Harper and His Cabal, When Men get Desperate. . .

I haven't watched the thursday political panel on The National for a while but I caught it yesterday and was somewhat surprised by what I heard. The conversation was further evidence that the political mood is changing. Chantal Hébert said that it seems clear now that even Harper and Flaherty can no longer believe that their government is in anyway transparent, and that they must surely understand that their cabal is considerably more opaque that any previous government. Andrew Coyne took up the conversation from there and suggested essentially that Harper is gradually becoming something of a liability to the Conservatives as he paints himself further and further into a corner. Coyne said that there is a core of support of about 30% below which Harper probably can't drop and an upper level of about 40% above which he could never go. Now, while Coyne is correct that Harper, like most autocrates, has a core of support below which he can't drop, I am fairly certain that it is considerably lower than 30%. I believe that it is probably closer to 20% than 30%. In fact, the latest Nanos survey puts Harper's government very close to 30% and if one follows the graph he is still dropping. But wherever you put the core support of Harper and his cabal, Coyne is correct that there is growing voter fatigue with what, even Conservative supporters must understand, is the most secretive and nefarious government in our history. Furthermore  Coyne is correct that this voter fatigue is on the upswing and it will eventually become an insurmountable problem for Harper and the Conservative Party if he continues down this path of secretiveness and aggressive attacks of everything and everyone that opposes them.

I am fairly certain that even a few months ago we would not have heard this kind of matter of fact talk from a guy like Andrew Coyne. This change has come about, I believe, because like Christy Clark's Liberal government in BC, Harper's government is on that downward swing towards unpopularity. And while Harper's stonewalling, secretive style has been relatively effective while he was not perceived to be the leader of a corrupt government of patronage and pork, now that his government is in fact becoming associated with exactly this, his style is becoming counter productive. In other words, a secretive, aloof personality might be perceived as strength in a righteous leader, but in a corrupt one such traits are bound to be perceived  as weak paranoia. And though Coyne didn't use these words, it was exactly this phenomenon to which he was pointing.

In a case like that of Christy Clark, it is probably too late. It dosen't matter what she does at this point because everything she does will be perceived as a desperate effort to cling to power. But Coyne was suggesting that Harper still has a chance to recover if he changes his tune now. The problem is that one surely has to doubt if Harper could change this basic MO of his entire political life. To believe that such a change is possible one would have to believe that Harper's secretive, aloof, and aggressive style is a political affectation adopted for strategic reasons. However, most of us are convinced that these traits are central to Harper's very identity and that as he slowly loses support and an election loss looks to be inevitable. Harper will only get worse as his paranoia takes over his political life.

It is this very point which seems to have motivated Steve Pakin's latest article in which he suggests that Harper might soon resign rather than face a gradual decline into ignominy. While I appreciate Pakin's thoughts on this subject, I think he is overlooking the degree of darkness in Stephen Harper's soul. I am not convinced that Harper has the ability to favor the interest of his Party over his own interests. Niether am I convinced that Harper will ever willingly give up power, even if he lost an election I suspect that Harper and his cabal would seek to keep power through some illegal move, particularly if he lost to someone whose last name is Trudeau.

A Grand Party of Lies and Corruption

Is anyone amazed how quickly the Conservative Party abandoned their entire fiscal approach when political expediency demanded it? That was the fastest political reversal of fundamental principles I have ever seen! Harper’s entire political identity was built on the idea that deficits are always unnecessary, structural or otherwise, now he can’t embrace them fast enough. And the ironies don’t stop there. For years in opposition, the Conservatives told us that the Liberals were fiscally irresponsible for having budget surpluses, suggesting that this simply meant that they were taxing us too highly. But now, I dare say, everyone with an attention span of a five year old can see the advantages of those surpluses. If you have an economic surplus and things go badly, you have something to fall back on. It seems that Harper, who claims to know so much about macro-economics, failed home-economics in high-school.

Well now the conservatives can no longer hide it: capitalism isn’t the perfect self-regulating mechanism that they claim.

And by way of another interesting comparison of the Conservatives with the Liberals: this week the Conservative Party was in court trying to prevent Elections Canada from having access to their documents that might demonstrate that the Conservative Party was in fact guilty of Electoral fraud. Amazing! The Conservative Party is in court trying to prevent disclosure. This is the party that claims that they wanted to open up the government and make it more accountable. Keep in mind that, despite their consistent and ferocious criticisms of the Liberal Party over the sponsorship scandal, at least Paul Martin started an independent public inquiry into the facts. The Conservatives, on the other hand, would have sued the opposition party for suggesting in public that they did anything untoward, and then they would have sought a court injunction to prevent public discourse on the subject.