Thursday, February 13, 2014

A Troubled Canadian's Mind





I have been a little under the weather the last two days, an illness that curiously began shortly after I had an unsettling thought about the federal budget. (I am sure there is no cause-and-effect between the two;)) Watching the numbers listed in the graphic, it occurred to me that for the average Canadian who pays little to no attention to our political environment, all must seem well, other than for the smokers who will be facing a tax hike on their poison of choice. The much greater costs of austerity remain hidden.

Although it was hardly a new insight, aware as I am that only a minority follow politics closely, I did find it a bit discouraging knowing it is the very fact of electoral disengagement that drives most of the disdainful and ultimately destructive policy initiatives of the current federal regime.

Then I read Thomas Walkom's column, found in today's Star, which offered a measure of solace.

Entitled Stephen Harper’s meanness may backfire, Walkom begins by observing how Harper's politics of division and demonization have worked so well for him up to this point:

Harper pushed through his law and order agenda by demonizing anyone who dared to contradict him.

Those who questioned Canada’s presence in the Afghan war were tarred as traitors who didn’t appreciate the country’s brave soldiers.

Those who fretted about government measures to monitor the Internet were labelled supporters of child pornography.

Indeed, the strategy is ongoing, as reflected in the 'Fair' Elections Act and reforms to the Citizenship Act; the former will make it more difficult for people to vote or ferret out election fraud; the latter offers the spectre of citizenship-stripping of those who don't quite toe the line. Both bills seem manifestations of the Tory mania for political payback against those it perceives to be its enemies, while at the same time throwing morsels to that part of their base given to Pavlovian salivation.

And yet, in Walkom's view, there may indeed be limits to the politics of meanness and division. Citing a history I am well-ware of as an Ontario resident, he says:

Look at history. [Mike] Harris’ tough, no-nonsense approach gave him back-to-back election victories in the 1990s. The voters loved it when he attacked welfare moms and shafted well-paid teachers.

But then the voters announced that they were sick of meanness and turfed the Tories from office.


Parenthetically, Walkom omits the fact that Harris, being essentially what all bullies are, a coward, resigned as Premier before he could be turfed out by increasingly disenchanted Ontarians who discovered there are some very real limits and spiritual costs to relentless hatred of 'the other.'

What is the evidence that the Harper strategy of demagoguery is losing its effectiveness? Walkom cites the growing popularity of Justin Trudeau, a popularity that cannot be explained by Liberal policy which, other than for Trudeau's announced intention to legalize marijuana, appears non-existent.

Says Walkom:

What distinguishes Trudeau is his sunny optimism. Who knows what he is like in private? But in public, he does not seem mean.

Harper, by contrast, does. No matter how many times he croons old Beatles songs, no matter how often he channels Neil Diamond, he comes across as a sourpuss.

That image worked as long as Harper was trying to portray himself as the no-nonsense accountant guiding Canada’s economy through recession.

But the Conservatives say the economic crisis is virtually over. If so, why vote for the accountant again?


While the political observer within is not entirely convinced of Walkom's thesis, the human being pining for a positive environment in which constructive and salutary policy can be enacted for the good of all Canadians is guardedly optimistic.


12 comments:

  1. There is a picture of FDR, Lorne, cigarette holder in his mouth, with that toothy grin of his. That obviously had something to do with his success. When was the last time you saw Harper smile as if he meant it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The few times I have seen Harper attempt a smile, Owen, I had to turn away; I have something of an aversion to such ghoulish and unnatural sights.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for that little trip down memory lane. What a time that was. Dudley George, Walkerton, the deaths that occured as a direct result of the hate-on-the-poor policies. Lots of hate still here. That's the problem when people intentionally and with malice--poison the well. Scorched-earth policies that enrich their very targeted, very select, few. Hell, you can profile their supporters SO easy. And those con voters, with their IGMFY approach to community and civil society, making us the blame for whatever ails them that day, need to be reminded, time and time again, that they're the minority. How long can the minority be so smug?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the timely reminder (although many are seared into my memory) of the atrocities (and no, I don't think that's hyperbolic) committed during the Harris era, Anon.

      In answer to your question, Anon, "How long can the minority be so smug?", I guess the answer is as long as the majority remain disengaged and complacent.

      Delete
  3. I hope you feel better. I feel depressed when I read about politics in Canada. You might have noticed that I hardly post on politics and in general.

    I hope that Harper will meet the same fate as Harris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. LD. I am feeling much better today. I agree with you in the hope that Harper meets the same fate as Harris, but I hope it comes as an election defeat and not because he takes the coward's way out, as did Harris.

      Delete
  4. Also true that people cheer on the meanness that is being visited upon their neighbors, until they themselves are at the receiving end.

    For example, I recall watching on TV this unfortunate senior in Ontario grieving the loss of his wife to listeria and vowing that he would never again vote for the Harper Cons. He said, tearfully, that he had always voted Cons all his life but never again. While I sympathized with his sad loss, I could not help thinking why he had not learnt from what had happened in Walkerton in the Harris years? I wondered if he had felt any sympathy for the people who had lost loved ones there? And of course the meanness of the Harris years were well known (you mentioned some of them above) and it should not take a rocket scientist to know that people were suffering due to those mean policies.

    Then there are the veterans who now are saying they will not vote Cons again in 2015. Again, I had wondered how many of these veterans had actually voted for Harper and had perhaps even cheered when he attacked Layton as Taliban Jack or the Liberals as Taliban Lovers? It would not surprise me if the military and the veterans groups had been one of Harpers' strongest supporters, perhaps until now.

    However, ignorance is curable but stupidity is forever. Thus it is better for people to admit they made a mistake and that they have learnt from it than to keep repeating the same mistake over and over.

    But still, isn't it interesting that some people seem unable to learn just by watching what is happening to others and appear to need to experience the setbacks themselves before they open their eyes, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, your comments point out one of our greatest failings as human beings, our difficulty in empathizing with others unless their situation mirrors or is similar to ours. Thankfully, we have enough evidence in the world that people are able to rise above that shortcoming; were it not so, progressive legislation would not exist, including labour laws, health and safety regulations, the social safety net, etc.etc.

      However, it is crucial, I think, that we understand those shortcomings in our collective humanity in order to guard against politicians such as Harris, Harper, et al. who gleefully exploit them through their manipulative, demagogic, and ultimately destructive legislation.

      Delete
  5. I have never thought that Harper had a completely-formed personality, Lorne. Even his smile is forced, artificial. Years ago The Economist referred to Harper as an "automaton" and it's hard to dispute that. We see this wet-cardboard personage in public yet receive reports of his volatile, seemingly uncontrollable rage that he's known to reveal to insiders in private settings.

    When was the last time you gathered with colleagues and launched into a tirade of verbal abuse and chair-kicking, Lorne?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I felt Walkom was being quite restrained in his description of Harper as a sourpuss, Mound. I think I would use something more clinical, perhaps borderline personality, to describe his condition. I wonder what a psychiatrist would say?

      Delete
  6. .. I have discussed the behavior of Stephen Harper with a wide range of healthcare clinicians .. I have also worked with the emotionally disturbed, in maximum security and with the drug addicted.. and have confronted several sociopaths along the road I've travelled..

    On the sunnier side of life.. where I revel in being a Canadian ..
    I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with many exemplars ..
    and I continue to follow and read about such exceptional people..

    Having seen and marveled at these exemplars.. and their attributes
    I find myself aghast at the sickness on the other end of the spectrum
    the dark fringe where Flanagan, Harper, Oliver's, Clark's and Redfords
    Clements, Fantino's Flaherty, Hamilton's Byrne & Novaks thrive..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Points well-taken, Salamander. When I was in the classroom, most of my students and their parents were fine people. Yet the bad ones, as small a proportion as they were, always stuck in my craw, leaving me with many sleepless nights.

      You are right. We really owe it to ourselves and others to remember that the good far outnumber the bad; it's just that sometimes, unfortunately, the bad wield a disproportionate amount of power or influence, a sad fact that our current broken political landscape attests to.

      Delete