Stephen Harper and the "G"-Man. Even His Nonsense is Imported.

I love book sales and spent hours at one this morning, picking up a great selection.

One that I was happy to unearth was a 1995 copy of Dalton Camp's Whose Country is This Anyway?

I always enjoyed his columns and the book offers a great selection.

However, I was drawn to a piece on Preston Manning and the neocons, and Camp writes about Manning going to Washington, after he helped Newt Gingrich and the boys get elected.

I'm going to share some of those later, but there was an offhanded comment that caught my attention about Republican James Inhofe, a man who has proven that idiots can make a good living. Camp speaks of how Inhofe ran a successful campaign on "g" words.

"The Reform agenda includes a host of issues with American analogs—opposition to abortion rights, gun control and gay rights"—and lower taxes, less government, fewer rights for consumers, and "family values."

This does remind me once again of Senator James M. Inhofe (R. Oklahoma), who has said he campaigned last fall, and won, on "God, gays, and guns." No doubt Preston could arrange through Newt to meet with Inhofe, who is a great admirer of Jesse Helms who is a good friend of Al D'Amato who knows Dick Armey who needs no introduction to Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition warmly supported by Pat Buchanan who knows Pat Robertson. Knowing our man Manning has direct access to those guys makes you feel warm all over. Doesn't it? (1)

As it happened, Manning and the Reform Party became quite involved with Inhofe. In fact, Rob Anders was once a professional heckler for the man, being outed during a campaign stop.

But what was compelling about this was the "g" words that brought Inhofe to power. I had heard that before and after a bit of a search found it.

In an opinion column of March 21 1995 Stephen Harper defined his Reform Party as being based on three issues, to be more specific, he defined it as being based on three "g-issues"- guns, gays, and government grants. (2)

He replaced "God" because he wasn't pretending to be an evangelist yet. But he was clearly tapping into Inhofe's "genius".

Does Stephen Harper say or do anything that doesn't come from the Republicans? And the worst of the Republicans no less.

"Knowing our man [Harper] has direct access to those guys makes you feel warm all over. Doesn't it?"

Sources:

1. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 185

A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

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

Reading the comments sections a the end of online articles, there are many loyal Harper supporters who are suggesting that all that their hero has to do is scare people with the notion of a coalition government, and he will get his long sought after majority.

It's sad really, given that the 2008 coalition in itself was not frightening, so much as confusing, as squeals of "high treason" and "coup" hit a population with a knowledge deficit of Parliamentary procedure, right between the eyes.

And yet coalition building, as Lawrence LeDuc reminds us, "lies at the very heart of democratic politics." (1) In fact Stephen Harper and his former aide, Tom Flanagan, were well aware of this.

In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." (2)

"An alliance with the Bloc Québécois would not be out of place." So why was an NDP/Liberal coalition with the support of the Bloc on confidence motions only, "undemocratic"?

It's important to revisit this now because the Harper government, as unbelievable as it sounds, is once again raising the issue, in an attempt to paint themselves as perpetual victims. Nonsense.

Stephen Harper created the crisis that initiated the coalition, and many Canadians liked the idea. Graham White called it "The possibility of real Parliamentary change without abandoning the principles of responsible government that have long served Canada well." (1)

Michaëlle Jean has only recently come forward with the reasons for her decision to grant Stephen Harper his prorogation. Under the circumstances she probably made the only decision she could at the time. But she brings up an important point:

Jean said she saw a positive result from that December 2008 episode: the whole prorogation crisis prompted a national discussion and, as a result, led Canadians to learn more about their democracy. (3)

It did get Canadians talking and learning. And we are now, hopefully, a bit more aware of just how democratic a coalition would have been.



We've also been able to inform Canadians that Stephen Harper himself attempted a similar coalition in 2004 and Stockwell Day in 2000.

But then Ms Jean doesn't explain why she granted his second prorogation, that was the most egregious attack on our democracy in modern history. And to think that it was done with just a phone call.

Continued: A Dective Democracy: Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9

2. One Canada or 10 Canadas? Harper's goal to create autonomous regions out of the provinces is a step back to colonial times, By Sinclair Stevens, Toronto Star, April 25, 2008

3. Gov. Gen. Jean explains 2008 prorogation: Jean breaks her silence on decision to grant Harper's prorogation request, Canadian Press, September 29, 2010

Harper Government Spends Four Million Dollars to Create Money Pit for RCMP. WHAT????

Of all the outlandish excuses for mishandling our money, I think this one takes the cake.

The Harper government spent more than four million dollars (they say only $144,862) to drain a quarry so that the RCMP had a place to stay.

Why were they forced to sleep in a pit? What, all the cozy spots under the bridges were gone?

The RCMP, though, say the cost to drain the quarry to prepare it for the summit was $144,862.

"This is literally a money pit," said Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland in a news release Thursday. "The Conservatives borrowed and spent $4 million of taxpayers' dollars to rent a hole in the ground so RCMP officers could have a place to sleep." Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the spending in Question Period, saying the bulk of the $1.3 billion was for security.

That excuses it?

How much 'ya wanna' bet that one of their wealthy developer friends needed the quarry drained for their next money making scheme, so Harper just let taxpayers foot the bill?

Draining it so the RCMP had a place to sleep. How stupid do they think we are?

Ignorance Had a Good Run. It's Time to Bring Intelligence Back to Politics

"Dispelling ignorance should be the first duty of the intellectual" Adrienne Clarkson

Is anyone else as tired as I am with the notion that politicians must dummy down? That messages must reach the ears of the of the ignorant because it's those voices that will drown out all others?

Do we really aspire to be stupid? The Conservatives believe that we do, and we can only hope that they are wrong. As Andrew Potter suggests, however:

The storyline of the summer was the emergence of the federal Conservatives as a party committed to principled ignorance. Whatever the issue—crime, climate change, the census—the government has made it a point of pride to actively ignore facts, research, and expert opinion. Baird’s crack about “elites” is part of a strategy that believes there is little to be gained in politics by having good ideas and implementing evidence-based policies. Instead, the key to success is being able to control the meanings of words used in political discourse.

Words that work, are replacing words that inspire. Lawrence Martin called it a bumper sticker mentality.

And ignorance is being promoted by Fox News, who appeal to the worst in everyone. And it's a destructive force:

Obama took specific aim at Fox's Australian-born chairman and chief executive, accusing Rupert Murdoch of being more concerned about generating profits than promoting an agenda to improve America's well-being. The U.S. president likened Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper baron whose sensational publications produced the term 'yellow' journalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

"Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints," Obama said in the interview, conducted Sept. 17 by Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner.

"I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his No. 1 concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."

Journalism as a business with no agenda other than dumming down a viewing public, to make their nonsense palpable. The Brits are just as concerned with Rupert Murdoch, who is set to launch his Fox News North in Canada.

Potter suggests that the Liberals need to reduce their message to the level of the Conservatives, Republicans and Fox News. I hope they don't. We don't need more ignorance.

The Fox News inspired Tea Parties south of the border, should be American political debate hitting bottom. Because while they have some just concerns, they have no reasonable solutions. And the Republicans don't want them to have reasonable solutions.

Because if they did they would never vote Republican.

It's easier to appeal to emotions where little thinking is involved. And an ignorant public is a compliant public. They can be talked into anything.

So Stephen Harper Was Going to Go See the Queen

In Lawrence Martin's new book: Harperland, we learn that had Stephen Harper not been granted his wish to prorogue Parliament in December of 2008, he would have gone above the head of the Governor General and gone to the Queen.

It's inexcusable that a prime minister would be so ignorant of the Canadian parliamentary system.

The Queen would have done nothing. The Letters Patent state: And We do further authorize and empower Our Governor General to exercise all powers lawfully belonging to Us in respect of summoning, proroguing or dissolving the Parliament of Canada.

The GG had the final say.

He hated that there was someone with more power in this country than he.

Why Chantel Hebert Has it Dead Wrong

Chantel Hebert should be worried. Or not.

The old Reformer Lorne Gunter is singing her praises in the National Post, but since she's been steadily moving toward the right, maybe this is a good thing for her. But for progressive Canadians it just means that another one has bitten the dust.

And not just for her right-leaning column, but for one of the poorest researched articles to grace the pages of a national newspaper in years.

Who will save Trudeau's legacy? She asks, citing the demise of many provincial Liberal governments as setting the tone for federal politics.

What she fails to comprehend is that Pierre Trudeau's legacy was not Liberal, but Canadian. He carved out a "just society" through consensus building and a profound desire that Canada be the best that it could be. A progressive and sovereign nation, that would play by it's own rules.

In that way he invoked Sir John A. MacDonald, Louis St. Laurent and John Diefenbaker, among others. All strong nationalists.

Trudeau could be tough when he needed to be, but that toughness was on the side of what was right for this country.

And besides the fact that Hebert paints Jean Charest, former leader of the federal PC party as a Liberal, the rest of her piece is pure nonsense.

When Pierre Trudeau was in power he had few provincial allies.

Newfoundland: Though briefly under Liberal Joey Smallwood, the premiers when Trudeau was PM were Frank Moores and Brian Peckford, both Progressive Conservative.

New Brunswick: Richard Hatfield, PC, throughout.

Nova Scotia: Initially Liberal Gerald Reagan but for the most part under PC John Buchanan

Prince Edward Island: Alex Campbell, W.B. Campbell and Angus MaLean, all PC.

Alberta: Ernest Manning and Harry Strom, Social Credit. Peter Lougheed PC

Manitoba: Ed Schreyer and Howard Pawley, NDP. Sterling Lyon PC.

Saskatchewan: Allan Blakeney NDP. Grant Devine* (Neoconservative)

British Columbia: William Bennett and William Jr. both Social Credit. David Barrett NDP.

Ontario: John Robarts and William Davis, both PC

Quebec: Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Union Nationale, Robert Bourassa Liberal and Rene Levesque Parti-Quebecois

And with the exception of Jimmy Carter, the US presidents throughout Trudeau's tenure were Republican, including two from the ultra-right: Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Pierre Trudeau represented progress, and not because of provincial allies or allies south of the border, but in spite of the fact that he constantly met with opposition.

But it was a different Canada then. And it was different media then.

And yes the Bloc is now dominant in Quebec, but I like the Bloc, and in fact they are far more representative of Canadian values than Stephen Harper.

However, today, the only ones capable of saving Trudeau's legacy is us.

But it won't simply be Trudeau's legacy we'll be saving, but also the legacy of Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, Louis St. Laurent, and all the other great Canadian politicians who acted on the will of the people. The Canadian people.

Because if we can't do it, heaven help us.

Footnotes:

*Suggested reading: Privatizing a Province: The New Right in Saskatchewan, By: James M. Pitsula and Ken Rasmussen, New Star Books, 1990, ISBN: 0-921586-10-8

Why Rick Salutin Must be Reinstated by the Globe

The Globe and Mail in their infinite wisdom have chosen to fire Rick Salutin, one of the few journalists left who understood that their role in society was to record history, and provide a voice for the people.

His columns were always well researched and thought provoking.

Not good in a neoconservative country where a thinking public is considered to be a dangerous public.

But he was one of the few left who spoke with a progressive voice. Maude Barlow suggested some time ago that Chantel Hebert was the only one we had speaking for the average Canadian on television, but she has clearly moved to the right, her attacks on liberalism almost as visceral as Stephen Harper's.

And while Harper groupie Jane Taber, as Senior Parliamentary Writer for the Globe, definitely set the tone, it was refreshing to find an alternative voice. As Murray Dobbin says:

Not many columnists in this country have achieved icon status but Rick Salutin is one of them. There are also not many touchstones for progressive Canadians still intact -- things that give us some comfort that the world hasn't completely fallen apart, at least not yet ....

Each time I saw that column in the Globe -- a hard-line neo-liberal paper in most ways -- it allowed me to believe progressive voices were still part of the mainstream debate -- a place at the table that we might be able to expand. The sheer breadth of his commentary is amazing -- economics, politics, culture, cities, philosophy, the nation. And in all of it he was an original thinker -- not "derivative of anyone" as some else said today. He challenged, provoked us into thinking beyond conventional progressive ideas and ways of seeing. He was tough but never shrill and rarely really angry -- just dead on the money. When you read Rick Salutin you feel like you still live in Canada.

I think that nails it. "You feel like you still live in Canada". Not a feeling I have much these days.

So email the Globe's Editor in Chief, John Stackhouse: jstackhouse@globeandmail.com and tell him that this is not acceptable.