(Robert Metz is president, past leader, and a founding member of the Freedom Party of Ontario.)
Recent changes around Freedom Party have been dramatic. With our continued growth and expansion, these changes were undoubtedly inevitable, though the fact that many of them took place during the same relative time period may have been somewhat coincidental.
The most obvious physical change has been the relocation of our provincial headquarters from its downtown London third-floor office to its south London office at a much more accessible street-level location. I hope that many of you will avail yourselves of the opportunity to drop by for a visit!
By now, most of you will probably have noticed our changed party logo, which represents the most visible development of our new marketing emphasis. Fp's executive members are also in the process of developing the party's "Green Book," which will become our policy handbook for the upcoming provincial election and beyond. It will be a very simple, easy-to-read synopsis of Fp's policies and should become a powerful tool in helping us draw more members from the public.
There have also been some dramatic developments within our provincial executive and party leadership, as you will note by the announcements on the next page. I hope you will all join me in welcoming and supporting our new party leader, Jack Plant, in his efforts to direct Freedom Party towards greater successes now and in the future. And while we're at it, let's welcome back Bill Frampton, whose two year absence from our ranks created a noticeable void. Bill is a hard worker who is fully dedicated to the principles and policies of Freedom Party, and his impact on Fp's growth and development will no doubt be significant.
Despite all these changes and improvements, there are of course, certain fundamental things about Freedom Party that will not change. Fp's provincial executive, as always, is fully committed to the party's statement of principles and our policies and actions will always reflect this commitment. While many people continue to believe that it is impossible to be a principled political party - and get elected - we're not about to allow ourselves to be deluded by this destructive political myth.
We've already proven by our past record of action that
it is possible to "change" the public's perception on issues that may today seem unalterable.
Our eventual electability fully depends upon our commitment to the very principles many believe prevent us from getting elected. True, there are those who may not see us as electable "today," but that's no reason to believe that those same people won't see us as Ontario's only viable alternative tomorrow.
I am reminded of a visitor to our offices who once suggested to me that we "should lie" to voters in order to get elected. According to his line of reasoning, "the public is too stupid to know which policies are best for them," so after telling the voters "what they wanted to hear, you could change your minds once you get elected."
"After all," he quite correctly pointed out, "that's what the NDP did on Sunday shopping. They were the party most publicly opposed to it, yet they were the ones who made Sunday shopping a reality in Ontario."
Of course, that's just one of the many reasons why the NDP will not get re-elected next election. The NDP has generated an unprecedented degree of distrust, not only with its own policies, but with the political process in general and with the very idea of having a "doctrinaire" political party in the first place.
It never occurs to most voters that the culprit in this case is not "doctrine" per se, but the nature of the doctrine being advocated. EVERY political party is a "doctrinaire" party! The only differences between political parties is the identity and nature of their particular doctrines - which many refuse to have identified in their effort to keep the public confused.
So who will get elected next election? Will Mike Harris' "Common Sense Revolution" be the catalyst for change? Will there be a "Reform Party of Ontario?" Or will Ontario be faced with yet another Liberal majority government as a response to its backlash against the unpopular NDP?
It is quite possible that all of these factors could manifest themselves in Ontario's next election. Or none of them. But one thing is certain: When it comes to PRINCIPLE - REFORM - COMMON SENSE, you can't beat the philosophy or policies of Freedom Party. Voters may not recognize this truth in the immediate future, but as long as we stay the course true to our own principles, they cannot avoid recognizing this in the long-term.
It's a fact that many of the reforms advocated by Freedom Party are truly fundamental, and may represent a change that is uncomfortable to many. But that does not mean - and has never meant - that it would be possible or desirable to enact such reforms overnight. Sudden change, even for the better, can often cause as much hardship as continuing bad policies. This is particularly true when "change" is introduced in a philosophical vacuum.
For example, while it would be most desirable to cut taxes immediately, the effects of such a policy IN ISOLATION could be devastating. Unless other funding alternatives have been allowed to be developed or enacted to replace lost tax revenues, many essential services could be severely crippled. And unless taxpayers are given a choice as to where their hard-earned tax dollars are spent, the idea of "controlling government spending" is completely ludicrous and unworkable. It's a vicious circle that simply cannot be broken unless it collapses upon itself, or unless a philosophically consistent and principled approach is taken to the entire problem.
Philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand, in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, lists three rules that pertain to principles:
"In any CONFLICT between two men or (two groups) who hold the SAME basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
"In any COLLABORATION between two men (or two groups) who hold DIFFERENT basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
"When OPPOSITE basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are NOT clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."
After over ten years of personally observing these rules in practice, I can confidently say that I have never witnessed an exception to them. While that may be assuring, it can get particularly frustrating when other political parties "steal our ideas" but misrepresent them inan inconsistent way. Thus the same ideas are presented in a weaker, diluted form, doomed by the compromises imposed upon them. This in turn eventually gets those ideas discarded as "unworkable," and the vicious cycle continues unabated.
So while "compromise" and "middle-of-the-road" policy agendas may be quite successful in getting a political party elected, when what is being compromised is one's principles, don't expect any workable solutions - or lasting victories - to result from such an approach.
Politics has traditionally been a short-term game. Politicians whose immediate concerns have more to do with their electability on a schedule that rarely exceeds five years are not likely to worry a lot about the negative ramifications of policies that will not manifest themselves for another 15-20 years. And that's a tragedy.
The plain fact is that politicians won't change until the public changes - or gets desperate enough. In an effort to avoid having to make desperate choices tomorrow, we can choose to think long-term - today. Too many of us tend to wait on the sidelines, hoping against hope that the solutions we seek will somehow magically appear and we ran jump on the bandwagon when the time is right.
The time to think about the future is now. That's why I'm inviting you to support today's choice for tomorrow: Freedom Party.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
