Canadians familiar with Heather Mallick have long been aware of one central fact: namely, that Mallick isn't any good with them.
Writing an op/ed in Britain's Guardian newspaper, Mallick peddles her fair share of whoppers -- such as suggesting that the Conservative Party can afford to cut the per-vote subsidy because it collects so many donations from corporations. Not only do the Conservatives not accept donations from corporations (this would be illegal under campaign finance law), it's the Liberal Party that has historically collected the most such donations.
So, once again: facts. She's not good with them.
But facts aren't the only thing that Mallick doesn't get. She really doesn't "get" this whole "Canada" thing, either.
Her evidence? She's not good with evidence, either.
The closest she comes to actually offering any is noting that Harper "once sneeringly referred to Canada as a typical northern European 'welfare state'."
Which is at least partially true. Harper did say that. The difference is that he wasn't sneering; he wasn't speaking these words out of contempt, but rather out of concern.
In the full speech -- trotted out every time there's an election by panicked leftists hoping to alarm Canadians -- Harper expresses his concern over Canada being a country that over-spends on social spending while suffering from slow economic growth.
"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it," Harper remarked. "Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States."
This isn't some dark secret in Stephen Harper's past. It's not some skeleton in his closet. These remarks are public knowledge, and have been for a long time.
Yet these comments just haven't had the effect on Canadians that Mallick and her far-left friends would like them to. Publicizing them has been intended to drive Canadian voters -- in the mind of Mallick truly good socialists at heart -- into the arms of the Liberal Party and NDP in droves.
It hasn't worked out that way.
The comments were first given prominent treatment in 2004, after Harper had ascended to the leadership of the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party, reeling from corruption charges, was reduced to a minority government.
They tried again in 2006. This time, Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister of Canada, winning a minority government.
They tried again in 2008. Harper remained the Prime Minister, this time with a stronger minority.
They tried again in 2011. This time, Harper won a majority government.
Every time the left has trotted out these comments, Harper has garnered a little more support from the Canadian electorate. If anything, they seem to be driving more Canadians to Harper than away from him.
If Canadians are really such good socialists at heart, as Mallick seems to believe, how could this be the case? Simople. Canadians aren't really the socialists Heather Mallick has grown accustomed to.
As it turns out, Harper's "de-Canadianized" Canada is more like Canada than the one Mallick claims Harper is destroying. History holds this idea up to be true.
No one has made the case for this more spendidly than Brian Lee Crowley. In The Canadian Century, Crowley makes the case that the enduring vision for Canada has been the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one in which taxes are kept low, Canada benefits from free trade with its neighbours, and Canadians accept responsibility for their own destinies.
No one should expect Heather Mallick to understand these kinds of complex factual arguments. She still has yet to realize that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wasn't born in Calgary.
You can smell Mallick's crazy before you read it. That gal is one hurtin' unit.
ReplyDeleteJonathon Kay did a worthy enough job of appealing to The Guardian's sense of professional shame in terms of publishing her garbage.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think his concerns will fall on deaf ears. Perhaps the Guardian's editors just don't know enough about Canada to comprehend the scope of the ignorance they're publishing.