Alice Munro at her daughter Sheila's home during an interview in Victoria on Dec. 10, 2013.Chad Hipolito/The Canadian Press
Save us
Re “Why does Justin Trudeau insist on staying on as Liberal Leader? To save democracy, of course” (Opinion, July 6): There are many reasons why I would agree with columnist Andrew Coyne’s unusually optimistic view of Canadian politics vis-à-vis the United States.
He is right that we are not at the cliff edge, in imminent danger of falling into the abyss of a Trump-style dictatorship. However, we are faced with two opposing visions from our two major parties, neither of which seem to show the slightest interest in the centre, abandoning it for politically expedient positions on the left and the right.
Mr. Coyne suggests as much with his praise of Britain’s new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer as an “impeccably moderate leader.”
Patricia Hanley Toronto
The majority of politicians have strong egos and believe they are the only ones who can be leader.
One rare exception was Frank McKenna, former premier of New Brunswick. Early on as premier, he said he would not stay beyond 10 years. He led his party to three successive majority governments. Yet as he reached the 10-year mark, still with a high approval rating, he stepped down.
Justin Trudeau is in his ninth year and his approval ratings are dismal, yet he refuses to read the tea leaves. Despite it all, his government has done a lot of good things. But in this environment, most people would be hard-pressed to name one.
Peter Belliveau Moncton
System reset
Re “Canada has the worst electoral system, except for all the others” (Opinion, July 6): I thought Canada had the perfect compromise solution for our electoral system: first-past-the-post to form governments, but also a subsidy to parties for every vote garnered, which mirrors the benefits of proportional representation.
Perfect, that is, until the Harper government cancelled the subsidy in 2011. Bring it back and we’d have the best of both worlds.
Jeff Zuk Hamilton
I think columnist Konrad Yakabuski is right: The first-past-the post electoral system is the worst, and no electoral system is perfect. But proportional representation, with the right safeguards regarding splinter parties, would be far superior to FPTP.
The results in PR are a better representation of what voters want, and voter turnout is usually higher. PR forces parties to come together and reach agreement.
PR often leads to unstable governments and legislative paralysis. But in Germany, how long were former chancellors Angela Merkel and Helmut Kohl in power? This may not be true of other countries that use PR, but how many minority governments have we had in Canada?
No system is perfect, but I will take PR over FPTP any day.
Donald Haynes Toronto
Our electoral system can be best described as first-past-the-post in a two-horse race, since only then does the winner have to gain at least 50 per cent of votes cast.
In a field of three or more, it would be more accurately described as “best-of-the-bunch.” With three candidates, it is possible to win with just over 30 per cent of votes; with four candidates, the number drops to 25 per cent, etc.
This defect can be corrected with a runoff vote like in France or, alternatively, a ranked ballot can achieve essentially the same outcome. This is important since democracy requires that the people we elect to represent us should, at the least, be supported by the majority who vote.
A runoff or ranked ballot also reduces the need to choose someone a voter doesn’t want, just to keep out someone who a voter really, really doesn’t want.
Brian Swinney Burlington, Ont.
Have you heard?
Re “Sometimes conspiracy theorists get things sort of right” (Opinion, July 6): Where some see conspiracies, I see the regular flow of politics.
Governments and people in power do things, both in times of crisis and any day of the week, that we later realize are suboptimal, self-serving or stupid.
Should they be held to account? For sure. Will they try to avoid taking responsibility for bad decisions? Um, yeah.
But were they conspiring as part of some deeper, unseen plot? Were they attempting to be “the sole and indisputable arbiters of truth?” Those would be the wrong conclusions to draw from the humdrum observation that people do stuff, then later we figure out who to blame or praise.
It’s on all of us in a democratic society – citizens, media, politicians and legislators – to get to the bottom of things. I find that pointing to the sometimes objectionable or unjust way that events unfold, and declaring conspiracies, is unhelpful.
J.R. Maclean Ottawa
In the room
Re “I’ve been caring for people with opioid addiction for more than a decade. Here are the lessons I’ve learned” (Opinion, July 6): As someone with lived experience, I agree with doctor Vincent Lam’s assessment of addictions care and treatment in this country.
I have found an absolute lack of comprehensive, effective treatment when someone visits an emergency room due to acute and potentially life-threatening alcohol or drug withdrawal or overdose. They are unlikely to be further admitted to hospital and more likely to be released within a day, hardly enough time to be out of danger. More detox beds in hospital settings should be a must.
Unfortunately there is often the perception in society, and even among politicians and health care staff, that those with addictions requiring immediate assistance are making “unnecessary” hospital visits and clogging up the ER. This is a double standard fuelled largely by stigma.
We as a society should do better.
Jayce Sale Guelph, Ont.
Deeper read
Re “Another chapter” (Letters, July 10): “Alice Munro’s hypocrisy in leading us to believe she had insight and empathy fails us all.”
Ms. Munro, or any writer, doesn’t “lead us to believe” anything about her own character. We make our own choices about her work, completely distinct from whatever we may infer about her moral fibre.
Margaret O’Brien Vancouver
There is more here than simple conflation of writer and person. There is a defence of literary fiction as being morally improving and able to develop a capacity for empathy.
When one of the foremost purveyors of literary fiction is discovered to have transgressed the values her work is supposed to affirm, it not only affects their standing but threatens to betray the supposed moral value of that work. If the writer is not morally improved by writing, what about its effects on readers?
Beware of asking too much, or the wrong things, of literature.
Andrew Leith Macrae Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com