I've got something to say to the left...
Why do you keep supporting Olivia Chow? She isn't particularly talented. I can't think of any file she'd be particularly strong on. What would she be able to contribute as, say, a cabinet minister? Don't get me wrong. There are some really excellent NDPers, and some of them unfortunately lost last night. Megan Leslie, Nikki Ashton, Paul Dewer, Nathan Cullen, Charlie Angus, and Peggy Nash are all solid candidates.
So why does the left continually coalesce around Chow? I know she was a city councillor that did a lot of good work for her constituents. Indeed, she has been at the forefront of a lot of identity-related issues. It is Olivia Chow that spearheaded the effort to have 911 services in several languages. And the LGBTQ community owes her a lot for her support.
But frankly, I've never thought she's particularly bright. It is so often that she provides a sad anecdote to justify a policy proposal, making little reference to empirical data. She offers empty platitudes that are designed to raise the emotions of left wing thinkers. When she's challenged on the substance of policy she often becomes combative, as opposed to informative.
I know this isn't a popular comment, but sometimes her lack of linguistic ability offends me. I've done volunteer work in new immigrant communities (like Thorncliffe Park here in Toronto) and have met immigrants who have been here for less than ten years and speak better English than Olivia Chow. She frequently fails to use plurals properly, and at times her English is a bit broken. It's not that I expect her to be a linguist or expert orator. I simply think that if you've been in a country since the age of about 12 it isn't absurd for constituents to expect that a public representative speaks the language well. I would hold myself to the same standard if I moved to a country where English is not the predominant language. I consider it to be a matter of respect for your constituents. Of course, this isn't to say I can't understand her. I do. It's just that I think she's been a bit lazy when it comes to learning proper English, and I think that kind of laziness is unacceptable. It's not as though she is intellectually affected. MPs all over this country learn french when they're in their 40s so that they may broaden their political horizons. And it has nothing to do with her facial paralysis; this condition does not affect one's ability to use a plural properly. And lastly, I don't expect her to be perfect in her linguistic abilities.
I'm a feminist, and I think an intersectional analysis of social issues is really important. The racist and misogynistic vitriol that Olivia Chow has been a victim of, most particularly in the 2014 mayoral election, is beyond reprehensible. Indeed, women, and women of colour, face a lot of unfair obstacles in politics. This issue is systemic, and I don't think any amount of legislation will ever be sufficient to correct it. But I also think the left (of which I somewhat consider myself a part) has a tendency to go too far the other way; standards for leadership and upper echelon roles are temporarily subdued in order to leverage candidates to success, whereas in a strict meritocracy they would not stand a chance. Alternatively, I think we ought to have a strict meritocracy when selecting candidates for representation, but make an effort to mitigate (and attempt to altogether eliminate) the systemic barriers to an individual's bid for leadership. But upon selection, I think a strict meritocracy is in order, lest we coddle marginalized persons. Bear in mind that in some cases a person's identity may actually make them more fit for representation in a strictly meritocratic process; an individual with a Pakistani background, running for nomination of candidacy in a predominantly immigrant Pakistani neighbourhood, is likely more fit for leadership of such a community because their racial/cultural/national identities are of a shared condition.
But notice that this is not the case in Chow's situation. It's not as if Spadina-Fort York was in desperate need for the leadership of someone of any particular identity. The aforementioned criticisms of Chow well illuminate how standards for language, for policy understanding, for communication (as in responding to policy concerns and challenges from other candidates), and for legislative talents have been subdued. It's as if people are worried they are a racist if they don't subdue these standards when considering an immigrant woman of colour. Frankly, I think this manifests itself in a rather condescending treatment of marginalized persons.
Compare Olivia Chow to someone like Megan Leslie, or Kristyn Wong-Tam (a well known city councillor in Toronto), and try to tell me that the latter two aren't aeons beyond Chow in representative ability. The opportunity cost of supporting Chow is too high; whoever you haven't supported may warrant greater accolades for their political abilities, and they would otherwise be able to take her place.
Lastly, I must admit I found it a bit tasteless that she signed a multi-year contract to teach a class on activism and networking, and yet she only did it for a year, and after students had selected the class she quit and decided to run (again) for the NDP. Remember that meritocracy I was talking about? I've no doubt there would be a lot to learn from Chow about activism and networking. Had I attended Ryerson I may have taken that class just because I thought she would be particularly informative in that role. It'd really piss me off to enroll in a class and have her drop out like that. It's a bit classless.
That these shortcomings in ability and character don't negatively affect Chow's reputation in NDP circles is indicative of what I think to be one of the problems with the NDP. That people like Megan Leslie, Nathan Cullen, Charlie Angus, and Paul Dewar don't occupy the same level of popularity in NDP supporter circles (note that these are people who vote NDP - not party insiders) as Chow does is a serious problem. It's as if the party has a proclivity for attracting young, naive, unrealistically idealistic voters who tend to support less qualified candidates. Indeed, it is the so called social justice warrior that would call me a racist for my comments about Chow, and it is the same social justice warrior that would likely vote NDP, regardless of substantive policy concerns. On the surface candidates like Chow and McQuaig do have some appeal. The former being warm and inviting, the latter being a feisty intellectual that isn't afraid to bring some fight to the political discourse. But these candidates fall short when it comes to policy substance and reciprocal communication (watching debates between Chrystia Freeland and Linda McQuaig in the Toronto Centre byelection two years ago demonstrates how unable McQuaig is to deal with opposition without becoming downright abrasive and logically incoherent). The party needs to grow up. That doesn't mean moving to the center. It means getting out of wishy-washy political platitudes, and doing away with equally wishy-washy candidates. It is imperative that the NDP begins celebrating strong candidates.