Were it possible for a corporate entity to be appointed to the Senate, I am sure that The Globe and Mail would now be making its presence felt in the Red Chamber.
Ever-constant friend to Stephen Harper, the paper with its cadre of ideological sycophants, John Ibbitson
consistently leading that particular pack, has proven itself time and again as the Tory newspaper of record.
The Globe's latest genuflection at the altar of Harper came on Monday in an article written by
Konrad Yakabuski entitled
Harper hysteria a sign of closed liberal minds. In it, said scribe suggests that we all calm down and see the Harper record in the kind of light that only a true believer could entertain:
Just what it is about the Conservative Leader that sends reasonable people into such fits of hysteria is best examined by historians, or better yet, psychiatrists. But it surely can’t be evidence, for Mr. Harper’s political style is not particularly novel, nor have his reforms been that transformational.
Two words in that paragraph are ample indication of the blinders Yakabuski donned for the premise of this piece:
style and
reforms. More about that in a moment.
Incredibly, he asserts that Harper largely
governs from the centre, upholding the long Canadian tradition of middle-of-the-road pragmatism.
I guess in order to try to reassure readers that his is not a satirical piece, Yakabuski admits his lord has perhaps made a mistake or two along the way but really, twas nothing:
Yes, the Conservatives have made some questionable policy choices in the name of stroking their base. Killing the long-form census was one. The form had been a long-standing bugaboo among conservatives who felt the state has no business knowing the granular details of their lives. Its demise has inconvenienced some researchers, but it has hardly led to a “subtle darkening of Canadian life.”
But what of all the criticism directed at Harper? Tut, tut. Nothing to see here. Move along:
...because elites in the media and academe have deemed Conservative supporters a less evolved species than the progressive subclass to which they themselves belong, they are beside themselves at the loss of their own influence.
And about the prime minister's obsessive micromanaging?
Autocratic, Stephen Harper? Well, yes, like just about every other successful prime minister from John A. Macdonald to Mackenzie King to Jean Chrétien. The centralization of decision making in the Prime Minister’s Office is a phenomenon much bigger than Mr. Harper and it would take wholesale parliamentary, if not constitutional, reform to reverse the trend.
The Duffy scandal, according to Mr. Yakabuski's bible, is much ado about nothing:
The questions raised at Senator Mike Duffy’s fraud trial about the conduct of Mr. Harper’s closest staff in the PMO, and the Conservative Leader himself, are not flattering. But in the annals of Canadian political scandals – a fairly tame volume to begin with – this is a footnote.
Getting back to his qualifiers of style and reforms, informed readers, of which there appear to be growing numbers, will be aware that much of what Harper has done has nothing to do with legislation. Rogue appointments to the
National Energy Board, the muzzling of scientists, the egregious contempt for Parliamentary traditions are just three from a long list of abuses that have been well-chronicled and documented over the years and need no repetition here.
They are all part of the public record.
The Harper base may exult in propaganda organs like the Globe and Mail. All those who embrace critical thinking should feel duly insulted.
