Canada's History "The Fight For Medicare:What if Tommy Douglas Had Failed?" (article)

I love history, especially Canadian history, so about a year and a half ago, I subscribed to "Canada's History." Quite quickly it became one of my favourite magazines. Normally, I don't blog about the magazines I read, but this particular issue stood out to me. On the front cover is a headline: "The Fight For Medicare: What if Tommy Douglas Had Failed?"

For those of my readers who don't know, Tommy Douglas was the Saskatchewan Premier who put Medicare--also known as public healthcare--on the table for his province in the early 1960s. What started in Saskatchewan in 1962 quickly spread across the country and became one of our most prized institutions. This article, theorizes what could have occurred if Medicare in Saskatchewan had been shot down in its early days. The author comes to the conclusion that Canadians would be left without public healthcare, relying instead on a private system with American insurance companies for coverage. With the signing Free Trade Agreement with the US in 1988, all hope of public healthcare would have been smashed.

What I didn't know, what this article explains, is that the moment public healthcare went into effect the doctors of Saskatchewan went on strike. They didn't want to government controlling their pay, or forcing them to take patients who could not afford to pay. It seems that what we now think of as "Canadian values" were not at first the values of Canadians in Saskatchewan. Protests broke out and it was only after many days, that the doctors went back to work and adjusted to the new state. The strike cost the life of a child, who died of meningitis in the backseat of his parents' car as they drove around trying to find a hospital who would take him. Ironic, that because the doctors refused to accept Medicare, it was prevented in its early days from serving its purpose--ensuring that all Canadians receive the healthcare they need.

I hadn't realized, that Medicare was met by so many Canadians, at first, with repulsion. It's odd, how when something new and good appears, people often view it as harmful. I'm also struck by how slight changes in history can alter the domestic environment of a nation. If the doctors in Saskatchewan had won their strike and Medicare had failed within the first month, nationwide public healthcare and the legacy of Tommy Douglas would be nothing but a short column in the back a history magazine that only the most die-hard history buff would read. Instead, public healthcare is a national institution in which we take pride; it gets the front cover.

Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics (Micheal Ignatieff)

I swear I didn't buy this book because of its attractive cover, although I have to admit it's why I pulled the book off the shelf. I've never seen anything quite like it. That is to say, I've never seen a published book that still looks like manuscript on the outside, although I've read many a book that reads like a first draft manuscript on the inside. 

Now, I'm not a Liberal or even a Liberal party supporter. I have to admit, I would prefer a Liberal led government over a Conservative one, but I'm not in the practice of choosing the lesser of two evils when there is another option. 

Putting aside my personal political views, I'll turn my attention to the book at hand, Fire and Ashes by Michael Ignatieff, the former leader of the Federal Liberal party of Canada who rode the helm of the party as they crashed in the 2011 election, loosing their status as the official opposition and becoming a meager third party. The book does cover this portion of Ignatieff's career. 

I would refer to the book as less of an autobiography and more of a memoir of Ignatieff's time in politics, beginning with his youth in the 1960s and ending with his disgraced exit from politics after the 2011 election. Initially, I was a little taken aback by the way in which he begins his book. He writes of encounters with Pierre Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson, but also of his family's great feats. His puts a lot of stock into the greatness of his Russian heritage who, we are told, were minor nobility. He also spends a small section flaunting the fact that his father was "almost" appointed governor general under Pierre Trudeau. 

I have to admit, I do like Ignatieff's perception of ideal politics. Through out the book he expresses a distaste for partisan politics over cooperation; he despises the way MPs in the legislature see each other as enemies rather than opponents. What is comes down to is that the war metaphor and partisan politics poison politics and as Ignatieff implies bad blood prevent politicians from effectively teaming up and working together in times of crisis. 

 Naturally, there were many points in Ignatieff's book which I do not agree with. For example, he stated that simply because he had been out of Canada for thirty years prior to 2005, which was about five or six years before the Federal election in which he ran for Prime Minister, didn't mean he couldn't effectively represent the people of Canada. Sure, being out of Canada does not make a person any less of a Canadian, but to spend thirty years elsewhere surely represents a lack of devotion to home politics. I'm surprised Ignatieff wasn't at least out of touch with current issues. But then, I suppose a team of well educated staff must have written hundreds of memos, giving him a quick snapshot of key issues. 

I'm not bashing Ignatieff, I'm just saying it wasn't his time or his place to try for Prime Minister. Surely, years ago when we gained our sovereignty, we put aside the idea of a Prime Minister who has spent the majority of his adult life abroad prior to running for election. 

Overall, I enjoyed the book. If you're looking for a light political read, or simply a better understanding of who governed the Liberal party prior to Justin Trudeau and after Stephane Dion, this is the book for you. Then again, maybe you just want something to pass a few hours in a bus station or on a plane with which won't put you to sleep but make you feel good for reading something educational. God knows. Read the book, or don't :) 

Power Systems (Noam Chomsky)

Apparently, Noam Chomsky is one of the biggest names in political science writings. I thought it only fitting that I read at least some of his work before continuing with my formal education in the winter term. This particular book is his latest, I believe. Published in 2013, it covers, as described in its subtitle, "Conversation on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to the U.S. Empire." The phrase U.S Empire sparked a lot of thoughts and anger in my mind, but as I soon found it, the phrase is used to be controversial.

I have to admit, it's not the most engaging political science book I've read recently, but it did keep my interest. I was impressed and somewhat amused by the quotes and depictions of notable American "heroes" which he used to prove his points. For example, he quotes Thomas Jefferson as predicting that tribes at American borders would "relapse into barbarism" and "with the beasts of the forests," be driven in the Stony mountains. As a non-American I have to admit, watching an American writer criticize "holy" American icons is somewhat amusing.

I was especially interested in Chomsky's discussion of the Arab spring uprisings. Chomsky refers to them as "triple revolts," which he says are partly  revolts "against Western backed dictators," as well as economic revolts "against the impact of neoliberal policies" and also revolts against "military occupation."

Another notable section is Chomsky's discussion of the American education systems. He suggests that public education began as a way to keep the masses away from the throats of the people in power through indoctrination. The lack of flexibility in the American education systems to a symptom of this purpose. Apparently, the latest trend is the destruction of public education in favour of private to prevent solidarity--which supports democracy.

I think Chomsky may become a favourite writer on mine. More of his books will definitely find their way to my book shelf in the future.

The Bell Jar ( Sylvia Plath)

I read The Bell Jar yesterday. When I say I read it, I mean I opened the front cover at 8 pm and closed the back cover at  11 pm. It's art; it's tragic; it's gorgeous. What I mean is it's been a long time since a book broke my heart the way Sylvia Plath has.

I've heard so much talk about this book over the last year. Apparently 2013 was the book's fifth anniversary. After listening to my fellow English Majors talk about this book, and watching some of my favourite book vloggers discuss it, and after seeing it in every book store I entered, I finally went down to the library yesterday and picked it up. I'm not sure what I expected. I knew a bit about Sylvia Plath beforehand--she committed suicide shortly after her book was published, but i didn't know how incredibly personal her book would be.

I've heard that The Bell Jar, though fiction, is partially autobiographical. Watching the books protagonist, Esther Greenwood spiral downward, I couldn't help but wonder how Sylvia Plath must have felt writing the book. Sylvia herself must have felt and lived that downward spiral time and time again before she finally took her own life.

Perhaps part of what made me love this book so much is how relatable Esther Greenwood is during the first portion of the wood. Esther is conflicted. She doesn't know who she wants to be or what she wants to be. She sees the world through cynical eyes. She tries to live, but is unsure which path she should take. I felt like she and I had had something in common. She and I are  both searching for the correct path.

Then, in the second portion of the book, Esther takes the path that I never wish she take. She sinks down the path I fear the most--depression. I didn't cry while I read this, but I came close to the point of doing so. It's definitely on the top of my list of books to pick up for my own collection. The narrator is rawer and more honest than any I've read before.