What Will Harper Try to Give Away This Time in 'Buy America' Fix?

Obama's new job strategy once again includes a "Buy America" clause, specifically stating that unless there are savings of at least 25%, infrastructure projects must use only U.S. materials.

Last time this happened, Harper gave away the farm for a few ears of corn, making him the brunt of jokes. According to Wikileaks, members of the U.S. government involved in the deal would ask "so has he called today? What are we getting now? Ha, ha, ha."

And indeed the joke was on us.

However, after giving them so much last time, what do we have left? I heard that he's offering the Parliament Buildings, the CN Tower and an 8" x 10" autographed picture of himself with Pamela Sue Anderson. (his wall is full) They could just crop out his image.

We have to quit depending on the United States for our economic recovery. They are hurting themselves. We need a Canadian strategy and if this hurts our border security deal (that erases our borders), then maybe there's a God after all.

Can We Make a Case For Mandatory Voting?

In 1891, Guillame Amyot introduced a private members’ bill on compulsory voting, designed to secure “purity in politics.”

A common practice on election day then, was to not only buy votes, but have others impersonate voters on the list, known to have left the area. It was felt that compulsory voting would limit both practices. Some of the logic may have been flawed, but the intention, I suppose, honourable.

The bill was defeated as infringing on citizens' rights.

In 2004, Liberal Senator Mac Harb, sponsored Bill S-22 in the Senate, calling for the introduction of mandatory voting in Canada. His concern was not corruption but voter apathy.

Senator Harb’s call for the introduction of mandatory voting stemmed from his concern with, in his words, “a rising electoral crisis” in Canada. Voter participation rates had gradually declined over the previous three decades and had experienced a “dramatic drop” in the 2004 federal election when a “record low of just 60.9 per cent” [now lower] of electors voted. As “democracy depends upon the active participation of its citizens” and as “record numbers” of young people are no longer voting, Senator Harb claimed that the time had come for Parliament to adopt legislation requiring all eligible electors to vote. (1)

The feeling was that if voting was treated the same way as mandatory taxes, jury duty and wearing seatbelts, it would become a natural thing.

There's no doubt that Canada has a democratic deficit. Stephen Harper is in power based on the will of just 22% of eligible voters. And yet he has been able to negotiate aggressive trade deals that diminish our sovereignty, control the Senate, and refuse to provide necessary information to Parliament; our elected representatives, whom we pay to hold the government to account.

It's interesting that in a 2005 Conservative press release, suggesting that Paul Martin was abusing his power, it was written: 'Responsibility to Parliament is absolutely key in our system of government. Unlike the United States, we lack checks and balances to constrain the power of the Executive. Parliament is the only meaningful constraint on the Executive and their widespread powers. When this constraint ceases to exist, the Governor-General, effectively chosen by the Prime Minister and likely therefore beholden to him/her, becomes the only check on the Prime Minister. That check is neither realistic nor desirable, let alone democratic or accountable.' (2)

The problem with low voter turnout is that often those who don't show up at the polls, are the ones who suffer the most from government decisions. Statistics have shown that the ridings with the highest voter volume, are those with the wealthiest citizens. So should we be surprised that governments draft legislation, that has the most benefit to that level of society?

The Conservatives, in fact, count on it. They ignore the poor and disenfranchised, because they know they can't count on their vote, so instead count on them not voting at all.

The first time in recent history that this strategy has been applied, was during the Reagan campaign, when his campaign manager was Stephen Harper's bridge to the American Religious Right, Paul Weyrich.

"With [Ronald] Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the blackvote. 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." (3)

It's why Conservatives try to make Parliament toxic. Why they defend their scandals by suggesting that the Liberals did it too, even when that isn't true or grossly exaggerated.

If voters can remain turned off at the polls, they will continue to tune out, and low voter turn out always favours the incumbent. Personally, I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, but do accept that we are now in a democratic crisis. We have to get people voting again. And not only voting but paying attention to what is taking place in their country.

Stephen Harper has shown what happens when we don't.

We become a government of one, where the people no longer have a voice. Canada has gone from first place to last in terms of accountability and openness. Stephen Harper has grown so confident in the knowledge that people won't care what he does, that he no longer acts on the wishes of the people.

Why should he?

We need to find ways to wake up the electorate. This may be the most important election in our lifetime, because our very democracy is at stake. Another mandate for Stephen Harper, or worse still, a majority, will send him the message that Parliament doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. And we don't matter.

Think about that.

Sources:

1. The Debate About Compulsory Voting , By: John C. Courtney and Drew Wilby, The Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 2005

2. May 10, 2005

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

Stephen Harper Does Not Lead Because he Does Not Inspire

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams

After five years of Harper there is still a lot of debate over his leadership skills. Some in the media will praise his ability to keep his caucus in line. But he does this by keeping them muzzled, allowing them only to read scripts written by the boys in the backroom. That is not leadership. That is control.

If a leader's role is to inspire, how is this inspiring? The message to those under him, is that he has no faith in their abilities. They are only to obey him and fear him, and that they do. Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro, when interviewed for Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, said that he is even afraid when picking out a tie, that it will be the wrong one, and he will be chewed out by Harper's posse because it is not the look they needed for a particular skit or photo-op.

Instilling fear is not a leadership quality.

"The boss inspires fear; the leader inspires enthusiasm." - H. Gordon Selfridge

Another attribute of a good leader is taking responsibility. And this is where Stephen Harper fails miserably as a leader, because he refuses to take responsibility for anything.

Instead he coaches those under him, feeding them talking points, with the express intent to provide cover. To excuse his actions and not account for them.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Martin Luther King, Jr.

During the worst of the debate over the Afghan Detainee issue, Stephen Harper was busy with photo-ops, demanding that those in the House stick to script, even when those scripted answers were totally irrelevant to the questions asked. And these brilliant gems were simply that "there is no proof", "our men and women in uniform", blah, blah, blah.

Peter Braid had an absolute meltdown trying to handle an interview when Tom Clark made it clear that no talking points were allowed. It was a train wreck.

We also witnessed a severe lack of leadership over the G-20 weekend in Toronto. I haven't watched the Fifth Estate episode from last night yet, but have it taped. My husband, though I'd spoke often of it, wasn't really aware until last night just how horrendous it was. He came downstairs ashen faced, and said that it reminded him of Nazi Germany and the Gestapo. I wonder how many others were hearing for the first time, of those events that took place not in Nazi Germany, but in present day Canada.

And as Carol Goar reminds us:

While local police officers beat protesters, arrested innocent citizens, abused their authority and refused to own up to their actions, it was the federal government that designed and implemented the security operation. Eight months after the fiasco, with five inquiries underway, Canadians are no closer to knowing who was at the top of the chain of command.

A real leader would have made a statement, other than the standard talking point that the police acted admirably. A real leader would have demanded to know why the citizens of the nation he was supposed to be leading, were privy to such human rights abuses. And a real leader would have stood with the victims, not hid behind the perpetrators.

The list of things that Stephen Harper refuses to be accountable for is staggering.

Our lack of accountability when it comes to the tar sands and their impact on the environment. Instead of taking a leadership role, he sabotages global negotiations, earning a colossal fossil award for Canada, not once, but twice. And he continues to print money for the industry, with grants of 1.4 billion a year. He is also using our money for a pipeline that will send all the good jobs South.

- Two self-serving prorogations, just to save his job.

- Lies about the legitimacy of a coalition government. Especially given that he himself had manoeuvred the same kind of deal in 2004, with the full participation of the Bloc.

- The "In and Out" scheme that resulted in his party being able to spend a million dollars more than the others during the final leg of the campaign. It also allowed Conservative candidates to claim almost $800,000.00 in credits that they weren't entitled to. This was akin to cheating on your income tax.

- The Bev Oda affair.

- The Chuck Cadman bribe, when Harper was caught on tape admitting to knowing that a dying man was being bribed with a life insurance policy if he voted the right way. Doug Finley was mixed up in that one too.

- Our loss of the UN Security council seat. A direct result of our changes in foreign policy.

- The Income Trust debacle, when Goldman Sachs clients netted $35 billion, while many Canadian seniors lost their life savings.

The list goes on.

"I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?" Benjamin Disraeli.

Stephen Harper does not follow the people. He does not stand with the people. He does not stand up for the people.

"Stephen Harper is NOT a leader!" - Emily Dee