Weekend reading: On the subject of fear

Most political junkies got their fill of Harper-government  retrospectives last weekend, on the fifth anniversary of the Conservatives taking power. But there's one more must-read viewpoint  out there this weekend, penned by Andrew Coyne in Macleans. It's headlined: "The Damage Done By Doing So Little," if that helps as a summary. 

What's good about this piece, in my view, is that it punctures a myth I kept hearing repeated all last weekend from the punditocracy -- specifically that this government "got the big things right" in the past five years. Coyne, at essence a contrarian, forces us to examine what those "big things" are, beyond a ballooning deficit, which is big indeed. 

And if you're still in the mood for some assumption-rattling, then Susan Riley's column in today's Ottawa Citizen serves the same function. Riley, though, is looking ahead rather than backward, laying out the broad scope of a future election campaign, whenever that does come. Specifically, she's talking about the axis of fear: 

The ballot question may be what voters fear most: illegal immigrants, rampant crime, Russian bombers and the census taker, or growing income inequality, deteriorating social services and stagnating middle-class incomes.

 

It's good to see a couple of columnists stepping out from behind the wall of assumptions/talking points in federal politics, which blithely assert that whenever the current government is doing something -- negative ads, spending wildly -- it's doing it from a position of strength. Those silly ads this week, in violation of every private-sector advertising standard (and now pulled), told me something different. Strong, confident political parties don't go on the attack for the sheer joy of it. (Well, maybe political parties composed of 14-year-olds in their basements do, but presumably there are adults in the room somewhere in Conservative Ottawa.)

Every party has attack ads -- true. Liberals had some nasty ones held in reserve always through the campaigns of the 1990s and up to this day. But I think we're forgetting a cardinal rule of politicking -- attack ads are desperate measures, used when absolutely necessary to chip away at an opponent's advantage. If they're being released now, what exactly is the Conservative party  seeing to fear out there?  And that takes us back to Coyne's column: if your government is all about keeping power, then your biggest fear must revolve around losing it. 

 

Comments

[Aongasha]

Meat for the base and raised money - at very little cost, thanks to the media.
I'd say the attack ads accomplished just what they were intended to do. And I believe the Liberal party will do the same thing, if they have the money, during the next election campaign.

[Don Fletcher]

Good comment; I wonder how it is that political patrties ( of any stripe ) can get away with untruthful advertising. Look at the Advertising Standards Council recent spate of their own advertising , clearly indicating that TRUTH in advertsing is what they are all about.... yet political advertsing does not fall under their ambit of authority... that authority rests with Elections Canada.
While I am in full agreement with your comment ,I think more needs to be done at Elections Canada to apply a similar code of conduct as the ASC ... after all shouldnt those who wish to govern actually be held to a higher standard?

[Ronald]

In the last while Coyne is definitely gone bonkers. Much like Ignatieff and his Liberal misfits, he has gone off track since the wheels fell off.
There was a time when the journos' were respected for their unbiased columns and writings, but not anymore.
Not very hard to pick out the slugs who are too lazy to delve into the true facts and even when reporting them, leave out key words so as to mislead and misconstrue the true meaning of the thought or idea. Obviously the lackluster responsibility of journalists must contain stringent ethical practices, and be seen to be doing so.
I don't see that responsibility reflected by most journalists and that requires corrective action. Coyne is not the only one guilty of this "modus operandi."

[maggi]

I have wondered many times when I hear pundits saying over over again, that is managing the economy well, really, managed what. If Harper where managing a company that lost 12 billion annually over the GST cut and the bone head of them all 300 million on the UAE, he would have only time to pack his cell before he was out the door. Taxes are not evil, taxes are an asset to provide programmes for its citizens. Harper seems not to understand that. His only accomplishment, if it is, has been to campaign for the last 6 years but certainly not running a country.

[Bob Larocque]

Given the way Harper has conducted himself throughout his career, I say there's no way he's going to sit back and wait to be defeated. You can count on a spring election.

[Gabby in QC]

Maggi at 10:01 AM: "If Harper where [sic] managing a company that lost 12 billion annually ..."
An old canard. That "loss" is a reduction of the GST and increases in equalization payments. Peruse these pages to inform yourself: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp
Also, those who boast of Liberal surpluses forget these funds the Liberals "borrowed" to create those surpluses:
http://acep-cape.ca/pdfs/General/files/PD_Aug_2010_web_e.pdf/
"In the 1990’s, the Liberal government instituted a program of wage controls, which lasted for 6 years, and which featured a freeze on salaries for the last 5 years of the program. As employee pensions are based upon an average salary, the net effect was to reduce future pensions by an estimated 15%. Note that this was the primary reason that the pre-1999 federal public service pension plan accumulated a surplus of $30 billion, which the government then confiscated. …"
Then, there's this: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/13/scoc-employment-insurance.html
"Labour unions appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday to argue the federal government has been improperly spending billions of surplus dollars in the unemployment insurance fund ..."
So let's see: $54 billion from the EI fund + $30 billion from the public service pension fund, plus the revenue from the hated tax the Liberals first vowed to get rid of but then grew to love + downloading social service costs to the provinces + reducing transfer payments + "ten years of darkness" for a poorly-equipped military... yeah, sure, those "policies" were a good way to deliver a "balanced budgets and surpluses."

[MCBellecourt]

@Bob Larocque, I think you might be right. Good governance has given way to propaganda and half-truths.

I hold out the hope that people will make an honest effort to separate the real meat from the bologna and vote with open eyes. Canada is in trouble.

[JMacD]

As Ayn Rand noted--We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

The premonition of what is to be in Canada under a Harper majority was the G20 ---he is a man alone...and he rules the PC party with an iron fist. Only you and I can stop it--- Harper is not fit for office.

[John L]

The conservative legacy: Never have so few done so much against so many.

[Jim W]

some definitions the canadian voting public needs to know.

Debt = the amount of money we owe (you and me on our house mortgage) as citizens and voters the amount we owe for our country.

deficit = the amount of money you overspent but never seem to be able to pay on your visa, in Ottawa, the amount Harper should not have spent ( ethanol subsidies or G8 or G20 , Quebec votes ect.)

GreenNH3, the new fuel Harpers big oil bosses told him not to mention. Rumoured to be one reason Prentice moved on.

This is his last chance they ( Big Oil) gave him to try for a majority. The public knows Harper has some weird (Bilderberg) things going on way down deep in his mind.

[MCBellecourt]

The Internet UBB decision by the CRTC has sparked one heck of a backlash against the CRTC, and by extension, the government.

I've got a feeling that's not going away anytime soon. The sleeping giant is awakening and people of all political stripes are pretty browned off about it.

Let the games begin. Booo-yaaa!!

[GreenJim]

Wonder why Mansbridge was so easy on Harper in the interview?
They are both Bilderberg.
No they do not plan to take over the world by force.
But they do plan to keep the status quo.
Neither one will answer registered mail from GreenNH3
because it would go against BigOils wishes and Status Quo.

If you dont believe me send a letter to either one and ask them
why they will not mention or do something about a new fuel which
will create millions of green jobs with many other benefits
for Canada and see if they answer you back ??
If they do by chance answer pls send a copy to GreenNH3.

[Paul]

Well, I'm done. I am removing this link from my favourites. I can't waste my time day after day checking to see if there just might be a post today. No point having a blog unless there is at least one post a day. Or get an RSS feed so I am notified when a post appears. Good luck with your future endevours.