd Axworthy, the Right Honourable Joe Clark and the Hon. Flora MacDonald who were champions of engaging the arts in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives.

 

It is clear that some serious thinking is required to facilitate the promotion of Canadian artists, creators and arts professionals on the international state. The CCA is calling upon the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to urgently address the issue of the arts and culture in foreign policy and public diplomacy.

We have too much to lose if we merely shrug our shoulders – the real value for money in these programs cannot be measured without an appreciation of how our artists, creators and arts professional enhance the image of Canada as a sophisticated, diverse and creative nation.

 

What Can I Do?

 

Please consider a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs   and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage asking them to urgently address this issue. This is clearly not a question we can afford to lie fallow.

 

You can also write to  Prime Minister Harper, to Heritage Minister Josée Verner and to Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson

 

The CCA is also contacting the leaders of the other federal political parties to determine their position on this issue. You might also consider doing the same. If rumors are correct we are headed for a fall election – let us now ensure all political parties understand the importance and urgency of this matter.

 

You can also contact your MP to register your opinion, and if you are in one of the four ridings where by-elections have been called, you can ask each candidate to clearly state where they stand on the issue. Follow this link to find contact information for your MP.