Dr J. and Mr. K. Blog - Politics, Powder and Profit

If you haven’t watched the outtakes of Stephane Dion’s interview with CTV Halifax, don’t miss them. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s priceless both for its comedy and, one would venture, for the Conservative Party’s comeback prospects.

Dion has extended trouble understanding a clear question, asking the interviewer to repeat the question twice and flubbing his attempted answer both times – each time getting worse. Yes, it was a problem of language comprehension. The video doesn’t prove any intellectual deficit on Dion’s part. It does suggest a certain rigidity of mind, however, an innate dogmatism that requires such precise definition of secondary parameters as to prevent understanding and commenting on the big picture.

Having hammered the prime minister for his alleged inaction in the face of economic adversity, it seems inconceivable Dion wouldn't have three or four talking points at hand covering what he would have done in his place. Yet, such was the case.

Even more interesting was the political response to the event. Some Liberals played the sympathy card, reviving talk of their leader’s hearing impairment. The allegedly hard-boiled Don Martin suggested we should empathize with Dion because of the gruelling nature of the campaign. He also used the opportunity to repeat his criticism of Stephen Harper's “mean streak” for even mentioning the incident. On Planet Martin, everyone gets to hammer Harper without interruption – not merely over his policies, but his character – while Harper is uniquely barred from commentary.

The Liberal war room was incensed that CTV showed the interview even in the Atlantic region – hence its YouTube availability. They claimed an implicit “deal” that it not be shown. Martin also alluded to CTV’s “questionable ethics”.

Substitute the two Stephens here and see how far those same arguments would be taken by the same people. It’s hard to imagine any Harper faux pas or brain fart being subject to any “deal”, let alone three minutes of full-on cringe-inducing incoherence being withheld from the public.

Can any party expect the media to censor out potentially embarrassing incidents? The standard argument is that Harper is a bully and therefore fair game. Dion, by contrast, is a bumbling punching bag and should be given a pass. Just the type we’d want as PM.

Dion became a cabinet minister in 1996. He’s been a national leader for almost two years. People keep covering for his weak English, as if he’d just arrived on the scene or our language were impossible to master. If Ujjal Dosanjh and millions of other immigrants can do it, then why not an alleged brainiac who would presume to reorder the entire Canadian economy in the image of his dog, Kyoto? We’d say Dion has simply not made sufficient effort to improve his English.

If the prime minister were as remiss in his French, it would certainly be interpreted as a slight to our minority language community. Indeed, besides the repeated ideological assaults by the preachers of tolerance and inclusion, there has been the constant superficial criticism – his hair, his weight, his lack of style, his coldness. Remember the cowboy hat picture? If Dion claims a physical/perceptual handicap, why can’t Harper claim his introversion as an official disability, criticism of which triggers a trip to the human rights tribunal? Somehow he overcame it and became prime minister.

October 6, 2008

It’s about Ontario, not the crooning of Danny Boy

God is on the side of the largest battalions, or so said Napoleon. This is the prospect facing western Canadians in the rundown to next week’s election. Pluralities or majorities across western Canada decided some time ago how they think the country should be run. Other regions have exhibited a fey whimsicality, to put it daintily. More crudely, informed by their always-trustworthy political leaders of the centre-left to loony left that the Conservatives are scary, they have proved easily scared.

So far. Although it’s unlikely the election will be “decided” by the time denizens of the central time zone switch on their TVs next Tuesday, the scope of the result will largely be shaped by the nation’s bulging populous midriff (leaving some suspense over how B.C. might split).

Much of the focus so far has been on the Conservative’s apparently flagging support in Quebec, following the surge that at one point suggested a huge gain of seats. At least one article questions the most recent conventional wisdom on the downturn, however. Quebec provided a significant victory for the Tories in 2006, both for its unexpectedness and for its crucial role in helping the party form a slim minority government.

Even more significant was the Conservatives’ failure to make strong inroads in Ontario, where the number of seats is so much greater. Dr. J. was reminded of this interminably over the last 18 months by a veteran Ontario Blue who could reel off the challenges Conservatives faced in winning over the doughty though guarded yeomanry of Upper Canada. Adding insult to injury was the reminder of just how many seats were at play in the GTA or Greater Toronto Area relative to the vast, less populated regions of the country. (We’ll stop there before we descend into a full-blown 80’s-vintage Senate reform rant).

Over the past several days the main focus for journos has been on the compelling narrative of Quebec turning its back on the Tories because of their brutal, philistine cuts to the arts and their urges to hang every sticky-fingered teenaged Jean-Claude, Jean-Marc and Jean-Guy who couldn’t resist pocketing a cube of maple sugar. Quebec’s cooling electoral ardour is important, if true, though more on the level of foregone opportunity than outright defeat, since nobody is predicting an expulsion.

In our judgment, the more important story is that sizable areas of Ontario that until now twirled and minced just out of grasp, resisting sufficiently to prevent significant seat gains, appear to be shifting enough to turn a significant number of seats. See this story.

Looking more closely at the polls shows it appears to be considerably more about the Liberal drop in Ontario (from 39 percent support in the last election to 28 percent in this poll) than about a Conservative surge (37 percent then, 40 now). The party we back is benefiting handsomely from the crowded market on the left, something Mr. K. wrote about in the Calgary Herald nearly a year ago.

With five federal parties drawing meaningful public support, four of them on the left and all with unevenly and in some cases bizarrely distributed support, there could still be some surprising results. The election’s outcome – including the crucial issue of a Conservative majority or minority – could hinge on strange party vote splits in B.C.’s Lower Mainland. However, the overall magnitude of the Conservative Party’s gains – barring a last-minute collapse – will be set by Ontario. Biggest battalions.

October 3, 2008

Mr. K. to focus on paying work

Regular readers can't have helped noticing that our several-times-repeated pledge to blog more often, more responsively and with a greater focus on political hard news has been implemented to about as great a degree as the average politician's "commitments". Who cares if there's ever any action? The announcement's the thing, the motive, the hope, the intention. Thus new bridges or sections of highway twinning are announced three or four times, once at each major stage, each time as if they're brand new projects that increase the total lineup of activity. And Ontario prime minister Dalton McGuinty can renew his "commitment" to phasing out coal-fired generating facilities years after the original one – without any intervening activity (nor deleterious consequencies) sullying the purity of the ideal.

I'm not announcing a renewal of my commitment today, rather that I'm checking out of any pretense to incessant blogging. Currently I'm experiencing heavy demands at the business that I run with Mrs. K. Since much of the work is intriguing and satisfying on top of well-paying, I'd be a fool to let blogging undermine that focus.

In addition, although I've long since passed the point at which I could pretend to live off freelance journalism (I did so for most of 15 years), several publications remain paying clients. Just today I found myself beginning to type a blog entry while putting off starting a writing assignment that was easily doable, fun and a nice little earner to boot. I realized my work priorities had been stood on their head.

To make a long story short, going forward I'm going to blog once every week to 10 days, if the spirit moves me, with no aspiration for a daily entry. Print articles will of course continue to be posted, fulfilling the original purpose of this site, namely creating a repository of Dr. J. and my print writing.

Over the past three years I've been impressed, heartened and regularly moved by the literate, thoughtful, intellectually solid and well-crafted e-mails commenting on my blog entries or some issue they brought up in the reader's mind. (Including some grammar lessons from Gabi in Quebec – for whom English is his second or even third language.)I learned a lot from them and am grateful for each one.

Do continue to check in – I'm not going into hibernation. But my hobby writing simply has to take a back seat to my jobs. Think of it as being less like one of the innumerable and virtually interchangeable "here are the six things that bugged me when I woke up this morning" blogs, and more like a news magazine.

September 24, 2008

Spin unspun?*

Something weird happened the week before last . Stephen Harper – the charmless ice man, the media hater – sat down for breakfast with reporters and answered questions. Although the press corps is, from time to time, fed and generously lubricated at 24 Sussex, that isn’t seen as meaningful discourse, so brekkie was reported as a remarkable event. Somebody even suggested the scribes find a food taster when it was noticed the PM wasn’t eating.

Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells recorded Harper on his cel phone camera and posted the results on his blog. Wells missed his true calling, for he achieved a kind of cinema verité meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter effect by filming around water glasses, coffee cups and piles of sticky buns – and even kept down his trademark sarcasm.

One might think using the internet to offer nearly raw footage of a normally media-averse public figure would be welcomed by viewers, even hailed as a coup of reportage: the “leaking” of the “Harper tapes”. Instead, Wells got hammered. “Hey Paul Wells, you should be the PM’s campaign manager,” one viewer wrote in the comments section, adding Wells “captured the man as his handlers want Canadians to see him”. Another wrote it was “perhaps the most sympathetic portrayal of the Prime Minister I’ve ever seen”. Apparently that alone is proof the whole thing was a concoction – leaving aside the weird implications of calling raw video a “portrayal”.

It was as if spin and reality were reversing roles. Had these people grown so used to consuming their political news in the form of tendentious interpretation that they’d come to regard spin as the real goods, and a politician’s original remarks as propaganda? And that the very act of refraining from commentary and selective editing made a journalist guilty of abetting the effort? In this view, allowing the viewer to make his or her own judgement constitutes favouritism – doing the party war-room’s work for free. When you describe virtually raw video as a “portrayal”, perhaps your brain processed the Harper breakfast as a fake reality TV event, like an episode of The Office you didn’t like.

The opposite approach was the historical norm in Canadian politics. We used to go bananas at the way Canada’s press corps would clean up, massage and selectively edit then-prime minister Jean Chretien’s virtually incomprehensible ramblings. We were convinced an accurate portrayal would send his popularity diving. Eventually reporters obliged – only because they’d personally wearied of Chretien.

In this age of blogs, streaming video, bit torrents, corporate media portals and You Tube, unfiltered communication between politicians and voters is easy. So easy it should be the reporting default mode. Columnists of course should keep on ripping pols to shreds for what they say – but reporters shouldn’t prevent people from hearing it to begin with.

Yet walls are what some people seem to want. They expect journalists to exploit their communications medium to create a new image of the politician. Otherwise, who knows – the politician might actually change a few voters’ minds. That redefines the very concept of media, from a mechanism of communications – with minimal distortion the ideal – to that of deliberate mediator. It’s intellectually perverse – demanding that one’s betters shield one from the blinding glare of the words and facial expressions of a person seeking one’s vote.

True, Harper is considered highly persuasive in small groups, and campaigns want to show their guy in the best light. Usually this means scripted or contrived settings, augmented by saturation salvoes of spin explaining what it “really” meant. So mired are we in this mindset that U.S. pundits like Bill O’Reilly claim a “no spin zone” and the CBC called one of its now defunct shows “Counterspin”. The dominance of spin, however, depends crucially on restricting the politician’s direct exposure to voters – reducing raw material to brief clips lasting seconds, then spending minutes or hours interpreting their meaning.

That makes it all the more remarkable that news consumers would object to unfiltered coverage, an approach that invites independent judgment – and reduces spin to a secondary role. And more: the very lack of spin is warped into being seen as the most nefarious, extreme form of it. The fire directed at poor Wells suggested some deep displeasure, as if they assume the public can’t be trusted to interpret straight footage.

It’s possible simple partisanship drove the reaction: politicians one hates should only communicate via journos who can be counted on to do whatever it takes to confirm the caricature. More disturbing is the implication that fellow citizens can’t even judge reality when they see it – and mustn’t be allowed to try.

As far as we’re concerned, forget the studio politics. Let’s have Harper plugged-in directly, Layton raw as often as possible, Dion, May, Duceppe – and all the lesser lights. Give us all the free-flowing banter and debate, however you manage to record it. It’s the next best thing to being there. It’s what a medium of communication is for.

September 22, 2008

Stuff dropped from a lofty height

My brief sojourn in government (as it seems now but didn’t seem then) is something I hope to write about at length, assuming I am granted a healthy old age. One thing I can say is it made me a little impatient with all the Monday morning quarterbacks who get paid to comment daily on the ongoing political events or non-events as the case may be.

For all the rest of us who literally toil in obscurity it is hard to imagine having a group of people out there dissecting our every move with a critical, cynical eye and feeding it into the 24-hour news cycle. But that’s the reality inside the strange bubble of politics.

A common complaint of those under the media microscope is the often shallow, superficial level of analysis done by the scribes. Another is, setting the question of bias aside, that many stories seem to be written before the event actually happens, and the reporter simply calls for quotes to fill in the blanks in his text. Further, long-term readers start to see predictable patterns of coverage for a particular type of story (as you might on this blog!) whether it’s plain human interest, sticking up for the little guy, or whatever.

Some of this pattern can certainly be explained by the fact that this writing is, after all, a job. How refreshing then when the writing is original and thought provoking, and the writer actually brings a well-informed world view to their writing. One such writer is Andrew Coyne, who singularly speaks his mind with little apparent regard for popular opinion.

Coyne’s sights have increasingly been set on the Conservative government now seeking re-election, and his belief that it has gone astray to the point where it can hardly even be called “conservative”. The election seems to have, if anything, sharpened Coyne’s criticism. His last MacLean’s piece even descends into pretty heavy personal criticism of Prime Minister Harper, with a tone that might best be described as that of a “woman scorned”.

Those of us who lived through the 1980’s experienced the yawning gap between what we thought was conservative philosophical nirvana and the reality of the Mulroney government –so we have some sympathy for Coyne’s viewpoint. However, when Coyne says he knows the “predicament Harper is in”, slim minority and all, I’m afraid he doesn’t. Having just come from that front line, where conservative philosophy collides with electoral reality, I can only say that one has to experience it to understand it.

If some of our criticisms of Mulroney back in the day were overstated, and some were, then certainly Coyne’s outrage now is over the top. For those of you who don’t want to read the whole article, I’ve taken the liberty of condensing his barbs into one compact block of text on your screen. It won’t take you long to get the flavour of it. Wish I had time to de-construct it in detail, but you can judge for yourselves.

”one-man cabinet * unusual cult of personality * warmth, magnetism, oratory, vision, sheer familiarity – (he) has none of these * even his admirers would acknowledge (he is) cold, vindictive, controlling, flinty and just a little paranoid *dull speaker *reluctant campaigner * effort of smiling causes him physical pain * even his strengths have an edge on them * cunning, ruthless, “cerebral” * a wonk with a switchblade * it is for his thoughts, not his virtues that he is celebrated * go-for-the-throat combativeness, the chilly stare, the calculation, the remorselessness * reminiscent of Vladimir Putin *his appeal is that of the strongman * displays the appropriate lust for battle * he has been bold and decisive all over the map *breaking promises *Quebecois “nation” and Aboriginal schools apology ... pandering * he’s been reckless *conservative agenda … eviscerated * collateral damage to the national interest … considerable * tax credits … new and unwanted distortions * eventual cost of his pandering to Quebec nationalism we can only speculate *contenders for power … at the expense of conservatism * (no) ability to inspire trust”

September 18, 2008

Slip a Ritz under jam, slip a Ritz under ham…

An important overlooked aspect is how Ritz's remarks came to light at all. Reporting has been along the lines of “…made the remarks during a conference call…” as if this explains it. But was the conference call broadcast over loudspeakers in village squares, like hollered sermons in Baluchistan? Of course not – it was a private, closed discussion involving Ritz and a few senior advisers and bureaucrats.

One of these evidently leaked the remarks to the Canadian Press. In other words, he or she violated government policy, his or her duties as a servant of the Crown and, possibly, the law. Outrageous behaviour made for purely partisan reasons. And they say the bureaucracy is not infected with Liberals and lefties?

Officials in the PMO are also now pointing out that the conference call occurred on August 27th. Apparently Ritz's meaty remarks were held for leakage until well into the campaign – in other words, timed to do maximum damage to the Conservatives. But of course, our bureaucrats are all selfless, non-partisan, apolitical servants of the public interest.

So what about Ritz’s fate? He offered a thorough, unqualified and as far as one can tell without being inside his Ned Flanders-like head, sincere apology. And it wasn’t one of those weaselly non-apologies that’s standard nowadays, like, “I’m sorry if you were so stupid as to misinterpret my noble intentions.”

Viewed dispassionately, it’s arguable whether Ritz should resign as minister. These were obviously unsuitable remarks given that they concerned a crisis involving numerous fatalities of innocent parties, on an issue falling within his area of responsibility.

Recall Robert Coates, I believe the first minister of Brian Mulroney’s to have resigned – for visiting a peeler joint in Germany while minister of defence. Something that wasn’t against the law and had nothing to do with his duties – it ranked well below Ritz’s infraction, in other words. There was also Jean Charest, who resigned after writing a letter to a judge about an ongoing case – that was clearly worse than what Ritz did. Ritz falls somewhere in-between two previous ministerial resignations.

Liberal ministers, by contrast, have hung tough over far worse – like having criminal activities going on under their noses. Nor is Ritz’s infraction related to his basic competence or judgment concerning how to handle the listeriosis crisis. A solid case can be made that he should remain as minister.

Whatever you believe about his suitability as minister, to call for Ritz’s removal as a Conservative candidate, as NDP leader Jack Layton instantly did, is simply absurd. This amounts to the Jann Ardenization of politics – that “insensitivity” constitutes the 21st century’s mortal sin and demands the mandatory punishment of drumming the perpetrator out of public life. The logical – demented – end-point of political correctness, should it have one.

Be careful what you wish for, Jack Layton: the new standard would amount to a one-strike, you’re-out policy. Henceforth any politician of any level would need to resign after making a single mistake of any kind. Imagine: empty legislatures from coast to coast.

September 16, 2008

Bonus Campaign Stupidisms

Lots of trash is talked on the campaign trail and it's easy to miss much of it. Maybe that's a good thing. For those of you who just can't get enough, I've noted a few recent linguistic lurches that I can't help repeating.

Let's start with our favourite source, CBC Radio One's editors, news writers and (as Frank Magazine would call them) bingo callers. From one of the innumerable election-related stories came this charming example of editorial flourish: "… today, on the campaign trail, Harper continued his tirade against the Liberal green plan".

Such embellishments are usually reserved for adjectives, like the ubiquitous "so-called"; e.g. "the so-called accountability act". But it was certainly worthwhile for the listener to know that the PM engaged in a tirade rather than a mere argument. Nice of them to call the PM "Harper" as well, it's shorter than "Mr. Harper", and saving time is always a good thing. Radio One has yet to inform us on what the Castro government thinks of Mr. Dion's plan, nor the election in general. Come on guys, get on the ball!

Next was from the ever-present Graham Richardson of CTV. He referred last week to a Conservative party communiqué as "the latest from the Tory bunker in Ottawa". As endearing as the image of the last days of WWII in Berlin might be to some, Graham's exuberance is really unnecessary. Having been in "the Bunker" myself, and I gather many of the media have toured it as well, I'd say it would be more accurately called a "war-room" (which it is) or a "nerve centre, or something like that. Not as dramatic, but more accurate.

Last but not least, a little gift from a former federal Liberal cabinet minister. John Efford gave the view from Newfoundland, saying "the average guy on the street don't (sic) understand the carbon tax." The former natural resources minister deserves double praise. Firstly, he accurately depicts the view on the street. Secondly, rather than use his own party's green shift jargon, he calls it what it is, a carbon tax. And, guess what, that's a tough sell.

September 13, 2008

Swiss souvenirs – the key to killing global warming theory?

It’s amusing and quite satisfying to see the conceptual façade of the global warming movement gradually disintegrating. It’s especially so for those lonely few who insisted that the debate be conducted on the underlying facts, not on a pragmatic/accommodationist basis that at bottom amounted merely to haggling over just how much we should do to “address” “climate change”, the degree of government intrusion and the enormity of the costs.

There’ll never be an official announcement to the effect that, “Our theory was a bust,” any more than the left admitted it was wrong about communism after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nonetheless, the great weakening of the Stalinist intellectual monument of global warming theory continues in regular increments.

One recent article in the National Post was delightfully indicative of the trend (no link available – I spent 10 minutes on the Post’s website trying to find it, and it just doesn’t seem to be archived). It concerned prehistoric and historical bric-a-brac (i.e., invaluable archeological artifacts) unearthed on a high mountain pass in the Swiss Alps newly cleared by retreating glacial ice (and thus presumably indicative of current, man-made global warming). These include genuinely fascinating items ranging from a Bronze Age quiver of birch bark to Roman era coins, items spanning a series of ages but apparently interrupted by long periods with no deposits. As the article says:

The reporter (not a Postie; the story was provided by Agence France-Presse) adopts the familiar anguished tone, in which allegedly objective reporters agonize to varying degrees over the deleterious effects of presumably or explicitly human-induced climate change. This one was relatively mild in that respect, although the sub-headline made the obligatory reference to “climate change” unearthing the tools.

It was great ammo for me, who always argues with people who moan about glacial retreat in the Alps by pointing out those metal signposts in the rocks showing the retreat starting in about 1800 – 150 years before industrial emissions of carbon dioxide attained any significant scale.

The pass, clearly, was open in some periods, and not in others. The only logical explanation is that recurring periods within recorded history and the preceding prehistory were warmer than the present. So much for our times being the warmest ever for humanity, or even the last 3,000 years or whatever the most recent moving-target claim by the movement might be.

Previous warming obviously could not have been caused by human activities. It could only have come from natural sources. At minimum, this suggests our own era’s recent warming (which ended in 1998-2000, by the way) could be naturally caused as well.

Even if it wasn’t, the evidence is strong that past warming periods coincided with broad human advancements, population growth, bounteous harvests, and general increases in activity – like the ability and reason to travel and trade across high mountain passes through regions that were not even inhabited in the Dark Ages and early Medieval times.

And if that was the case for humans with a tiny fraction of our own knowledge, technologies and economic capacity, would it really be so very bad if our own climate got just a bit warmer? If Bronze Age humans could adapt to the swings of climatic fortune, why would we be unable to do the same?

September 10, 2008

Harper is everyman

One of my pet peeves of political pundits is their uncanny ability to criticize a public figure simultaneously for two opposite, often mutually exclusive, traits. An example would be “X is a skinflint” followed by “X is a spendthrift”; “Y is too introverted” preceded by “Y is too gregarious”.

This has happened several times to the outgoing Conservative government and the Prime Minister. I recall writing here about a particularly objectionable example. That was when one of our favourite columnists, Scott Feschuk, argued that –despite being criticized for a long time as a cold, wonkish egg-head – the PM is actually not that bright.

So it was that the Globe and Mail argued Friday that objected to the Conservative Party’s depiction of Stephen Harper as an “average guy”. They repeated their assessment of him as a “first-class policy geek” and maintain that “… he is not known to open beer bottles with his eye socket”. They go on to argue that his academic and professional success automatically excludes him from the “everyman” label. Their past criticism of the PM, as essentially and uncultured boob, ignorant of the Arts, is blithely dismissed as irrelevant. His stooping to the Tim Horton’s crowd is proof simply”that policy geeks also eat Timbits, nothing more.”

So when it’s convenient to call the PM plebeian they do, when it’s convenient to say he’s actually part of the elite, they do that instead. First, being “cultured” and hanging with the right crowd mattered, now it doesn’t.

The Globe editorialist is arguing is arguing that the PM’s prospective “average guy” persona is fake, that he can’t claim to speak for average Canadians any more than the other leaders. Stephane Dion chimed in yesterday by touting his own “family values” and saying that he also knows what it’s like to balance a chequebook.

But let’s look at this objectively. Which of the two leaders has a more legitimate claim to better understand “average” Canadians (we’ll forget Jack Layton, whose father was a cabinet minister and grew up in the tony Montreal suburb of Hudson)? Dion is the son of a university professor, is himself an academic, and spent a formative part of his education in Paris. Harper is the son of an accountant, educated at the University of Calgary after several years in the private sector as a computer programmer.

Superficially, there appears to be little difference between their backgrounds. One is then forced to look for other indications of their personalities. Dion, by all appearances, is a detached academic, comfortable as one of the educated elite of his province. I have no personal knowledge of him to counter that impression.

Harper’s professional path has been somewhat, shall we say, less conventional. Without divulging any confidences, I’ll just repeat what is generally known: that the Prime Minister’s background and life experience give him a visceral understanding of average Canadians and their concerns; that (for all his success) he’s an unpretentious, down-to-earth person. Does this make him an “average” Canadian? Strictly speaking, no. But is he more qualified to speak for them than the “average” member of the elite? Why yes, he is.

Furthermore, PM Harper’s political philosophy – the fact that he believes average people are competent enough to make decisions for themselves – underscores his understanding of and confidence in average Canadians. Dion, by contrast, has shown repeatedly that he is a political elitist, thinking he knows how to run your affairs better than you do. In other words, the beer and popcorn philosophy is alive and well.

September 8, 2008

Self-negating campaign rhetoric from Dion

I’m sure most viewers/listeners/readers would shrug off Dion’s rhetoric as exactly that, if they noticed at all. Somehow it caught my attention and triggered enough thought to make me realize that for a mere 19 words encapsulates an impressive amount of self-contradiction, falsehood, presumption and aggression.

First off, isn’t raising the spectre of “Republican-style” – clearly meant to evoke images of government-hating, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, innocent-Third World-country-invading crazies – itself using the politics of fear? Where’s the hope?

Third, if Dion thinks having his own lines quoted back accurately at him is a “Republican-style attack ad”, he doesn’t know much about U.S. politics. Come to think of it, some of those ads merely do quote Democrats accurately, so Dion has a slight point here, even if he stumbled onto it witlessly. But there’s an entire genre of U.S. attack ads – many of them hatched by Democrats – that are on an entirely different level of aggression and hurtfulness. Dion ain’t seen nothin’. Which means that the Liberal leads suffers from something of a factual deficit. He’s peddling falsehoods, a practice he describes using a certain word when he claims to see it in others.

Elsewhere he recycled the NDP-inspired line “Tory times are tough times”. Given that the Harper government coincided with (notice I don’t claim it “caused”) the all-time historical pinnacle of Canada’s GDP, overall prosperity, average personal income and employment, plus a generational high in the Canadian dollar’s value and a generational low in the unemployment rate – this is another falsehood.

Finally, whatever can he mean by “Canadian style (sic) courage”? Perhaps the missing hyphen belonged between “style” and “courage”, suggesting that we Canucks are snappy, even avant-garde, dressers. But I don’t think that’s what he meant. Canadian soldiers and aid workers show courage in spades in Afghanistan, but so do American soldiers, so there’s no particular Canadian style to that.

October 10, 2008

See Dion training for his next gig – Monty Python