Harper, Conspiracies, and Camel's Backs . . . .

In light of the 50th anniversary of the death of Jack Kennedy, and the media discussion that the event motivated, I want to open this post with a few words about so-called "conspiracy theories." The simple fact is that while many people belittle any talk of a conspiracy concerning almost anything, there is a simple and understandable motivation for such ideas. When any "official" explanation is not believable or stretches the boundaries of credibility, people look around for other possible explanations. Such is the case with the Kennedy assassination. There are so many strange coincidences, so many difficult to believe twists of fortunes, so many rules broken by officials in the lead up and and the aftermath of the assassination, that it leaves people with the feeling that the official explanation is, at the very least, wanting. This, coupled with the fact that the Warren Commission was almost uniformly unwilling to even address many of the problems, drives people to call for new pieces to the apparently unfinished puzzle. And so people suggest possible answers - some wild and even more unbelievable than the official story, some cogent and serious.

And so today we have a similar type of situation in our parliament. Almost everyone, with the exception of the most blindly partisan, simply don't believe the official explanation of what happened in the PMO. It is just not credible that successful PMO lawyers with excellent professional reputations would orchestrate an illegal effort to bribe a sitting Senator all the while hiding it from their boss, the most controlling PM in Canadian history. And as Harper bobbed and weaved over the past month, changing his story gradually to fit the gradually exposed story, people found the official explanation less and less believable. Couple with this, the apparent fact that half a dozen PMO associates were actually privy to the facts, and that people who have been virtual lapdogs of the PM were involved in a cover-up, and people are looking for a more believable story. And that story, invariably, involves the PM knowing about almost every facet of the conspiracy and cover-up.

But the real story here is not really a PMO orchestrated conspiracy and cover-up, so much as it is the fact that this seems to be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back of the public's tolerance of Harper and his cabal. The best expression of this moment was expressed by Andrew Coyne in his most recent column. Keep in mind that for quite a few years Coyne was nothing short of an apologist for Harper regime's worst aspects and scandals. Coyne tells us that the real problem for the Conservatives is

" . . . . the general impression that we are being governed by a gang of thugs - secretive, high-handed, unprincipled gusting to unethical, and openly contemptuous of such quaint notions as democratic accountability - an impression that grows more baked in each time the Prime Minister dodges a question in Parliament, or worse, sends in the clownish Paul Calandra to answer in his place." 

With friends like this, Harper certainly doesn't need enemies. Perhaps most importantly, Coyne points out that Harper seems to be in complete denial that anything is wrong or that he needs to change his attitude and his course. This problem is, unfortunately not unexpected, and easy to explain. The fact that more and more people seem to be realizing is that Harper is not the clever, strategic politician that some thought he was. Rather, he is simply a control freak who benefited from an unusual set of circumstances. Harper's actions have never been part of a strategic plan but rather the natural expression of a man with a disturbing, narcissistic personality disorder. He cannot change strategy now because he has no strategy, and he surrounds himself with people who have the same kind of angry, dismissive personality has himself. Thus we are treated to people like the "clownish Paul Calandra" whose only political instinct is to insult anyone who might disagree with him and his holy fuhrer. This is a brittle kind of politics that always ends in a disaster of one sort or another.

The only political scandal in Canadian history that really compares to the Senate/Harper scandal is the so-called "Pacific Scandal," involving another Conservative Prime Minister. Though John A. Macdonald would eventually recover from his scandal, we can safely say to Harper "you ain't no John A. Macdonald!" Furthermore, we live in different times, times of extreme exposure and ones in which all facets of life are significantly sped up.

Conspiracies aside, it is not the Senate Scandal that will sink Harper or tarnish his historical reputation. Rather, Harper will be a dark note in Canada's history books because he is a sick, narcissistic thug who has poisoned the well of Canadian life.

Stephen Harper vs William Pitt . . . The Smackdown. . . I Mean, The Love-in

William Pitt the Younger

Stephen Harper the Elder

As I have said on other occasions, the recent wave of Right-wing politicians who largely take their political strategy from the playbook of Karl Rove, bear a striking resemblance to the towing figure of English politics, William Pitt (the Younger). Pitt was the Prime Minister of Great Britain for 17 years and also served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are, of course, many important differences between a man like this and men like George Bush or Stephen Harper.

Pitt began his political career as a Whig and only switched when he began to see a chance for himself in power. Pitt was a scholar, and was said to be an exceptional orator, a powerful wit, and was known as warm and personable. I would say that besides Bush's down-home folksy charm, none of these descriptions fit Bush or our rather un-illustrious leader. But there are some compelling similarities between the two men. For example, before Pitt rose to the office of Prime Minister he was a strong advocate of parliamentary reforms that sought to limit the potential power and corruption of the government and the Prime Minister. But just as Robert Oppenheimer's optimism fell at the first hurdle, so did Pitt's faith in reform; just as our own Prime Minister slid easily and seamlessly from the leader of a populist party advocating all kinds of reforms to a secretive and paranoid PM who will seemingly stop at nothing to defend his personal power.

 Pitt has the distinction of being the only British Prime Minister who lost a vote of no-confidence but still refused to dissolve his government. Pitt was able to take this unprecedented step because he had the support of King George who wasn't willing to let Charles James Fox become Prime Minister. Though Harper has not ignored a vote of no-confidence, his record in this regard is very suggestive. He was willing to close down parliament to avoid a vote of confidence and when the threat of a loss of confidence loomed, his primary spokesman, John Baird made cryptic remarks about not abiding by any such vote.  I don't think either Harper's supporters or his detractors would be surprised if he ignored a vote of no confidence if there were any way that he could perceivably achieve that step.

Another interesting similarity between men like Bush, Harper, and Pitt is the way that they use a politics of fear and division. Pitt was always looking for a petty political advantage to exploit in order to destabilize any potential opponents. He seemed to have loved the intrique of Westminister politics and painted his opponents with any brush if it would work to his advantage. Just as Harper has his lapdog John Baird to rally the troops behind a flag of fear, Pitt had Edmund Burke to do his ideological dirty work. Of course, comparing Baird to Burke is like comparing Sarah Palin to Einstein, but you get the picture. Through the talents of Burke, Pitt created a fierce anti-French, anti-Jacobin sentiment in England and managed to convince people that a foreign-inspired revolution was brewing in the streets of London. Through this ideology of fear Pitt managed to marginalize the opposition and set the stage for another thirty years of nearly unbroken Tory power. Though Harper can only dream of such an opportunity for fear-mongering, the modus operandi is the same - label the opposition as terrorist sympathizers, foreigners, or in a secret cabal with separatist types who seek to "illegally" take over the country against our perceived will.

And just as Prisons and harsh penalties are an important part of the Harper hype, Pitt was eager to prosecute any dissenters, put as many people in prison as possible, and was the Prime Minister under whom England began to send prisoners to Australia. This strategy grew out of the fact that England was suffering under the weight of increasing dissatisfaction among the working-class and terrible economic conditions. But like Harper, the last thing that Pitt wanted to do was to address the issues behind crime and dissent, instead he wanted to use crime and dissent as wedge issues to further sow the seeds of fear among his supporters. Pitt was not always successful, as we see in his failure to successfully prosecute the great dissenters of the London Corresponding Society. Had Pitt had his way, Thomas Hardy (no relation to the novelist), John Thelwall, and John Horne Tooke would have been prosecuted as spies and sent to Australia or even executed. But luckily the British system of justice still maintained some autonomy. And now recall Harper's treatment of Maher Arar, an entirely innocent Canadian who was sent to Syria with Canadian help and cooperation to be tortured. Recall that as leader of the opposition Harper could not be vociferous or vitriolic enough in his unconsidered condemnation of Arar in the initial phase of Arar's terrible ordeal. Instead of being concerned that a Canadian who had not been charged with any crime might be a victim of foreign torture, Harper waxed on about how Canada had an open door to 'terrorists' like Arar. Harper was forced kicking and screaming to admit Arar's innocence and only exonerated Arar because he knew he could effectively blame a previous government for the ordeal and he knew that people had forgotten that while the previous government had worked to free Arar, he had unceremoniously condemned him out of hand. Once again putting the instigation of fear for political gain in front of the law and justice. William Pitt would be proud.

I could go on but there is just too much material to deal with. In the early years of the 19th century the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote a now famous essay concerning William Pitt. To simplify a little, the essay, which is often hailed as an important precursor to Freudianism, attempts to demonstrate that Pitt's lack of compassion and his ruthless political style were by-products of a twisted childhood that lacked love and affection. I look forward to such a work on Harper who appears nearly inhuman in his lack of compassion and warmth. And in the future watch for the actions of Harper's children who received hand-shakes instead of hugs from a ruthless father. Divide and conquer, marginalize genuine debate and any opponents through Mccarthy-style baiting, undermine and disrupt any institutions which might expose your intriques such as freedom of information or federal watchdogs. These are hallmarks of Harper's leadership and lessons that he learned well from William Pitt.

Harper's legacy. . . . .

Like many people, I have been somewhat surprised that Stephen Harper has managed to stay in the job of PM for as long as he has. But as I, and many others, have said, it has not been his mastery of political strategy that has maintained him at Sussex drive for this long. It has been a strange confluence of events that has kept the Conservatives in office, which has included above all a divided and often incompetent opposition. In other words, it hasn't been what the Conservatives have done that have kept them in office so much as what the opposition hasn't done. And of course, one effective strategy that the Cons have employed is legislating by stealth. Hiding troubling pieces of legislation in other, larger, bills, as well as making as many changes as possible through non-legislative means - these have been the hallmarks of the Cons time in office and they have set very dangerous precedents for the future. If all the things that the Cons have done actually went before the House and received adequate public debate, I believe Harper and his gang would be long gone from government. The largest failures of the opposition have been not getting these issues adequately on the public's mind. So it goes. 

However, like many others, I have felt a mood change in recent months. Time is the greatest enemy of governments regardless of their political stripes. Even with overwhelming support, time can weigh very heavily on the shoulders of any government. Things add up as the months and years go by, and even the most competent and honest government will find skeletons coming out of its closet, scandals pilling up on its doorstep, and its inadequacies coming home to roost. And in a situation of overall instability and minority government, a governing party's time is truncated and lessoned. In such a situation, a governing party is, in a sense, fighting up stream, particularly if its basic goal are controversial. It must thus, govern by stealth and stay in constant election mode. Such a government could only survive with extreme degrees of control and secrecy. Thus Harper's political instincts of control have been timely, another politician with the same situation and the same agenda would simply not have lasted this long. 

But it seems that time is catching up with the party in power as it always does. A party that was elected with a message of transparency, openness, and honesty cannot function too long in the direct opposite manner. Time itself will break down the strategy. Furthermore, time is giving more and more ammunition to the opposition  that will inevitably weigh heavily on the government. Apparent fiscal irresponsibility by a government that prides itself on its fiscal image is bound to be a major issue for any voter. Nine Billion for prisons in a time of fiscal trouble when the crime rate is going down, billions spent on international meetings with dubious outcomes, partisan directed funding, all of these things add up over time. And this is to say nothing of other important issues such as the constant firing of government watchdogs, the apparent disrespect for the supremacy of the House, etc. Indeed time's winged chariot is now beating the Prime Minister about the face and neck and the mood is slowly changing. 

The question then becomes; how many dangerous precedents of mismanagement has this government set which future governments can now take advantage of? Is this just one more four year period which will have resulted in the erosion of governance and the concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister? And in the end, will this ironically be the very legacy that Stephan Harper was aiming at, successfully achieved??

Market disasters and government bailouts

Why is it that over the past one hundred plus years, every time so-called conservatives and the right-wing deregulate markets and let ‘capitalism’ move unfettered, they bring us to the brink of total economic collapse? It happens over and over again. In the past century some of the major meltdowns have been 1907, 1929, 1987, and now 2008. And here is the kicker: every time this happens, the free-market gurus called in the government to bail them out and save them from ruin! This is the government that they never tire of telling us is inefficient and totally useless. Well, if it is so useless why does the market need it so often to come to the rescue? There are, of course, a few simple answers to this question. First of all, ‘free’ markets are a myth like the Yeti or his north-American cousin the Sasquatch. Almost no one has really believed in ‘free’ markets for well over a hundred years. What conservatives and the right-wing really believe in are selectively controlled and regulated markets designed to maintain the profitability of banks and large corporations. If we really had a ‘free’ market the system would collapse before you could say ‘junk-bonds,’ leading to mass-starvation and chaos. The reason that the Right pretends to believe in ‘free’ markets is because it creates a smokescreen for the so-called conservative agenda in which the rich get richer and average people get the shaft. And the poor saps who buy this imaginary ideology keep voting for the right-wing which works against the interest of the vast majority of people. But of course the right-wing, market gurus are happy to use the tax money of this majority to bail the ‘market’ out of disaster.

The fact is that markets, even well regulated ones, simply don’t work very well, particularly in areas of society concerned with ‘social’ interests like education or health-care. When markets are allowed to even partially function in these areas of society they only serve to highlight the discrepancy between rich and poor. When are the people going to wake up to the lies that the right-wing has been peddling all this time about inefficient and useless governments and the divine perfection of the market? But I suspect that not enough people will realize the sham and if the government is able to bail out the system again this time, twenty or so years from now we will be right back where we started with the useless and inefficient government once again saving the infallible market!

Make no mistake, Stephen Harper’s entire ideology is giant confidence trick perpetrated with smoke, mirrors, and misdirection. It is time for us to stand up and admit that markets need more regulations not less, and market forces need to be kept out or more parts of our society to avoid social inequality and disaster.