ANOTHER STAGE IN THE MAYORAL OBSERVATIONS ... and now, with reflections on the whole urban-bobo love-in-ness about David Miller (Trampoline Hall et al).

I, too, agree that there's something insufferably blinkered about it (or anything Deanne Taylor attaches her soundbytes to). And it's a loooong municipal (and sometimes, not-so-municipal) pattern. It doesn't discredit Miller, but it ironically parochializes the brilliance of his campaign strategy. Look, those are great coattails to ride on, but it isn't the Deanne Taylor types who put Miller where he is (except maybe in a long-term-cumulative-effect sense), it's the John Laschinger types. In fact, in the real world, the Deanne Taylors are way too self-righteous to consider anything less than spitting in the face of, uh, evil Tory operatives like Laschinger. Miller and his operation knew he had to "reach beyond" (and in fact, a lot of the preliminary work was arguably done on behalf of Barbara Hall in '97, who, don't forget, nearly did win, months after being written off as a hopeless cause). That's why it's more exhilarating to see the Miller signs in the wilds of Etobicoke or Scarborough than in the usual-suspect inner-city NDP-machine neighbourhoods. Especially as it's Miller, not Hall.

But hasn't this bobo-parochialism always been the case, from the 70s golden age of "urban reform"? I remember going in the family on those '78 Sewell mayoralty campaign walking tours, which were delightful, informative, engaging, etc. - yet I could empathize with the folks (who, being good Roncesvalles-become-Etobicoke Polish-Canadians, had their token affiliations with all the usual Grys-Haidasz Liberal-machine suspects) that there was an insufferable urban-superiority-complex cultishness about the Sewellian usual-suspect entourage. Look; these were the late 70s, hippies sucked, etc, you can understand the healthy skepticism. It wasn't that these folks were wrong, it's just that they were too fanatical about their rightness. And whenever something upset their political/ideological equilibrium on the local or national or international scene, well ... on cue, WHAT A DISASTER, moan, groan, end-of-the-world etc. Like when Reagan was elected in 1980; being an alternative school student, I was exposed to plenty of that, which was enough to turn me prematurely-neocon-for-a-minute.

Look folks; get real. Your self-styled worldliness ain't nearly as worldly as you think it is. Besides, I'll take my Three Dog Night and Chicago with my Dylan and Joplin, thank you. It's democracy.

And the truly successful pols of that persuasion know it. It's the proper quotient of the 3 Dog Chicago constituency which is the key to David Miller's success. Just like in council, he knows that it takes more than bashing those horrible, horrible Doug Holydays and Paul Sutherlands to get places. It takes diplomacy, and a delight in the process, even in the failures of process. A delight in polyglot politics, with the attendent ability to stick to one's guns yet see beyond. It's all a game; and as for those who take their partisanship too seriously, who make enemies too easily - "that's their problem".

Again, Barbara Hall in '97 was a preview. And Bob Rae's provincial wet dream in 1990 was the delirious grandaddy of all today's shock-of-the-lefts - so shocking that even they didn't quite have a handle on what happened (and, as it turned out, catastrophically so). I know; that was the first election that convinced me those smug urban-lefty-idealists might be "on to something", something very dynamic indeed (and I crashed the victory party, to boot).

Beyond that, if the provincial regime which succeeded Rae's NDP proved anything, it's that the right wing can be one heck of a match (and more) for the left in insufferably self-righteous, disdainful blind hubris. (And the John Tory camp can provide its share of opposite-side matches for the Trampoline Hall types.)

The funny thing is, in long-term net terms, the urban-boho-bobo-lefties won, without even knowing it. A quarter century ago, the victory of a David Miller within Metro Toronto boundaries would have been implausible; even within the former city of Toronto, it took splits-on-the-right to ensconce reform-minded mayors like Crombie & Sewell (and some time later, Barbara Hall). Today, I suspect such candidates would have almost no problem at all within the core (and this situation is echoed elsewhere; witness the eclipse of urban Republicanism in NYC, urban Toryism in various British cities, etc. - even Paris swung against the anti-Socialist national electoral trend last year). And as for Metro/Megacity ... well, was this the consequence the Harris Tories were anticipating? That rather than the right-leaning suburban values neutralizing the city, the left-leaning city values would seep into the suburbs?

Maybe one lesson is in how Tammany-type political organizations can either run out of gas or be tripped up by their own doing. And in Toronto, there was a Tammany continuum reaching from the early-19th century Family Compact to the Orange Order dominance a century later; its most recent incarnation was the "Mel machine" machined by Paul Godfrey's gang. (And every so often, "reform" arises to correct Tammany's excesses; Mackenzie, Howland, Crombie, et al.) Problem was, thanks to Mel's misdoings, the MFB stink, etc, 2003-model Tammany was left wearing egg on its face - and it was so easy for Miller (who, one assumes, learned from the failings of the Sewellian idealists of yesteryear) to deftly highlight the point. Besides, the Tammany machine's mayoral clout had fractured - ideally, it would have had a single firm-right standard-bearer like Paul Sutherland (and still could in 2006, once all this MFB stuff's forgotten).

But the candidate with the truest elected Tammany background, Tom Jakobek, self-destructed before he could get started - besides, he was too unlikeable to endorse (though his shell of a campaign's earned an eerie farewell-tour respect, if nothing else, as of late). John Nunziata was the truest Lastman II, i.e. the quixotic populist with a lot of the same presumed auto-appeal among "the stupids": plain taxpayers, working guys, New Canadians etc - to a fault; in fact, he proved that the stench of small-time crassness and whatever else that "charmingly" attached itself to Mel deserved to be dead and buried, but fast. (At a ROM arts debate, Nunziata was clearly at his Mel-lest in expounding on his dreams for turning Ontario Place into a "world-class" attraction - only this time, such world-class rhetoric came off as a total, laughably gauche embarrassment.)

John Tory - well, unfortunately, he was too much of a Tory "wet" for Tammany's liking (especially in his determination to distance his rhetoric and "machine", even his own assumed part-complicitness, from the MFB-tarred Tammany); but as the best of a bad lot, he got the endorsement. And he could still make it - hey, nobody predicted Eggleton would trump Sewell in '80. As for Hall, she was neither Tammany nor a particularly strong anti-Tammany. Which left ... Miller.

Now, I've been asked about the heritage issue, given my status as an advocate. There was a heritage debate at St. Lawrence Hall in the summer; and my halfway-whimsical anarchist-within-me quip was that it's too bad Messrs Holyday and/or Sutherland weren't running for mayor, because they certainly would have broken up the overall feeling of goody-goody consensus (and highlighted, by way of negative example, why, exactly, heritage is good). Worse, there was that familiar topical-debate situation of a roomful of rather genteel "vested interests" (including the usual suspects re the Island Airport, et al), and little clear sense from anyone in attendance that the issue of heritage and preservation has to get out beyond said vested interests to be meaningful to the city at large.

Although it seemed that, from conversation with a colleague, Nunziata (out of his depth, natch) and Hall (same old platitudes, natch) were the most disappointing. (Though neither was as gauche as Lastman in '97 who, when confronted with a "heritage question", gave a laughable small-town-yokel pitch on behalf of the saving and moving of the Dempsey Store in North York.) In a familiar pattern, Jakobek surprised; but keep in mind that as a councillor he was notorious for using listings/designations as a degraded NIMBY tool. Tory; well, dogooder-positive, but his present attempt to surf an issue like the Yonge-Eglinton Minto controversy (and Miller's council vote "for" it) also carries NIMBYploitation undertones - let's consider much of Mintogate as reflective of the "reactionary wing" of architectural/urban/neighbourhood preservationism (i.e. many of the same parties crusading against Minto might be those who were puzzled by the notion of a nearby grubby, mouldering glass box like the late Union Carbide being "heritage").

There are valid questions to be asked about the proposed Minto towers; but the rawest "tall towers = evil" issue is a debasement of the 70s urban reform legacy, no more or less than the similar spawn-of-evil arguments against Graduate House or the OCAD expansion (or at least, those buildings as faits accompli). Furthermore, given his affiliations, you can just tell that John Tory would have been pro-Minto had he been in charge; so, by implication, there's Mr. Insincere talking. That's why John Sewell (the most articulate arguer against Minto) and Michael Walker (Minto's most vociferous municipal opponent) have thrown in their lot with Miller, regardless of how he voted on the Minto issue.

So, "if you like heritage, vote Miller" is the mantra--although until he gained his clear polling momentum in the last month or so, you had to squint to see it as anything other than overidealistic futility. However, it takes more than a Miller or any elected politician--it takes putting a workable system in place, which can work to advantage, work with all available municipal parties and community leaders, maybe lose a few and disappoint a few but you can't win'em all, etc. - and a system and scope that can work citywide, accordingly with a citywide vision. Which involves, a strategic suspension of the typical heritage-advocate reflex of disillusionment - disillusionment over losses past and present, over devious officials and powers-that-be, over pretenders and second-raters and quacks real and imagined. A spirit of working together; and when things don't quite work out, "god bless this mess", we can all learn from it. Heritage as part of a bigger and happier, if sometimes daffier, system out there.

Unfortunately, too many heritage advocates have been (sometimes understandably) consumed by disillusionment over what's been lost already, over devious officials and powers-that-be. They've seen things not working in the past; so, why should it work any better now, even under Mayor Miller? Problem is, that attitude creates vacuums where, inadequately checked, even worse things can happen.

Happily, finally, a better template and perhaps a sign of the Miller-ized municipal future is in Etobicoke where, under Chair Janice Etter, the Etobicoke Preservation Panel's quickly gone from a legacy of pathetic disarray and even outright quackery to the Toronto Preservation Board's pro-active progressive cutting edge--in the process, learning (sometimes "on the run") from past failings while discovering hidden inherent strengths, even against the grain of local political apathy/hostility. And what's in place now in Etobicoke can work throughout the city - even, I suspect, in the unlikelihood (or not) that John Tory wins.

Now, as for individual issues? Unfortunately, politics is ugly, and we have to accept that. I don't know yet what a Miller mayoralty will mean for the Union Station deal or even a more currently "dormant" issue like the future of the Concourse Building--though it's certainly noteworthy that, over the past couple of days, a prominent "DAVID MILLER FOR MAYOR" sign has popped up right smack in the middle of downtown, on the King & Yonge hoarding around the ex-TD bank restoration/condo rehab/redevelopment. Now, the more kneejerk heritage buffs (including myself, at times) migh have a problem with what's happening there; but look, thanks to the Mirvish-Stinson team it's a civic-minded class operation (such that it is), and to attach Miller's name to it is a plus.

And with the whole Island Airport issue...well, one problem I've had with anti-airport zealots is that there's history there and the airport's being a star attraction a couple of Doors Opens ago is proof enough of that; maybe Doors Open was meant as a Trojan Horse for the pro-airport cause. But the paradox is, if the plans for the airport go through, this heritage (the 1939 terminal building, the original hangars etc) is endangered - and the counter-paradox is that the threat of parkland can equally endanger it. There's a very strange heritage-philistinism to both sides of the controversy--but because Miller is Miller, I trust he and his team are aware of it.

Ah, so many issues. Yes, David Miller is a plus - but watch what you make of it, folks. Megacity doesn't bounce about in the Trampoline Hall, you know. And if you yell "WHAT A DISASTER!" at a John Tory victory, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In the meantime, watch out (yet don't over-watch out) for Jack Layton and the federal NDP--the ultimate vindication for my idea that yesterday's insufferability can be tomorrow's prophecy. (And if you still think of him as that insufferably idealistic bike-riding "stupid Flanders"NDPer-we-all-love-to-hate of yore, think again...)