logo
SNOBELEN: Reflecting on the Common Sense Revolution three decades later

SNOBELEN: Reflecting on the Common Sense Revolution three decades later

Yahooa day ago

On June 8, a gaggle of old warriors will mark a rare collision of common sense and courage. It will be a quiet event, but 30 years ago, this unlikely team set the world (or at least Ontario) on fire.
It was election day on June 8, 1995, in Ontario. I spent the day watching my sister Kathie run an amazing get-out-the-vote effort that capped six weeks of campaigning with friends and neighbours. It felt good to know that, regardless of the outcome, we had collectively worked our butts off. There was nothing left in the tank.
But the outcome was not certain. At the start of that election, Lyn McLeod and the Liberals had a comfortable, double-digit lead in the polls. The taste of a 1990 defeat for the PC Party (and this rookie candidate) lingered as the hours dripped away.
Some campaigns are riskier than others. In 1995, Mike Harris and a young campaign team broke all the rules with a bold, detailed election platform called the Common Sense Revolution, released a full year before election day. On election day, voters would determine if that strategy was incredibly brave or simply naive.
Turns out it was brave. But the courage didn't end on June 8.
A few weeks later, Premier Mike Harris presented his caucus with a stark appraisal of the economic conditions facing Ontario. The facts were simple — in the year since the Common Sense Revolution platform was released, the economy of Ontario had declined, eroding the foundation of the plan.
I remember a sinking feeling that this was the moment when all the hard work over five years would begin to crumble. No plan survives first contact, and predictably, the Harris government would soften bold intentions in the face of reality.
What happened next set the tone for the Harris government. Having laid out the harsh realities, Harris told his caucus that the plan would have to adapt. We would need to be bolder and move faster.
Harris was unreasonable. Which is why, 30 years later, he remains my benchmark for courageous leadership.
Much has been written about the Harris government. A good bit of it is nonsense that became an urban myth. But, by any account, Harris impacted Ontario in meaningful ways and altered the future of the province.
One of the young revolutionaries, Alister Campbell, recently edited a collection of well-researched opinions on the long-term impact of the Harris government's policies and initiatives. The book, The Harris Legacy: Reflections On A Transformational Premier, should be required reading for anyone wishing to do the impossible.
I don't spend much time looking back. Life doesn't move in that direction. But anniversaries have a way of prompting a backward glance.
Thirty years on, it is remarkable how many of the issues left hanging at the end of the Harris government remain not only unresolved, but also unaddressed. These are recurring problems that governments either ignore or disguise.
School boards continue to be quaint relics of the single schoolroom past, forever impeding the evolution of education. Conservation authorities, a watershed management structure invented 70 years ago, continue to impede, not inform, wise land management. Red tape grows exponentially every time it is cut.
Three decades later, several things seem obvious. First, the job is never done. Second, the intersection of courage and common sense is both extremely rare and amazingly powerful.
And, finally, 30 years is too long to wait for another revolution.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Let the countdown begin: One year until the California governor and L.A. mayor primaries
Let the countdown begin: One year until the California governor and L.A. mayor primaries

Los Angeles Times

time6 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Let the countdown begin: One year until the California governor and L.A. mayor primaries

It's June in California, which means the jacarandas are magnificently in bloom, joyous graduates overfill school auditoriums and the weather is utterly unpredictable. Oh and one more thing: As of this week, we are exactly a year out from the 2026 primary election. Here's what you need to know. California is a country within a country — a cultural and economic behemoth where the future happens first. And with term limits forcing Gov. Gavin Newsom out, the world's fourth-largest economy will be picking a new leader at the end of 2026. There is already a crowded field of prominent Democrats vying to replace Newsom. They include former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Rep. Katie Porter, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa). Two notable Republicans are also in the fight: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. The biggest question mark remains whether former Vice President Kamala Harris will enter the race, a decision she plans to make by late summer. That waiting game has stalled the Democratic field: Candidates are continuing their frenetic campaigning, but many activists, donors and elected officials are holding off on further endorsements until Harris makes up her mind. (Though some are growing more frustrated with Harris, and the implicit message that governing California is a consolation prize that she can toy with for months.) California's affordability crisis — and varying views on how to solve it — will probably dominate the long slog of campaigning ahead. But given the wilderness the national Democratic Party currently finds itself in, competition for California's top job will also probably double as a referendum on the broader question of what a winning Democratic leader should sound like. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in California. And what about billionaire Angeleno Rick Caruso, a relatively recent entrant to the Democratic Party? The Grove developer has been flirting with both a gubernatorial bid and another run at the Los Angeles mayor's race but remains undecided. His personal fortune affords him the luxury of some extra time, though self-funding a statewide campaign will be far more expensive than a mayoral one. Still, there could be a lane for a business-friendly centrist running California's sclerotic political system. And speaking of Caruso, he also looms large over the 2026 Los Angeles mayor's race. As of now, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is the only serious candidate in the race, meaning the first-term mayor could glide to reelection. But the former congresswoman has also taken a political beating in recent months. A catastrophic firestorm put her leadership under a national microscope, a bruising budget crisis left her in a no-win political puzzle and her strong-arm authority on homelessness has been threatened. Which is a long way of saying that Bass could certainly be vulnerable if a real challenger gets into the race, be it Caruso, or someone else. But that remains a big if. The nightmare scenario for Bass is a landscape that looks less like her predecessor Eric Garcetti's reelection romp in 2017 — where he ran virtually unchallenged and leapt to victory with more than 80% of the vote — and more like then-Mayor James K. Hahn's reelection dogfight in 2005. Hahn, a badly wounded incumbent, only barely eked his way into second place in the primary and ultimately rode a wave of voter discontent right out of City Hall, losing to Antonio Villaraigosa that May. Beyond Caruso, a few other names have been bandied about as potential challengers to Bass. As my colleague David Zahniser and I reported a few months ago, that list includes Councilmember Monica Rodriguez (an iconoclastic force who has been openly critical of Bass), L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath (another politician who has sparred with the mayor) and City Controller Kenneth Mejia (a digitally savvy leftist who, you guessed it, has also taken shots at the city's current direction). Whether any take the leap remains to be seen. Read some of the best stories from our archives Few stories published by the Times in recent years have hit a nerve as forcefully as Julissa James' essay from 2021, 'Lonely in L.A.? These 21 places and experiences will help you embrace it.' Julia Wick, staff writerKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew J. Campa, reporterKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on

To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created

The Hill

time6 hours ago

  • The Hill

To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created

I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.

Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling
Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling

The Hill

time21 hours ago

  • The Hill

Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling

The Supreme Court on Friday turned away the Republican National Committee's (RNC) bid to block Pennsylvania voters' in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot. The announcement was intended for Monday morning, but the court mistakenly released it early due to what a court spokesperson called an 'apparent software malfunction.' The order leaves in place a 4-3 ruling from Pennsylvania's top court that voters can still cast a vote at their polling place on Election Day if their mail ballot was rejected for technical reasons, despite a state law saying such votes 'shall not be counted' if the mail ballot was timely received. The additional option impacts thousands of voters each election cycle. The legal battle gained attention just ahead of the 2024 election, when President Trump narrowly beat former Vice President Harris in the key swing state and went on to retake the White House. Just before the election, the Supreme Court declined the RNC's request to intervene on an emergency basis. Now returning to the high court on its normal docket, the RNC urged the Supreme Court to use its case as a vehicle to more broadly restrict state courts' power over elections. Two years ago, the high court declined to endorse the maximalist version of the so-called 'independent state legislature' theory, which would give state legislatures near-total control over setting federal election rules by preventing state courts from restraining their actions. However, the justices in that decision warned that courts may not 'arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures.' The justices have yet to adopt a specific test to measure when a court crosses that constitutional line, and the RNC cast its petition as a prime opportunity to do so. 'Failure to correct the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's indefensible distortion of the General Assembly's laws would effectively do just that by sending a strong message that judicial review under the Elections and Electors Clauses is illusory. The result would directly contravene the Constitution,' the RNC's attorneys at Jones Day wrote in the petition. The justices' refusal to take up the case comes months after the justices turned away a petition arising from Montana asking them to take up similar issues. The Pennsylvania case arose after Faith Genser and Frank Matis attempted to vote in the state's 2024 Democratic primary. Initially, the duo planned to vote by mail. But they mistakenly returned 'naked' ballots, meaning they didn't include a required secrecy envelope. With their votes invalid, Genser and Matis went to their polling place on the day of the primary election to cast provisional ballots. They sued after the Butler County elections board refused to count those ballots. The RNC's petition was joined by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Butler County Board of Elections.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store