It's been surreal to watch and listen to Stephen Harper's former cabinet ministers distance themselves from their boss. Bob Hepburn writes:
Let’s start with Rona Ambrose, the new interim party leader. Without a hint of insincerity, Ambrose insists her caucus will no longer engage in the “nastiness” of the old Harper government and will be more “constructive, effective” in working as the Official Opposition.
Also, Ambrose has completely reversed herself on the need for a public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. For years, the Tories refused to hold an inquiry into what the RCMP says are more than 1,200 cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
Now she is all in favour of an inquiry, saying it “is an absolutely non-partisan issue, it should never be political.”
And then there's Tony Clement, who deep sixed the long form census:
Next is Tony Clement, the former industry minister who cancelled the long-form census of 2011, a move widely denounced inside and outside of government. Clement was relentless in implementing the change, insisting it was needed to protect citizen privacy.
Now Clement is expressing regrets, saying in hindsight that “I would have done it differently.”
And, of course, there's Kellie Leitch, who -- academically at least -- is supposed to be very bright:
Then there’s Kellie Leitch, the former labour minister at the centre of one of the lowest points in the Tory campaign. She hit that point when she joined cabinet colleague Chris Alexander in announcing “a snitch hotline” to report “barbaric cultural practices.” In reality, Leitch was urging Canadians to target Muslims in their neighbourhoods.
Now Leitch, who apparently dreams of succeeding Harper, says the plan was misunderstood and not communicated very well.
Hepburn writes that the Conservatives must really think voters are stupid. Given the results of the election, and their own pronouncements, it's pretty clear that stupidity is closer to home than the former Harperites realize.
21 comments:
They (conservatives) didn't seem to mind or question the stupidity of 33% of those who voted in this country. At least now we have something more like 39% of an increased voter turn out as a so called majority. A little better I suppose. Not complaining, just saying.
I read the article at breakfast this morning, Owen, and all I could think of was how shallow the talent pool of the Conservative Party truly is. That will not, of course, stop any of them from sharing their 'wisdom' in the coming days about what Trudeau should do in light of the terrorist massacre in Paris. Let us hope that Canadians will consider both the source and the substance of their 'insights' before jumping on board the xenophobia express with the Harpersaurs.
My impression was that Harper's base was like Harper's cabinet, zoombats. They'd do whatever he told them to do.
In the case of the Harperites, Lorne, Mark Twain's observation is entirely accurate: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."
As I have said several times in regards to this lot Owen, those that remain silent in the face of obvious wronging are just as guilty as those that commit such actions. Its a bit late now for a change of heart!
Certainly, if they claim a change of heart, they can't be believed, Rural.
Ms. Leitch certainly does seem to be an enigma.
Considering her apparent academic qualifications, her lofty position in Ontario medical circles and as well as her professorial role at U of T and her once highly placed political position one would expect a lot more from such a 'gifted' person.
Perhaps not.
We also 'gifted' her financially as well with a medical specialists salary in Ontario approaching $300,000.00 per annum, assistant university prof at $100,000.00 and a federal cabinet minister at $207,000.00 plus perks she certainly came close to being a one percenter both socially and financially.
One must hope that she earns her medical and university 'stipends' for better performance than her political foray.
Michael Ignatieff should have stayed at Harvard, ron. I suspect that Ms. Leitch should have stuck to her medical and academic careers.
The entire Cons Party, including Michael Chong, had voted with and supported Harper on the major issues (C-51, Unfair Elections Act, multiple omnibus bills). Chong, although relatively better than the rest, was just as guilty as Ambrose, Leitch, et. al. on toeing and supporting the major Harper policies.
Follows that these people must believe that this is what their Cons base voters really wanted or they would have spoken out against Harper in the last 9 years and not only after Oct. 19. Rathgeber who had bravely stood out against Harper did not win election in his riding, more proof that the Cons base had approved of the Harper race baiting, divisive, incompetent and ethically and morally corrupt actions.
Quite clearly, these people must believe that if they softened their tone, they can fool enough voters to again win power. I think the Oct. 19 results had proven that you cannot fool all the people all of the time and I think these people are going to be in the desert for a long time unless they truly smarten up.
They do not seem to understand, Anon, why they lost the election.
We can reserve the right to be skeptical of high academic achievement. Of all its requirements the most important is persistence. Anyone with a degree has had to endure at least one dullard, but tenured, professor. Ms. Leitch's credentials don't impress me in the least; it's her deeds that stand out.
Our deeds define all of us, Toby.
We'll get a glimpse of how Harper's legacy fares during the Tory leadership campaign, Owen. I wrote a piece today about how we're seeing Canada's radical right surfacing in the wake of the Paris attacks.
If the Tory leadership campaign becomes a struggle between the moderates (PCs) and the Reformers, watch to see if the Reformers seek to harness the radical right to bolster their numbers. If they do cultivate the support of the Tea Partyish radicals we'll know that Harper's ideology and his skill at wedge politics and social division are alive and well.
Your post really does lay out the problem, Mound. We see the same insanity being played out south of the border in Donald Trump's campaign. He, too, sees the answer in more guns. It's the same march of folly which has turned the Middle East into the cauldron which it is today.
The inmates have seized control of the asylum.
I do not believe it is the voters stupidity they rely on so much as their combination of short term memory and ignorance, which while not the same things can end up with the same effect. They key difference is stupidity is a constant and uncorrectable thing, whereas ignorance and memory issues are not, as the last election underscored. The problem the CPCers are having is essentially since their party came together and formed a government until now they have been able to get away with loads and loads of nonsense, idiocy, and unsupported assertions passed off as facts because voters/citizens were mostly ignorant of the nuances because they were not paying close enough attention, and aside from things like the Duffy scandal tended to forget the details of much of what they did pick up, further enhancing that ignorance. Not to mention the media's failing role in being the checker of facts and assertions for connection to fact and reality and instead becoming CPC mouthpieces in many cases, Postmedia being a current well known example.
One of the reasons I have preferred to stay with my long form essay writing approach is that it requires me to keep my facts straight, keep my awareness high, and to also do my part in trying to remind others of what these facts and realities are. I offer context to those who are not getting it elsewhere, or who need reminding of it because they see it so seldom. It is a part of what I believe I am good at, just as say Montreal Simon is good with imagery messaging, something I can appreciate but have no skill whatsoever at. So I see Ambrose and company caught in their own trap where this sort of information management is concerned, the only real question for me is whether they are consciously aware of it, or are they as much victims of their own approach as well as users of it.
By that I simply mean are they actually aware of how much they are relying on ignorance and are themselves aware of how much they are removing and relying on voters to forget/be unaware of, or have they too ended up losing so much awareness/memory and become that ignorant too and therefore actually believe what they are saying. Not that either is a good thing for Canada of course, but it is one of those things I wonder about, and which I would find the more offensive answer, some days it would be the former, others the latter.
Their refusal to release information suggests, Scotian, that they were well aware of how important ignorance was to their cause. However, when the economy and the Duffy trial went down the tubes, Canadians began to ask themselves Groucho Marx's question: "Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"
I've lost count of how many times I've said my lying eyes were the only thing I could trust during the Harperium versus what I was being told by media and the government. Most days I go with the deliberate intent side of things, but every so often they act so stupidly it makes me wonder if they have bought into their own bullshit.
I'm quite sure they have, Scotian. Goebbels rule about repeating a lie until it's believed true applies to the lying as well as to those who are lied to.
Which is one of the reason why you have to be willing to be ruthlessly self honest with yourself, especially when things go wrong. Interestingly enough, this also hits on my concerns with what I've been seeing with the federal NDP since election night onward. There doesn't seem to be any real willingness to look the reality straight in the face and accept that at the minimum the leader and campaign team made several crucial strategic as well as tactical/communications mistakes through that election which caused them to go from first to distant third in that campaign. You watch Brad Levigne on election night for example, that is possibly one of the most delusional/surreal moments of the election at the absolute minimum, and it almost perfectly represents your point about the lying believing their own lies. For it seemed to me that Lavigne wasn't just spinning his bullshit, he was believing it as well, and that was downright creepy. Same as Mulcair was going into election day thinking he could still shoot for a majority or even have a serious shot at government despite all indications to the contrary by that point. Since then the NDP leadership is acting like they won a victory against impossible forces to beat, and not like they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
For all my anger and issues with the NDP choices made with Layton/Mulcair over the past decade, I don't want them to fold up shop either. I feel they serve a very important function in our political dynamic, at least when they are being true to what they were before this project to replace the Libs by becoming them started up. Yet after a decade of that project it seems like NDP high command has bought into their own spin even more than the Harperites have into theirs and that is both disturbing and problematic. At this point neither of the two largest opposition parties strike me as dealing much with reality and both having gone so far into their own world of delusion that whatever they say and do will be informed by it instead of what reality is actually serving up, and that is NOT a healthy thing for our system of government.
For we all know that eventually the governing party will start to fall into the trap of believing its own spin too, it is inevitable, a matter of when, not if, because of the natures of power and human beings. We can guard against it in many ways, we can make it harder and harder to have happen, but it is impossible to stop entirely. This is in part why having opposition parties holding governments to account is important, but to be effective they must be doing so on things that actually are happening and in the manner they are claiming. Right now I'm not too worried about the Libs and this delusion in the short term given the road they have walked to come back to this point, but the longer the opposition parties stay in this mode the faster I fear that could change, if only because of lake of realism in the critiques.
to be concluded...
Conclusion:
Something a lot of partisans have trouble grasping with me and with others like me is that we care first for the system and second for those we prefer running it. I want healthy parties and leaders who are critical of governments as well as honest governments, I just want them to be doing so in an honest manner on actual real issues of concern, and not imaginary made up bullshit that sounds good for partisan spin wars. I remember when spin and rhetoric was about taking a fact/truth and dressing it up/down to best suit a position, but at its core it had to be a truth/fact/honest. That no longer seems to be the case, and what bothers me is that it isn't just our right wing we are seeing this from. It may not currently seem as problematic on the left wing because it is essentially bound up to internal party politics, but to me it is a bad sign of where things to come may be heading. Which is why I've diverted a bit onto the point here.
In any event, until and unless we have citizens actively involving themselves forcing things to improve, they won't. Hopefully Trudeau's mode of governing, as did his campaigning, will further encourage that as Susan Delacourt wrote a few days ago. We know we can't trust the media/press to do it anymore, the decade of Harperium proved that beyond all doubt.
You're last point is crucial, Scotian. The antidote to politicians who fall prey to believing their own spin is an engaged citizenry that can distinguish spin from fact.
Post a Comment