The Unseen Value of Rob Ford

Rob Ford, crack-smoking mayor of Toronto, is catching a lot of heat for his continued boozing, drug use, and sexual harassment. So much so that Americans are actually paying attention to Canadian news for the first time in our nation’s history. Even Canadians are! This is truly astounding, because as a rule Canadian politicians are so underwhelming in their scandals that most residents of the Deep North must pause to recall the name of their prime minister.

Not so with Rob Ford. His debauched antics are sufficiently intriguing to pique the curiosity of even the most naval-gazing middle Americans. The Ogre of Toronoto’s debauchery astounded me, anyway. Last year when I visited Toronto for the first time I came back describing it as “New York City, if run by PBS.” It turns out there’s a seedy, pudgy underbelly to that town I didn’t notice. It’s more like if PBS produced The Wire.

There is an unsung benefit to men like Rob Ford: a distinct possibility that their scandals will inhibit their ability to govern. Hobbled executives aren’t always a bad thing. Canada and the United States are siblings, both sired from the United Kingdom. During our own colonial infancy we benefited from “benign neglect.” For a while, by virtue of vast geographic distance and crippling American powdered wig shortages, the British Parliament didn’t bother trying to micromanage our affairs. Hence “benign neglect”–the notion that a people profit from being left to their own devices. I posit that disgraced politicians like Rob Ford are the modern embodiment of benign neglect, because their constant Red Alert PR scramblings distract them from governing. As someone who prefers a government small enough to, ideally, function entirely within a smart phone app, I believe the benefits of oafs like Rob Ford are underappreciated.

In New York City, where I live, we recently elected a Sandalista named Bill de Blasio as our mayor. The man has one of those vigorous, “the government is here to help you. A lot.” attitudes, which makes me suspicious. Doubly so given his pinko leanings. Stanley Kurtz of The National Review Online suggests that we refer to de Blasio as a socialist, because “1. He is one” and “2. He called himself one.” It appears that our city has shifted leadership from Marcus Aurelius Bloomberg, the would-be philosopher king, to Comrade de Blasio.

I’m sure de Blasio is a wonderfully compassionate man who truly cares about the people of New York. I’m also fairly confident that compassion mixed with bad economics and Rube Goldberg municipal ordinances is a really terrific way to cobble problems together and drive jobs straight into the sea. Possibly even New Jersey. I would have preferred a mayor who is less active but more entertaining.

At one point we had the opportunity to elect former Congressman Anthony Weiner as mayor. His suggested policies for New York included… well, frankly I never learned any of them. I have no idea what Anthony Weiner thought of in terms of policy proposals because I, like every other person in America, was too transfixed by the Twitter exploits of “Carlos Danger.” As a nominal statesman Weiner probably had some legislative reforms in mind, but I doubt he would have had enough political capital leftover from each week’s scandal to have enacted any. In other words, Anthony Weiner would have been perfect. Or, more accurately, Mayor Carlos Danger would have been.

This all begs the question: is it better to have zealous technocrats meddling in everything, or to elect reality television characters posing as politicians? Neither options are ideal, but it’s worth remembering that many erudite politicians have leveled their local economies without being half as entertaining in the process.