.jpg)
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
