Fourth Election In Seven Years...

Am I the only one who boggles at that? I've railed at the American hyper-political system, in which it seems one election is barely over before the campaign for another begins; and yet we've managed to have four Canadian elections in less than two American electoral terms. Is it any wonder so many people in this country are sick and tired of politics?

Of course, this works to Harper's advantage. So many things do: he's rigged it that way. The first party in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament (which, as Thomas Walkom clearly argues, means "in contempt of Canadian citizens")--that party is counting on a contemptuous electorate. It's likely that many of those people who actually bother to vote will be the ones who always vote: by and large, the older, conservative (Conservative?) generation.

The coalition boogeyman is out and shambling about already: Harper and anyone who speaks for him makes sure never to utter "Ignatieff" or "Liberal" without adding "coalition". Catelli has expertly demolished the monster. To his rant, I would only add two things. One, coalitions are the default state of many parliaments, particularly those in Europe. There's nothing inherently evil about coalition governments. In fact--two--I'd go so far as to suggest that a coalition government is, or should be, a good fit in a country like Canada that has built an international reputation on tolerance and consensus. Barring proportional representation, a coalition government is the only way to ensure that more than one bloc of voters is truly represented.

And Harper himself believes strongly in coalitions. In his own words, "conservatism and conservative parties, as we have known them over the decades, have always been coalitions". In his mind, these coalitions are between Burkean conservatives and classical liberals, sneeringly called "theo-cons and neo-cons". Indeed, Harper's Conservative party is itself a coalition of social and fiscal conservatives. Though there is some question, given the alarming deficit, just how fiscally conservative that party can truly claim to be, and the social conservatives are still kept largely hidden from view.

Walkom, in his column linked above, mentioned in passing that Stephen Harper doesn't just disagree with liberals, with or without the capital L: he despises them. His every action seeks to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada (which, ironically enough, wouldn't turn out too well for the Conservative Party of Canada). My question to Canadians of every political stripe is simple. Do you want a Prime Minister who hates and despises a segment of the population and seeks to destroy their parliamentary voice?