Tagged: Stephen Harper
That orange wave in QC? Blame Charest
A Nova Scotian who spent close to half his life in Quebec writes:
Harper’s undoing is Jean Charest.
Quebecers know they are going to throw out the scandal-plagued Charest as soon as they can, but they can’t do this with a strong BQ in Ottawa because it throws the federalist-nationalist balance out of whack.
Quebecers like to balance a strong federalist parliament in Ottawa with a nationalist Assembly in QC, and vice versa. They can’t vote Liberal on Monday because, well, Liberals are screwing up in QC. They also know that Harper can’t be seen to kowtow to Quebec, so they’d rather not have him in power or with too much influence in QC. Also, he’s not sympatico. But electing too many BQ’s when the PQ is destined for power at home is crazy because that gives far too much clout to the separatists. Everybody knows that.
It must have been quite a problem. But then Jack Layton won the French-language debate with smarts, charm and a street-savvy yet credible accent that made Duceppe sound like a fop. And so the orange wave began.
Ipso facto duodenum.
I agree with one caveat: According to some polls, the orange wave in Quebec had begun even before the debates.
That “unnecessary election” – updated
On the morning after the English Language leader’s debate, CBC Radio’s James Cudmore ended his reaction piece from Brixton’s British Pub in Ottawa with an audible smirk: “One blessing: the campaign just has three weeks left to go.”
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This is one Harper meme (among several) that many press gallery reporters have embraced with alacrity: the May 2 election is an unnecessary, money-wasting, irritating, imposition on voters who have better things to do than contemplate national issues and chose among those who want to do them.
It is scarcely an original observation that, as we trudge begrudgingly to the polls, citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen have been laying down their lives for the privilege Cudmore and Harper urge citizens of Canada to scorn. As if to heighten the contradiction, Harper enlisted Canadian warplanes in the effort to help pro-election rebels in Libya.
That a PM makes deprecation of democratic norms a centerpiece of his campaign is bad. That some reporters embrace this demagoguery is worse.
[UPDATE] Contrarian reader John DeMings avers:
No, not worse, and not even a tick on Harper’s failing. I think there may be some justification, however, in having entertainment reporters do election coverage and let the ‘political reporters’ stick to committee meetings.
Trending federal leaders in Google searches
Google’s Trend feature lets users track and compare the frequency of searches for particular words or phrases in any country, or worldwide. This chart compares searches within Canada for the full names (first and last) of the five leaders contesting the May 2 Federal Election.
I used Gilles Duceppe as the standard, so you could say Stephen Harper scored 12.6 duceppes; Jack Layton 7.8 duceppes; Michael Ignatieff 7.2 duceppes; and Elizabeth May 4.0 duseppes. (Sorry about the confusing colour assignments. Google picked ‘em.)
A serving of crow, best eaten promptly
After listening to wrongness guru Kathryn Schultz‘s TED talk on the counterintuitive blessings of making mistakes, it seems an opportune moment to get this out of the way. A quiet but astute observer of provincial and national politics writes:
I meant to ask you where you get your drugs from. They are obviously very powerful. I mean, how else can you explain your federal election campaign outcome prediction?
That would be this prediction:
I look forward to their stories a month from now acknowledging April 12 as the turning point when a majority slipped from Harper’s grasp, and a minority Liberal Government became a real possibility.
The post-debate polls are mixed, and mostly flat. They certainly reveal no such turning point. The only real change seems to be a startling rise in soft support for Jack Layton in the unlikely province of Quebec, where he has taken over second place in most polls. Whether this translates into many, or any, seats is an open question, since the NDP vote in the province is inefficient, in the sense of being too evenly spread among many ridings to produce majorities under Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system.
Another friend, a Nova Scotian by inclination currently suffering asylum in Toronto, summed up the election this way:
Isn’t this campaign awful? Layton, my MP, seems to be winning ever since the debate, heaven help us. I have a feeling anything could happen. Two events stand out.
One was the televised English debate, in which only Layton seemed authentic. The other was the Ignatieff interview with Peter Mansbridge today. For a generation over 40, Mansbridge represents something along the lines of Walter Cronkite — the guy who presides at the campfire, the embodiment of Canadian centrality. He’ll be the last one, of course, since now everyone’s a short-lived broadcaster, but to watch his cold, barely concealed contempt for the actor and nimble intellect before him was to realize that even at the top of his considerable game, Ignatieff isn’t achieving acceptance — which is what the polls seem to show, however faulty they may be: he hasn’t moved the dial much.
The other: I spent some of today rapt, watching Day 1 of SUN-TV. It’s lunatic. Prewar Germany. Sex and death. The Americanization of Canada, in the worst imaginable way. How did the country ever beget this Rosemary’s Baby of television? OK, I may exaggerate, but if it’s a taste of Harper regimes to come, we are in the wrong hands to put it gently.
If you are straining to find a silver lining in these trends, it’s this: In the main, the polls point to a Harper minority and a carbon copy of the current parliamentary seat allocation. If that happens, we could be rid of all four leaders before our next trip to the polls. Wouldn’t that be a blessing?
The triumph of taxophobia
Writing in Democracy, Jonathan Chait plumbs American right’s aversion to taxes:
The conservative movement’s embrace of taxophobia is probably the most important development in American political life over the last three decades. It is the one quality that most distinguishes American conservative elites from conservative elites in other countries. They’re more likely to question climate science, more sanguine about people dying for lack of health insurance, and less xenophobic (which is rather nice). But above all—far above all—they hate taxes.
Understanding the American Right is critical for Canadians, because if voters make the mistake of giving Stephen Harper a majority on May 2, we will see the same bizarre ideology shape our country in ways many Canadians have not stopped to think about.
H/T: Richard Stephenson
Harper’s lack of ‘internal congruency and authenticity’
Buried deep in yesterday’s reaction to my Contrarian post about the debate (I say MI won and SH lost) was this perspicacious comment from reader Heather Holm
Ignatieff’s body language and tone of voice matched what he was saying, unlike Harper’s. He showed an internal congruency and authenticity that you just don’t see in Harper. This is what bothers many people about Harper: you can’t read the man. His soothing voice and his passive face mask whatever it is that he is really feeling. Sure Harper “did well,” but it was acting – and from a script. It leads many of us not to trust him. Many other people, unfortunately, are deceived and satisfied by the mask. By contrast, Ignatieff’s considerable intellect is much better aligned with his heart and soul
Dennis Falvey agrees:
Heather Holm got to the quick of the matter. Harper is not believable as a human being, by which I mean, it’s hard to see compassion and human empathy in his demeanour and presentation, and absolutely impossible to see these things in his policies. He may be a bright man, but bright in the sense of Machiavelli, not Lincoln.
The best outcome would be the status quo. Because at that point, and for various reasons, I think all parties would have a change of leader. 34M people, and this bunch is the best that we can do?!
The clear winner: Ignatieff
Contrarian is baffled by the reaction of Ottawa-based press pundits to tonight’s debate. Most said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff failed to score against Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who, they averred, held his own. I think this is a major misreading, and the polls will quickly show it to be off base.
Try the old silent test: watch any portion of the debate with the sound turned down. Harper looked miserable, especially when forced to listen to anyone direct criticism at him. I am not comfortable commenting on politicians’ physical traits, but Harper’s expression did not serve him well, and likely reinforced voter concerns that he is cold, autocratic, mean-spirited.
Layton looked ever the happy warrior, as he always does, and many will think he won the debate. I doubt this will translate into votes, however, but if it does, it’s wonderful news for the Harper camp.
The angry looking Gilles Duceppe was occasionally effective, but is, in any case, irrelevant in English Canada.
Ignatieff looked poised, serious, concerned, and easy to imagine as prime minister—nothing like the caricature painted of him in attack ads or pack news analysis. He was effective against Harper, especially in the first half. This is the first long look most Canadians have had of him, and many will be surprised and impressed. He will benefit from low expectations.
The press gallery are so caught up in their own memes of the invincible Harper juggernaut, and Ignatieff as flop, they missed the important event that unfolded before their eyes tonight. Too much guzzling of each others’ bathwater, boys and girls.
I look forward to their stories a month from now acknowledging April 12 as the turning point when a majority slipped from Harper’s grasp, and a minority Liberal Government became a real possibility.
@Kady didn’t cover her ears (but doesn’t object to those who did)
I wrote yesterday that only one Canadian news source had taken note of a Robert Kennedy Jr. column on HuffingtonPost slamming Stephen Harper. In fact, the CBC’s Kady O’Malley took note in a tweeet (which is what @kady does):
So did Jane Tabor in the Globe and Mail. Neither piece turned up in a Google search at the time of my post.
O’Malley took umbrage at my post, arguing that RFK’s “entire piece was pure crap” and “a kennedy being staggeringly wrong on facts isn’t news.” This is a strange standard for news selection, especially coming from Canada’s Parliamentary press gallery, where staggering wrongness has never been an impediment to coverage.
You can track our brief twitter debate on the subject here and here.
Canadian media covers its ears as a Kennedy slams Harper
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of a famous man, former congressman, president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, and professor at Pace University, used a column in the Huffington Post to laud the CRTC for resisting efforts by the PMO to lift Canada’s ban on false news. Kennedy links the PM’s efforts to Sun Media’s plans for a Canadian version of Fox News. Moneyquote:
Harper, often referred to as “George W. Bush’s Mini Me,” is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.
Harper’s attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News’s notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin’s protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.
“A little over the top,” a Contrarian friend writes, “but why isnt this hitting our news?” Why indeed? At posting time, only one Canadian News source had taken notice. The National Post called it—surprise, surprise—”delusional.”
H/T: BC
What really happens when you legalize drugs?
Faced with the conspicuous failure of the war on drugs, the Harper Government proposes to escalate it, as if doing more of something that failed is likely to succeed. Portugal took a different approach. On July 1(!), 2001, that country decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs, a move many feared would accelerate social decay. The British Journal of Criminology has published a study of what actually happened:
This paper examines the case of Portugal, a nation that decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs on 1 July 2001. Drawing upon independent evaluations and interviews conducted with 13 key stakeholders in 2007 and 2009, it critically analyses the criminal justice and health impacts against trends from neighbouring Spain and Italy. It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use. Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms, and criminal justice overcrowding. The article discusses these developments in the context of drug law debates and criminological discussions on late modern governance.
