Showing posts with label InDecision '06. Show all posts
Showing posts with label InDecision '06. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2007
Counter-Branding at its Most Blatant
Counter-branding a key political tactic
Although the 2006 mid-term elections in the United States have long passed, they continue to teach us lessons about politics in general. A particular lesson can be derived from the advertisement featured above.
The lesson at hand deals with branding -- the creating and marketing of an identity to the electorate.
The spot in question, seemingly released as a pro-Democrat spot leading up to the 2006 election, can be treated as one of the more solid examples of an act as essential to any political party or entity as branding -- that of counter-branding.
As much as branding is the act of constructing a simple and coherent identity concept for onesdelf, counter-branding is the act of creating one that will then be applied to a competitor. In this sense, not only are the brands individuals and movements create for themsleves competitive with the brands opponents create for themselves, but also competitive with the attempts of the opposition to brand them in their stead.
In this case, the authors of the attempt to brand is obvious (Democrats), as is the identity of those they intend to brand (Republicans).
In the ad, the creators essentially cherry pick a few phrases out of what they claim is a dictionary definition of conservatism: "resistant to change", "unimaginatively conventional", "a bourgeois mentality". The ad then boils those three phrases down to three presented keywords: "materialistic", "resistant" and "unimaginative".
It then concludes: "are you sure you're a conservative?"
Of course, that isn't really the question the ad means to ask. The question the ad implies is: "these are the values of conservatism. Are you sure you want to be a conservative?"
Now, the fact that different dictionaries define conservatism differently would seem to complicate this effort. But in the end, that doesn't really matter much -- not even when the individuals behind the ad make a sly attempt to rely on the authority of a dictionary.
What really matters is whether or not the message takes hold, and helps in the construction of a voting coalition large enough to defeat the opposition.
In the weeks following November 7, 2006, this eventually turned out to be the case.
The United States could be considered to be one of the most fertile testing grounds for political branding techniques, possibly because American citizens (arguably) have lived their lives uniquely awash in branding techniques, and in the advertising by which that branding is done.
At least this serves as a convenient (if perhaps fickle) explanation for the colouring (perhaps even branding) of Democrat-voting states in Pepsi cola blue, while colouring Republican-voting states in Coca-Cola red. Especially when one considers the values being implied.
Pepsi cola has for years told American consumers that it's "the choice of a new generation". Likewise, Democrats have always tried to portray themselves as "the voice of a new generation". The Republicans, on the other hand, have simply portrayed themselves as "classic" America: traditional and Rockwellian.
Much like Pepsi and Coke have flooded the marketing world with countless spokespersons, the Democrats and Republicans have also promoted their own icons: the youthful Robert F Kennedy and Howard Dean for the Democrats, the older but more "white-bread" Ronald Reagan and Ike Eisenhauer for the Republicans.
When either party wants to impose an image of their own creation on their opponents, they've often proven to be quite predictable: youthful, energetic Democrats attempt to brand Republicans (ironically, the historically younger of the two parties) as outdated, unimaginative and slow. The sturdy, trusty Republicans attempt to brand Democrats as weak, untrustworthy, and a little radical.
When either of these parties bests the other, there certainly are other factors involved. But the predominance of these messages in the days both preceding and following a balloting day points to their formidability on the political scene.
This form of political judo should not be taken lightly.
Of course, there's a certain extent to which branding and counter-branding works. North of the 49th parallel, we've seen both successful examples of counter-branding:
And disastrous attempts:
Warren Kinsella would be the first to remind us that attack ads, in particular, often work. This is due to the pervasive power of counter-branding as a technique.
But it can also backfire. As such, overzealous conter-branding (as was the case with the astounding bone-headed "soldiers in our cities" ad) can be as much a danger to those who attempt it as to those who would be on the business end of it.
It's for this reason that it's unsurprising that political campaigns have very much become branding wars. Just as some of the memorable branding wars of the 1990s had us wondering "what's the diff?" between Coke and Pepsi, the political battles of the 2000s have invited people of all stripes to don a blindfold and drop their ballot for the political product of their choice.
Regardless of who wins the political branding war, it's democracy that will inevitably lose, as image becomes more important than ideas.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Attack of the Vandals
Canadian voters must face the unblinking truth
There’s no question that elections can often bring out the best – and the worst – in people.
As Canada’s current election draws toward its conclusion on January 23rd, vandalism of election signs has become an issue – one that many point to as one of the uglier sides of the current election.
All across Canada, Liberal party campaign signs have been defaced, often with the words “Thieves” and “Adscam”. Conservative party signs have not been immune to this vandalism either.
Liberal candidate Dr. Ruby Dhalla (running in the riding representing Brampton, Ontario) has a theory of her own: she believes her political opponents are responsible for the vandalism of her signs, noting that in many cases the signs had been replaced with signs for her Conservative opponent (this may be fair game, given that particular occurance).
However, it is important to realize that those vandalizing Liberal signs and those vandalizing Conservative signs are motivated by two very different ideas, and are doing so for very different reasons.
Those vandalizing Conservative signs are probably mostly doing so for the same, tired old rhetoric: the Conservatives are evil fat cats that will erode civil rights, destroy the social safety net, and transform Canada into a clone of the United States. These are the sort of people who spread fear either mindlessly, having bought into the fear-mongering tactics of the Liberal party, or those who are doing so in a very calculated fashion: because they know having a party like the Liberals in power benefits hem, and they will do anything to make sure they continue to enjoy those benefits.
Given the facts behind the current election, however, there is something I find inherently patriotic about vandalizing Liberal election signs – particularly that of the “thieves” or “adscam” variety. These brave people are putting themselves at risk to ensure that those planning to vote Liberal in the coming election will not be able to do so while pretending Adscam – or any of the other mounting scandals – never happened. Sometimes the truth has to be rubbed in people’s faces before they’ll wake up, and these people are doing just that.
Not that I am encouraging this sort of behavior, per se – merely condoning it and applauding it. There is, however, one caveat that must be added: there is a line that must be drawn.
All over the country, there are those who are afraid that their homes will be vandalized next – this is something that can not and must not be tolerated. All differences aside, people should be encouraged to vote from their consciences. If one’s conscience demands they vote Liberal, then so be it. That is fair, and they should. If their conscience, however, is choosing to ignore important issues – such as government corruption – then those with the will to do so should force them to acknowledge them.
God willing, that is exactly what those people will do.
There’s no question that elections can often bring out the best – and the worst – in people.
As Canada’s current election draws toward its conclusion on January 23rd, vandalism of election signs has become an issue – one that many point to as one of the uglier sides of the current election.
All across Canada, Liberal party campaign signs have been defaced, often with the words “Thieves” and “Adscam”. Conservative party signs have not been immune to this vandalism either.
Liberal candidate Dr. Ruby Dhalla (running in the riding representing Brampton, Ontario) has a theory of her own: she believes her political opponents are responsible for the vandalism of her signs, noting that in many cases the signs had been replaced with signs for her Conservative opponent (this may be fair game, given that particular occurance).
However, it is important to realize that those vandalizing Liberal signs and those vandalizing Conservative signs are motivated by two very different ideas, and are doing so for very different reasons.
Those vandalizing Conservative signs are probably mostly doing so for the same, tired old rhetoric: the Conservatives are evil fat cats that will erode civil rights, destroy the social safety net, and transform Canada into a clone of the United States. These are the sort of people who spread fear either mindlessly, having bought into the fear-mongering tactics of the Liberal party, or those who are doing so in a very calculated fashion: because they know having a party like the Liberals in power benefits hem, and they will do anything to make sure they continue to enjoy those benefits.
Given the facts behind the current election, however, there is something I find inherently patriotic about vandalizing Liberal election signs – particularly that of the “thieves” or “adscam” variety. These brave people are putting themselves at risk to ensure that those planning to vote Liberal in the coming election will not be able to do so while pretending Adscam – or any of the other mounting scandals – never happened. Sometimes the truth has to be rubbed in people’s faces before they’ll wake up, and these people are doing just that.
Not that I am encouraging this sort of behavior, per se – merely condoning it and applauding it. There is, however, one caveat that must be added: there is a line that must be drawn.
All over the country, there are those who are afraid that their homes will be vandalized next – this is something that can not and must not be tolerated. All differences aside, people should be encouraged to vote from their consciences. If one’s conscience demands they vote Liberal, then so be it. That is fair, and they should. If their conscience, however, is choosing to ignore important issues – such as government corruption – then those with the will to do so should force them to acknowledge them.
God willing, that is exactly what those people will do.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Jim Harris Green With Embarassment
Green Party Excels at Warm & Fuzzy Feelings, But Still Naive
Jim Harris is a man on a mission. His mission? Convince one million Canadian voters to cast their ballot in support of his party on January 23.
In order to do this, he’ll have to do a number of things. Among them, he’ll have to convince Canadians that his party is not set to embark on a reactionary anti-business crusade.
So on that note, one of his party’s major platform points concerns the oilfield. First off, the Green party wants to ensure that oil prices “reflect their true costs to society through new regulations that force polluters to pay for damages and remediation costs.” Little is said about the value of these resources to society (after all, people in Canada have to heat their homes), but that’s neither here nor there of the current topic.
The Green Party plan, essentially, is to shift the majority of the taxes charged on the production of oil to periods earlier in the production process. The idea, allegedly, is that this will encourage oil companies to become more environmentally-conscious in order to offset the costs of these additional costs.
Jim Harris should have remembered the first rule of economic regulation: never attempt to regulate an industry you obviously don’t understand.
If Jim Harris understood anything about the Canadian energy industry, he would understand that almost all the oil companies operating with Canadian currently exceed the environmental standards the Canadian government has placed on their operation. In other words, these companies already exert more effort toward protecting the environment than the law requires. And while many of the leftist drones that tend to support parties like Harris’ would argue that this is only because the standards are too lax, it underscores an important fact about Canada’s oil industry: environmental protection is a prominent item on their agenda.
Furthermore, Harris’ logic is entirely defunct. Because environmental protection programs cost money, shifting taxes to points earlier in the production of oil will only result in companies cutting back these programs to bear-minimum expenditure in order to recover the profits a Green party government would cut into. If this didn’t happen, basic economics dictates only one other outcome: an increase in energy prices. Harris has neither defied popular conceptions of his party, or even put forth a workable energy policy.
There is only one word for what the Green Party has committed with all this: blunder.
This is one foolish idea that will overshadow an energy policy that is mostly filled with wise ideas. Beginning Canada’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is a necessary process that must begin as soon as possible. While the renewable energy technologies to completely meet Canada’s needs don’t yet exist, a proactive government would invest in the research and development necessary to produce them: an idea the Green Party obviously understands.
Corporate welfare is something that has been allowed to remain rampant in Canada for far too long. The Green Party’s plan to end subsidies to all non-renewable energy industries is certainly a step in the right direction. After all, with the profits energy companies are earning annually, it doesn’t seem like they need an awful lot of help.
Perhaps even best of all is the Green Party’s unique community-outward (as opposed to state-inward) approach to nation-building. The Green Party’s plan to work with individual cities and towns to build sustainable communities is a breath of fresh air in a country where far too many politicians believe that the bulk of the government’s power must always lie with the state.
Unfortunately, the Green Party’s energy policy also falls flat on one other matter: it doesn’t seem to understand even the concept of money, or how much energy development costs.
The Green Party’s proposition that $1.5 billion (split between the provinces) is going to be sufficient to build 10,000 MW of renewable energy.
The Green Party is certainly a group that deserves to have success in Canada – and eventually, it will. Sadly, for now it’s going to have to go back to the drawing board and get a grip on a little thing we like to call “reality”.
Jim Harris is a man on a mission. His mission? Convince one million Canadian voters to cast their ballot in support of his party on January 23.
In order to do this, he’ll have to do a number of things. Among them, he’ll have to convince Canadians that his party is not set to embark on a reactionary anti-business crusade.
So on that note, one of his party’s major platform points concerns the oilfield. First off, the Green party wants to ensure that oil prices “reflect their true costs to society through new regulations that force polluters to pay for damages and remediation costs.” Little is said about the value of these resources to society (after all, people in Canada have to heat their homes), but that’s neither here nor there of the current topic.
The Green Party plan, essentially, is to shift the majority of the taxes charged on the production of oil to periods earlier in the production process. The idea, allegedly, is that this will encourage oil companies to become more environmentally-conscious in order to offset the costs of these additional costs.
Jim Harris should have remembered the first rule of economic regulation: never attempt to regulate an industry you obviously don’t understand.
If Jim Harris understood anything about the Canadian energy industry, he would understand that almost all the oil companies operating with Canadian currently exceed the environmental standards the Canadian government has placed on their operation. In other words, these companies already exert more effort toward protecting the environment than the law requires. And while many of the leftist drones that tend to support parties like Harris’ would argue that this is only because the standards are too lax, it underscores an important fact about Canada’s oil industry: environmental protection is a prominent item on their agenda.
Furthermore, Harris’ logic is entirely defunct. Because environmental protection programs cost money, shifting taxes to points earlier in the production of oil will only result in companies cutting back these programs to bear-minimum expenditure in order to recover the profits a Green party government would cut into. If this didn’t happen, basic economics dictates only one other outcome: an increase in energy prices. Harris has neither defied popular conceptions of his party, or even put forth a workable energy policy.
There is only one word for what the Green Party has committed with all this: blunder.
This is one foolish idea that will overshadow an energy policy that is mostly filled with wise ideas. Beginning Canada’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is a necessary process that must begin as soon as possible. While the renewable energy technologies to completely meet Canada’s needs don’t yet exist, a proactive government would invest in the research and development necessary to produce them: an idea the Green Party obviously understands.
Corporate welfare is something that has been allowed to remain rampant in Canada for far too long. The Green Party’s plan to end subsidies to all non-renewable energy industries is certainly a step in the right direction. After all, with the profits energy companies are earning annually, it doesn’t seem like they need an awful lot of help.
Perhaps even best of all is the Green Party’s unique community-outward (as opposed to state-inward) approach to nation-building. The Green Party’s plan to work with individual cities and towns to build sustainable communities is a breath of fresh air in a country where far too many politicians believe that the bulk of the government’s power must always lie with the state.
Unfortunately, the Green Party’s energy policy also falls flat on one other matter: it doesn’t seem to understand even the concept of money, or how much energy development costs.
The Green Party’s proposition that $1.5 billion (split between the provinces) is going to be sufficient to build 10,000 MW of renewable energy.
The Green Party is certainly a group that deserves to have success in Canada – and eventually, it will. Sadly, for now it’s going to have to go back to the drawing board and get a grip on a little thing we like to call “reality”.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Deconstructing the Hidden Agenda
Welcome to Ottawa, where telling the truth, it seems, has become strictly verboten.
Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper was sent a letter of warning last week by the legal representatives of the Liberal Party. The subject of the warning? Harper’s assertation that Adscam demonstrates connections between the Liberal party and organized crime. The letter insisted that should Harper, or any member of the Conservative party repeat the comments outside of the House of Commons, the Liberal party would sue.
Which would probably be all fine and dandy… if it wasn’t true. The Sponsorship Scandal reflects practices common in much of white collar crime… which is, by its very nature, premeditated and organized. In other words, organized crime.
To the Globe and Mail, this affair apparently qualified as front page news, as they reported “Liberals Threaten to Sue Over Harper’s Rhetoric.” Which is what Harper’s assertations may well have been… if they weren’t, you know… true. This also came on a day when the rest of the national media was focusing on the Liberal party’s steadily dropping polls, and the backlash against the party’s proposed bribery of Canadian voters. So, if one suggests that the Globe and Mail is manipulating the news to the benefit of the Liberal party, they probably are not all that far from the truth.
In fact, they’re probably spot-on. It’s no secret that the Liberal party practically owns many of Canada’s high-profile media personalities (Rick Mercer, anyone?). The only question that remains is thus: did Jean Chretien pay cash or credit when he bought these people? And has Paul Martin been keeping up with the bills? Evidently so.
With today’s calling of a January 23rd election, one can expect some of Canada’s more unscrupulous “journalists” to begin lining up to take shots at any opponents of the corrupt Liberal regime. We can expect to hear the same old rhetoric (actual rhetoric, not demonstrated truth dismissed as rhetoric) over and over again.
Including that same propaganda lie fed to the Canadian public over and over again: the Hidden Agenda.
The idea of the Hidden Agenda has been a reliable lie for supporters of the Liberal party, used to counter virtually everything the Conservative party has ever proposed. “End corporate welfare”… HIDDEN AGENDA!!! “Tax relief”… HIDDEN AGENDA!!! “Gomery Inquiry”… HIDDEN AGENDA!!!
Unfortunately for these liars (or, perhaps, unfortunately for the Conservative Party), the Conservative Party has no hidden agenda. The Liberal party, however, does have such a hidden agenda, and they have shown us this time and time again.
Through various state endowments, the Liberal party has repeatedly laid the frame work for an ideological brainwashing of Canadians. The country’s most prominent think tanks are all Liberal party-friendly, and have all consistently worked toward entrenching the values allegedly espoused by the Liberal party as “Canadian values”. Meanwhile, a monopoly on political power has made the Liberal party increasingly corrupt. Even as the air is cleared from the last major scandal (Shawinigate?), the next scandal emerges, painting a picture of a political party that has brainwashed the country so thoroughly that it doesn’t matter what the truth is: the federal Liberals have, in effect, issued themselves a license to be as corrupt as they wish: and they’ve invented the perfect lie to make it possible.
Perhaps the most telling fact regarding the hidden agenda is the fact that those screaming it at the top of their lungs can’t seem to agree on what it is. Depending on which pro-Liberal drone you ask, it amounts to almost anything, from turning Canada into a puppet state under U.S. control to legalizing discrimination against gays and other minorities, to even “a Canada ruled by rednecks”.
Which is all fairly interesting, especially when considering that the Conservative party has, election in and election out, sent forth the most ethnically and racially diverse range of candidates out of any of Canada’s political parties. Oops.
Those responsible for spreading the “hidden agenda” lie have often grasped at any straw they can find. For example, the nomination of three candidates with links to Christian activist groups led to the pronouncement that “religious zealots are hijacking the Conservative party”. Those spreading this particular bit of propaganda all took care to bury the pertinent facts – the mere three out of more than 200 candidates nominated by the Conservatives – as deeply in their respective “journalistic articles” as they could.
In another case, an article exploring the “anti-abortion” hidden agenda of the Conservative party alleged that 20 anti-abortion MPs attended a “March for Life” rally in Ottawa. The article noted that “most of them” were Conservative MPs – then failed to mention how many of them were, or how many of them were from other parties – or who, or which.
If ever forced to produce concrete proof – not rhetoric – those supporting the hidden agenda lie would be unable to produce it. But this is not something they are meant to support – it’s a propaganda tool, designed for one purpose: spreading hysteria for the purpose of demonizing political alternatives, essentially turning Canada into a one-party state.
Take one look at Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Communist China. It isn’t hard to figure out what the ultimate consequences for establishing a one-party state are.
Unfortunately, there are those in Canada who are simultaneously so ambitious and so unscrupulous that they are willing to stop at nothing in order to do this.
Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper was sent a letter of warning last week by the legal representatives of the Liberal Party. The subject of the warning? Harper’s assertation that Adscam demonstrates connections between the Liberal party and organized crime. The letter insisted that should Harper, or any member of the Conservative party repeat the comments outside of the House of Commons, the Liberal party would sue.
Which would probably be all fine and dandy… if it wasn’t true. The Sponsorship Scandal reflects practices common in much of white collar crime… which is, by its very nature, premeditated and organized. In other words, organized crime.
To the Globe and Mail, this affair apparently qualified as front page news, as they reported “Liberals Threaten to Sue Over Harper’s Rhetoric.” Which is what Harper’s assertations may well have been… if they weren’t, you know… true. This also came on a day when the rest of the national media was focusing on the Liberal party’s steadily dropping polls, and the backlash against the party’s proposed bribery of Canadian voters. So, if one suggests that the Globe and Mail is manipulating the news to the benefit of the Liberal party, they probably are not all that far from the truth.
In fact, they’re probably spot-on. It’s no secret that the Liberal party practically owns many of Canada’s high-profile media personalities (Rick Mercer, anyone?). The only question that remains is thus: did Jean Chretien pay cash or credit when he bought these people? And has Paul Martin been keeping up with the bills? Evidently so.
With today’s calling of a January 23rd election, one can expect some of Canada’s more unscrupulous “journalists” to begin lining up to take shots at any opponents of the corrupt Liberal regime. We can expect to hear the same old rhetoric (actual rhetoric, not demonstrated truth dismissed as rhetoric) over and over again.
Including that same propaganda lie fed to the Canadian public over and over again: the Hidden Agenda.
The idea of the Hidden Agenda has been a reliable lie for supporters of the Liberal party, used to counter virtually everything the Conservative party has ever proposed. “End corporate welfare”… HIDDEN AGENDA!!! “Tax relief”… HIDDEN AGENDA!!! “Gomery Inquiry”… HIDDEN AGENDA!!!
Unfortunately for these liars (or, perhaps, unfortunately for the Conservative Party), the Conservative Party has no hidden agenda. The Liberal party, however, does have such a hidden agenda, and they have shown us this time and time again.
Through various state endowments, the Liberal party has repeatedly laid the frame work for an ideological brainwashing of Canadians. The country’s most prominent think tanks are all Liberal party-friendly, and have all consistently worked toward entrenching the values allegedly espoused by the Liberal party as “Canadian values”. Meanwhile, a monopoly on political power has made the Liberal party increasingly corrupt. Even as the air is cleared from the last major scandal (Shawinigate?), the next scandal emerges, painting a picture of a political party that has brainwashed the country so thoroughly that it doesn’t matter what the truth is: the federal Liberals have, in effect, issued themselves a license to be as corrupt as they wish: and they’ve invented the perfect lie to make it possible.
Perhaps the most telling fact regarding the hidden agenda is the fact that those screaming it at the top of their lungs can’t seem to agree on what it is. Depending on which pro-Liberal drone you ask, it amounts to almost anything, from turning Canada into a puppet state under U.S. control to legalizing discrimination against gays and other minorities, to even “a Canada ruled by rednecks”.
Which is all fairly interesting, especially when considering that the Conservative party has, election in and election out, sent forth the most ethnically and racially diverse range of candidates out of any of Canada’s political parties. Oops.
Those responsible for spreading the “hidden agenda” lie have often grasped at any straw they can find. For example, the nomination of three candidates with links to Christian activist groups led to the pronouncement that “religious zealots are hijacking the Conservative party”. Those spreading this particular bit of propaganda all took care to bury the pertinent facts – the mere three out of more than 200 candidates nominated by the Conservatives – as deeply in their respective “journalistic articles” as they could.
In another case, an article exploring the “anti-abortion” hidden agenda of the Conservative party alleged that 20 anti-abortion MPs attended a “March for Life” rally in Ottawa. The article noted that “most of them” were Conservative MPs – then failed to mention how many of them were, or how many of them were from other parties – or who, or which.
If ever forced to produce concrete proof – not rhetoric – those supporting the hidden agenda lie would be unable to produce it. But this is not something they are meant to support – it’s a propaganda tool, designed for one purpose: spreading hysteria for the purpose of demonizing political alternatives, essentially turning Canada into a one-party state.
Take one look at Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Communist China. It isn’t hard to figure out what the ultimate consequences for establishing a one-party state are.
Unfortunately, there are those in Canada who are simultaneously so ambitious and so unscrupulous that they are willing to stop at nothing in order to do this.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Let it Snow on Paul Martin
If you’re Prime Minister Paul Martin, the weather in Canada’s current political climate is certainly frightful.
Canada’s political winds have blown heaps of metaphorical snow upon our Prime Minister, as the results of the Gomery Inquiry have been followed, inevitably, by the threat of an opposition defeat of his besieged government, which would force what may well be a Christmas election.
Unfortunately, it seems that many Canadians don’t want a Christmas election. To some, making important decisions about who will govern this country apparently takes a back seat to sipping Egg Nogg, hanging candy canes, and accumulating near-crippling Christmas-gift-related debt.
However, Canadians should welcome the idea of a Christmas election. What better time than Christmas to take this country in a new direction?
Hopefully, the outcome of a winter election can demonstrate once and for all that Canadians, like Santa, know who’s been naughty or nice. While many Canadians may be extremely reluctant to consider any of our politicians “nice” – especially Stephen Harper who, if you believe the typical ultra-lefty tripe, conspires with Ralph Klein to kick over orphans’ snowmen – at least we know who’s been really, really naughty.
Which would be – that’s right – the federal Liberals. And while many federal Liberal apologists out there will insist that the party itself is not to blame for adscam, the naughty list that is the Gomery report disagrees with them. It contends that the federal Liberal party is the only common factor amongst the planning and execution of this scandal, as well as its beneficiaries. In other words: they planned it, they carried it out, and they benefited from it.
This, however, hasn’t stopped Paul Martin from playing the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge, snorting “Bah! Humbug!” at the idea of respecting the wishes of Parliament and calling an election in January. Many accuse Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton of playing the role of the Grinch, conspiring to steal Christmas by forcing a yuletide vote that would draw the attention of Canadians away from the season’s traditionally festive matters. But it is Paul Martin who has forced Canada’s opposition parties into this corner, where they must either force a Christmas election, or allow the Liberals an additional four months to work on damage control.
Then again, Martin is shaping up to be an uncharacteristically generous Scrooge. Unsurprisingly, his government has stepped up to the tax relief plate and offered $37 billion in new spending, as well as retroactive tax cuts (amounting to hundreds of dollars per Canadian). But don’t let those visions of sugar plums dance in your heads just yet, kids; these generous Christmas presents – also known as bribes – are dependant upon the Liberal government surviving the next election.
All this aside, it is my greatest hope that the spirit of the season can convince the Conservative party and the New Democrats – who are usually bitter blood-enemies – to unite in the spirit of peace and harmony to hatch an agreement that would allow the two to form a coalition government in the wake of a Christmas election.
This could represent something of a plump Christmas goose for Canadians – the social conscience of the NDP, combined with the fiscal responsibility of the Conservative party. Perhaps, for once in a long time, the bulk of tax money spent on social services could actually go to front-line service, as opposed to being wasted in bureaucratic snowdrifts. Perhaps Canadians could even have a government that is less concerned with petty partisan politics, and more focused on the actual business of running the country.
Of course, that is merely a fringe benefit that will come with finally having a government that will at least promise not to steal Canadian tax dollars. Paul Martin’s Liberals won’t even do that.
This Christmas, give Canada the most precious gift of all – that of a new government.
Canada’s political winds have blown heaps of metaphorical snow upon our Prime Minister, as the results of the Gomery Inquiry have been followed, inevitably, by the threat of an opposition defeat of his besieged government, which would force what may well be a Christmas election.
Unfortunately, it seems that many Canadians don’t want a Christmas election. To some, making important decisions about who will govern this country apparently takes a back seat to sipping Egg Nogg, hanging candy canes, and accumulating near-crippling Christmas-gift-related debt.
However, Canadians should welcome the idea of a Christmas election. What better time than Christmas to take this country in a new direction?
Hopefully, the outcome of a winter election can demonstrate once and for all that Canadians, like Santa, know who’s been naughty or nice. While many Canadians may be extremely reluctant to consider any of our politicians “nice” – especially Stephen Harper who, if you believe the typical ultra-lefty tripe, conspires with Ralph Klein to kick over orphans’ snowmen – at least we know who’s been really, really naughty.
Which would be – that’s right – the federal Liberals. And while many federal Liberal apologists out there will insist that the party itself is not to blame for adscam, the naughty list that is the Gomery report disagrees with them. It contends that the federal Liberal party is the only common factor amongst the planning and execution of this scandal, as well as its beneficiaries. In other words: they planned it, they carried it out, and they benefited from it.
This, however, hasn’t stopped Paul Martin from playing the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge, snorting “Bah! Humbug!” at the idea of respecting the wishes of Parliament and calling an election in January. Many accuse Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton of playing the role of the Grinch, conspiring to steal Christmas by forcing a yuletide vote that would draw the attention of Canadians away from the season’s traditionally festive matters. But it is Paul Martin who has forced Canada’s opposition parties into this corner, where they must either force a Christmas election, or allow the Liberals an additional four months to work on damage control.
Then again, Martin is shaping up to be an uncharacteristically generous Scrooge. Unsurprisingly, his government has stepped up to the tax relief plate and offered $37 billion in new spending, as well as retroactive tax cuts (amounting to hundreds of dollars per Canadian). But don’t let those visions of sugar plums dance in your heads just yet, kids; these generous Christmas presents – also known as bribes – are dependant upon the Liberal government surviving the next election.
All this aside, it is my greatest hope that the spirit of the season can convince the Conservative party and the New Democrats – who are usually bitter blood-enemies – to unite in the spirit of peace and harmony to hatch an agreement that would allow the two to form a coalition government in the wake of a Christmas election.
This could represent something of a plump Christmas goose for Canadians – the social conscience of the NDP, combined with the fiscal responsibility of the Conservative party. Perhaps, for once in a long time, the bulk of tax money spent on social services could actually go to front-line service, as opposed to being wasted in bureaucratic snowdrifts. Perhaps Canadians could even have a government that is less concerned with petty partisan politics, and more focused on the actual business of running the country.
Of course, that is merely a fringe benefit that will come with finally having a government that will at least promise not to steal Canadian tax dollars. Paul Martin’s Liberals won’t even do that.
This Christmas, give Canada the most precious gift of all – that of a new government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)