The NDP's Trouncing in Saskatchewan Should be a Wake-Up Call

In the recent Saskatchewan provincial election, the NDP took a thrashing.  From the Huffington Post:

The Saskatchewan NDP suffered one of the most crushing blows in the party's history Monday night. The once dominant party was reduced from 20 to nine of the 58 seats in the legislature. NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter lost his own riding, a long-time NDP stronghold, and stepped down soon after. The Saskatchewan Party cruised to victory with 64 per cent of the vote, doubling the NDP total, and increasing their seat count to 49.

Losing Saskatchewan for the NDP is akin to the Reformers losing Alberta.  This was where it all began.

Steve LaFleur suggests that in order to regain power the party must focus on the fact that they had moved to the right in terms of placating big business.  He blames their demise on the unions.  However, LaFleur belongs to the right-wing Frontier Centre, another think tank whose staff move in and out of the Harper government.

He discusses the destruction of the PC Party in that province, but the fact is that Brad Wall was a member of that government, and the "new" party is the same old neoconservative party of Grant Devine.  Tom Lukiwski was their general manager and is now a Harper MP.  Senator David Tkachuk was another corrupt insider of those not so defunct neocons.

I think Murray Dobbin has a better take on the problems that the NDP are currently having.  In a posting before this trouncing, he discussed the direction that the party was taking, as reflected in some of the candidates for leader.

Of Brian Topp he says:

Topp was Roy Romanow’s closest advisor. But Romanow [former Sask. NDP premier] was essentially a small ‘l’ liberal and his administration slashed education and health budgets almost as much as the previous Tory regime. I once interviewed Romanow just before he became party leader and asked him about the role of social movements and he replied they were “completely useless.” His government reflected that attitude. Maybe Topp disagreed with him — but if he did, he had little influence.

And of Mulcair:

He is an unrepentant capitalist and big ‘L’ Liberal at heart who is barely out of synch with the 1 per cent the Occupiers have targeted.

In fact, when Thomas Mulcair first decided to enter federal politics, he couldn't decide whether to run for the NDP or the Conservatives.  Clearly he chose the NDP because there was more room to advance his own career.  Dobbin is right when he says:

One of the weaknesses of the party under Jack Layton was its preoccupation with tactical maneuvering at the expense of policy development. The party had almost no policy people but a lot of communications flaks. Topp had enormous influence with Layton and we can assume he was one of the architects of this approach — one that moved the party to the centre. At the same time, the party was accused of putting its interests ahead of the country’s — with some going so far as to blame it for allowing Harper to gain his first minority.

I like Paul Dewar very much and will be watching his bid closely.  Peggy Nash has an opportunity to capture the imagination of the electorate, but with the orchestrated and unwarranted attacks on unions by Canada's conservative movement, she could be in for a rough ride.

Thomas Mulcair would be an unmitigated disaster.  A Stepen Harper mini-me.  I haven't liked him since he attacked Libby Davies for drawing attention to the plight of the occupied Palestinians.

Surge and Decline

In 1960, political scientist Angus Campbell, brought forth a theory of "surge and decline" in American politics.  It mostly addressed the often conflicting results of the mid-term and presidential elections.  However, since then many have used the theory within a particular campaign.

The current Republican leadership race is a good example.  Michelle Bachmann "surged" one week, Rick Perry another.  Now they have both dropped significantly.

The NDP success in the last federal election was the result of a "surge" in popularity for Jack Layton.  Increased media attention led to advantageous name recognition, but had the campaign gone on another week or two, it's difficult to say if it would have lasted.

Saskatchewan was the NDP's mid-term election, and as I say, hopefully, their wake-up call.  In their quest to destroy the Liberals, they have forgotten who they are.  They will never outstrategize Stephen Harper, nor will they take over the Liberal Party, so they shouldn't try.

Two weeks ago the Liberals had a membership drive with a target of 5,000 new members.  They landed 5,087.  Their death is wishful thinking on the part of both the Reformers and the NDP.  The Liberal base is disappointed but not ready to jump ship.

The Right Did Not Unite, the Populist Parties Did

In 2002, the Fraser Institute published a report on the feasibility of uniting the struggling PC Party with the Reform-Alliance.  The right had been attempting such a thing since 1967, and Ernest Manning's Political Realignment.  The Report: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam, stated that "The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party."

What was interesting about the report however, was the analysis of the 1993 election that became a turning point in Canadian politics.  One of my readers recently suggested that Harper's movement simply took over the conservative base and that his supporters were already conservatives.  Putnam's analysis proves otherwise.

The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time.

In British Columbia in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.  The Liberals and PCs were often interchangeable.  In fact PC leader Kim Campbell lost her seat to Liberal Hedy Fry.

The Reform-Alliance's success only came about when they bought out the rights to the PC Party and pretended to be Tories, allowing them to cash in on an historical tradition.  This won't work for the NDP because the Liberal Party is not currently on the auction block.

The Quebec surge knocked out the Bloc, who were often allies of the NDP, and vote-splitting knocked down the Liberals.  If the NDP hope to succeed, they have to come out as themselves and define what they stand for.
I have always thought that we did better under the Liberals when the NDP held the balance of power.  There is no reason to believe that an NDP government with a Liberal opposition, wouldn't do the same.  However, Jack Layton led  his party in a full frontal attack on the LPC, ignoring the stronger forces of the conservative movement.

As Murray Dobbin says:  "... we are facing possibly monumental social and economic change in the next few years. The [NDP] leadership race is being judged by trying to imagine who can defeat Stephen Harper in four years — but just what are people thinking the world and Canada will look like in four years?"

We need a progressive movement and we need it now.  In four years it may be too late.

Bob Rae is in a unique position, because he has led both the NDP and the Liberals.  Maybe he can find common ground.  We can't depend on "surges" because they inevitably lead to decline.

The Fight to Restore Our Democracy Will Not be a Single Battle

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I attended an all candidates meeting in Kingston last week, where several individuals are vying for the Liberal nomination, to replace Peter Milliken. When it came around to taking questions from the floor, I asked what each one would do to help restore democracy to Canada.

The first person answered simply "get rid of Stephen Harper". Of course everyone laughed but it was not really what I was looking for. In fairness, it was too big a question, when the contestants had no more than 30 seconds to give a response.

One of my favourite journalists, Murray Dobbin, posted an excellent piece on his blog this week, where he suggests that we are now in the fight of our lives.

Individuals and organizations in Canada who recognize that the most critical short term political goal we have is to rid the country of Stephen Harper’s government might want to engage in a kind of political and strategic triage: what are the three or four key issues that we need to focus on to expose Harper’s agenda and to exploit his weaknesses? (1)

While there is no argument that Harper must go, he is only a symptom of the disease that has been eating away at us for years.

It has been like a slow growing cancer, that while it left us weak, did not dramatically hinder our ability to function as a sovereign nation. Then along came Harper and the cancer spread so rapidly that our freedoms are now on life support, with only minimal brain function. And we are indeed in "the fight of our lives".

Stage One: The Erosion is Small and Contained

"A society only articulates itself as a nation through some common intention among its people." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada's first prime minister, was not only one of the people responsible for Confederation, but he also sought to create a unique Canadian identity, while fighting against the influence of the United States. This brought about the character of 'Johnny Canuck', who appeared in political cartoons for decades.

We were the little guy, youngest cousin of Uncle Sam and John Bull. A little naive perhaps, but strong and ready to stand up to the big boys. And this sentiment continued throughout the life of 'Johnny'.

But then Johnny Canuck caught a bug. Murray Dobbin believes that it was 38 years ago (1), when the Conservatives came to power in Alberta, but I believe it was earlier than that, and simply went undiagnosed for decades.

I think the bug that now threatens our existence, first appeared on February 13, 1947, in the oil that was discovered at Leduc in Alberta. Canada then caught the attention of Texas oilmen, and the premier of Alberta, Ernest Manning, became their new best friend. So much so, that Time Magazine began to refer to Alberta as Texas of the North. (2) Other discoveries in post-war Canada of iron ore, nickel, copper, uranium and titanium, also brought us to the attention of southern corporate interests.

Johnny Canuck developed a cough.

Stage Two: A tumour has developed But Has Not Spread Into the Surrounding Tissue

"The imperial power of corporations has destroyed indigenous cultures in every corner of the globe." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

A series of trade agreements followed, based on the needs of the corporate sector, who, as George Grant claimed, "sought to master nature and reshape humanity." (3) Successive Canadian governments, began to work with the corporate sector to develop our natural resources, and in many ways it was a good thing.

But then prime minister St. Laurent introduced legislation to have the Canadian government lend $80 million to the U.S.-controlled Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd., to build a pipeline from Alberta to Winnipeg in order to export natural gas to the United States. This gave the new conservative leader Diefenbaker ammunition:

He accused the government of "playing around with . . . these adventurers from Texas and New York, trading away Canada's national resources at the expense
of the Canadian people." The deal, Diefenbaker said, would make Canada "a virtual economic forty-ninth state." (4)

And he won the next election on a national unity issue. And though he too flirted with the American industrialists, he was seen as a friend to small business and Canadian interests, which made him a foe of the corporate world, that launched campaigns against him.

Johnny Canuck began to run a fever.

Stage Three: The Tumour is Larger and Has Begun to Spread

Can the disappearance of an unimportant nation be worthy of serious grief? For some ... it can. Our country is the only political entity to which we have been trained to pay allegiance." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

Grant referred to Lester Pearson's administration as 'capitalist internationalism", and felt that he was too cozy with JFK. In fact, a young journalist by the name of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, also criticized Pearson, and when he came to power himself sought to restore our sovereignty, and move the country toward a just society. This didn't mean that he necessarily turned his back on the corporate world, but did fight against American interests.

It was during his administration that the National Citizens Coalition was created on the advice of Ernest Manning, and the right-wing media launched an assault on Trudeau, calling him a socialist and sometimes even a communist. Leading the charge was the Toronto Sun, under Peter Worthington, and one of his journalists, Lubor Zinc, was the one who coined the term 'Trudeaumania', though it was meant to have a negative connotation. Another Sun journalist, David Somerville, would eventually head up the NCC.

They earned little credibility, until they were able to place a man, plucked right from the corporate world, to lead the country. Brian Mulroney. He would fling open the doors and announce to anyone who would listen, that Canada was for sale. His free trade deal devastated the Canadian economy, and paved the way for foreign corporate takeover.

Johnny Canuck was now bedridden.

Stage Four: The Cancer has Spread to Every Corner of the Country.

"To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation.

Brian Mulroney may have put Canada on life support, but Stephen Harper is the one who will pull the plug. He has been systematically selling us off to American and multinational corporate interests. When he was proroguing he signed the most aggressive trade deal in the history of our country. And the recent potential sell off of Canada's potash is only the latest in what money expert Stephen Jarislowsky, of Jarislowsky Fraser Ltd., calls the "suicide of the country".

We are increasingly becoming a corporate state. Murray Dobbin focuses on the oil industry and the "dirty" oil that is giving Canada the reputation as a corrupt petro-state, but we have to look at all industries.

Corporations have their place in a society. They can keep small businesses afloat, as they provide services to the larger companies. They also provide good union jobs, which increases buying power and keeps service industries afloat. But these corporations, despite enjoying massive tax cuts and exemptions, have allowed greed to dictate. They now often compete with the small business, driving them out, while they outsource jobs overseas.

There needs to be a new and defined relationship that promotes fairness for the good of the country and our citizens.

All fascist regimes answered to their industrialists. They created autocratic governments to keep the people in line, and increased both military and police presence as a deterrent to public dissent.

We are on the brink of becoming that fascist state. And it is being done by embracing the philosophies of the father of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss: Deception, Religious fervour and unbridled patriotism.

Before the 2006 Canadian election, Paul Weyrich, the Godfather of the American Religious Right, told his people not to speak to Canadian journalists for fear that it might spook the Canadian public if they knew how connected Stephen Harper was to his movement. (5)

And Weyrich knew something about political strategy. He had worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign, using divisive politics to weaken the democratic process.

"With Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (6)

And Weyrich also knew that Canada was ripe for the picking, because we had a system with a fragile structure, that promised democracy based on the expectation of fair play.

So when I asked my question about restoring democracy, it was not only about replacing Stephen Harper, which I already know is an absolute necessity. But it was also about how we are going to keep our corporations in check, and give the power back to the people, where it belongs.

But more importantly, how we are going to close up the loopholes in our system that allowed one man to gain so much control. Michael Ignatieff has suggested that senators should be appointed by a committee made up of a cross-section of Canadians. That's a good start. The same should be done with judges and the Governor General.

Murray Dobbin suggests that we need determined civil disobedience, fully justified by the assault on our country. He's right. But we also need to restore faith in politics and encourage citizens to vote. And to do that we need to cut through the crap. Harper's strength in is keeping us divided and ignorant, because like his pal, Weyrich, he feels no moral responsibility to encourage Canadians to take part in the democratic process.

We are the only ones who can save Johnny, or Janie, or Omar or Hans or Pierre ... Canuck. And I happen to believe that we are worth saving.

Footnotes:

*George Parkin Grant was a Canadian scholar. He had a sister Alison who married Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff. Alison and George had a son Michael, who is now leader of the Liberal Party. When Lament for a Nation was first published, the Grant/Ignatieff family was devastated. The senior Ignatieff had worked for both Diefenbaker and Pearson. But George Grant would later say it was reactionary to the defeat of Diefenbaker, but he did have some very valid concerns.

Sources:

1. The Fight of Our Lives, By Murray Dobbin, Murray Dobbin's Blog, September 13, 2010

2. Texas of the North, Time Magazine, September 24, 1951

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George Parkin Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1965

4. Kennedy & Diefenbaker: The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 35-36

5. Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006

6. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22)

Baby Boomers Rock, But They Also Vote

I have suggested many times that the government is not paying attention to the Baby Boomer generation, when planning our future.

We are the ones who will now be tapping into services we once propped up.

However, there is another aspect of the Boomer generation that politicians are also overlooking. Our votes.

Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau are visiting universities, and in the case of Justin, even high schools; to encourage youth to get involved in the political process. This is great, since it's their future, but they should also be looking at us.

David Cravit author of a book; The New Old, had a great op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail yesterday, where he discusses just that.

In both Canada and the United States, the Zoomers (the 45-plus) account for about 60 per cent of all ballots cast in national elections. This percentage dwarfs all other age groups. Yet, the politicians – and most of the media – focus on other age groups who don't bring a fraction of the same political clout.

Pollsters are also not paying attention to this. Nik Nanos this week, when discussing CAPP; suggested that it was inconsequential, because it was just a bunch of kids who will soon get bored.

The survey by Ottawa-based Nanos Research offers insight into what weight politicians should give to Facebook sites like Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP) which in a matter of days in early January attracted a quarterof a million members. Not much, in pollster Nik Nanos's assessment. Canadians in the 18-to-29 cohort - who use Facebook the most ...

What Nanos fails to understand is that while 'Canadians in the 18-to-29 cohort' use Facebook the most, those who use this social media to become engaged in politics, is a different demographic.

Murray Dobbin explains:

"...despite the perception that CAPP members are university and college students or recent graduates with active social lives, half of the respondents are 45 years of age or older. Thirty-four per cent of the respondents are 31-44 years of age and 16 per cent are aged 18-30. ...the respondents are politically engaged people: 88 per cent described themselves as either somewhat or very engaged in federal politics. In addition to this, 96 per cent of the participants indicated that they voted in the last federal election."

So now as one of those in the hmmm ... '45 years of age or older' group, I'm going to throw in my two cents worth, because to me, while well intentioned; David Cravit doesn't quite get it either.

He proposes that politicians should look at policies that would benefit us old fogies. But we've been there, done that.

See the 'new old', or the new senior citizen, is vastly different from those in my grandparents' day. We like rock music, technology, going to the gym and staying active.

We are the Woodstock generation, the Civil Rights Movement generation, and the generation that first realized that anything is possible. We burned our bras, burned our bridges and often burned the candle at both ends; but we survived it all and are taking some of that with us into our golden years.

That's what politicians need to pay attention to. Look at the successful politicians from our generation, and what they had in common? I can sum it up in two words 'progressive thinking'.

We had a fierce pride in our country then, but not because of our military past, or our attachment to the Queen of England, or our love of maple syrup. We were proud of our progressive thinking.

We were proud that we harboured draft dodgers, stayed out of the Vietnam war (more or less) and as 'Peaceniks, created the 'Peacekeepers'.

We were proud that Pierre Trudeau was considered cool by the rest of the world. I remember as a teenager visiting my aunt in Michigan, and she invited some women, and a few teens from her small community in for kind of a meet and greet. The only thing these women and girls wanted to talk about was Trudeau. He was like a rock star and mainly because us boomers made him one.

We also created a generation of progressive thinkers, as we passed that spirit onto our children. I remember my kids as teens playing my old albums, more than I did. The Doors, Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, all found a new listening audience. I can't even imagine playing my parents music when I was young. Somehow Guy Lombardo just didn't cut it.

Today's emerging seniors don't think of ourselves as old. We think of ourselves as having lived.

If politicians want to tap into our votes, they will take climate change seriously. They will take gender equality seriously. They will take a legitimate child care plan seriously. They will raise taxes and end the enormous and ridiculous corporate tax cuts, so that our grandchildren are not paying for them.

They will take health care seriously, and peace seriously and education seriously.

Because as grandparents, we want our grandchildren to grow up in the same kind of Canada that we grew up in. And to do that will require politicians who are willing to think ahead, and not try to move us back.

That's why we have never really embraced the Harper government, with their 1950's attitudes; because we are the ones who took this country out the 1950's and most of us have no desire to revisit those 'good old days' (except in fits of nostalgia where we might start twisting until we throw out a hip).

And politicians and pollsters can take that to the bank.

Journalist Murray Dobbin Reminds Us of How Dangerous a Harper Dictatorship Really Is

Murray Dobbin has been following Stephen Harper's career for almost two decades, and knows perhaps better than anyone just what Canada's new dictator is capable of.

I only have one disagreement here. The media has got to stop referring to the opposition as 'weak', because if anything they feed into the apathy. The opposition may be weakened with non-stop attack ads, but stop counting them out.

Michael Ignatieff has found his niche and I think this will be his year. As Forbes magazine recently stated under their people to watch for in 2010:

Michael Ignatieff. After decades in Britain and the U.S., the professional intellectual returned to his native Canada and became head of the Liberal party. If a federal election is called in 2010, he could become the next prime minister, and the Canadian head of state with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau.

First Prorogue, then Eviscerate
January 11, 2010
by Murray Dobbin
Published in theTyee and rabble.ca

There is, for good reason, a lot of enthusiasm across the country as the groundswell against Stephen Harpers’ cynical shuttering of Parliament continues to grow. The prime minister from hell has gotten away with so much — and the opposition is so weak that any indication of genuine public disgust at his continuing demonstration of contempt for democracy is a welcome sign. And everyone who cares about the country should be taking part in the new movement for democracy.

But we should also be careful that this issue does not totally distract us from Harper’s actual agenda which is still exactly as it has always been — to dismantle the Canada so painstakingly built by two generations of Canadians. In March, Harper will present his first “austerity” budget. It could prove to be more damaging than the proroguing of Parliament ....

This is Canada Mr. Harper. Keep the Republican Nonsense on the Other Side of the Border

I was sent this video and I love it. Very much in the 'Joe Canadian' vein. Between possible war crimes and Harper may be losing us our spot in the Commonwealth because of his inaction on climate change, it's hard to get pumped up about Canada these days. But this video reminds me who we are.

Harper would hate this. No oil, guns or war. And no Republicans.

I am noticing though lately more people, especially in the mainstream Media, discussing Harper's involvement with some of the worst that the Republicans have to offer and how the Reformers have muddied Canadian politics. Karl Rove comes up a lot lately and Frank Lutz.

Have they just now figured out what's going on here?

One of my favourite journalists, Murray Dobbin, knows though and has always known, exactly who Stephen is, was and will always be.

The Republicanization of Canadian Political Culture
By: Murray Dobbin

Watching the sickening performances of the Harperites in the House of Commons this week – out right lying, bullying, slander, contempt for the public and parliament, and a stunning disregard for the public good – brings home a hard reality: we are witnessing the Republicanization of our political culture. And it’s not just the torture issue – it’s the Conservative labeling of Liberals as anti-Semitic – a kind of shit-house rat politics virtually unknown in Canadian political history. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that Karl Rove is on the PMO’s payroll; his disciples certainly are ....

We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country – that is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves. The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.

Stephen Harper is Unfit to Govern, Says a Man Who Would Know

In several postings I have referenced a book entitled Preston Manning and the Reform Party by Murray Dobbin, written in 1992 at the beginning of this new extreme right-wing movement.

Mr. Dobbin is a journalist and has recently written a piece about Stephen Harper, and why he should not be running our country.

Stephen Harper, Unfit to Govern
Few are thrilled to have another election, but we must put it to good use.
By Murray Dobbin,
September 10, 2009,
TheTyee.ca

Anticipating another federal election feels like being in the movie Groundhog Day with the same players (save one) going through the same routines, everyone stuck in the same place, doing the same thing. The two major parties are tied (according to the most reliable polls) at levels that are a long way off from majority territory. The NDP has learned nothing from the last two elections and the Greens are stuck at levels that mean they cannot possibly elect even one MP. Quebec will show its contempt for the whole mess by electing more Bloc members.

Despite all that, we need to take the opportunity to get rid of the most destructive and mean-spirited prime minister the country has ever had.

There is no good reason to wait as next spring or fall will simply see a longer list of victims of Stephen Harper's disdain for Canada and the whole notion of democratic government.

Malignant narcissist?

Quite simply, Stephen Harper is unfit to govern. Surely the only prime minister in Canadian history who has actually expressed contempt for his own country, Harper has demonstrated a disregard for the rule of law that should, in a rational world, disqualify him from leading any government.

In Western democracies people agree to be governed by a small number of elected representatives on the basis of respect for the rule of law: that is, we agree to assign our power to a government of laws, not of men -- a principle first enshrined in the Massachusetts constitution by John Adams in 1780. In other words, we expect governments and prime ministers to respect the law and not run roughshod over it on the basis of personal preferences.

It seems irrefutable to me after 20 years of analyzing the career of Stephen Harper that he is incapable of providing democratic governance. Harper arguably shows some traits of what psychologists refer to as malignant narcissism, a dangerously heightened sense of self importance. Otto Kernberg, a leader in the study of personality disorders, describes malignant narcissism as "extreme self-absorption and insensitivity that often result in a trail of victims -- emotional wreckage left in the narcissist's wake."

The victims Kernberg refers to are, of course, individuals, but in our case the principal victim is the Canadian nation -- its humanist accomplishments, its art and culture, the foundation of its science, its international standing and its democratic governance.

But there are, of course, individual victims, those individuals targeted for special contempt such as the numerous Muslim Canadians trapped overseas for various reasons and willfully abandoned by this government. Perhaps the most egregious and disturbing case is that of Omar Kadr, the child soldier who has languished for over six years in an illegal prison, without ever being convicted, in violation of international law, and despite two court decisions demanding that Ottawa repatriate him.

Changing words that matter

But Mr. Harper simply cannot bear to recognize the legitimacy of the courts as a crucial branch of government unless he absolutely has to. So perverse is Mr. Harper's attitude towards democratic governance, that he secretly had the language that the foreign affairs department can now use, changed -- replacing the term "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict." A major shift in government policy was thus made by stealth, not only without any involvement of Parliament, but without any notice whatsoever.

But it didn't stop there. Embassy Magazine, which uncovered the secret documents involved, reported on other language changes, including "excising of the word 'humanitarian' from each reference to 'international humanitarian law,' replacing the term 'gender equality' with 'equality of men and women', switching focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to 'prevention of sexual violence.'" Observers of Canadian foreign policy say the changes water down "the very international human rights obligations Canada once fought to have adopted in conventions at the United Nations."

The PM's mini-crusade

The combination of Harper's signs of personality disorder and his fundamentalist Christianity has provided us with the most stark demonstration of his contempt for due process in this mini-Crusade against Muslims. It has garnered the most attention because most Canadians can easily empathize with the victims, in stark contrast with Harper's obvious disdain. And let's be clear: the decisions to do everything in the government's power to deny these citizens their rights could only have come from the Prime Minister's office. When the chief law-maker of the country flouts the law, he becomes a tyrant.

Scorn for Parliament itself is high on the list of categories of contempt. Harper's government simply declared that it would ignore the previous government's signing of the Kyoto protocol. We withdrew from the U.N.'s Durban anti-racism conference, again with no reference to Parliament. Harper eliminated funding for English language classes given by an Arab organization because it also came out strongly in support of Palestinian rights. He casually announced that he was simply winding down the long-gun registry, passed by Parliament, with no intention of bringing it back to the House of Commons for reconsideration.

To try to destroy a key part of the parliamentary process, Harper produced a 200-plus-page "guide" showing Conservative MPs how to thwart and otherwise frustrate the proceedings of Parliamentary Committees. One of the developments which no doubt prompted this sinister attempt at manipulation was a Commons Committee rejection of Gwyn Morgan, Harper's choice for a new public appointments chief. Furious, he declared that he would simply end the reform process until he had a majority and could appoint whomever he wanted. While this could be dismissed as little more than immature petulance it is much, much more.

Ditto his well-known confrontation with the Parliamentary press gallery in 2006. Harper angrily cancelled a news conference when reporters refused to accept his edict that the PMO would choose which reporters would get to ask questions. The depth of Harper's self-absorption was revealed in his bizarre efforts to get out his "line" for the day: his officials asked lobbyists and consultants to contact journalists with the appropriate messaging. This would be funny, I suppose, were it not so twisted.

Governing as if a majority

The thick guide on thwarting the House of Commons was just one feature of Harper's sneering disregard for democracy. Completely ignoring the long history of working minority governments, Harper doesn't even try to hide his scorn for the opposition parties which garnered 62 per cent of the votes in the last election. No other minority government in Canadian history has been so condescending. Harper has to compete in elections to get power, but his belief that 38 per cent of the vote entitles him to implement his whole agenda demonstrates his absolute scorn for the democratic process and for Canadians.

Canadian voters, his message seems to be, are just a bunch of fools who have to be periodically suckered so Stephen Harper can dismantle their country. If there was any chance that he could achieve power in any other way, one gets the ominous feeling that Harper would do so.

Harper has actually initiated two law suits again the Canadian government itself -- the non-partisan agency Elections Canada. These moves are unprecedented in Canada and probably the Commonwealth. Harper even has contempt for his own laws, nonchalantly ignoring his fixed election date law by calling an election last year to suit himself, when Parliament was not even in session (a move that is now being challenged in court by Democracy Watch). And when his government was threatened by a coalition of opposition parties, he simply prorogued Parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence, another dubious first for a prime minister.

When the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan looked iffy in the House of Commons in 2007, Harper angrily declared that he would unilaterally extend the military's mandate for a year. (He got the mandate anyway, with the help of some right-wing Liberals.) This was the classic narcissist in action: absolutely convinced of his own superiority, he easily slips into a state of rage when someone -- anyone -- has the temerity to disagree with him.

Don't stay home, vote

The Liberals have decided that, to save face, they have to force an election. Well, whatever opportunity presents itself to rid the country of this prime minister should be taken up with energy and determination. No other result could possibly be worse. We already know what damage he can do even with a minority government. He is a threat to who we are as a nation.

One thing could get him re-elected: millions of Canadians deciding not to vote. Don't even think of being one of them.

Roots of Reform: Like Father, Like Son, Like .... Stephen Harper????

The above video is kind of a blast from the past, after an election that changed the political landscape of our country. The Bloc, a 'separatist' party would be the official opposition and the Reform, an anti-Quebec western protest party, was not thrilled about it.

In fact by the next election campaign in 1997, the Reformers ran a controversial television ad where the faces of PM Jean Chrétien, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, PC leader Jean Charest, and Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard, were crossed out; followed by a message saying that Quebec politicians had dominated the federal government for too long and that the Reform Party would end this favoritism towards that province.

I'm currently reading Murray Dobbin's Preston Manning and the Reform Party, and trying to share some of my views along the way, before I forget everything I've read. His book is part of my journey to try to make sense of the fact that a group founded on bigotry, is now running our country.

So where did this resentment toward Quebec start? Was it all part of the 'western alienation' mindset, promoted by various western politicians, especially in Alberta? Was it protest against the National Energy Program introduced by Trudeau, but supported by Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed? The Meech Lake Accord?

All of the above I suppose, though I believe that it is much more than that. When studying the roots of the Reform Party; from Social Credit to Reform to Alliance and finally the Conservative Party of Canada, there is a definite pattern. They were all based on what I call the anti's'. They originated as anti-Semitic, then became anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, anti-Francophone, anti-multiculturalism, anti-feminist, anti-gay .... the list goes on.

But all can be traced back to Ernest Manning, then to his son Preston, and finally Stephen Harper, who took over the reins of the 'family business'.

I've already posted a separate entry on the Social Credit Party, founded in Canada by William 'Bible Bill' Aberhart, but now want to show how that relates to Ernest Manning, and the revelations from Mr. Dobbin's book. No he doesn't suggest that the former Alberta Premier was anti-Semitic. Quite the contrary.

But like Preston and Stephen Harper, he wasn't above using the extremists he knew were in the party, and was quite clever in the way he played them.

After World War II, as the world learned of the Holocaust, a party based on a Jewish conspiracy theory was no longer Kosher (no pun intended). Therefore, Ernest Manning began to weed out the anti-Semitics, in particular one group referred to as Douglasites, because of their allegiance to Social Credit founder Major C. H. Douglas.

But the Douglasites were also foes of communism, and as Manning became more fundamentalist and a friend of big business, he too feared the threat of Communism and of course, Socialism.

"Manning moved decisively to block the Douglasites at the 1948 convention and most of them left the Party. The departure of the Douglasites left Manning in complete control of the party and government ... he had used their views to push out the socialist-leaning elements of the party and now used them again as a lever to push them out of the league.

"Yet as Manning publicly rejected any notion of a Jewish Conspiracy, he continued to view the world in conspiratorial terms and to govern accordingly." (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 17-18)

And of course there was a general theory that Pierre Trudeau was a socialist and used Ottawa as his base for socialist activities. "According to Calgary political scientist, Roger Gibbons: 'Ottawa is charged with socialistic, Marxist leanings, with being soft on communism and anti-Americanism" (Dobbin pg. 13)

Trudeau was a Francophone and a devout Catholic.

From Wikipedia on the Social Credit Party: Beginning in the early 1960s, there were serious tensions between the party's English and French wings. In 1961, Robert Thompson of Alberta defeated Réal Caouette of Quebec at the party's leadership convention. The vote totals were never announced; many suspect that Caouette actually won more votes, but was rejected by the party's western leadership for fear that he would be a liability. Alberta Socred Premier Ernest Manning had previously told the convention that his province would never accept a francophone Catholic as the party's leader, leading to suspicions that the vote was fixed in Thompson's favour.

When the Reform Party was created, anti-Quebec and anti-Francophone rhetoric was a familiar theme. Peter Brimelow, the author who spurred Harper on in his early days, blamed Quebec for all of Canada's problems, suggesting that governments were pandering to the French-Canadians.

"English Canada will - sooner or later - recover from it's post-Imperial hangover, and will increasingly assert it's North American identity - Eventually, Anglophones will question the value of the Quebec connection. The Quebec issue in Canadian politics may become not whether Quebec will secede - but whether it should be expelled." (The Patriot Game by Peter Brimelow)

When Harper helped to found the Northern Foundation, it was not only with Peter Brimelow but also several members of APEC, an anti-French hate group.

The Reform Party was definitely pro-Anglo culture and Preston Manning did nothing to discourage his members from voicing their prejudices. All of the early mentors from Ted Byfield to William Gairdner; Peter Brimelow to all the others in the Northern Foundation shared a familiar theme. This country belongs to white people of European descent and that was that.

The only thing standing in their way were the 'socialists' and 'separatists'.

We see this on a regular basis with Stephen Harper. Whenever he is backed into a corner, he calls out this familiar battle cry, and his base comes running. It's like he has a magic whistle that summons them home.

Stephen Harper's Mask Comes Off to Reveal - AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Up to now I've only shared bits and pieces of Murray Dobbin's book; Preston Manning and the Reform Party, that I found on other sites; but my own copy arrived today and I look forward to reading it and sharing my findings.

Just as Mr. Dobbin went on a journey of discovery to uncover what was behind this party's success, I too am trying to determine how a group founded on bigotry, could possibly be running our country.

I'm not expecting to find that Stephen Harper was once an axe murderer, or anything of that nature, but the people who influenced his political beliefs, are a study in and of themselves.

I will also attempt to show the shared fundamentals of the Reform Party then and the Conservative Party now.

Preston Manning and the Reform Party
Author: Murray Dobbin
Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing
1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7

Notes from the preface

I've only just started chapter one, but there were a couple of interesting observations from the preface of the book:

The author begins with Brian Mulroney and how unpopular the GST and the Meech Lake Accord were to Westerners. "I had heard of the Reform Party like everyone else. But it hadn't really registered with me as an important political phenomenon. I was vaguely aware that it was a right-wing party ... But this one seemed, on the surface at least, to be different. It was gaining strength on the basis of genuine mass discontent." (Pref vi)

However, the author after reading the party's newspaper "The Reformer", and discovering some of their policies, became concerned. As with so many announcements made by the current Conservative Party, there appeared to be a lot of ambiguity. On the surface their initiatives were appealing, but it was important to read between the lines. (Jim Flaherty is always hiding things in budgets, a trick he learned from U.S. Republican Jim Sensenbrenner)

"Three policies in 'The Reformer' struck me immediately and started me on the course of writing this book. (Remember Stephen Harper wrote the policies for the Reform Party based in part on the National Citizens Coalition Handbook)

"The first was on agriculture ... The farm-policy resolution which startled me stated that the party's policy was not guided by the interests of the producers, but by the 'demand of consumers for ... secure supplies of food at the lowest competitive prices.' While this declaration might not cause alarm at the dinner tables of urban Canada, it is tantamount to a declaration of war on the family farm." (Pref vii) Both the Reform Party and the national Citizens Coalition, have been committed to corporate farms, and have repeatedly fought against prairie farmers. They've tried to scrap the wheat board and used every trick in the book to influence the elections of what is supposed to an 'arms length' agency.

"The second surprise was Medicare. Not only was the policy one of eliminating the nation-wide health care system, but it was phrased in such a way that the impact of the policy was obscured. The resolution called for the 'provincialization' of medicare, an odd way of saying that the National Health Act would be rescinded" (Pref vii) This one is self-explanatory. The NCC was formed to abolish public health care. It has been a long term goal of Stephen Harper to privatize our health care system.

His third concern was with the GST and the fact that there were conflicting views. They vowed to scrap it to their riding association but keep it to their Policy Committee.

Mr. Dobbin then moves on to another concern that I have brought forward in several posts. The media's failure to inform the general public of the dangers of this party's policies. However, from other sources we know there are two reasons for this. Conrad Black and Ted Byfield, which I will get into later. However, both of these media magnates sought to create a party in the media first, then foster their advancement with future articles.

"There seemed to be little public awareness of Reform policies, yet a great deal of interest in the party and Preston Manning. This could simply be explained by a lack of real media scrutiny of a relatively new party. But with the party's big national assembly coming in April ... and the national media paying them a lot more attention, these policies and their implications were, I thought, bound to be discussed and reported.

"It didn't turn out that way. The media, with some important exceptions (such as Jeffrey Simpson, who compared Preston Manning and Reform to the Republican Party in the U.S.) focused on the party's ... expanding eastward and it's hard-line in Quebec. ... Manning's description of his party as 'populist' went unchallenged." (Pref viii)

We see it today with Harper's obvious disdain for the media. If the message can't be controlled like it was back in the days of Conrad Black and Ted Byfield, then he doesn't want to deliver the message at all.

But what we've seen this week, in the videotape of the secret meeting with party faithfuls, he let his guard down and the old Reformer re-surfaced.

Harper's agenda: not so hidden

It's not the majority, it's the message