(no subject)

[felis_ultharus]

So we're having a federal election up here, too. Parliament has been "dissolved," a phrase that makes me think more of hydrochloric acid than anything political.

I'm limiting my participation on the campaign, though I'm doing more work on it than usual. It may be selfish of me, but my social anxiety is still really bad, and the way my stress levels are I'm realizing that I'm not fully recovered from my breakdown of seven years ago. I know my own psyche well enough to know that if I push myself too hard, I'll break.

The Conservatives are out and running with their campaign, based almost entirely on Stéphane Dion's "leadership." I keep thinking about Canadian humanist John Ralston Saul's point that a political obsession with leadership betrays fascist sympathies: "Leadership, after all, is the cry of unevolved, craven peoples frightened by the idea of individual responsibility."

Even worse, the Conservatives have released new ads, whose entire content is an American-style scene of Harper talking about how he doesn't get enough time to spend with his son these days.

I can understand how it came about -- Conservative strategists were trying to humanize this cold, anal-retentive economist they have for a leader. They're trying to offset that creepy smile that just seems to say. "I've just come from a nutritious breakfast of corn flakes, toast, orange juice, and the flesh of unbaptized babies."

Still, it's disturbing. In the US, you run on your family, not policies. In Canada, we've always avoided that. Hell, Jean Chrétien's alcoholic, ex-heroin-addict son went to jail for rape while Chrétien was prime minister, and it barely caused a blip on the media. You're considered a Canadian political trivia buff if you can name the current prime minister's spouse without checking Wikipedia.*

I don't want that to change, but of course Harper is an addict of all things American. So it's unlikely to change unless Canadians toss him out.

It also makes me wonder if he's got some kind of dark family secret -- the family-values types always do. I also wonder how his daughter feels about not being mentioned in the ad. Maybe she's the family secret.

But if he does manage to make this election about his capacity to reproduce, then Layton has him matched child-for-child. Maybe future elections will also be determined by other Darwinian factors -- ability to catch prey and rend it with one's teeth. Perhaps future politicians will be expected to have prominent jaws and sagittal crests.

*Laureen Harper, Sheila Martin, Aline Chrétien, Mila Mulroney, Geills Turner, Margaret Trudeau, Maureen McTeer, Maryon Pearson, Olive Diefenbaker, Jeanne St-Laurent, Isabel Meighen, Laura Borden, Zoé Laurier, Frances Tupper, Annie Thompson, Mary Abbot, Jane Mackenzie, Agnes Macdonald. Kim Campbell had divorced, Mackenzie Bowell was a widower, and Mackenzie King and Bennet never married.

Comments

[jenjoou.livejournal.com]

"I've just come from a nutritious breakfast of corn flakes, toast, orange juice, and the flesh of unbaptized babies."

Stephen Harper eats babies! ...sorry, I couldn't help myself. ;)

It's funny I was just have a long discussion with Ben yesterday about the american tendency to forground the family in politics and how that's pretty rare here. Guess that's changing. I can't say that I approve...

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I can't help it -- that's what I think whenever I see that smile.

Harper's wife does a lot of animal-shelter fundraising, and she sometimes makes her husband pose with cats to promote these causes. Someone got a picture of him making that creepy smile, and LOLcatted it with "Hey kids! I've got more cute little kittens in my nondescript white van."

"It's funny I was just have a long discussion with Ben yesterday about the american tendency to forground the family in politics and how that's pretty rare here. Guess that's changing. I can't say that I approve..."

I'm hoping the Conservatives get so roundly trounced this election that they won't ever try it again. It's a real insult to the public, and I hope even his supporters see that.

[jenjoou.livejournal.com]

I'm still amused by that fact that some of his colleagues felt the need to publicly announce things like: "I've worked with Harper for 5 years, and never once in that time... did Harper eat a baby."

Not once in five years? Wow, makes it sounds like he's part of some kind of Baby-eaters Anonymous group.

It's a real insult to the public, and I hope even his supporters see that.

It is and what frightens me is that not only does it works in U.S. but that it is based on a specific morality that privileges traditional marriage and values, nuclear families and traditional gender roles; a morality that does not fit with the experience or desires of a large portion of our population. Those are not the principles that I want our government to rest on. Nor do I think that the ability to couple and breed is relevant to a person's ability to lead.

This sort of mentality also inevitably makes it harder for women to get into power because it holds women responsible for their families. I dislike Palin and her stand on, well, everything; I think offering an anti-feminist to women as an alternative to Clinton just because she has a uterus is insulting but look at some of the ways she's being attacked in the media. It's been claimed that she shouldn't be V.P. because then who will take care of her poor Down's Syndrome child (who the republicans have been pushing to show her family values). Would anyone question a man's right to lead on the basis that he will be neglecting his family? Unlikely, because he has a wife to take care of them.

.....sorry, that wasn't meant to be a rant, it has just been building up.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

No problem -- such rants are always welcome in this space ^_^

[foi-nefaste.livejournal.com]

I can't say I approve of the change, either. But watching Canadian politics is a refreshing change from the clusterf*ck that's going on south of the border right now. *shudder* What ARE they thinking??

It may be selfish of me... - Honestly, I'm feeling like that too, but I'm completely swamped, and exhausted enough that I'm anticipating sickness or cold soon-ish. Taking care of one's self and one's needs isn't necessarily selfish in a bad way - it's one of your first responsibilities, and if you don't do that, you'll be in a state where you can't do anything else.

... if that made sense.

... gah. Should not be on LJ before coffee has been had.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

Thanks. But I'm most worried about montrealais, because whenever someone bows out of something, it winds up on his shoulders, and I'm trying to do a minimum of that, too.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

In the US, you run on your family, not policies. In Canada, we've always avoided that.

You mean, like the Liberals running on the promises that they'd cancel the Free Trade Agreement and repeal the GST?

Laureen Harper, Sheila Martin, Aline Chrétien, Mila Mulroney, Geills Turner, Margaret Trudeau, Maureen McTeer,

I was with you this far (well, okay; I didn't remember Geills Turner, even though her husband represented my riding). But Maryon Pearson all the way back to Agnes MacDonald?

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

"You mean, like the Liberals running on the promises that they'd cancel the Free Trade Agreement and repeal the GST?"

Er -- we almost never agree on things political, but I can usually follow the line of your thinking.

My objection was about the bringing of families into the debate as a replacement for policy. Lying about the policies is a whole other issue, but even lying about them altogether is better than treating the public with so much contempt that you'll sell them on your merits as a family father.

As for the Liberals being dishonest, you get no argument there. Especially since that election, people voted Liberal -- and decimated the NDP -- specifically to get rid of those two policies. That betrayal is -- to me -- worse than petty embezzlement they're guilty of.

'Course, since 1993, they've only had one real policy: "We're not the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives."

Now, after spending a session voting with them on every issue, they've betrayed their last policy. I think that, more than Dion's charisma, is what's killing them in the polls.

"I was with you this far (well, okay; I didn't remember Geills Turner, even though her husband represented my riding). But Maryon Pearson all the way back to Agnes MacDonald?"

You got all the same ones I did. I had to look the others up, too ;)

I wasn't trying to imply that I knew them all without checking. I was just stating them for the record.

ETA: Actually, I did know two of the older ones -- I knew Zoé, though I thought it was Zoë. And I knew Annie Affleck Thompson because I recently read up on Thompson's life.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Er -- we almost never agree on things political, but I can usually follow the line of your thinking.

Sorry; I was focussing on the idea that Canadians focus on policies. If that were true, the Liberals would never have gotten a second majority in 1997 after breaking those two promises and nearly losing the 1995 Referendum.

As for talking about his family (and I haven't seen the ads, as I don't watch a lot of TV), I don't see how that's showing "contempt" for anyone — certainly not more than outright lying. As long as it isn't a replacement for policy, it's a legitimate strategy for addressing an issue that seems to be a possible image problem. I've heard people criticize the PM for being too cold — specifically for shaking his son's hand when dropping him off for school, instead of hugging/kissing/whatever for the benefit of the press (never mind that the kid would almost certainly have been mortally embarrassed by such a display).

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I think that was just the icing on the cake -- the reaction I heard most often was, "Wow -- I can't believe he felt the need to do that. and it was done so badly!"

But the family stuff is a step downward. It smacks of the fascist structure, where ideas aren't debated, only images, and the leader develops a ppaternalistic relationship with the populace. It's creepy, and it just makes Harper a lot creepier.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

It smacks of the fascist structure, where ideas aren't debated, only images, and the leader develops a ppaternalistic relationship with the populace.

As I say, I haven't seen any of these ads. I have no idea how effective they are or aren't. But when you use words like "fascist", it sounds like you are overreacting dramatically.

Are you going to say something similar about Dion when the Liberals put out substanceless ads to change *his* image?

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

But what's all this about the Liberals, Liberals, Liberals? Are all Conservative voters just blind with rage about the one party?

Are you so blind with rage about that party you don't even notice you don't see it's incredibly silly to justify Harper's politics on the basis of their being like another party's, when I don't support that party either?

I don't like, nor work for Liberals. I attack the Liberals on a regular basis. I think they're a useless party, and have been since Turner left.

As for "fascist," I stand by it. Personality politics have no place in a democracy, and their increasing encroachment is a form of corruption worse than any banal embezzlement. They're about shortcircuiting debate.

What's really going on is that the public has pretty much given up on the war in Afghanistan, wants a green plan, and has become suspicious that the kind of low-taxes-equal-prosperity, Chicago-school, trickledown claptrap.

The gap between the rich and the poor is growing, the manufacturing sector went belly up, and the conservatives just shrug their shoulders because they're too fanatical to try other approaches.

So Harper can't run on policies. That's why he's running on family values.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

(I note that I received this by e-mail twice -- first from montrealais, and then from you. Are these some sort of NDP talking points? Or was he using the same computer before you? Anyway...)

Are you so blind with rage ... I don't support that party either?

"Blind with rage"? Where's that from?

It seems to me that *you* are angry -- presumably because Conservative ads say nothing about the NDP, implying that they aren't a credible threat. If so, that's nothing to do with me; I'm not even a member of their party, much less one of their strategists.

Anyway: I think you're missing my point. There is ONE Tory ad (not the several you imply) where Harper talks about his family. It is, as we agree, an attempt to address Harper's image problem, since he's often seen as "creepy" (a "cold, anal-retentive economist" as you put it). You've been saying that this ad smacks of "fascism", because it features the party leader's personal life instead of focussing on issues.

Well, Stephane Dion also has an image problem. He's seen as a bumbling academic. I assume the Liberals are going to address this; and if they do, they have to focus on his personality. When that happens, are you going to say the Liberals are "fascist" too, for doing the exact same thing? Or is it a word you reserve only for the Conservatives?

As for "fascist," I stand by it.

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#Corollaries_and_usage). I win.

Personality politics have no place in a democracy ...

So why are you making snide remarks about Harper's image? You cannot credibly attack him on those grounds, and yet make sinister hints about "fascist tendencies" because his ad defends against that attack.

If you really believe it's "fascist" to run on warm fuzzy feelings about the leader, you need to take that up with Layton. He does it in this speech (http://www.ndp.ca/page/6772); he knows "first-hand what it's like to to rush an asthmatic child to the emergency ward on a smog day". It's only part of that speech; but the TOry ad is only one of ten on their Video page (http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4579). Then there's the slogan that Layton is "A Prime Minister Who Will Put You and Your Family First", and his refrain of "the kitchen table, not the boardroom table" -- both attempts to claim the family ground and forge a "paternalistic relationship with the populace" based on the party leader's personality: much more so than the tepid "we're better off with Harper".

Also hold Layton to account for opposing the inclusion of the Greens in the debates; he was just as bad on that as Harper was. Or is it okay when he does it?

Don't forget to take him to task for this 'American-style' attack ad (http://www.ndp.ca/page/6731). It throws out a few statistics without references or context; with its military drumming, American stars in the background, Harper with his arm raised in a quasi-Nazi salute, and no mention of any specific policies, it's clearly intended to smear the Conservatives with the same empty, old, gratuitously insulting lies that the left wing always uses — without discussing issues, or explaining NDP policies and why they're better. It's worse than any Conservative attack ad so far, which at least don't imply that Dion is a traitor or totalitarian. If anything, it's comparable to Republican attacks on Obama.

So don't pretend that the Conservative tactics make them evil incarnate while the NDP is pure and only talks about policy, or that it's okay for the NDP because the Conservatives did it first. Attack ads, feel-good ads, and smear tactics are all disgusting — but all the parties use them, including your own. If you want to criticize them, criticize them on equal terms.

Seriously. When you demonize Harper as a proto-Nazi simply because he's talking about his family in a 30-second spot, you lose all credibility. "Harper is talking about his family — ZOMG HE'S JUST LIKE HITLER!!!1!" is not a position worthy of respect, whether you say it in l33tsp34k or English.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I'm tired of arguing with you -- and I honestly have to wonder why you come to my journal because there's nothing here for a Conservative fanatic -- but I just wanted to respond to this:

"(I note that I received this by e-mail twice -- first from [info]montrealais, and then from you. Are these some sort of NDP talking points? Or was he using the same computer before you? Anyway...)"

It really shows your paranoia that the first thing on the list is that this is some sort of concerted attack by the NDP. No, it's not. montrealais is my roommate.

Also, please note I never once mentioned Hitler -- not that I put any credibility in that silly Godwin's Law stuff, which just a way of attacking memory. I was thinking of Mussolini's personality politics, and the proto-fascism of Napoleon.

The difference between fascism and other sorts of dictatorship is that an ordinary dictatorship is about force, whereas fascism tries to soften the edges of brute force by entering into a parent-child relationship with the populace. The people are supposed to love and fear their leader like a stern father.

As for the rage, of course I'm angry that Harper has managed to turn a paltry 39% of the vote into a de facto majority government thanks to the laziness of the Liberals. But my rage isn't partisan. It's fury over Harper's policies -- the demolition of the arts, the selling out of future generations on the environmental front, the secret negotiations on the SPP that cut to the heart of Canadian sovreignty, and of course trying to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage.

In short, he's turned no mandate at all into a successful attack on everything I love, and I will not forgive him nor the Liberals who allowed him to get away with it with their cowardice.

Nor can I respect you as a Harper voter -- please don't come back to my journal. I don't troll on yours.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Objecting to your gratuitous allegations of "fascism" doesn't make me a troll, nor a fanatic anything. It makes me someone with a sense of proportion.

Since that's something you seem to lack, I will leave your journal gladly.

[esprix.livejournal.com]

So you *are* a political trivia buff, then. :P

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I only know about five or six without checking. I won't pretend I actually knew Jane Mackenzie and Isabel Meighen without checking.