What do readers of this blog think now? I expect that most, if not all of them, did not vote for the new mayor and do not share the anger that allegedly swept this city. This must be due to the enviably happy circumstances of their lives, or to their insulation from the general mood, or to their regrettable insensitivity.
On the other hand, they surely know as well as everybody else that times are bad but feel that any political heir of the previous regime would be better equipped than the new mayor to cope with the colossal problems facing the city.
Readers must be particularly puzzled that the electorate preferred the image of the new mayor to that of any of the other candidates. Surely, Rob Ford looks like Yesterday’s Man, not like the symbolic head of the model world city Toronto has become. He sounds like a mayor Toronto might have welcomed in 1925.
In short, he is an anachronism.
It all seems like a gigantic misprint.
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
In many respects, the Mayor holds little real power. Large budgetary items such as police (1/3 of civic taxes) are carved in stone. Other items like changing the number of counselors are entrenched in a complex process. I surmise we will have the next few years engaged in polarized spitting and little real change. We might also get some great political cartoons in the SUN.
There is an expression in politics that upset electorates do not vote for the opposition, they vote against the government. In this case, all establishment figures associated with the status quo. The fact they are upset should be no surprise. It was not manufactured by media. The City administration has many elements that are very poorly run, incompetently staffed, and whose systems are hopelessly out of date to the volume and complexity of 21st century public management. Sadly, there is also (petty) corruption (I have personally witnessed). Have voters been presented with options that will actually address the problem? Likely, No! But how else were they going to convey their anger given the choices presented to them?
On a bit of an optimistic note, which would you rather have, a star politician with unachievable expectations that inevitably disappoints, or a perceived underachiever who over half the electorate expect nothing positive from that makes an effort to grow in the job and seeks the approval of those that see him as an underachiever?
Mike Sky
Context is always important. It should be remembered that, according to the last results that I saw, more than half the voting public voted against the successful candidate. In any event, Environment Canada predicts that the sun will shine tomorrow.
The real problem is that as a nation we don’t collect enough taxes for the expectations of a civilized society. (We could of course cut out military spending as many European nations are in the process of doing.) The Federal government loaded down expenses to the provincial who in turn loaded it down to the Municipal government. The Municipalities are now saddled with expenses which should never be paid for by Municipal taxes. One example is building of infrastructures which create jobs and lots of income tax, which of course goes to the senior governments. When people are financially pressed they get mad and vote for anybody who promises lower taxes. Whenever we have a “fiscally responsible government we get big deficits, because they lower the taxes and create a structural deficit. The truth is we have to pay more taxes, the question is who should pay these taxes. Just count me out.
The people who voted for Rob Ford, like many of the people who supported Mike Harris (who, by the way, showed up in person at the Ford victory party) felt disenfranchised, unheard and ignored. Now, they’re happy. For the moment, at least.
And the image of Rob Ford, as yesterday’s man, is one of the things that appeals to those folks. They prefer 1957 to 2010. Things, in their minds, were simpler then. There were no unnecessary bothersome frills to support like English as a Second Language classes, and Human Rights Commissions, and cyclists demanding equality with motorists and art shows made up of installations instead of beautiful paintings. Fordites are nostalgic for the simpler past. But, as we know, there’s no going back. Ford will try to set back the clock. But I doubt he’ll succeed!
It is now the end of the day and I have read all the responses and some other commentaries. I am still unhappy and puzzled. I have the unsettling feeling that yesterday’s event may be A) related to the surge of the Tea Party, B) the result of mobilizing the immigrants who are usually non-liberal.
its the hitler phenomenon….
Unfortunately, there wasn’t much to choose from between the two leading contenders. Smitherman carries a lot of baggage — e-health, energy policy that is escalating prices, a bad campaign and the fact that the gay card did not play well in the suburbs and among recent immigrants.
As the leader of the pack out of the gate, he chose to say very little while Ford hammered at “the gravy train.” And he stuck to the script.
It was a protest vote much like in the election of Mike Harris. People are fed up with the $60 car registration fee, the stupid five cents a bag rule and the land transfer tax.
The end result will be that City Council will be no more or less dysfunctional than its predecessors. The mayor’s main power lies in the committee appointments he can make.
The Ford regime will provide great fodder for cartoonists and journalists.
I was going to vote for Michael Bloomberg by writing him in but you can’t do that with computers.
The Globe has had a couple of excellent cartoons so far, and even the National Post showed a sense of humour: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/26/kelly-mcparland-latte-futures-plummet-as-toronto-contemplates-ford-mayoralty/ .
I saw them, thank you.
It is now two days later and I cannot grasp how I could have questioned why the electorate voted for a man whose image was so far removed from what i thought was the self-image of Torontonians.
I was hopelessly wrong.
They voted for him BECAUSE of his image to tell us, the “inner city elite” (which was on the way out) that the above-mentioned self-image of Torontonians was merely the self-image of a CLASS that had now better rush to Home Depot and buy building materials for soon-to-be-needed barricades!!!!!!
Imagine the situation in the US. I worry a lot at the prospect of a Republican take-over of the HOUSE. What did the right wingers really expect ? I hope the Tea party will split the Republican vote.
Be prepared for the worst.
I don’t really have a strong reaction to his victory, it did not really surprise me after all the public opinion polls. What is a little shocking for me, though, is that there are so many negative reactions towards Ford all over internet. I don’t quite understand where he got so many votes since he does not seem to be wildly popular online.
I do have a strong reaction to Ford’s win. And mine is one of the many negative reactions on the internet. To see what what went on — what is going on — you have to look at one of the many maps that superimpose wards that went for each candidate over the one-time city/suburb boundaries. (See, e.g. the one on Torontoist: http://torontoist.com/2010/10/which_wards_voted_for_who_for_mayor.php)
It’s pretty clear that this is in significant measure a conflict between city and suburban values. And much as suburbanites don’t enjoy being yoked with us downtowners, I don’t enjoy having to suffer their sense of what’s important. Mike Harris has a lot to answer for — still.
You are right – the election results were surprising, and upsetting, because they indicate a social divide which conflicts with the view we have had of a relatively harmonious society. This may be a Canadian reflection of the “anger” (genuine or media-made or manufactured by American oligarchs?) which is a major theme of U.S. politics right now.