Not a Good Time for Stephen Harper to be Compared to Richard Nixon

The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.

If it's not the media, or the courts, or the Senate, or Elections Canada, it's the Wheat Board, the federal government's own spending power, the bureaucracy, the gun registry ... Canadians should rightly wonder why their head of government has such a problem with so many Canadian institutions. (1)

It certainly is a "wonder" and a bigger "wonder" how someone who hated our institutions this much, was given the job of upholding them.

From Nixonland to Harperland, a story is told of unprecedented control in what are supposed to be healthy democracies.  National Post's Kelly McParland said that it was the result of a "siege mentality".

One of the many online encyclopedias defines “siege mentality” as “a shared feeling of helplessness, victimization and defensiveness” which “refers to persecution feelings by anyone in the minority, or of a group that views itself as a threatened minority.” If there’s anything that typifies the Conservatives under Mr. Harper, it’s the notion that anyone outside the party is to be viewed with suspicion, and even within the party trust is to be handed out sparingly. Beyond the fortified redoubt of the Prime Minister’s inner circle, everyone is on permanent probation. (2)

Richard Nixon kept enemy lists maintained by Watergate plumber Chuck Colson.  Word was that you didn't want to get on that list.  Many in the media did make it there.

"Never forget," he tells national security advisers Henry Kissinger .. and Alexander Haig in a conversation on December 14 1972, "the press is the enemy, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times." (3)

Harper's enemy list extends to young girls who share photos of themselves standing with his political opponents, on Facebook.

There is yet another book written on the life of Richard Nixon, that uncovers not only more control and paranoia, but a violent temper, a battle with alcoholism, wife beating and even homosexuality.  I'll leave out the last three in comparing Harper to Nixon, but his pathological control and violent temper are well known, despite attempts to keep it from the public.

Harper's former VP when he headed up the National Citizens Coaltiion, Gerry Nicholls, writes in his book Harper, Me and the NCC, that Harper's temper is not red hot but icy blue, and when he was in a "mood" you kept out of his way.

Lloyd Mackey in The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, tells of a chair throwing incident at a Conservative Party convention because things were not going his way.

Former Alliance MP Larry Spencer, in his book Sacrificed: Truth or Politics, relates an interview he had with Harper, where he was torn down for a radio interview, in which he spoke of a "homosexual agenda".  Harper wasn't angry about about the gay bashing, but it's timing, suggesting that he was "put up to it" by his political enemies.

Belinda Stonach and Garth Turner took similar dressing downs, where the air was so blue, the big guy may have set a new record for his use of profanity.  Others have confirmed, off the record of course, that Harper has quite a potty mouth, and they never want to get caught in his verbal line of fire.

In the many books written on Stephen Harper, the authors have tred softly, opening up many areas for discussion, that for the most part have remained closed.  Of the ones I've read, Lawrence Martin's Harperland and Christian Nadeau's Rogue in Power, are the most revealing, and the ones that we should be paying attention to.

Jeffrey Simpson in his critique of Harperland wrote for the Globe and Mail:  Looking for Nixon-like tendencies in Harperland

... the interesting comparisons arise between Mr. Harper and Mr. Nixon. By all accounts, and especially those in Harperland, the Prime Minister is not only a partisan, as all prime ministers must be, but he viscerally hates Liberals. His objective is not just to defeat but to obliterate the Liberal Party of Canada. For that purpose, the gloves are off all the time, from nasty attack ads against Liberal leaders to ritualistic, partisan punches from him and his ministers.

Mr. Nixon saw enemies everywhere: in the media, the “liberal elites,” the Ivy League colleges .... He carried enormous resentments, remembered many past slights, and bottled them up inside where they fed paranoid streaks in his character. He was a control freak, and demanded that his staff act accordingly.

With the release of Nixon's Darkest Secrets, Harper might want to tone it down a bit, before someone starts looking for his.

Sources:
 
1. The Canadian Nixon: Stephen Harper's feud with Elections Canada is just the latest front in his war against government institutions, By Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer, The UK Guardian, April 24, 2008

2. Harper discovers it's easy to find enemies, if you look hard enough, By Kelly McParland, National Post, April 23, 2008

3. Recordings reveal Richard Nixon's paranoia: Recordings show Nixon urged staff to use all means to discredit his political opponents, both large and small, By Dan Glaister, UK Guardian, December 3, 2008

A Half a Century Later and We are Losing Half a Century

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In researching the conservative movement on both sides of the border, one thing becomes clear.  In the U.S. they don't like to be referred to as Republican any more than Stephen Harper likes to be called a Tory.  They are CONSERVATIVE, and there is a difference.  The Republican Party is only the vehicle on their route to power.

Historian Richard Perlstein, writing of the 1960s conservative takeover of the GOP, says "A right-wing fringe took over the party from the ground up" while the Eastern establishment has been reduced to a "fringe looking on in bafflement". (Nixonland, 2003)

The picture above is definitely worth a thousand words.  Nelson Rockefeller, who should have beaten Barry Goldwater for the nomination in 1964, George Romney and of course Ronald Reagan.

Mitt looks a lot like his dad, and like his dad he could very well be obliterated by history.  George Romney was a moderate who opposed the Vietnam War and supported Civil Rights.  The conservatives had to crush him, and now feel the same way about his son. 
 
This is important for Canadians to understand, because Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, were born of this movement. 

Ernest Manning* and his son Preston, planned to take over the PC Party in the 1960s, until Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory, won the leadership, and they knew they'd have to wait.  They wrote a book Political Realignment, that called for a definitive right-wing party to challenge a definitive left-wing party, and no soft centre.
 
It's not hard to see how we are being realigned, though I think Canadians may finally be balking as such an unnatural situation in a country that has always been somewhere in the middle.
 
Colin Brown, the man who created the National Citizens Coalition, initially to oppose public healthcare, read Political Realignment, contacted Ernest Manning and together they built the NCC into a voice for corporate interests.  Stephen Harper ran the NCC before running for the Alliance leadership (they kept his position open for four years in case it didn't work out).
 
Gerry Nicholls, Harper's VP when he headed up the organization, was fired for criticizing his former boss.  Not his wasteful spending, though he did publicly denounce it, but because he committed the mortal sin of suggesting that Stephen Harper was not "conservative" enough.  
 
If lynching was legal they would have strung him up.
 
Perlstein tells us that while American Conservatives were devoted to Barry Goldwater, they had their suspicions of Richard Nixon, who had also initially spoke out against the Vietnam War.  It wasn't until a young Nixon aid, spoke to his Conservative allies and assured them that Nixon was only trying to garner support from moderates, that they agreed to back him. 
 
That young aid?  Pat Buchanan.
 
Being devoutly anti-Communist and anti-Civil Rights, Ronald Reagan was never in doubt.  When he ran against incumbent Jerry Brown, as Governor of California, Brown tried to expose Reagan's extremism, that included his ties to the John Birch Society.
 
However, as one Reagan insider told the Brown team: "A Bircher isn't identifiable, but a negro is."  At least they had the "'right' colour" on their side.
 
The conservative movement, as well as the Religious Right, has always been about race, and they appear to be successfully wiping out the last 50 years of tolerance.   One Kentucky Church is even banning interracial marriage.  How long before others follow suit?
 
This week Ezra Levant responded to the Attawapiskat crisis with so many "white people" chants, I was waiting for his Freudian to slip, and he break into a "white power" shout.
 
Richard Nixon and Stephen Harper shared the political expertise of Arthur Finkelstein, but it was the Reagan/Harper guru, Paul Weyrich, who taught them the art of hatred.
 
Harper's decision to cut 31.5 million in funding to Ontario immigrant programs, and his new immigration policies, must have the late Weyrich looking up, cackling in the flames.
 
Footnotes:
 
*Suncor founder, the late J. Howard Pew, gave money to Manning, Reagan, Goldwater and Nixon.  His Pew Foundation now supports many right-wing causes.

Benjamin Netanyahu is Just a Politician. Get Over It.

Headlines today reflect comments made by President Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in a private conversation at the G-20.

Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar", while Obama expressed frustration with having to deal with him and his supporters every day.

Many believe that there will not be peace in the Middle East until the West gets over its addiction to oil, but these two leaders, also feel that Israel is a stumbling block to peace.  They are right.

Stephen Harper will always choose Israel over Canada.  He has said as much.  But for him the alliance is political and partisan.  The careers of Harper and Netanyahu have been choreographed by the same people.

Top Republican pollster, John McLaughlin, takes credit for both in his bio.

However, the best connection is Arthur Finkelstein, former political guru of Richard Nixon.  Finkelstein spent 16 years at the National Citizens Coalition and taught Stephen Harper everything he knew about liberal bashing and playing loose with the truth.

He also worked directly with Netanyahu, making the "liar" comment absolutely believable.

He rode the campaign commercials of Finkelstein, one of the most sought-after Republican strategists, to victory in the 1996 election.  Finkelstein created the message that instilled fear in Israeli voters that Netanyahu's opponent, Shimon Peres, was soft on terrorism and would divide Jerusalem. Commercials with Peres and Yasser Arafat walking hand in hand followed by scenes from suicide bombings in Tel Aviv were credited with swaying the vote to Netanyahu.  And throughout his tenure as prime minister Netanyahu has relied on Finkelstein ... 

I realize that Israel has a holy purpose for many, but when it comes to foreign policy, they are a nation, like any other nation, except that they have nuclear weapons.  Lots of them.  I can understand Obama's frustration, though the conservatives will have a field day with this.

Funny thing though when Wikileaks revealed that U.S. diplomats thought that Stephen Harper was a blowhard and suggested that if his so-called Canada Action Plan didn't work, he had no idea what to do next, there was barely a murmur.  But attacks on the Israeli prime minister are akin to blasphemy.

He's just another politician created by Republican strategists, like our current leader.

Get over it.

Jim Flaherty and the Tea Party Abandon the Arts

It was once suggested to Winston Churchill that he cut funding to the arts to pay for Britain's war, to which he responded "Then what would we be fighting for?"

A nation's arts and culture are as important to their identity as their historic landmarks.

Yet neoconservative ideology suggests otherwise. If it doesn't make a profit, then it's not art. And in the same way that Margaret Thatcher declared that "there is no such thing as society", the Harperites believe that there is no such thing as a Canadian culture.

The Tea Party/Republicans believe that the National Endowment for the Arts are "elitists" and even go so far as to suggest that their main function is to create propaganda for the left.

Sarah Palin says: "NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, all those kind of frivolous things that government shouldn't’t be in the business of funding with tax dollars — those should all be on the chopping block."

Jim Flaherty listened and has announced that he will be cutting funding for the arts. No big surprise, since Harper himself has referred to artists as those living in "ivory towers".

Lighthouses on stumps, fake lakes and his singing off key, are the only artistic endeavors that we need to pay for. And we are indeed paying for them.

William Osborne wrote a piece for the American Arts Journal several years ago discussing the neoconservative principles of Milton Friedman and the Republicans, when it came to the funding of arts and culture.

He had spent several years in Europe, and was amazed at the divide.

As an American who has lived in Europe for the last 24 years, I see on a daily basis how different the American and European economic systems are, and how deeply this affects the ways they produce, market and perceive art. America advocates supply-side economics, small government and free trade – all reflecting a belief that societies should minimize government expenditure and maximize deregulated, privatized global capitalism. Corporate freedom is considered a direct and analogous extension of personal freedom.

Europeans, by contrast, hold to mixed economies with large social and cultural programs. Governmental spending often equals about half the GNP. Europeans argue that an unmitigated capitalism creates an isomorphic, corporate-dominated society with reduced individual and social options. Americans insist that privatization and the marketplace provide greater efficiency than governments. These two economic systems have created something of a cultural divide between Europeans and Americans.

Canada used to care about cultural events without worrying over whether they produced a profit or fit a mould. The neocons will pick and choose what events they fund, and only those that conform to neocon ideology will ever see a dime.

Gay Pride parades out, reenactments of battles in. Next summer it will be the War of 1812, only in this version, the Americans win and we hand over to them everything we own.

And the Harperites belittle artists to justify their heavy handedness. If you can't sell your painting, then you shouldn't be painting.

Says Osborne:

European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural identity of society.

Ah yes. Jesse Helms. Did I mention that Arthur Finklestein also handled his campaign?

Don't you just love the ignorance of neoconservatism?

Is Canada Now Part of the U.S. Empire?

In reading books like Todd Gordon's Imperialist Canada, Chalmers Johnson's Dismantling the Empire and now Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, a pattern for American Imperialism becomes evident.

If a country has natural resources the U.S. wants, but refuses to hand over, the government is replaced with a dictator. And that dictator is financed by the corporations then operating in, or wishing to operate in, the resource rich country.

Stephen Harper is now the dictionary definition of a dictator (try saying that fast three times).

This was not accomplished through a bloody coup, and the big stick diplomacy was domestic, however, much of Harper's success was American made.

1. One of the top Republican polling firms, McLaughlin and Associates take credit for Harper's career. They were also the official ad firm for Harper's National Citizens Coalition, "having worked with them for many years". From their website: John [McLaughlin] also has done extensive market research and consulting for non-profit and corporate clients. His clients have included ... The National Citizens Coalition (Canada)

2. Arthur Finkelstein, another top Republican pollster, who has worked for presidents from Nixon to Bush, was the official advisor to the National Citizens Coalition, for sixteen years. He was also a mentor of Stephen Harper's, passing on a visceral hatred for anything liberal.

3. Frank Luntz, yet another Republican pollster, instructed Harper on how to get a majority. His advice included faux nationalism and talking hockey any chance he got. And darn it all, if it didn't work.

4. One of the founders of the American Religious Right, Paul Weyrich, helped to get Harper elected by cautioning his flock not to speak with the Canadian media.

5. Another key player in the American Religious Right, James Dobson, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, on Canadian radio ads attacking same-sex marriage, to bolster Harper's campaign when he was running on the same platform.

6. In Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, he claimed that Stephen Harper does not believe in peacekeeping, but sees the world as a 'Clash of Civilizations', the doctrine of American neoconservative Irving Kristol.

7. Alykhan Velshi from the American Enterprise Institute (dubbed the Cheney Family Think Tank (Dick and Lynne)), is now Jason Kenney's assistant. The same Jason Kenney who brought Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition to Canada.

8. Billionaire Rupert Murdoch of Fox News, financed our own Fox News North (Sun TV)

In November of 2006, in response to a John Ibbitson column: Harper and Bush Compared, Michael Watkins refuted the claim that Harper was nothing like Bush. In everything from healthcare and education, to foreign policy, he was indeed the mirror image.

Not surprising given that the people above, were involved with both men.

I know the list is longer, but it gives some idea of the American bloodless coup and their puppet dictator.

Some are now referring to Canada as the 51st state, but I think it's more than that. I think we are now little more than another American colony.

And before you roll your eyes, consider this.

1. Operation "Shiprider" allows U.S. agents to patrol Canadian waters.

2. An agreement with their military, allows the U.S. to send troops across our border in the case of an emergency. One of those emergencies would be an indigenous protest over a joint venture like a pipeline or highway.

3. FBI agents can now conduct investigations in Canada without permission.

4. The Buy America trade deal was the gifting of our country to the United States.

5. Harper introduced a bill that would require permission from the U.S. before any Canadian flies to a third world country.

The Harper government has quietly presented a bill in the House of Commons that would give U.S. officials final say over who may board aircraft in Canada if they are to fly over the U.S. en route to a third country. "Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window," Liberal Transport critic Joe Volpe told the Montreal Gazette in a recent telephone interview. "You are going to be subject to American law." (Vancouver Sun)

6. We are now part of the U.S. led nuclear partnership, allowing all nuclear waste to be repatriated to Canada. In other words, the handling of our nuclear energy, is being directed by the United States.

7. The Border Security deal, locks us inside fortress North America.

So could someone please tell me how we are not now just another American colony. We have been handed over by our puppet dictator. Once they control our public services, including healthcare, we may wish we were just the 51st state.

Who Will Win Harper's War on Canada? Him or Us?

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires." John Steinbeck

The healthcare debate has once again brought the National Citizens Coalition into the spotlight. The group that Stephen Harper has not only belonged to for three decades, but also served as its president.

The NCC was founded in 1967 by wealthy insurance broker Colin Brown, to fight against what he called "socialized medicine". Kind of like the American Tea Party.

However, it didn't really take off until Ernest Manning came on board, encouraging them to seek status as non-profit to enjoy the tax breaks. A bit of irony here. A group that fought against taxes (and they want the corporate tax rate to eventually be zero), had no qualms about stealing from taxpayers to promote corporate interests.

And there was no end to the corporate money that flowed through the offices. So much that they could afford to hire top Republican strategist Arthur Finklestein.

And while the ultimate goal of the NCC was to end public healthcare, they also advocated the end of unions and the ability of corporations to fund politicians.

The notion of corporations funding politicians was not new. After Watergate, when laws were toughened in the U.S., Finklestein, who had worked for Richard Nixon, created what he called Independent Expenditure Campaigns. In Canada we call it Third Party Advertising.

And Finkelstein helped the NCC become massive third party advertisers. But there was a problem. In Canada we limit this to $150,000. How could wealthy corporations take over the democratic process if all they could spend was $ 150,000?

Enter Stephen Harper.

In his 1993 campaign to win a seat for the Reform Party, the National Citizens Coalition poured $50,000 into his riding, advertising against what they called "the Gag Law". (1) This was especially telling, since Harper was running against Jim Hawkes, the man who had acted as mentor, making Harper his aide in Ottawa when he was a PC MP.

The attack became so visceral, that Harper's former fiancee, Cynthia Williams, went to work for Hawkes. Not a jilted lover because she was the one who broke off the engagement, later saying that had she stayed with Steve, she would not have been able to have a career. (2)

Something else we should have taken from Harper's time with Hawkes, was that his former boss found Harper a little odd. The only thing he talked about was himself and his ambitions. (2)

But back to corporate funded democracy.

Stephen Harper believed in this to such an extent, that he actually sued the Canadian people, in the now infamous Stephen Harper vs Canada ruling.

Mitchell Anderson is concerned that if given a majority, Harper will simply go over the head of the Supreme Court in favour of corporate interests. And he's probably right.

This Rogue in Power does everything by stealth.

In the court decision against Harper, the Supreme Court stated: "Promoting electoral fairness by ensuring the equality of each citizen in elections, preventing the voices of the wealthy from drowning out those of others, and preserving confidence in the electoral system, are pressing and substantial objectives in a liberal democracy."

Electoral fairness? Equality of each citizen? A liberal democracy? Stephen Harper? NEVER!

Mitchell reminds us of what is happening in the United States when a Bush appointed court paved the way for the corporate sector to engineer American democracy. A nightmare.

Democracy will only apply to those who can afford it.

Is this really your Canada?

On May 2, vote and vote wisely.

Sources:

1. Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper Me and the NCC, By: Gerry Nicholls, Freedom Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-9732757-8-0

2. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

New Canadian Epidemic. We've All Been "Finkel Thinked"

After Watergate brought down Richard Nixon, the U.S. passed the Federal Election Campaign Act in an attempt to make election campaigns more open and transparent. One of the key features of the act, was that it placed legal limits on campaign contributions.

This prompted high profile Republican strategist, Arthur Finkelstein, who had worked on Nixon's campaign, to come up with something called Independent Expenditure Campaigns (in Canada this is known as Third Party Advertising). This allowed the wealthy to funnel their contributions through a political activist group, who could run attacks ads freely, usually zeroing in on a policy the Republicans opposed and their opponents favoured, or had already adopted.

Finkelstein would also work for Ronald Reagan, before joining Canada's National Citizens Coalition. According to Gerry Nicholls, who was Stephen Harper's VP when he was running the NCC:

Arthur [Finkelstein] was an American political consultant who worked for the NCC, he gave us political, media and fundraising advice. He was, in fact, truth-be-told, one of the chief reasons behind the NCC’s success. He was also the top Republican political consultant, if not the top American political consultant period. He was also the guy who basically invented the negative ad. His nickname was the “Merchant of Venom.” (1)

And this "Merchant of Venom" taught Stephen Harper well.

Finkelstein's strength was in finding a weak spot, as flimsy as it might be, and then creating an entire campaign around it. Harper found Dion's in his difficulty with the English language, to create the image of a bumbling fool with the simple "Not a Leader" attack.

With Michael Ignatieff it was more difficult, but he found a "weak spot" in his five years spent teaching at Harvard. He couldn't use his teaching positions at Oxford, Cambridge or the London School of Economics, because they were British. So those five years spent in Boston became the focal point of the "Just Visiting" ads. And the fact that while teaching in Boston, Ignatieff chose "we" to connect with his students, that "we" became the most powerful two letter word in the English language.

Another strategy of Finkelstein's was to give negative connotations to certain things through repetition and association. "Tax and spend liberals", "reckless coalition", that kind of thing.

This strategy became known as "Finkel Think". But too much Finkelthinking can be a bad thing. In the U.S. several of his campaigns backfired because he used terms so much, that the negative response was aimed at the ads, and the Democrat won.

Harper's overuse of "reckless coalition" appears to have also backfired, especially after it was made public that he himself had tried to become prime minister in 2004, in a coalition that included the full support of the Bloc.

In fact, a recent poll suggests that the majority of Canadians would prefer a coalition to a Harper majority. This doesn't mean that Harper will change his strategy. He can't. His Finkelthinkitis is terminal.

Symptoms of the Disease

1. The first sign that a nation has been finklethinked is the odd behaviour of the media. They will begin to froth at the mouth while watching the latest attack ad. Then they wait for the polls to see if the ad is working. Now collectively, with arms extended like Zombies, they will head to their keyboards to create headline news. "Latest Harper Attack ad may cause Michael Ignatieff to plummet to his political death."

There is an easy cure at this stage, but it would involve their having to think and perhaps ponder what this is doing to our democracy. But thinking is elitist, meaning they could become the next victim of Fatal Finkeling.

2. The electorate begins to develop a rash. They can't sit still while watching the attack ads, so will fidget and hold their tummies, waiting for the nausea to consume them. In the most severe cases you may also see a gauging out of the eyes and the placing of sticks in ears, while the victim runs in circles singing "la, la, la, la, la, la ..."

An Old Wives Tale suggests that they lock themselves inside on election day, but research has shown this to be false. The best cure for Finkelthinkitis, is to show up at the polling station on election day to receive the antidote.

It's called a ballot. The only known cure.

So don't become a frothing, fuming, fumbling, fulminating, fickle faced foolish Finkelthinker. On May 2 vote and vote wisely.

Sources:

1. Libertarianism and me, by Gerry Nicholls, November 13, 2009