Sneak attack

My friend Balbulican over at StageLeft scores again, this time with his observations on the Harpies' not-so-hidden agenda.

Back before the first Conservative Party electoral sort-of victory, we lefties were convinced that the Harperite wing of the party was driven by a secret program for Canada, a list of priorities antithetical to what we thought our country was all about. No-one ever set out their “secret Conservative Agenda” fears too specifically, but if they had, I imaging it would have looked something like this.

a) The Conservatives will dismantle or choke off funding to the organizations they perceive as “feminist”.

b) They’ll start quietly trying to reverse the growing trend toward social acceptance of gays and lesbians.

As Balbulican muses, who would have thought that the Conjobs would actually openly do these things -- and more? We all figured that, as a minority government, they'd be sneakier about it.

But why should they when, as my friend and colleague Susan Delacourt tweeted today, opposition leader Michael Ignatieff is ''coming to a milk carton near you.''

Go forth and readeth.

Comments

[glenfitz]

In my view, the narrow ideological tunnel (mixed metaphors aside) through which Steven Harper's conservatives have been attempting to drag the country requires little explanation to even a reasonable person.

And especially for those of us who have from the beginning continually paid attention to Harper's rise to power, the irrationality of Harper's agenda simply is what it is.

Like the fallen light post in my apartment building's parking lot, the Conservative party's painful, dangerous, and out-of-place existence requires zero intellect to dismiss much beyond the casual observation spoken out loud and almost absentmindedly to a fellow traveler: "Oh, don't drive over the fallen light post."

To challenge the conservatives on a whole range of issues wouldn't even rate as sport of amateur debater's sport.

Given the Conservatives up-front and in-your-face intellectual bankruptcy, there is only one way you can really lose the edge in a political battle with them for compelling narrative. Just start a blog, and type-cast your blog's content as leftist or left-of-stage.

The moment you do that, you've lost.

Harper's conservatives can then fit your opposition into the sweeping framework of the stereo-typical "loony left," often portrayed in political cartoons two generations ago---enraged hippies, placards in hand, with their faces contorted in outrage.

The Stageleft blog has a lot of useful commentary, and even more useful links to offer, but its self-branding as a leftist perspective has pretty much has damned it to lose the battle in attempts to define political narrative for our times.

Take the position that your approach to an issue is the most logical or moral one. But never adapt a brand name for political dissent which your opponent can exploit for the sake of silly stereo-types believed by the public.

You're right because you have the best approach to an issue, not because your a "leftist" or "stageleft" intellectual. To win over the public, your solution to issues should overwhelm with its appeal to sane and simply grasped perspective. And for heaven's sake, abandon the appeal to political labeling and stereo-types, for they immediately brand you as a pundit with implicit and partisan bias.

[PaulR]

Sounds like a case of "You win some; you lose some."