Contempt Of The Electorate - Part 2

As I continue to ponder the question my friend Tom posed about why discredited economic theories are not vigorously opposed and exposed as such by political parties and media, two articles perhaps offer some helpful contextual information.

The first is by John Barber in today's Star, entitled Hudak’s discredited doctrine a lucky break for Wynne. In it, he remarks on the good fortune that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is enjoying by having an ideologue, Tim Hudak, helming the party of her chief opposition, The Progressive Conservatives of Ontario:

Hudak has presented her a chance once again to make righteous war on Mike Harris’s amply discredited Common Sense Revolution.

Barber speculates that embracing such an extreme austerity program that will see the elimination of 100,000 public service jobs in order to balance the books a year or two earlier than Wynne intends suggests one of two motives: either it is a strategy to gain a majority government by mobilizing true believers more likely to turn out in an election than others, or Hudak and his brain trust are mad, an explanation Barber favours, given that it reflects a worldwide trend of neoconservatives:

The boldness of the policy is the product of assumptions so ingrained the zealots see no need to explain them. Fixated by their own mechanistic ideology, they blandly expect voters to understand intuitively — or religiously, as they seem to do — that destroying jobs will create jobs and that cutting taxes will increase revenue. It’s all so clear to them. Don’t you see, Ontario?

Barber then provides a link to a recent column by Paul Krugman, entitled Points of No Return. In it, the economist writes about how facts, reason and informed cerebration seem to be losing out to crazed ideology and contempt for science and others sources of empirical data, bringing us to the point where the process of intellectual devolution seems to have reached a point of no return.

It, too, is a piece well-worth reading, as Krugman examines the Republican Party and its wholesale embrace of an ideology that reveres patently false economic ideas (austerity would be one such example), and offers reflexive rejection of inconvenient scientific truth (the notion of human-caused climate would be an example). The more obvious the falsity of the outlook, the more adherents become

more, not less, extreme in their dogma, which will make it even harder for them ever to admit that they, and the political movement they serve, have been wrong all along.

Strikingly like a certain domestic federal regime I could also name, no?

Admittedly, this does not offer a direct answer to Tom's question. But is it possible that those politicians who oppose such flawed doctrines are afraid of enraging those voters who do, a reaction that might strengthen their already motivated resolve to be a present en masse at the ballot box?

I would more than welcome input on this perplexing issue.

Musical Chairs Belong At Children's Parties, Not In The Senate

I really have nothing to add here. The absolute puerility of the Conservatives speaks for itself:

OTTAWA—The so-called house of sober second thought witnessed the kind of contest normally associated with first-grade birthday parties, as a showdown erupted over seating arrangements this week.

The newly elected chair of the Senate banking committee, Conservative Irving Gerstein, didn’t want the vice-chair, Liberal Céline Hervieux-Payette, sitting next to him.

When he asked her to step away from the head table, she refused.

So Gerstein, elected this week as chair, called a vote to kick Payette out of her seat.

With a Conservative majority on the committee, the motion passed Wednesday and the game of partisan musical chairs ended with Payette being forced to sit farther away.

Will the Conservatives next be claiming that girls have cooties?

Sunday Insight From A Star Reader

I'm reproducing another insightful letter from a Star reader, this time from Edward Carson of Toronto, who writes about how ideology reigns supreme over reality in the Harper government:

The Harper government’s “tough on crime” agenda through Bill C-10 is a policy and fiscal disaster in the making.

A government so focused on this country’s financial resources is putting into place an already discredited solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, one that is certain to strain those very resources. And yet all the evidence is simply being ignored.

The reason is rooted in Harper's adherence to ideology over common sense, but driving that ideology is a mix of easily recognized personal psychology and organizational behaviour resulting in a habit of going to great lengths to avoid a perceived loss — a win-at-all-costs mentality, not unlike that found in sports, that refuses to re-evaluate strategies, ideas or actions inconsistent with the facts.

We see this tendency to undermine rational action or thought in a range of things the Harper government does, from responding to questions in Parliament or media interviews with predigested answers that bear no relation to the questions asked, to larger issues such as their rejection of the long-form census or refusal to adequately address the actual cost of new jets. The initial, often ideological perspective is maintained in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary or the wisdom of a wider collective experience.

Edward Carson, Toronto

A Blow Against Public Morality

Despite the conviction of the Conservative Party of Canada for the illegal financing of its 2006 campaign that brought it to power, a blow has been struck against, not for, public morality.

As reported in The Star, the sophisticated in-and-out scheme, masterminded by the likes of now-Senator Doug Findley, saw the Conservatives shifting "national advertising money, through wire transfers into and immediately out of local riding campaign accounts, in order to claim national ad spending as local." This illegal tactic allowed the party to far exceed legal limits on campaign spending, probably a factor in its electoral victory.

The public immorality resides not just in the act, but also in the punishment, the reason for the punishment, and the spin being placed on that sanction by Conservative Party operatives.

First, the punishment - a mere $52,000 fine.

The reason for that paltry punishment, which made no effort to hold the architects of the fraud, Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, then-party director Michael Donison, and then-chief financial officer Susan Kehoe. criminally responsible, was explained by Crown attorney Richard Roy. He suggested to Judge Célynne Dorval that it was in the “public interest” to strike the deal that withdrew charges against them. The judge agreed, saying that an expected six-month trial “would not have made any difference” even if there had been convictions because the fines amounted to the maximum penalties that could have been imposed.

Legally, what the judge said may be true, but that failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime allows for the following, the spin being placed on the results by the Conservative Party apparatus, who call it a “big victory.”

“Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,” said spokesman Fred DeLorey, in a written statement afterwards.

Conservative party lawyer Mark Sandler said the party’s guilty plea is only an admission of “inadvertent negligence” and not an outright or deliberate attempt to flout the law.

The hubris of the Conservatives is such that even this judicial slap on the wrist is contentious as the Conservative party and the Crown still disagree on the exact amount that was involved. The Crown says the national party failed to report $1.24 million spent, while the Conservatives admit only to $680,000.

The biggest victim in all of this sordid mess is the Canadian public, once more being shown by example that immorality and illegality aren't really immorality and illegality, as long as you remain truculent and defiant in legal defeat.

David Sweet's Video Appearance

While Conservative M.P. David Sweet is coming under criticism after his appearance in a video honouring James Hubley, a gay teen who was bullied before his suicide, I have a different interpretation of his participation which I am sure many will disagree with (which is fine, by the way).

I gather that the controversy surrounding Sweet stems from the fact that he has previously expressed his religious view that homosexuality is unacceptable in the eyes of God. Now, everyone wants him to clarify his position, implying that his appearance in the video is either hypocritical or politically opportunistic.

I see it differently. Despite the 'gottcha' mentality that now pervades our society and which is probably at the root of much of this ado, I see his appearance in the video not as a negative event, but as a positive one. Casting aside for the moment my usual cynicism, I can't help but think that his decision to participate was done after some significant soul-searching, and marks a brave choice for a member of a party whose constituents are often angry, intolerant and dismissive of concepts such as differing sexual orientations.

So for me, David Sweet, even though he refuses to discuss the issue further, has made a moral choice that transcends both party affiliation and religious beliefs. And for that, I commend him.

Exploding the Myth: Conservatives as Able Managers of the Economy

Well, we have confirmation by Thomas Walkom in today's Star of two facts about Conservatives:

a) They are ideologically opposed to government being in the business of business
b) They are inept managers of the economy.

Both facts are evident in Walkom: AECL saga shows Conservatives have no business being in government, whereby the veteran journalist reveals how, in their haste to dispose of Atomic Energy Canada, they have concocted a sweetheart deal for their corporate sector friends at SNC-Lavilin Inc. that other 'free-enterprisers' can only dream about: in exchange for the $15 million purchase price for $1.1 billion in assets, Mr. Harper and the gang are paying SNC-Lavilin $75 million and placing AEC's $4.5 billion in liabilities solely on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Reminiscent of the time that other paragon of financial rectitude, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, gave away for a pittance to a German Consortium Highway 407.

No doubt, to the true believers, such deals make sense. The rest of us can only ponder the truths revealed.