When it comes to political scandal, that goes double. At the federal level, party after party has pretty much carte blanche to screw up for a period of time usually measured in years. We whine and bitch and moan, of course, but that's the extent of many people's political involvement.
It's a deep-seated disgust masquerading (quite convincingly) as apathy. Countless times I've heard people say something along the lines of "why bother voting at all, they're all crooks and liars and there's no difference who gets in. Nobody listens, nobody cares about the little guy..." and so on and so forth. Indeed, I've said some of these things myself. It's particularly hard to refrain from such defeatist talk when you examine the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
When he was first elected, I don't mind admitting I was elated. Here's a guy who will get things done, I thought...unlike, say, his immediate predecessor, Paul Martin, who was widely known as "Mr. Dithers". And here's a man who says he'll make government open, transparent and accountable. In the wake of AdScam, that was a breath of fresh air.
Now, of course, I know better. It's true, Harper is nothing like Martin. Actually, the Prime Minister that Prime Minister Harper most resembles is one Jean Chretien.
I don't doubt he'd love to hear the comparison made. Although their politics could not be more different, Harper has let it be known he respects Chretien. And why wouldn't he? Jean Chretien was many things, but even his most ardent detractors (and I was one of them for a time) have to admit he was a helluva politician. They called him "Teflon Jean"--nothing stuck to him. He could--hell, he did--roll around in fields of manure and come up smelling of roses. Even as AdScam, one of the biggest political scandals in Canadian history, was unfolding, there were quite a few Canadians who stood by Chretien. If he were to make a comeback (and it has been rumoured he's thought of doing just that), I'd put even money on the Liberals winning the election that would very shortly ensue.
They don't have a hope now, of course, not with that limpid noodle of a leader they've got--which has cued some talk of a merger between the Liberals and the NDP. Personally, I think this would be fantastic for the same reasons Catelli endorses the idea. To be sure, it would initially polarize the country, creating a yawning void in the middle where most of us live. But Canadian politics abhors a vacuum, and I doubt the middle would stay vacant for long.
The merger rumblings are the distress calls of a doomed party. But they are more than that, I believe. They are, to my mind, the precursors of a political earthquake.
We go through these every now and again. We're a tolerant bunch and you can tread on us for a long time before we'll even deign to notice you're doing it. But once we've noticed and we've asked you a time or two (always politely, of course) to cease and desist...well, you continue to ignore the people at your peril.
Mulroney made that mistake. The man who won back-to-back huge majorities got a little too uppity (not to mention a little too close to Uncle Sam) and the voters let him have it...almost eliminating his party entirely in their revulsion. I have a feeling Harper may be walking Lyin' Brian's path. And the straw that's breaking the electorate's back this time is something I've taken to calling WaterG8.
Spare me the justifications for the cost of the G8 and G20 summits, okay? Not one of them holds so much as a thimblefull of water from that $1,900.000.00 fake lake. I have a hard time rationalizing why these summits should even take place at all, so don't bother explaining the billion-dollar budget. And now the "Loondoggle Lake" to "showcase Canada"? Really? Didn't we just do that in Vancouver a few months ago to great effect?
I don't think it's my imagination. I don't think I'm the only one, or even one of a few, irate enough to rebel against this nonsense. The irony is that they're spending a metric shit-ton on security to protect themselves against protestors...the majority of which--at this point--couldn't care less about the actual summits and are only interested in protesting the outrageous cost of having them!
Since Michael Ignatieff steadfastly refuses to grow a pair, somebody in his party is going to have to do it for him. Let's hope it happens soon.
2 comments:
We're in a unique situation here, where both of the traditional parties are almost equally despised. Yet the supporters of those two parties look at the NDP and shiver.
Harper is most assuredly leading a race to the bottom. As Allan Gregg put it the other night, when we're discussing our politicians, we're arguing about who's the tallest pygmy.
So what are our alternatives? We're waiting for a knight in shining armour, and all the Liberals can find is tin...
Something's going to give. And for once Paul Well's first rule of politics may not apply.
Wells' first rule of politics, for anyone who doesn't know it: for any given situation, Canadian politics will tend towards the least exciting outcome.
What I'd *like* to see, since the Libocrat merger looks unlikely, is a group of moderate Tories jumping ship and creating a new (old) party, then inviting any Libs disaffected with the state of their own party to come on over. Probably just as unlikely. But that party--let's call them, oh, the "Progressive Conservatives"--with any leadership at all, they would win an election. Handily.
Post a Comment