Harper's CPC: Inventing the Opposition

So, what does underly the moral-conventional distinction?  Is it a sense of fairness?  Even many animals show a sense of fairness, and fairness is obviously relevant to moral concerns.  Maybe the moral-convention distinction works on the 'golden rule' - the child can imagine not wanting others to engage in moral transgressions even if they weren't forbidden whereas their only objection to social conventional transgressions is when someone else gets to do it while they can't.

There's something very fascinating about current federal Conservative behaviour patterns, from a psychological point of view.  Generally, groups have enough of a diversity of internal opinion that cross-organizational patterning doesn't work as well as this.

Evidence:

"I think it's a shame.  I think it would have been good for Canada and certainly good for Ukraine to have a number of parties there.  Show some dignity in it, rather than just always angling for votes which unfortunately I think the Conservatives do too often," he said.

Lots of this in the history of Harper's CPC; from poison pills in the legislature to conveniently timed foreign junkets to reallocation of funding to NGOs - everything the Conservative government does is to their advantage, no punches pulled.  They go for the throat.

And yet:

Pierre Poilievre, the minister for democratic reform, says he was not referring to Election Canada head Marc Mayrand when he said "the referee shouldn't be wearing a team jersey" on the day he introduced the proposed fair election act.

An act that many are saying is anything but fair.  But the Tories feel that the deck is stacked against them.  They've also demonstrated they think the media is against them.  In fact, they're a very defensive bunch in general.  It's like they're on a witch hunt against anyone they think is hunting them, in fact.

So look at the big picture; they feel entitled to brush off others, because they're an empire now.  They have no ethical questions about slamming the opposition parties for behaviour they themselves engage in.  Yet they are paranoid that somehow, the world is being unfair to them and they have to do something about it.

It's great, circular logic, which makes it an internal system.  If there were no opposition - if somehow, the Harper Conservatives were able to quash Parliament, the media and any "special interest" group they felt were somehow out to get them, they would probably find themselves vilifying and abusing someone else, like an addiction to standing against.

There's a diagnosis in this.  

Which is why we promote diversity in the first place. 

Leaked video from the CPC Campaign Plan!

"... what we need is a clear message to the people of the country!  This message should be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television.  This message must resound throughout the entire interlink!  I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion!  I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos!  I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

But that doesn't come from the secret-yet-leaked Conservative campaign plan.  

This stuff does:

"It says the Conservatives intend to use dedicated websites, online ads and videos, daily email updates and social media to keep up a barrage of attacks on Trudeau throughout the convention, the document reveals."

"We can also use the opportunity to build an 'anti-Trudeau' supporters' list.

"The six page note says the Conservatives' goal is to 'drive our narrative'" and "The party says it wants a "Conservative voice" in all stories that come out of the Liberal convention 'while ensuring a consistent contrast between the Liberal leader's poor judgement and the strong stable leadership of the Prime Minister."

What - you didn't expect a fully free economy and public objectivism to happen all on it's own, did you?

"When the master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists." 

It's not about his strong, stable leadership, after all - it's about empowering strong people for a healthy society.  It's only when you lack faith in people that you feel the need to message them to death.

"If you don't trust people, you make them untrustworthy."

When you need to remind people why they need you over anyone else, it's pretty clear where the power truly lies.

The CPC - On a Roll, In a Spiral Or Just Plain AWOL?

In order to give members of this House an opportunity to express their views on the appropriate way to respond to terrorist violence, on Monday and Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act. This bill is at its final stage in Parliament and I call upon all members of this place to pass this bill, we don't need further study - we need action.

That's the CPC's new line, now - we don't have time for talkfests, we need action - and if we don't get it we'll pull out, damned the consequences!  Although unilateral action never really seems to follow, either.  In fact, CPC action tends to be in the away-from direction.  Not very bold and leader-like, but maybe that's just me.

Funny thing, though; when other people come up with non-partisan solutions to problems impacting all MPs - and therefore, their constituents, the people of Canada - Team Harper seems to find reasons to delay action, don't they?  Pushing for more debate on a bill in its final stages kinda implies that more, not less, talking is required.

Whatever works for your context, I guess.  Just hope nobody is mapping out and infographicing your inconsistencies; that would really suck to deal with over an election.

A Poem For the CPC

The CPC has put out its first Justin Trudeau attack ad.  It's got the out-of-context imagery, old quotes, sardonic narration and comical music one expects from an ad like this. 

 

Meaning, it's kinda cookie-cutter.  With all the innovative tools, all the fresh quotes,countless staff and massive funds the Tories had to play with - this is the best they could do.

 

I feel a bit sorry for them.  In empathy with their plight for the next couple of years, I dedicate this poem to Team Harper:

 

I'm only laughing on the outside.

My smile is just skin deep.

If you could see inside

I'm really crying, you might join me for a weep.

The Harper Government's Values

 

The truth is that I only picked out a few incidents involving the Conservatives over the last two months. I could have literally added dozens more that occurred over that time frame; and if I was to go back over the last few years, I would have hundreds of dishonest and disingenuous acts by the Tories to choose from.
 

 

The Harper Convervatives have values, of a sort.  They believe that might makes right and that those with power make the rules, but aren't beholden to them.  They see themselves as an empire, now, and look down in contempt at those rooted in what Karl Rove called the reality-based community.

 

Team Harper has no respect for Parliament.  They have no respect for process.  In the words of John Baird, they think nothing of going over the heads of Canada's duly elected representatives and even the Governor General to get what they want.  The only judges they say they respect are Canadian voters - yet they routinely misinform Canadians or withold information, trying to ensure that the only message that gains traction is their own.  Anyone who disagrees with them is at increasing risk of being branded an enemy of the state.

 

Team Harper has even taken to disparaging the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page - a man they appointed to a position they created. 

Conservative operatives provided false claims against an MP of unquestionabler character, Irwin Cotler.  They have questioned the commitment to Canada of a man who risked much in the name of unity, Stephane Dion.  In their quest for power, the CPC have even attempted to bribe a dying man.

 

Harper attempts to convince us that Canadians don't care about such matters - that integrity, honesty and the will to find shared solutions don't matter in today's worlds.

 

You can argue that these are values, the sort of values that elites have always emposed upon those they sought to rule.

 

I would argue, though, that the Harper CPC's values aren't the same as Canadian values.  Not by a long shot.

Pro-Omnibus, Anti-Abortion?

 

Two things that caught my attention today:

 

1) The Conservative Government is looking to pass another omnibus budget bill.  The last one didn't just deal with the budget - it included far-reaching changes that Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is still fighting to get details about.  While the bill was widely derided by Opposition and the media, the average Canadian didn't really much seem to care. 

 

2) Jason Kenney favours Bill M-312 - ostensibly about mandating a Parliamentary Committee (on which the Tories would have a majority and their committee-disruption manual at hand) to decide when human life begins but, come on - it's really about declaring abortion as murder.  Kenney is far from the only Member in the Harper Caucus that is anti-abortion; many of their base is, too.

 

Kenney is a Senior Pitbull in the Harper team.  He's not beyond using creative means to realize his own personal agenda.  He probably gets to have some say-so on the contents of far-reaching omnibus budget bills, too.

 

We have a Harper government that, now entrenched with a majority, is testing just how little the Canadian public cares about the functioning of our parliamentary democracy.  They're enacting massive budget bills that cynically include all kinds of things that relate to their partisan agenda and then aren't telling us what those things are.  We have a Tory Caucus, including senior Cabinet Members, who are advocating for policy changes unpalatable to the majority of Canadian voters.

 

Would Stephen Harper include anti-abortion provisions in an omnibus bill and then bury the details so that the public can't find them?  If I can think of this, you can bet the Stephen Woodworths of the world have as well.  Someone, somewhere, has surely whispered this message in a political ear: come on, the public doesn't care.  The Opposition can't do anything to stop us.  You know it's the right thing to do.  We have the chance, now, we can't afford to lose it.  Put a clause in the the budget bill.  You'll regret it if you don't.

 

Sound dramatic?  It's also entirely possible, if the Canadian public doesn't start to actively care about how Stephen Harper is abusing our system of democracy.  There will certainly be things in the upcoming omnibus budget bill that don't belong there, but support the CPC's partisan agenda.  If Canadians don't make a fuss about it, we are reinforcing the message that omnibus bills are a great tool for skirting the process and implementing partisan agendas without scrutiny or transparency.  The people with unpalatable notions will seize on that and apply internal pressure to get what they want, whether it's in Canada's best collective interests or not.

 

This is why we have to start caring.  To paraphrase Burke, all that is necessary for the triumph of small-minded and harmful policy is for the average Canadian to not pay attention.

 

The Fall of the House of Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s ability to keep the muted factions of his majority-governing party tightly together is part of his “genius” as a political leader, but some political observers say whenever Mr. Harper leaves, there could be trouble for the party.

One of my favourite personages from history is Alexander the Great - a leader, a man of passions, a visionary, but also someone who built a cult of personality around himself alone and pushed the boundaries and patience of his empire too far.  None of his generals could capture what he created; none could even think quite as big.  So, the empire Alexander built fell.

Stephen Harper is no Iskander; he has centralized control, set himself up as "Napoleon" for his Party, but all the things that have helped him rise will be the downfall of the empire he has built from the bottom up.

Truly, I feel bad for him - Harper will not be remembered by history too kindly.  In fact, a hundred years from now, nobody will talk much about him at all.  It's the problems that will follow his reign that everyone will rue.

Mr. Nicholls said parties have been moving towards heavy centralization and discipline over the decades, and said if New Democrats win government they would likely adopt a similar approach.

That, however, is the fate Canadians have elected.  When you focus on firewalls and empire-building, it will always be thus.

Creative Destruction: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Political Right

Of course, in her missive Wente wrote a short and mild disclaimer that she “didn’t want to make light of voter fraud” and then proceeded to do just that.

The Far Right advertise themselves as champions of free speech. They might even be inclined to say "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" (although I don't know how many could tell you where the quote came from). It's funny, though - when others say things that don't agree with these Libertarians of Speech, it's not that uncommon for them to dismiss or insult those opinions. It's all competition, fair game, results in stronger opinions, they will say.  In business, if you can't answer so what and do so in 30 seconds, youre opinion has no value; you have no value.

But then, you have a Federal Conservative Government that is proactively stifling opinion (evidence-based opinion at that) that disagrees with their talking points. Of course, that's different - that's about austerity. There's no more money to be had, so we need to rein in spending.

But, if we're reining in spending, why the complete bungle that is the F35 scandal? Not only did the Harper government try to stifle the facts - they right-out lied about them. That's not very free-speechy. Then you've got John Baird announcing increased funding to a global counter-terrorism fund - that doesn't seem very austerity-minded, either. Maybe it's all relative.

But again we have John Baird telling us we should stop pretending that everything is relative. Ah, but he was referencing terrorism, so maybe it's okay to be relative in, um, context.

But there is no such thing as context - Vic Toews made that clear to us when he said you're either "with us of with the child pornographers."

The CPC, you see, is all about protecting Canadians from external (like foreign money - not very free-trady of them) and internal (like socialists and separatists) threats in, I guess, the name of free, democratic, Canadian expression.  Except, John Baird proposed going over the heads of our democratic system and Stephen Harper has invited a well-recognized international threat onto our shores.

Is it just me, or is there a growing logic gap here?

The CPC and much of their base support are growing more frustrated by the hour with the way the world is playing out around them. They're externalizing this mounting anxiety onto others but really, they need to start looking inwards.

At the root of these confabulations of logic and the growing malaise within the CPC (and the country) is the notion of cognitive dissonance - when you have two beliefs that come in conflict. The Tory braintrust is very much in conflict between what they logically know is right and what they feel, emotionally, is right.

Fortunately for them (and all of us) there's a release mechanism out there that can ease the tension and help square the circle around this cognitive conundrum. It'll cost a bit, but less than some of their other recent spending sprees.  It'll also help the economy, improve security and start tackling the big challenges of today, many which are communication-based.  It would even provide a political win, which they sorely need.

We can only open the door for them, though - it's up to Harper and Co to walk through.

Obamacare, Justin Trudeau, Stability and Confidence

 What's more, there's another way of possibly interpreting the health-care decision, from a macroeconomic perspective, which is that maybe the Supreme Court ruling removes one very large uncertainty from the discussion.

At 10:48 a.m., Reuters wealth editor Lauren Young tweeted: "'Employers are relieved. They can move forward. It removes some of the uncertainty,' source at big consulting firm says."

This is one of the biggest, most head-smacking confabulations we come across in society.  People on the far right of the political spectrum are all about independent strength, competition, etc.  Direct, free-market competition is what drives economies forward, they say.  But then they talk about investor confidence and the need for measures of certainty.

Direct competition leads to nothing but uncertainty.  It's why campaigns matter.  Markets don't like uncertainty, challenges, etc; they want sure thing investments.  Safety nets provide stability and stability is what feeds confidence.  In fact, the private sector is all about stability; that's why they plan, poll and invest in long-term benefits by doing such things as donating to politicians.  They want to know what's around the corner and if they're smart, they try to stack the deck in their favour through outreach initatives that, broken down, look an awful lot like altruism.

Despite what the Right likes to tell itself, politics isn't about strength of the fittest, nor are job competitions, modern warfare, etc.  Even in a one-on-one-fight, strength isn't everything.  There's no question that Patrick Brazeau was physically stronger than Justin Trudeau, but he got his ass handed to him.  Why?  Easy; by focusing on strength, Brazeau discounted such things as endurance and Trudeau's tactical advantage of reach.

Trudeau won despite the physical odds because he planned ahead.  He trained against opponents of Brazeau's size, he focused on endurance, all the while knowing that his opponent wasn't engaging in any kind of strategic planning at all.  In short, Justin Trudeau studied the ground, understood himself and his opponent, and planned accordingly.  Stephen Harper did the exact same thing - he didn't win because of attack ads, he won because he courted demographic groups the Liberals were ignoring.  It was because the Harper Conservatives proactively invested in relationships with broader swaths of Canadians (while the Liberals were becoming "efficient" in that they were neglecting increasing chunks of their base) that success was acheived.

There isn't a single example in history of one strong, stagnant, oppressive regime that has lasted forever.  It's simply not a possibility.  The more any government (of any stripe) tightens its grip, the more control slips through its fingers.  Reactive, individual competition is taxing.  Proactively, it's strategic collaboration that leads to growth. 

If you want to go fast, go alone - but if you want to go far, move

And yes, I did go out of my way to find a picture of Obama with the caduceus.  I do love me my metaphors...

Stop the Ride, Canada Wants Off!

Suddenly it all becomes clear;

-          Firewalls

-          Increasingly vicious attack ads

-          A focus on messaging over meaning

-          Consumerist politics

The modern political ride is like a Gravitron – the public pays the price of admission, is ushered into an enclosed space and spun into polarized positions.

I guess the question is, who’s playing the role of carny?