Part Three. Why Harper-Con Values are Decidedly Un-Canadian

Reconciling Harper's Majority:

 My apologies for taking so long to produce the third installment in this series of blogs about why the Harper-Con values are so distinctly un-Canadian.

Truth be told. This has been the hardest of the three installments to write. After demonstrating why the Harper-Con values just don't jive with those of the average Canadian, I have had a hard time reconciling how and why they have succeeded in being elected to a minority government twice and to the majority government they currently enjoy.

I started writing about the Harper-Con's bullying tactics but found it was just one more example of how un-Canadian the Harper-Cons really are. The topic did nothing to help me explain how such an un-ethical party could have gained such a hold on government.

In one article I wrote in May , I theorized that the Harper-Cons simply did a better job of "marketing" themselves. It was my attempt at explaining what to me was unexplainable, the Harper majority. While  I still hold this theory to be true, I've continued to  struggle with how such a blatantly unethical party with such little regard for the Canadian Democratic process can have been elected to a majority government. Their almost daily malfeasance was well documented in the media during the campaign while the parties of the Left seemed to have been doing a good job of  identifying themselves with the voters of the middle class.

So it seems to me that two things had to have happened for a party with such an appalling record to have been handed a majority by the Canadian people: The effect of the mainstream media had to have been eradicated and reasonable doubt about the Harper-Cons poor track record had to be cast. Again, this was the bailiwick of the "Political Entrepreneurs", the political professionals produced by the Manning Institute.

Harper gave as good as he got from the media during the campaign. At each stop, he permitted only five questions from the press and was very selective of what the questions were and who would ask them. While this control of the media was absolutely unheard of and seems in itself, to be yet another example of Harper-Con  unethical behaviour, ie: restricting freedom of the press,  it proved to be quite successful in allowing Harper to have almost complete control of his "message" throughout the course of the campaign. This, and the fact that he forbade almost every candidate from participating in debates in their ridings.  The Lack of Tory presence at each of these debates was in the end, less damning to the Harper cause then the potential damage un-coached candidates could have caused by actually speaking. So better for them to say nothing at all and let the big-dogs in the Harper camp do all the talking.

The Harper camp also did a good job of casting the main stream media as being biased. Truth be told, there were probably more news papers in the country that supported the Harper-Cons then those that didn't. But he was quite effective at having the press gallery pigeon-holed as a bunch of left-leaning mudslingers and himself as their innocent victim. So much so, that by campaigns end, Harperites at various rallies were prone to shouting down and intimidating any real questions of accountability from the press. Hence, the media, who documented well the Harper-Con heavy-handed behaviours, were effectively neutered.

Secondly, "plausible deniability". Harper was able to cast sufficient enough doubt about each and every Con wrong doing as to make their impact negligible. The Contempt of Parliament issue for example. No other Government in the history or Parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world has ever been found to be in contempt of Parliament. Yet when asked about it, Harper and his prime lieutenants would casually cast the issue off as a bit of opposition chicanery that resulted in the Cons being out voted. He also pointed his boney finger at the fact that the Speaker of the House, who made the Contempt ruling, was a Liberal and obviously incapable of making a non-biased decision.  So casual and consistent was this message that despite the seriousness of the ruling, it's negative impact was completely negated.

In the end, the Harper-Cons did such a good job of casting dark shadows upon each and every one of their enemies, the media as well as the opposition parties, that EVERY one's credibility seemed to be in doubt. No one seemed to be believable anymore and the Harper-Cons - who are Conservative in name only, being nothing more than yet another twisted incarnation of the Reform Party - were able to convince the electorate that, since they ARE called the Conservatives, they simply must be the best ones to negotiate the economic mind-field that inevitably lays ahead. In short, they painted themselves as being the lesser of all other evils.

The Harper-Cons were so successful at making the electorate so cynical about Canadian Democracy and the political process seem so sleazy and hyper-partisan, that no matter what they did (and continue to do) nothing sticks to them. Canadians seem to now have the feeling that no politician of any stripe should be trusted. All politicians lie, cheat and steal. The Cons are quick to play the Sponsorship scandal card in that regard as if to say "see, it's not just us"!

So the mind-set now of Canadian voters in this confusing and disturbing political climate seems to be not so much to elect the best person for the job, but rather the one that will inflict the least damage. And as long as political parties rely on "Political entrepreneurs" and are allowed to bestow more power onto them then onto elected officials and election campaigns are a 365 day a year endeavor, this climate of political negativity won't change. In fact, it will only get worse and our politicians will ALL be seen as the worst possible examples of what Canadian values are all about.