How far would an unfettered Harper go? by Ralph Surette
Source : Halifax Chronicle Herald
September 6, 2008
PRIME MINISTER Stephen Harper wanted promises of unconditional support from the opposition parties as the price of continuing Parliament.
But he didn't say what he'd want them to support. His future directions are exceedingly vague.
Flush with cash, armed with Republican Party tactics of social division, with political hitmen from the old Mike Harris government at the ready, his hopes seem to be that his "leadership" image combined with a splintered opposition and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's handicaps will carry the day and that he won't have to explain anything.
He could be right. But meanwhile, the vagueness revives the niggling question about his intentions. Does he have a "secret agenda"?
The answer is no, but that's the wrong question.
The agenda is quite open. Originally, it was elaborated when he was head of the National Citizens' Coalition, an Alberta-based, corporate-supported, right-wing advocacy group: cut taxes, slash support for the arts and citizens' groups, trash Canada's United Nations peacekeeping role, discredit any activity carried on by the state except the military, privatize or diminish public sector services, and so on.
That's what he's been doing. The question, rather, is: How far would he go in these directions if blessed by a majority?
Would he, for example, destroy public medicare – the primary reason why the NCC was originally created? He was for Canada sending troops to Iraq. If the trigger-happy Republicans stay in office down south, would he be committing Canada to new U.S.-led quagmires?
He's made noises about the CBC before. Would putting the CBC under be the crowning piece of his arts-cutting? He had to be beaten over the head to even acknowledge climate change.
Would a Conservative majority signal the end of all but the pretence of an environmental policy – and four more wasted years on that front? Would he trash public regulation of this and that, as he's accused of trying to do with food inspection?
There was an article in the August edition of Harper's Magazine exploring the wreckage of the Bush years, and the political psychology that led to it. Except for some details and emphases, it was an apt description of the Harper Conservatives.
It's a movement that "understands the liberal state as a perversion" and considers the market alone as the ruling mechanism of human affairs.
On the stump, it preaches family values and generally democracy's "first principles." But put it in power and all that disappears. There the "public interest" is laughed off as nonsense, war is declared on the public service, and a cult is made of outsourcing and privatization.
And, I might add, "freedom and democracy" are degraded into bywords for corporate cronyism and electoral manipulation. We're not fully there yet in Canada, but we're headed that way. Would a Harper majority get us there?
The most peculiar element of this mindset, however, is "conservatives' sense of their own exclusion." No matter how firm a grasp they have on power, they consider themselves mavericks, rebels, outsiders to the power structure – that their duty is to assault.
It was the case with Reagan and Bush. One of the main themes of the Republican convention this week, including the cornerstone of embattled vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin's barn-burning speech, is that "Washington is broken" and must be fixed, the boots put to the "elite" – as though their own party hadn't been in power for the last eight years doing the breaking.
With Stephen Harper, the civil service, the "state," is also the enemy, which must be belittled, blamed and bypassed and ultimately cut as much as possible. In his view, the civil service is the Liberal party in drag, always out to get him, and its decisions have to be short-circuited by the superior judgment of political operatives.
We're reminded of this constantly. The whitewash report on the Maxime Bernier affair blamed Foreign Affairs officials for not inquiring sooner about the documents the minister had left at his girlfriend's house!
And now they're discovered to have turned down and cancelled a number of ecology projects, apparently overruling the established programs – no doubt a political message to government officials.
Along with this attitude comes a disrespect for due process, even for the rule of law (which exists in abundance in George Bush's White House), which can be usurped any time by political authority. On that point, Harper has been kept in check, but how far would his one-man rule go with a majority is part of the simmering question.
The economy, the environment, the worsening war in Afghanistan or, in an unstable political environment, any number of unforeseen issues might break out and dominate the upcoming campaign.
But no matter what it is, the job for the opposition is to drag Stephen Harper's not-so-mysterious intentions out into the open so we can vote with our eyes open.
© Halifax Chronicle Herald
But he didn't say what he'd want them to support. His future directions are exceedingly vague.
Flush with cash, armed with Republican Party tactics of social division, with political hitmen from the old Mike Harris government at the ready, his hopes seem to be that his "leadership" image combined with a splintered opposition and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's handicaps will carry the day and that he won't have to explain anything.
He could be right. But meanwhile, the vagueness revives the niggling question about his intentions. Does he have a "secret agenda"?
The answer is no, but that's the wrong question.
The agenda is quite open. Originally, it was elaborated when he was head of the National Citizens' Coalition, an Alberta-based, corporate-supported, right-wing advocacy group: cut taxes, slash support for the arts and citizens' groups, trash Canada's United Nations peacekeeping role, discredit any activity carried on by the state except the military, privatize or diminish public sector services, and so on.
That's what he's been doing. The question, rather, is: How far would he go in these directions if blessed by a majority?
Would he, for example, destroy public medicare – the primary reason why the NCC was originally created? He was for Canada sending troops to Iraq. If the trigger-happy Republicans stay in office down south, would he be committing Canada to new U.S.-led quagmires?
He's made noises about the CBC before. Would putting the CBC under be the crowning piece of his arts-cutting? He had to be beaten over the head to even acknowledge climate change.
Would a Conservative majority signal the end of all but the pretence of an environmental policy – and four more wasted years on that front? Would he trash public regulation of this and that, as he's accused of trying to do with food inspection?
There was an article in the August edition of Harper's Magazine exploring the wreckage of the Bush years, and the political psychology that led to it. Except for some details and emphases, it was an apt description of the Harper Conservatives.
It's a movement that "understands the liberal state as a perversion" and considers the market alone as the ruling mechanism of human affairs.
On the stump, it preaches family values and generally democracy's "first principles." But put it in power and all that disappears. There the "public interest" is laughed off as nonsense, war is declared on the public service, and a cult is made of outsourcing and privatization.
And, I might add, "freedom and democracy" are degraded into bywords for corporate cronyism and electoral manipulation. We're not fully there yet in Canada, but we're headed that way. Would a Harper majority get us there?
The most peculiar element of this mindset, however, is "conservatives' sense of their own exclusion." No matter how firm a grasp they have on power, they consider themselves mavericks, rebels, outsiders to the power structure – that their duty is to assault.
It was the case with Reagan and Bush. One of the main themes of the Republican convention this week, including the cornerstone of embattled vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin's barn-burning speech, is that "Washington is broken" and must be fixed, the boots put to the "elite" – as though their own party hadn't been in power for the last eight years doing the breaking.
With Stephen Harper, the civil service, the "state," is also the enemy, which must be belittled, blamed and bypassed and ultimately cut as much as possible. In his view, the civil service is the Liberal party in drag, always out to get him, and its decisions have to be short-circuited by the superior judgment of political operatives.
We're reminded of this constantly. The whitewash report on the Maxime Bernier affair blamed Foreign Affairs officials for not inquiring sooner about the documents the minister had left at his girlfriend's house!
And now they're discovered to have turned down and cancelled a number of ecology projects, apparently overruling the established programs – no doubt a political message to government officials.
Along with this attitude comes a disrespect for due process, even for the rule of law (which exists in abundance in George Bush's White House), which can be usurped any time by political authority. On that point, Harper has been kept in check, but how far would his one-man rule go with a majority is part of the simmering question.
The economy, the environment, the worsening war in Afghanistan or, in an unstable political environment, any number of unforeseen issues might break out and dominate the upcoming campaign.
But no matter what it is, the job for the opposition is to drag Stephen Harper's not-so-mysterious intentions out into the open so we can vote with our eyes open.
© Halifax Chronicle Herald
