Alan Sears: Putting Far-Left Rhetoric In Perspective

Sears reveals far-leftist mentality focused on the promotion of hatred of enemies

Writing -- where else? but -- on Rabble.ca, Ryerson University sociologist Alan Sears offers his conribution to a "reinventing democracy" series Rabble has been carrying ever since they beheld what they regard as the horror of a Stephen Harper majority government.

Sears goes on at length about his desire to build "infrastructure of dissent" that will entirely overturn the capitalist system, and usher in some kind of far-leftist utopia that people like Sears refuse to acknowledge that only they really want.

But beyond that, Sears makes it rather clear: far-left rhetoric is as much about promoting the hatred of those they deem to be their enemies:

"I have a dream about the end of Harper, in which he is driven from office, a reviled figure.

His will be a name invoked by parents to scare their little children. He will live on as a historical footnote in the style of RB Bennett and Calvin Coolidge, his ideological predecessors remembered for doing exactly the wrong thing in the face of a global slump, in Bennett's and Coolidge's cases the 1930s Depression."

Very few people who have been paying attention needed someone like Sears to put the rhetoric of the far-left in perspective. The full extent of the anti-Harper hatemongering has been crystal clear to those paying attention, especially during the 2011 federal election, when websites like ShitHarperDid often took to blatantly lying in order to promote hatred of the Prime Minister.

Sears writes of a fantasy in which the left -- as people like Sears imagine in -- forces its way into every facet of society and identifies its enemies. He quite literally uses the word "enemy".

"At one point, the Left had a real presence in neighbourhoods and workplaces, and was a serious reference point in union meetings, movement activism and broader political discussion. The perception that there was a socialist alternative meant that the persistence of capitalism was in question," Sears writes. "Now, it is taken for granted and, to be blunt, the Left is largely marginal and fragmentary; stuck in old modes of thinking and infected with a sectarian ethos that seeks out the enemies on our side rather than focussing on solidarity against the real enemy."

The "real enemy", of course, is anyone who doesn't share Sears' political beliefs.

Which is really everything one needs to know about people like Alan Sears. To him, conservatives are not merely fellow citizens who disagree with him. They are the enemy, and they are to be swept away in a mass political revolution that makes all of his utopian political dreams come true.

As the would-be guardian and would-be gatekeeper of the left, some would suggest Murray Dobbin -- the curator of the "reinventing democracy" dialogue -- should seek to contain and isolate such extreme and, quite frankly, fascist views.

He's chosen not to. And it's not shocking. If Dobbin made responsible editorial decisions, Rabble just wouldn't be Rabble.

Dobbin, Mallick & Theilheimer: a Fear Mongering Trifecta

With the far-left decrying Prime Minister Stephen Harper's alleged fear mongering over the prospect of a coalition of losers, they have also taken this as an opportunity to... fear monger.

It's no great surprise. They've been doing it non-stop for nearly 20 years.

Some of the far-left's premier fear mongerers have dusted off their most dystopic nightmare to send one overhwelming message to Canadians: give Harper a majority, and Canada is over. Done for. History.

Everyone -- especially the authors of these diatribes -- know it isn't true. But these people being who they are, they're saying it anyway. Here's a brief round up.

First up, at Straight Goods Ish Theilheimer declares that, if given a majority, the first thing Harper would do is destroy public health care.

"Politicians and activists need to remind Canadians of how drastic the threat is. The record clearly shows that Stephen Harper loathes medicare," Theilheimer declares.

"Harper deserted Preston Manning and left politics in 1997 to work for the National Citizens Coalition, which was formed expressly to fight medicare, as chronicled by Murray Dobbin. In 1997, as NCC Vice-President, Harper said that Canada should scrap the Canada Health Act."

"Until 2005 Harper publicly professed to believe in two-tier care," Theilheimer continues. "When asked by the CBC about a parallel health care system, he said: 'Well I think it would be a good idea. We're alone among OECD countries in deciding that we'll have a two-tier system but our second tier will be outside the country where only the very rich and powerful can access it and [it] will be of absolutely no benefit to the Canadian health care system.'"

"In October 2002, Dobbin reminds us, Harper said, 'We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system.'"

Of course to people like Theilheimer, who denounce "US-style health care" to anyone who will listen, the idea of parallel health care systems seems like a scary idea... until you consider that the best health care systems in the world feature mixtures of public and private health care delivery.

Meanwhile, Canada's health care system -- operating within the framework defined in the Canada Health Act -- continues to perform dismally compared to other health care systems. Perhaps Harper was right in 1997; perhaps Canada needs a new health care framework in order to correct the ever-growing list of flaws in the current system.

Speaking of Murray Dobbin, he too took the interwebs for some good-old fashioned Dobbin-flavoured fear mongering:

"It's been a long five years for Stephen Harper, his gaggle of ex-Reformers and the gang of three from Harris-era Ontario -- Jim Flaherty, John Baird and Tony Clement. Long and infuriating, I am sure, because for all that time they had to pretend that they were a government. They had to masquerade as people who believed that government could be a force for good. They even "stimulated" the economy. They were a minority government and the big ticket items they really wanted to get their teeth into were out of reach.

They couldn't slash Medicare or gut the Canada Health Act. They couldn't cut transfers to the provinces, or further weaken EI. They left the public services unions with their rights intact. They had to leave education alone (more or less). And they didn't risk slashing the civil service they hate so much. Even the CBC has been spared (though they raised millions from their loyalists attacking it in fundraising letters).

The frustration level, especially for Harper, must have been almost unbearable. Remember, this is a man who got so frustrated being in Opposition as right-hand man to Preston Manning that he bolted from politics altogether. The place he chose to cleanse himself after all those years having to play the democrat was the National Citizens Coalition, by a big margin the most right-wing organization on the national scene. He said he was glad to be out of politics so he could say what he really thought.

Harper was hoping for revenge in the last election and blew it by attacking culture. He's eager for another try, making Jack Layton an offer he had to refuse. And if you want to see what real revenge looks like, give this crowd a majority and they will unleash the most destructive, nation-changing blitzkrieg in living memory. I can still remember the night that Brian Mulroney won the historic free trade election 1988. It was devastating. But Mulroney was a kindergarten teacher compared to Stephen Harper. Free trade started us down the road to Americanization. Harper will take us to the end of that road and beyond."

There's very little of substance in Dobbin's tirade. The sole issue of great concern Dobbin raises is the "committee handbook" the Conservatives were caught passing about earlier in their tenure. As disappointing as that affair was, it's but a mere patrol boat in Harper's political game of Battleship.

Dobbin spends the rest of his column chasing conspiratorial phantoms in the dark. Apparently, Dobbin believes in ghosts.

The rank anti-Americanism of Dobbin's column sets the table splendidly for Heather Mallick's contribution to the politics of fear, who is so brazen about her empty anti-Americanism that it's heralded in the title of her piece.

"We’re being conquered. If Stephen Harper wins a majority, the United States of Canada is what we’ll be. Maybe you’re fine with that. I am not," Mallick writes. "The Harperites’ attitude is Republican with a layer of Tea Party, a 'current of bitterness, an anger born of a sense of exclusion,' as Lawrence Martin wrote in his fine book Harperland, Conservatives 'viscerally hating their political opposition' in a way that was new and startling in Canada but old poisoned hat for the Americans. We will become more American in word and deed, in thought and feeling."

The only anti-American bogeymen Mallick seems to have missed are the Koch brothers and Sarah Palin (Mallick's self-humiliating vicious attack on Sarah Palin in 2008 managed to earn her a permanent place at the journalistic kids' table). Speaking of visceral hatred of political opposition, it was Mallick herself who openly admitted to experiencing a blubbering episode during the 2010 Olympics when Harper was simply shown on TV.

"The Harper Government does indeed love 'jets and jails,' as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been saying on the campaign trail," Mallick fumes. "Its plan for more jailing and less parole is at the core of the disastrous US prison explosion that even the Americans are horrified of by now (plus they can’t afford it)."

The Harper government may indeed love jets -- they are rather awesome -- but the salient fact is that no one loves jails. The difference between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff is that Harper knows that Canada needs both.

Speaking of Ignatieff, he did once declare that the United States was his country, yet Mallick has nothing at all to say about that. Anti-Americanism, it seems, applies only to Conservatives.

Mallick even blames Harper for what she considers to be increasing public acceptance of racism. Comically, she refers to the "too Asian?" issue of Macleans magazine, but leaves out a central fact: that the issue was widely denounced by critics.

Facts like that clearly didn't matter to Mallick. They've been sacrificed at the altar of fear, Mallick's last resort to try to prevent a Stephen Harper majority government.

Fear served the Canadian far-left well for 13 years. Yet Heather Mallick Murray Dobbin and Ish Theilheimer have yet to realize that Canadians woke up from that coma in 2006 when they elected enough Conservative MPs to make Harper Prime Minister.

The bid to resurrect that fear in the minds of Canadians is sad and pathetic. Thankfully, it won't get them anywhere.

For the Far Left, Defeat for Canada is Victory For Themselves

The ideologically parochial left has reminded Canadians what they really care about

Observers of US politics may remember the outrage that many Americans felt when the Republican Party was caught celebrating Chicago's failure to win its bid to host the Olympics.

US President Barack Obama had lent his political star power -- strong at the time, but waning ever since -- to the bid. Republicans crowed that the loss of the Chicago Olympic bid was a defeat for Obama.

Commentators such as Rachel Maddow condemned the Republicans for having cheered against their own country. They were right to do so.

Today, as Canada withdrew its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, it's worth taking some time out to identify those Canadians who are almost certainly celebrating Canada's defeat; and celebrating it for partisan or ideological gain.

Canadians like Michael Ignatieff, who suggested that Stephen Harper's government hasn't earned a seat on the Security Council. Canadians like Murray Dobbin, who spewed a bizarre diatribe about US imperialism laden with anti-Israel rhetoric. Canadians like Robert Fowler. Canadians like Paul Heinbecker.

Reportedly, among the Canadians who cheered against Canada receiving a Security Council seat wasn't former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper's commitment to child and maternal health at the G8 and G20 summits.

"You don't have to use the words human security. It is a reflection of the same view that there are a lot of vulnerable people in the world, who are not given the protection of the laws in their own countries," Axworthy said. "It's two years that could really be a very innovative time for Canada coming out of the G8 and G20 and other initiatives."

Axworthy was more than willing to put partisanship aside for his country. It's a shame that those with a partisan or ideological motive to ignore Canada's increased international profile won't do the same.

It's not that they can't. It's just that they won;t.

They're too outraged that Canada won't sacrifice its own interests by blindly backing the global left-wing agenda -- things such as the scientifically-invalid consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

The ideologically-selfish and parochial far left has reminded Canadians what they really care about: their extreme agenda, and nothing else. They celebrate when Canada loses on the global stage because they believe that defeat will advance their agenda in the hearts and minds of Canadians.

But Canada's sparse collection of far-left ideologues may be shocked to see this turn against them.

"Most Canadians believe — and this is born out in public opinion polls — that partisan politics stops at our borders and we should speak with one voice on the world stage," explains Carleton Unviersity's Fen Hampson. "Whether we have 'earned' it or not, Canadians want to see us secure a seat on the Security Council."

"Partisans of all political stripes and diplomatic persuasions should tread carefully, especially on matters like this where Canadians expect their leaders to take the high road," he concludes.

Unsurprisingly, Canada's far left simply won't take the high road. Not when there's ideological gain to be had.

For them, Canada's defeat on the global stage is victory for themselves.

Murray Dobbin Declares Carole James To Be Off the Reservation

Dobbin's hostility toward private enterprise is positively palpable

In a column published in the Vancouver Sun, Murray Dobbin -- who often declares the NDP to be the true voice of Canada, despite their distant third-party status -- has declared British Columbia NDP leader Carole James to be off the reservation.

Her grave misstep? Talking to business.

In the column, Dobbin declares his sheer lunatic hatred for private enterprise while spewing tired, worn-out socialist rhetoric.

He declares BC's business interests to be carpetbaggers, and declares James to be a traitor. Fortunately for James, this is Murray Dobbin. His opening volley hilariously drips with the frustrated sweat of intellectual impotence:

"So Carole James thinks meeting with business is going to help her look like a leader. Good luck with that. No one will take this sad effort seriously – not her supporters, who want her to represent them which means against the reactionary interests of business. And certainly not business who will only be impressed with an NDP leader when said leader commits hari kari for ever having had the temerity to challenge the Liberal party. This isn’t just a waste of time – it is embarrassing and counterproductive.

How does humiliating yourself – essentially apologizing to the most reactionary business class in Canada – make you look like a leader?"

It's rather amusing to see Dobbin accusing business interests of being "reactionary", when he's the one blowing a gasket because Carole James so much as talks to private enterprise.

It's hard to tell if Dobbin is more frustrated with his own exhausted ideas, or with the idea that an NDP leader simply may have woken up from that particular slumber.

"James said in her speech that the wealth created by business 'helps pay for the services that make for a just and fair society.' Well, yes, if they actually paid their fair share of taxes that might also be true – but they don’t. The irresponsible corporate tax cuts delivered by the Campbell government in the first week after its first electoral victory means we don’t have the money needed to pay for the services we need. The obscenity of overcrowded emergency rooms, school boards millions of dollars short of what they need, cuts to everything that makes BC a good place to live lies at the door of the BC corporate elite.

This is the business class James is talking to and what do they think about the multi-billion dollar shortfall they are responsible for? Why, they want even more tax cuts."

Of course, the assessment of what business' "fair share" is would have to be subjective. In Dobbin's judgement, private enterprise is nothing more than a piggy bank for government to ruthlessly and endlessly raid while denying them the opportunity to compete with crown corporations (also known as Dobbin's sacred cows).

Moreover, when Dobbin refers to services that British Columbians desperately need, it all too often isn't actually health care or education that he's really thinking about. Rather, he's thinking about whatever idea may pop into his head at any given time.

Dobbin, who has never allowed reality -- such as the reality that an NDP government might need to attempt to get along with the businesses that generate the wealth necessary for them to operate their programs -- to restrain his writing, has proven that he has a lascivious appetite for tax-funded social programming. He could never get enough.

Which in turn leads to outbursts like the following paragraph:

"Did James talk about that while she genuflected before this crowd of carpetbaggers? Did she tell them if they want to live in a civilized society, they have to pay for it? Did she remind them that educated, healthy workers and a strong infrastructure are good for business?"

If the "carpetbaggers" of private enterprise -- who in Dobbin's mind couldn't possibly citizens of BC or of Canada -- want to live in a civilized society, they have to pay for it.

Apparently, the idea that government has a responsibility to try to keep the demands placed on private enterprise as low as necessary doesn't at any point cross Dobbin's mind. No. In his mind, the responsibility of government is to create as business-stifling and growth-smothering a social safety net as possible, and to force private enterprise to pay for it.

And if Carole James, as the leader of a social democratic party, understands the need for governments to work collaboratively with the businesses they expect to pay the taxes to fund their every pet project, he declares her to be Judah:

"This is an NDP leader with no stomach for the truth or social justice – she will never call for tax increases even though everything the NDP is supposed to stand for requires tax revenue."

Dobbin would prefer that she do as he demands: a ritual sacrifice of the geese that he expects to lay golden eggs for BC, all while his own sacred cows not only remain untouched, but forever spared the inconvenience of having to compete for grazing land.

It's as apt an expression of Murray Dobbin's ideological selfishness as he's ever produced. It's a shame that he has to extend his seething hatred of private enterprise to an NDP leader who's trying to do the right thing for her party, and for her province.

Fuck You, Nancy Hughes Anthony...

Murray Dobbin is my bitch ;).

That's How the Cookie Crumbles, Murray

...And no cookie for you

Writing on Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin is positively apoplectic about the announcement that the government and opposition have reached an accord on how the viewing of documents pertaining to Afghan detainees will be handled.

"The agreement reached at the 11th hour on the uncensored Afghan torture documents is hardly a victory for democracy," Dobbin pouts. "It is precisely the opposite and it is the Liberals we have to thank for it. We have come to expect nothing better from the Harper Conservatives -- the most dishonest, anti-democratic and arrogant government in living memory."

The irony of Dobbin -- who continues to push his Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition government despite Canadian rejection of it -- labelling anyone as "dishonest, anti-democratic and arrogant" needs no further comment.

After all, NDP leader Jack Layton also hailed the agreement as a triumph for democracy.

"This is a victory for parliamentary democracy," Layton announced via written statement. "The Speaker's ruling made it clear that members of Parliament have the right to review all the information about the treatment of Afghan detainees, and not just what the government thinks MPs should see."

Yet somehow, in the eyes of Murray Dobbin -- who is forever content to suck up to the NDP -- Layton escapes any blame, and all the blame should fall to the Liberals.

Apparently, the Bloc -- who Dobbin loves well enough to include as party to a coalition government despite their separatist goals -- should also escape any blame for this all-party deal.

Dobbin insists that the change in Liberal Party attitude toward the documents should be attributed to a lack of will to "face down the bully Stephen Harper".

But the fact that the Liberal Party has changed their position is more likely attributable to the prospect that MPs will now be able to actually view these documents, and that they will be able to view them for the entire timeframe of the mission.

This has evidently deflated Liberal enthusiasm for the release of the documents, and with good reason. After all, it was the Liberal Party that negotiated the orginal prisoner transfer agreement under which all the problems actually took place. They approved a weak agreement that provided them with insufficient oversight of the treatment of transferred prisoners despite receiving numerous warnings about the prevalence of torture in Afghan prisons.

It was the Conservative Party that recognized the problem, investigated, and concluded an improved PTA to help quash the problem.

While the bellicose attitude of the opposition parties offered the Conservatives little incentive to release the documents, the national security issues raised by the Conservatives seemed to have been recognized by Speaker of the House Peter Miliken when he admonished the government and opposition to decide a manner of viewing for the documents that will respect the sensitivity of them.

The alternative offered by the most fervent anti-Conservatives has been rather striking: let us have the documents now, so we can use them to smear you now.

But even as certain assclowns are rather uncomfortable with the frequent revelations that the Liberal Party has had far more to do with the torture allegations than the Conservative Party has -- John Baglow going so far as to argue that the Liberals should be let off the hook for their "good intentions" (good intentions that he seems to assume the Tories wouldn't share) -- individuals like Dobbin continue to flail, insisting that there must be something in the documents that could be used to smear the Tories, and they want it desperately.

The Liberal Party, however, having spent so much time in government, seems to know differently: that there are legitimate security concerns complicating the prompt release of the documents. Knowing that the Conservatives couldn't release them without taking measures to prevent sensitive information from being leaked -- and thus knowing the documented extent of their negligence was safe from public disclosure -- the Liberals demanded the release of the documents, knowing they could cast the Conservatives as evasive.

Now that the table has been set for the release of the documents, Liberal feet have grown colder, and the agreement the opposition parties have reached is essentially the same as the one offered: examination by an expert panel, and release based on their recommendations.

When opposition parties play these kinds of political games, it's just the way the cookie crumbles. One would have expected that Murray Dobbin would be used to that by now.

The Annexation of Canadian Values

Dobbin continues to hijack "Canadian values" for the service of the far left

One of the things any observer can expect of Murray Dobbin is that he, like many other denizens of Canada's far left, will continually attempt to annex the concept of Canadian values to their own ends.

He'll forever pick and choose the data that supports his preconceptions, and forever reject any that doesn't support his view.

In the course of an interview with NDP leader Jack Layton, Dobbin makes the depth of this folly perfectly clear when he insists that the NDP ought to be winning majority governments based on the concept of Canadian values.

"I'm someone who is a bit obsessive about values polling, I look at all of them that I can find, and what strikes me is that if the seats in the House of Commons were assigned to parties based on how their policies lined up with Canadian-stated values, the NDP would have a majority," Dobbin begins. "Why do we have a Conservative government when Canadian values actually line up so well with the NDP's values and policies?"

Layton insists that the problem for the NDP is that the electoral system just isn't fair.

"The first reason is that we have an electoral system that permits massive distortions of the public views when it comes to the results, the seats, and therefore the governance," Layton answers. "We've had that for some considerable time, it's just particularly evident right now when you have a government that in two successive elections couldn't get less than 62 per cent of the public to vote against them. Yet they end up with 100 per cent of the power... 100 per cent of the executive power, and maybe something than just a little less than 100 per cent of the legislative power."

Unfortunately for Layton and Dobbin, electoral reform would absolutely not result in an NDP majority.

The NDP's support tends to waver back-and-forth between 15% and 20%. One would be hard-pressed to find an electoral system that could currently produce an NDP minority government, let alone a majority.

It's laughable for Dobbin to suggest that the NDP best reflect's Canada's values, particularly since Canadians themselves -- 80% to 85% of them -- clearly seem to disagree.

The idea seems to be that Dobbin knows the values of Canadians better than Canadians themselves. It's the typical kind of arrogance one expects from the architect of the foiled 2008 coalition attempt -- an architect that refuses to abandon his designs.

In the same sloppy and intellectually lazy manner of many supporters of electoral reform -- particularly proportional representation -- Layton insists that these reforms would fix problems that they simply wouldn't. Such as the appointment of the judiciary.

"They are transforming the judiciary with their appointments so they're rapidly increasing their power in the judicial arm of government as well," Layton says. "So that is why you need proportional representation and why we continue to fight for it and push for it."

The problem for Layton is that imlimenting proportional representation in Canada won't change problems with the way judges are appointed. Rather, changes to the way that judges are appointed -- perhaps requiring the Prime Minister to have his nominations confirmed by Parliament -- would accomplish that.

But Layton's outrage over the appointment of judges who don't share his political values is rather tired. The Liberals did the same for years. The NDP would certainly do the same should they ever manage to win government.

If anything, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's appointments are at least likely to be far less activist and politically invasive than previous appointees. For years, Liberal-appointed judges legislated from the bench. At least Conservative-appointed judges are more likely to respect the fact that laws are made by Parliament, not by the judiciary.

A great many Canadians would likely agree with this idea. Perhaps not Jack Layton.

"Number two, of course, you have the traditional governing parties that have alternated in and out, have had access to the support of the dominant forces in society," Layton continues. "In particular, the largest, most powerful corporate entities, the banks and the oil companies, who seem to be the one constant when it comes to those who benefit by government policies. As the government alternates back and forth between red and blue they are tied to this notion that tax cuts and a shrinking capacity to do things together through our collective enterprises and public services is fundamental."

Likewise, a great many Canadians recognize that large corporations provide a great proporotion of Canada's employment, and that banks help provide a lot of the capital that is necessary to grow the economy.

A great many Canadians recognize that while there should be limits on how much support the government lends to corporations -- the line should be drawn at outright continuing corporate welfare -- what is good for corporations is often good for the economy. What is good for the economy is good for Canadians.

(Not that everything that is good for corporations is good for the economy. The dire under-regulation of the American economy was good for corporations, but bad for the economy. But these conditions aren't present in Canada.)

These are values held by many Canadians that just don't seem to mesh with Dobbin's ideological conception of Canadian values.

Then again, Dobbin continues to refuse to recognize that Canadians rejected the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition that he himself pushed hard for in the wake of the general election.

Murray Dobbin never learns. It makes one wonder if he even can learn.

Canadians clearly do not share his far left ideological conception of Canadian values. But Dobbin himself will never admit it -- not even to himself.

My, How the Cultural Warriors Pretend to Be Moderates

Marci McDonald continues to insist she's a "moderate"

Speaking in an interview with Lloyd Mackey of Canadian Christianity, Armageddon Factor author Marci McDonald insists that it wasn't her intent to demonize Evangelical Christians.

"I am not an atheist," says McDonald, who also says that she is a Christian. "I believe that faith is a strong motivator for some of the finest actions in public life."

"I am a Christian who lost my faith for some years, and came back to it," McDonald explains.

She also described herself as a "centrist".

McDonald further insists that her book is not meant to make a case for the isolation of religion -- or any religion -- from public life.

"I think having a secular Canada where all faiths have a place -- and feel comfortable and welcome -- is what most Canadians still want," she continues.

These words may be somewhat comforting to many of those who have found the tenor of her work alarming. But that comfort will be meagre, as those who intend to make use of McDonald's work to wage a cultural war against conservatives -- such as Antonia Zerbisias and Murray Dobbin -- to wage a culture war such as the one recommended to the Liberal Party by Frank Graves.

Even if Marci McDonald is herself a centrist, or a moderate, the truth is that her work is then being used by far-left extremists to wage a cultural conflict designed to pit citizens against one another -- with Evangelical Christians being exploited as convenient scapegoats.

If Marci McDonald doesn't want to see her work abused to such ends, it will stand to her to speak out against extremists such as Zerbisias and Dobbin.

Oh Theocracy, Where Art Thee?

Eeeek! It's Christians! And They're Praying!

To hear Canada's far left describe it, one would think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have transformed Canada into a theocracy.

Murray Dobbin is quite keen to insist as much. As is Antonia Zerbisias.

Sometimes the evidence offered for their panic-mongering is rather thin. For example, Zerbisias points at the National Prayer Breakfast, where denizens of Parliament Hill meet to pray over some pancakes (or something).

The problem for Zerbisias is that there has been 44 such breakfasts prior to 2010. Yet only in 2010 does this render Canada into a theocratic state.

She points also to the other thin gruel offered by she and her fellow panic-mongerers: Conservative reluctance to include abortion in a maternal health care plan for the developing world (contrary to Zerbisias' report, family planning has been included in the plan), the de-funding of a collection of over-political and under-productive women's activist groups, and the de-funding of various other things she likes and the funding of some things she doesn't like (like Bible schools).

Zerbisias is apparently a rather big fan of Marci McDonald and her upcoming book The Armageddon Factor: the Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada.

Like so many of the arguments raised by Canada's far left, the book seems to be an attempt to transplant the panicky arguments the American far left deployed against George W Bush into Canada.

Originality? They're not big on it. Overrated, perhaps.

“All my worries about having to prove my case that this government is intent on cultivating the social conservative constituency in this country were nothing to worry about," McDonald says. "They were doing it so openly that you could hardly keep up with the headlines.”

“This was not a polemic I wrote; I do not reveal that Stephen Harper has a secret altar in his basement," McDonald continues. "But I did try to connect the dots because everybody was telling me this isn’t happening here, not in nice, tolerant, moderate Canada.”

Nice, tolerant, moderate Canada. Where everything's OK until politicians stop refusing to be seen in the same room as an Evangelical Christian. Then it's panic time.

Likewise if they stop obligingly advancing the political agenda of the far left.

Apparently, even something so basic as the cancellation of the Martin government's promised national daycare scheme is evidence of theocratic intentions.

“That showed the canniness of Harper’s strategy," McDonald says. "Most people saw it as, ‘Oh yes the neocons don’t like government-funded social policies.’ What they didn’t realize was that he was also pandering to social conservatives who don’t believe that the government should have any role in child-rearing, who believe that mothers should be at home bringing up their children or who send their children to religious daycares and schools. It was one of those policies that cut across both of his constituencies, economic and social. That would characterize most of his policies.”

What McDonald doesn't seem to appreciate is that, whether she likes it or not, Canadian parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. If they choose to send their children to a religious daycare, that's their right. They shouldn't have to pay twice for child care.

But this is the bizarre thinking of Canada's far left: if you believe that government has no role in raising children, apparently you're a theocrat.

McDonald also offers up a number of private members' bills on abortion as evidence that Stephen Harper has a theocratic agenda. (Naturally, she omits the fact that it was Harper who killed these bills. Once again, accuracy isn't at a premium with these people.)

“I just want people to know the facts," McDonald insists. (Although, clearly, she doesn't want people to know all the facts.) "It is the connections, the depth of the organizational roots, that these organizations have put down in Ottawa. These are not known. Four years ago, they were not being catered to, they weren’t being invited to VIP receptions, they weren’t being asked for special election events, they weren’t having special letters read out their rallies, they weren’t getting (security) passes to Parliament Hill."

The problem for McDonald, Zerbisias, Dobbin and company is that given how loudly they parrot their claims, few Canadians could not know about the facts.

It's just clear that Canadians don't share their panic about Stephen Harper and Evangelical Christians.

And for good reason. Not only do they treat what is actually a diverse category of Canadian Christians as monolithic, but it's clear that Canadians can do the math much better than these shrill, panicky denizens of the far left.

Two plus two, after all, doesn't equal five.

But even if the math doesn't add up, it seems that Zerbisias, McDonald and Dobbin seem to think there's plenty of reason to panic.

“I think we should be vigilant,” McDonald says. “We have to decide what kind of a country we want to live in. We have to stay on top of these issues because this is a government wedded to secrecy."

“This government has chosen a strategy that risks changing the Canada that most of us have agreed we want to live in and the tolerance that we have built, faulty as it is," she concludes.

Marci McDonald shouldn't pretend to speak for most Canadians.

Apparently, she and her fellows on the far left decided they want to live in a country that is hostile to Christians, and exists basically as a far left ideological construct.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has fostered a country that is more respectful and accepting of Christians -- Evangelical and otherwise -- and has begun to dismantle the organs that have facilitated the institutionalization of the far left ideology.

And Canadians continue to not be outraged.

Antonia Zerbisias, Murray Dobbin and Marci McDonald just cannot seem to take the clue. If this is theocracy, it seems that more more Canadians are comfortable with it.

It isn't, but if Zerbisias, Dobbin and McDonald want to continue panicking, that's their prerogative. It's just time for them to stop pretending that the rest of Canada should join them.

Murray Dobbin: Not Good With Numbers

Dobbin continues to peddle his coalition fantasies

The everlasting so-sad-it-isn't-even-funny-anymore reign of Murray Dobbin has produced far more than its fair share of ideological-at-all-costs stink.

Yet those observing Dobbin's mediocre flailings can rest assured of one thing -- so long as Dobbin remains good at winding up his extreme left-wing fellow travellers, the publishers of Rabble.ca will keep him around.

In his most recent discharge, Dobbin leads off by drastically mis-reading the most recent polling numbers, even according to his typically self-serving choice of which polls to recognize:

"We have a government so contemptuous of democracy that it is utterly unapologetic in trying to impose on the country an agenda opposed by probably 75 per cent of the population -- treating its minority status not as a mandate to work with other parties but as an irritating impediment to re-engineering the country along the lines defined by the U.S. Christian right."

Whenever Dobbin accuses Harper of advancing an agenda akin to the American religious right, he should just be ignored. It's an accusation that he has gleefully created out of whole cloth.

But his other claim -- that "probably 75% of Canadians" oppose the Conservative Party agenda is a little more peculiar. After all, he declines to produce polling numbers to support it.

This is likely for good reason. When one considers the most recent results provided by Canada's various pollsters, it becomes clear that the magic number is not "probably 75%":

A later passage in Dobbin's screed indicates which polls he wants his readers to pay attention to:

"No matter how out of synch with Canadians the Harper government becomes on a range of issues -- the Jaffer/Guergis fiasco; the shameful exclusion of abortion from Ottawa's maternal health program for developing nations; the contempt for Parliament; the chronic lying -- the Liberals cannot gain any traction. While it is just one poll, a recent Harris-Decima survey showed the Liberals at just 27 per cent and the Conservatives at 29."

He wants his readers to ignore any and all other polls -- including the Ipsos-Reid poll released a mere three days before the Harris-Decima poll that indicates that the Conservatves are actually holding down the support of 35% of decided voters.

Which, if one were to argue according to Dobbin's line of thinking, would mean that 65% opposed the Conservative Party's agenda. (That, is if one agued according to Dobbin's line of thinking. It's a big "if".)

There are, of course, other polls that have the Conservatives closer to Harris-Decima's numbers. But they are EKOS polls that, based on the expressed bias of EKOS President/cultural warrior Frank Graves -- who, to the best knowledge of this author, has not yet been asked to resign from EKOS -- can immediately be deemed discredited.

Beyond that, Angus Reid and Nanos research have produced similar results.

Moreover, polling data does not indicate that the Harper government is out of touch with the expectations of Canadians regarding the Jaffer/Geurgis affair. Rather, Canadians seem largely indifferent to it, as they should -- Harper has sone the right thing by Canadians, if not what would be politically beneficial for the opposition.

Likewise, polling data does not indicate that Harper is out-of-touch with Canadians in not funding abortions in the developing world. Rather, polling data indicates that Canadians don't favour funding abortions in foreign countries.

Dobbin also complains that:

"We are amongst a tiny handful of countries still saddled with the absurdly anachronistic voting system that allows for government by executive dictatorship by any party that can get 40 per cent of the vote."

Later on in his screed, Dobbin further complains:

"Most important for the future of the country would be a commitment to proportional representation (PR) or at a minimum, a national referendum on the issue. This will be the toughest to achieve but the NDP, which officially supports PR, should make this the core of any agreement - and the core plank in its next election platform.

An Environics poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians and carried out in February, revealed that fully 62 per cent of Canadians support a change in the voting system to one using PR. Young voters were the strongest supporters, with 71 per cent favouring such a change. Given that only 20 per cent of eligible first-time voters actually cast a ballot, PR might help address that crisis, too.
"

Yet if proportional representation were truly so well supported, Dobbin may want to explain to his readers why it is, on the two occasions that a provincial government has held a referendum on the matter, the proposition lost.

In BC in 2009, 61% of voters rejected the idea. In Ontario in 2007 63% of voters rejected such a reform.

Dobbin apparently attributes this to:

"A deliberate plan by the political right to downsize democracy through relentless partisanship and people's frustration at seeing their votes count for nothing."

So, apparently, Canadians have repeatedly and soundly rejected the kind of reforms that Dobbin favours because it would give his ideological camp a near-permanent advantage -- a reform that would allagedly make Canadians votes count (apparently they don't at this time) -- because of a plan by the right to make sure Canadians votes don't count.

Canadians don't support hare-brained reforms that would (allegedly) make their votes count because the villainous right doesn't want their votes to count. Brilliant!

Moreoever, it's amusing to see Dobbin accuse conservatives of wanting this out of relentless partisanship, considering that the kind of electoral reforms Dobbin has advocated would erase any non-partisan space within Canadian politics. If Dobbin were to successfully secure the kind of reforms he favours, partisanship would be all that exists in Canadian politics.

But in the end, it all comes directly back to the old fantasy that Dobbin relentlessly peddles to the sheep that make up his readership:

"The only way out of this impasse -- for the Liberals and the country -- is clear to everyone except the one person and party critical to making it happen. The solution to all of these elements of the democratic crisis is the implementation of proportional representation, preceded by a formal commitment by the opposition parties to form a coalition government after the next election. A coalition of Liberals and the NDP, based on a signed accord committing both to a minimum but substantive legislative agenda, and supported informally by the Bloc is not just one possible strategy to rid the country of Stephen Harper and his wrecking crew. It is the only strategy.

...

The Liberals are still, inexplicably in my view, blocking a coalition. Ignatieff's rejection of the coalition in 2009 was the biggest mistake the party could have made. Partly out of hubris, partly toadying to the Bay Street bankers, Ignatieff killed the best chance for reviving his moribund party. Had Ignatieff gone along, the progressive policies that the NDP had secured from the Liberals would have put the party back on track. There is nothing like exercising power to give you back your confidence. It is the Liberals who would have received most of the credit and they could have been on the road to recovery.

A coalition is still possible but it will take a concerted effort on the part of ordinary Canadians, social and labour movements, and Liberal Party members to force the party to start negotiations. It should not be that difficult: The Liberals should be in panic mode if they are not and short of dumping Ignatieff and taking a risk with another leader their prospects are grim."

Apparently, Dobbin is continually in need of reminders of how many Canadians rejected the coalition.

So many, in fact, that Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party were forced to abandon it or face certain anhiliation in a swiftly-coming federal election.

46% of Canadians were prepared to vote Conservative in such an election had the coalition come to power. Fully 60% of Canadians opposed the coalition. Only 37% of Canadians supported it.

If the government was to be replaced, 56% of Canadians insisted it should be through an election.

Many Canadians have likely forgotten that the idea of a coalition government was Dobbin's brainchild in the first place -- advocated very quickly in the days after a Conservative election victory that Dobbin very evidently cannot countenance.

It's very clear that in Dobbin's mind democratic legitimacy is imparted not by Canadians who vote, but by Dobbin himself, and Dobbin alone. And Dobbin only imparts democratic legitimacy to parties that share his extreme left-wing agenda, or are at least willing to pander to it.

So much so Murray Dobbin continues to peddle this idea that Canadians so soundly rejected. And he has the utter temerity to insist that it was the Conservatives who are contemptuous of democracy.

You, Murray Dobbin, Own This

As Canadians continue to wonder precisely what they should make of Frank Graves' recent suggestion that the Liberal Party should provoke a culture war for political gain, one should take some time to remember some of Canada's other erstwhile cultural warriors.

"I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy," Graves told Lawrence Martin.

People like Murray Dobbin.

Nexus readers may remember a recent article about Dobbin's objections to a poll commissioned by the Manning Institute that indicated Canadians' political attitudes were becoming more conservative.

As it turned out, Frank Graves featured prominently in Dobbin's original article.

In particular, Dobbin took exception to the Manning Institute poll's conclusions on abortion, which indicated that 60% of Canadians considered it to be immoral. He countered that with results from an EKOS poll that concluded that 52% of Canadians describe themselves as "pro-choice", 27% described themselves as "pro-life", 10% answered "neither", while 33% declined to provide an answer.

Dobbin and Graves seem to suggest that only one of these polls can be correct.

But in order to accept their conclusion on this matter, one would have to overlook that the question of whether or not abortion is immoral and whether or not women should be allowed to choose are actually two very different questions.

If a belief on the part of Canadians that abortion is immoral automatically meant that Canadians believed that Canadian law should not allow women to make this decision for themselves, Canadians would be adopting a strictly moralistic attitude toward the law.

That polls could indicate that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion is immoral while also believing in the right of women to make their own choices about moral behaviour could be argued to indicate that Canadians do not hold a strictly moralistic attitude toward the law.

In other words: that Canadians believe that morality shouldn't dictate legality, and that legality doesn't dictate morality.

Each poll clearly asked different questions about abortion. One asked whether or not Canadians considered abortion to be immoral, and another asked them whether or not Canadians favoured a woman's right to choose. The very different conclusions reached by each study demonstrate how the questions asked shape the answers received.

Dobbin and Graves make it clear that their greatest objection to the Manning Institute study is that they don't approve of the questions that it asked.

Dobbin and Graves must know that by defining what questions may be asked about abortion, they stake out that issue for themselves. This is a hegemonic tactic that forgets the most important element of hegemony as defined by Antonio Gramsci -- the notion that hegemony is not dictated, but rather is negotiated.

Instead of hegemony being a remarkably democratic concept, hegemony instead becomes dictatorial.

What is a culture war if not the exploitation of negotiated hegemonic ideas in order to be able to dictate those ideas in future?

One should direct their attention toward the values that Graves advised the Liberals to divide Canadians over: Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy.

Cosmolpolitanism, secularism, tolerance and democracy are all hegemonic ideals of Canadian society, socially negotiated between Canadians through their day-to-day interactions for decades.

By invoking these values as part of a culture war, Graves has suggested that the Liberal Party identify a group of Canadians they will allege do not share these foundational values. By doing so, the Liberals will brand these individuals as cultural outsiders within Canadian society.

Graves has made it clear who he wants to identify as such outsiders: the Conservative Party of Canada. In time, his strategy will not only counter-brand card-carrying Tories as outsiders, but will in time counter-brand anyone who votes for that party as outsiders.

In the end, that will likely amount to approximately 30% of Canadians. That is a lot of Canadians to attempt to force to the periphery of Canadian culture through a culture war.

But once the Liberal Party have branded themselves as the altar keepers of Canadian values, they will have made a bid not only to make themselves the standard bearer of that culture, but also to empower themselves to define what Canadian values are, without the participation of the so-called "outsiders".

Should the Liberals embrace Frank Graves' potentially destructive advice, their goal will become attaining the power to themselves define -- in effect, dictate -- Canadian values. The same Canadian values that form the hegemonic basis of Canadian culture.

So, judging from the title from this post, one may wonder precisely how Murray Dobbin has to take ownership of this purported culture war.

Dobbin takes Graves' upcoming EKOS poll -- which, as already demonstrated, distorts many of the answers in accordance with the questions it asks, and how -- as triumphal proof that Canadian political values are not, in fact, "blueing".

Dobbin thus infers that if Canadian political attitudes were in fact shifting toward conservatism, it would be a defeat for he and his ideological cohort, and that anything Frank Graves could do to stem perceptions of such a shift would be a good thing.

Dobbin's commentary on Graves' promised forthcoming polling results indicates that he has believed there is a culture war at the centre of Canadian politics for quite a while.

So as Canadians wary of the social damage a culture war would inflict begin to wonder who else is in favour of such a conflict, many Canadians should wonder how badly Murray Dobbin has wanted such a culture war, and for how long.

It may not be unfair to suspect the answer is "very badly", and "very long".

Murray Dobbin Up to More Silliness

Murray Dobbin: Canadians disagree about politics, disagree about the degree to which we disagree. Duh.

Writing in The New Canada, Preston Manning noted that former Alberta Premier William "Bible Bill" Aberhart was once a figure of some revulsion in Canada. Likewise for his father, Ernest Manning.

Yet by the time Manning was founding the Reform Party the reputations of Aberhart and the senior Manning had started to undergo a process of rehabilitation. Manning was even appointed a Senator in 1970 -- by Pierre Trudeau, no less.

Manning must have understood that one day his own reputation would need rehabilitation.

When Manning founded the Reform party, the denizens of Canada's far left essentially declared war upon him, and very few waged that war more ruthlessly than Murray Dobbin.

So it should be unsurprising that Dobbin would be chomping at the bit to take another shot at Manning. What's surprising is that he actually waited a month to do so.

In a recent column at Rabble.ca, Dobbin takes issue with a poll commissioned by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. The poll concluded that the values of Canadians were subtly becoming more conservative.

Dobbin, naturally, takes exception to this, and complains that the poll allegedly asked the wrong questions:

"Rather than asking Canadians whether or not they thought abortion should be legal and that deciding on whether or not to have a child should be a woman's decision, the Harris Decima Manipulators asked whether people thought abortion was 'immoral.' Thus the poll claimed 75 per cent of respondents feel abortion is 'morally wrong.' Rather than ask the question about its legality directly they asked respondents if they though the government should 'regulate behaviour.' Only 21 per cent of the new centrists said yes."

Of course what Dobbin fails to recognize is that the question of whether or not abortion is morally wrong and whether it should remain legal are two separate questions, providing a better sense of the nuances of Canadian attitudes toward this issue.

Dobbin offers up the results of another poll that concluded that a majority of Canadians are pro-choice. (There is such a thing as pro-choice on abortion, but ARCC director Joyce Arthur and her cohorts are decidedly not pro-choice -- they're pro-abortion.)

Yet it apparently doesn't occur to Dobbin that Canadians could consider abortion to be morally wrong but still believe it should remain legal for cases where it is direly needed -- and most Canadians recognize that such cases do exist.

In the end, Dobbin refers to a forthcoming poll that will reach different results based on different questions -- and somehow readers are supposed to believe this discredits the Manning Centre poll.

It's a ridiculous premise: Canadians disagree on politics, disagree on the extent to which they disagree, and even disagree on the questions that should be asked.

This is no great surprise to any politically astute Canadian. Understanding of this should be considered a prerequisite for being involved in political debate in Canada. That Dobbin doesn't seem to understand this only underscores his unsuitability to participation in that debate.

Fortunately for Dobbin, we don't exclude anyone from that debate in Canada on the basis of consideirng them "unsuitable" -- despite the extent to which Dobbin would prefer otherwise.

Dobbin has long considered Preston Manning (in fact, long considered all conservatives unsuitable, as indicated by his application of a genetic fallacy argument to Manning and polster Allan Gregg). This is the reason why he's worked so hard to maintain an elaborate political mythology centred around Manning: that of the far-right extremist.

In fact, Manning is a political centrist who started the Reform Party reaching out to disgruntled members of all Canada's political parties. His brand of social conservative was not one that would be prohibitive of personal and social freedoms, but rather more of a social-ized social conservatism wherein conservatives accepted responsibility for providing for the sick and the needy.

That is why Manning has always advocated conservative reforms for social programs, rather than outright abolition of them -- something that has long escaped far-left zealots like Dobbin.

The creation of that mythology was abetted by the attraction of far-right racists and ultra-conservative zealots to the Reform Party, and somehow unrelenting in the face of the expulsion of those individuals from the party.

More pointedly, there's a reason why fringe parties even further to the political right than the Reform Party -- parties like the Christian Heritage Party -- emerged on the political landscape. Even though the Reform Party was too conservative for Murray Dobbin, it wasn't nearly conservative enough for many others.

Ever so slowly, the rehabilitation of Preston Manning's reputation has begun. Far-left zealots like Murray Dobbin may not like this -- but it is happening nonetheless.

That Canadians are slowly becoming more receptive to many of Manning's conservative ideas -- a phenomenon also chronicled by writers such as Brian Lee Crowley -- is indicative of this.

Dobbin can preach to the choir at Rabble.ca to his heart's content. Even if Canadians aren't becoming more conservative, as the Manning Centre poll indicates, it's clear that the understanding of Canadians' actually highly-nuanced political views are becoming more advanced.

Murray Dobbin may not like it -- but the majority of Canadinas will like it just fine.

Regina 16 Professors Can't Take the Heat...

...And Murray Dobbin thinks they shouldn't have to

If there's anything Canadians should have come to expect out of Rabble.ca's Murray Dobbin, it should be the left-wing lunatic screed. God knows he's offered little else since becoming senior contributing editor at Rabble.

In his most recent screed, Dobbin complains about criticisms of the now-infamous Regina 16 at the University of Regina who recently co-signed a letter to U of R President Vianne Timmons recommending that the institution not participate:

"For their actions in trying to defend the university's reputation from an association with blatant jingoism, the fifteen Profs have been treated to a wave of attacks from assorted bottom-feeders on Canada's right. One of the Profs wrote me that he and the others have been subjected to '..a vilification campaign directed in part by right-wing politicians in the Conservative Party and the Saskatchewan Party [the Saskatchewan equivalent of Harper's Conservatives]. As a result, we have been at the receiving end of a wave of vitriolic hate mails, full of terrible language and demands that we be fired from our university positions.'

This kind of mindless verbal violence is reminiscent of the hate campaigns being fomented by the extreme right of the Republican Party in the US against Obama -- campaigns that do not even bother to hide their racism. It is indicative of how easy it is to undermine and gradually change a political culture rooted in a desire for peace and a suspicion of militarism."

The "political culture" of which Dobbin speaks of is, of course, his political culture, which he so often mistakes for that of all of Canada.

The mentality of Murray Dobbin, Jeffrey Webber and company is the same mentality found at the heart of the far-left loonies who insist that Canada discontinue Remembrance Day as it is allegedly militaristic holiday.

We shouldn't benefit the children of fallen soldiers because that glorifies imperialistic war. We shouldn't devote a day to remember those who died in war because that glorifies imperialistic war.

Another one of the professors has raised the objection that the scholarship would make it more difficult for them to criticize specific wars.

“It conflates heroism with the death of individuals who are in the military service and we think that the death of individuals is always a tragic matter, but we think that heroism is something different,” said co-signatory Joyce Green. “When you attach heroism to the deaths of the military, it makes it very difficult, maybe impossible for us to talk about what’s going on, what the nature of our military engagement is. In other words, it shrinks the space for democratic discussion and criticism of military policy in Canada and in the university.”

But apparently Green has never stopped to think that attaching the label of "imperialism" to wars also shrinks the space for democratic discussion and defence of military policy in Canada.

It seems that kind of shrinkage is A-OK with people like Green, Webber and Dobbin.

Dobbin writes:

"Project Hero is purely political and has nothing to do with looking after 'our troops.' It is a transparent effort to stop people from thinking about the meaning of our occupation of Afghanistan and our ugly collaboration with US imperial interests.

Project Hero cynically exploits the very soldiers it pretends to be supporting -- soldiers who are dying, being wounded and having their lives changed forever in large part because of the lobbying of former general Rick Hillier to take on a combat role that those soldiers were ill-equipped to handle -- both in terms of training and equipment. Over 140 Canadian soldiers dead and hundreds more seriously wounded so Hillier could go out and talk about 'killing scumbags.'"

Of course, what Dobbin overlooks is that rejecting Project Hero out of disdain for what he deems "imperialistic war" accomplishes the same act. In accepting these objections, the university would be effectively granting an air of officiality to the views of these particular professors, and would disrupt any critical thinking about these professors' claims of imperialism.

Then again, one imagines that must be somehow different. In the mind of Murray Dobbin it always is.

Huh. So Now Social Engineering Is Bad

Dobbin: Social engineering only illegitimate if it's from the right

Writing in an essay published on the ideologically-parochial Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin articulates a few more of his "Stephen Harper the anti-democrat" arguments.

Among some of the points raised in the essay, Dobbin decries what he calls "right wing social engineering":

"One of the most popular concepts on the political right over the years has been the notion of 'social engineering.' The phrase is intended to describe a process by which liberals and the left 'engineer' society - that is, set out to remake it -- by implementing government programs, intervening in the economy, and redistributing wealth so that there is a measure of economic equality (in a system defined by inequality). The implication is that these changes were undemocratic -- imposed by politicians, intellectuals and bureaucrats."

The problem for Dobbin is that in many cases such programs were indeed imposed by politicians. A prime case-in-point is that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's wage and prize freeze. Trudeau had mocked that policy when it was proposed by then-Conservative leader Robert Stanfield. He then promptly implemented a policy he had essentially promised not to -- after being elected on the back of a rejection of it.

A more recent example is that of Stephane Dion's ill-fated coalition -- an idea that Dobbin had floated well in advance of Dion's attempt. Dion had explicitly rejected the notion of a coalition government when it was floated by NDP leader Jack Layton, only to be thoroughly rebuffed by the Canadian public.

Dobbin's made it clear that he in no way disapproves with left-wing bait-and-switch politics. But when conservatives get elected on the platforms they run on, it suddenly becomes underhanded social engineering:

"Yet rightwing social engineering is exactly what Stephen Harper intends to do, and has already done in many ways. We are now a far more militarized culture than when he came to office four years ago -- with an aggressive 'war-fighting' military. Our foreign policy is now in lock-step with the US This has never been debated in Parliament nor has the Conservative Party actually run on such policies. In spite of the fact of widespread support for new social programs like universal child care and Pharmacare, such programs are ruled out by the Harper government. While his minority government status has so far prevented an assault on Medicare and the Canada Health Act, Harper is on record as supporting increased privatization and two-tier Medicare."

Of course, Dobbin may have been disappointed to learn that Canadians supported increases in military spending not only well in advance of Harper becoming Prime Minister, but also well in advance of Harper becoming the Leader of the Opposition.

Foreign policy typically isn't debated in Parliament, unless it requires the ratification of a treaty, a declaration of war, or supply legislation. Canadian foreign policy is decided by the Prime Minister of cabinet, and has been this way since Canada won the right to decide its own foreign policy.

If this represents an assault on democracy, it was launched well before Harper became Prime Minister. As with other things, details that were once simply accepted details of Canadian politics have suddenly become intolerable to Dobbin under Harper's governance.

"This is true social engineering if by that term we mean the illegitimate remaking of Canadian society and governance. When all the social programs and activist government programs that the prime minister objects to were implemented there was widespread public support for them. Governments were responding to social movements demanding these things: unemployment insurance, Medicare, subsidized university education, Family Allowances, public pensions, old age security. These programs were not imposed by a cabal of liberal and socialist intellectuals and bureaucrats -- they were rooted in the expressed values of Canadians."

This, frankly, is an assertion that will be quickly accepted by Dobbin's far-left base, but it doesn't actually pass the laugh test.

There's a broad gulf of difference between widespread public support and the demands by a limited number of groups for certain privileges in the eyes of the Canadian state.

This argument runs particularly thin when one considers the sheer number of "civil society organizations" created by the Trudeau government through funding doled out by Canada's Secretary of State.

Canadians have very rarely been given the opportunity to render judgement on institutions such as the Status of Women Canada, which tended to focus its efforts on funding a great deal of activism. Naturally, many groups were favoured to their ideological nature, while others were excluded for theirs.

The Court Challenges program became typically troublesome when activist groups began using it to legislate through Canada's courts of law -- all too often the Supreme Court.

This broad collection of activities represented the embedding of a chosen ideology within what Barry Cooper aptly termed the embedded state.

After Harper changed the mandate of the Status of Women to provide real services for women in the community, and dismantled the court challenges progam (though he has yet to replace it with a more suitable program), Canadians had the opportunity to reflect on that during a General Election.

They returned him with a stronger mandate to govern, although the Liberal Party, NDP and Bloc Quebecois attempted to usurp it at Dobbin's urging.

But a Dobbin essay just wouldn't be a Dobbin essay without a foray into complete fiction:

"Harper's determination to remake Canada in the image of unregulated capitalism is illegitimate because it aims at dismantling what decades of democratic engagement has created. It is even more outrageous given the fact this fundamental shift is being undertaken by a government which received support from less 23 per cent of the eligible voters in Canada. Canadians have not changed their minds about these programs and values - if anything support has been reinforced by the perceived threats to these gains. These things are the fruits of democracy -- its ultimate litmus test. Harper's plan to rid the country of this legitimate evolution of social and economic change is true social engineering, and profoundly anti-democratic."

If Stephen Harper had any "determination to remake Canada in the image of unregulated capitalism", one would expect that, at some point, Harper would be moving to do away with the regulation, as opposed to exporting the Canadian model to the rest of the world. Harper has already announced his plans to promote Canada's financial regulation system to the rest of the world when Canada hosts the G8 Summit later in 2010.

But then one remembers that this is a Murray Dobbin essay -- one in which the desire to spread ideological panic takes the driver's seat, logic rides as a passenger, and the corpse of fact is stuffed away in the trunk.

It's a world in which Canadians supported a broad variety of ideological programs because Dobbin said so, Stephen Harper plans to deregulate Canada's economy despite never taking any steps to do so, and in which social engineering is bad -- but only now that he wants to accuse the other guys of doing it.

Murray Dobbin Writes the Most Telling Paragraph in the History of the Global Warming Debate

Sometimes they let the mask slip

For years, those skeptical of climate change alarmism (however the alarmists may be defining the change) have been told that the debate over the matter was settled. Moreover, they were told that the alarmists were merely acting in the global pulbic interest, and that the skepticism of those skeptics was an obstacle to, quite literally, saving the world.

With the alarmist side of the climate change debate increasingly beset by the kind of scandal that can only come when they take the most generous of liberties with the very foundations of scientific discourse, it's simply impossible to put an overabundance of faith in those assertions.

After all, it turns out that the climate change debate may never have been about saving the world at all, only about changing it to the liking of climate change alarmists. The following paragraph from a recend op/ed penned by Murray Dobbin seems to make it rather clear:

"We need to keep reminding ourselves that if we want to inspire people to change the world we have to do more than scare the hell out of them. The issue of global warming is becoming less and less important to Americans (I haven't seen recent polling regarding Canadians) and the reason, according to a couple of prominent environmental analysts, is what they call apocalypse fatigue."

In other words, the arguments of climate alarmists have never been about "saving the world". They've merely been abotu implimenting a specific political agenda, one that encompassed Kyoto, then threatened to run entirely amok at Copenhagen.

Dobbin goes on to write about the decreasing levels of belief in the alleged oncoming apocalypse. He notes that numbers of those who bought into the panic were declining as recently as September 2009 -- before the damning Climategate emails.

But consider how much more revealling Dobbin's admission is if the first two paragraphs of his column are switched in place:

"The numbers are not encouraging. The major increase in public attention and concern brought about by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth film, and his media blitz, seemed to promise a permanent change in attitude. But according to Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger that concern is rapidly decreasing. 'Belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 per cent in April of 2008 to 56 per cent in October [2009] -- an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is human-caused declined from 47 per cent to 36 per cent.'

We need to keep reminding ourselves that if we want to inspire people to change the world we have to do more than scare the hell out of them. The issue of global warming is becoming less and less important to Americans (I haven't seen recent polling regarding Canadians) and the reason, according to a couple of prominent environmental analysts, is what they call apocalypse fatigue."

What climate alarmists seem to be learning right now is that they can't put the genie back in the bottle -- that they can't coverup their dishonest hubris once its been fully exposed to public scrutiny.

As Murray Dobbin makes clear, climate alarmism isn't about saving the world. It never has been. It's about fear-mongering and politics played to win. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the latter in and of itself. But the former simply must not be tolerated.

In Defense of Rex

Murray Dobbin picking on Rex Murphy

As usual, Murray Dobbin has a bone to pick. And as usual, it's with someone whose worldview starkly deviates from his own, and someone who has found a position of prominence from which to express it.

Dobbin is evidently so threatened by Murphy that Rabble.ca has launched the "Not Rex Contest", looking for someone they feel can counter him -- somthing of an anti-Rex.

“We’re looking for someone who isn’t pompous, occasionally uses facts and reflects the values of the vast majority of Canadians,” Dobbin muses.

“Most commentators and columnists at least occasionally refer to some facts.”

Of course, Dobbin's problem with Murphy isn't that he never makes reference to any facts -- that would be untrue. Dobbin's problem with Murphy is that he makes reference to facts that Dobbin doesn't like, and would rather were ignored.

This becomes immediately evident as one considers the content of the contest's webpage.

"Only those who actually share the values and aspirations of the majority of Canadians; who trust that a genuine democracy would actually deliver what Canadians want, who don't think it's a good idea to give corporations almost unlimited and totally unregulated power and who - unlike Rex - understand that there is no serious scientific debate about humans' role in the climate crises, need apply or be nominated," the contest webpage insists.

First off, one may want to ask the editors of Rabble who they think they are to determine the "values and aspirations of the majority of Canadians". The very idea that a website that deliberately excludes vast swaths of Canadians from participation could do this is, quite frankly, a pompous notion.

Moreover, their insistence that the anti-Rex must "understand that there is no serious scientific debate about humans' role in the climate crisis" would have to presume that there is debate.

But whether the Rabblers like it or not, there very much is a debate, now more than ever before. After all, previous claims that there was no debate relied on the idea of "settled science". Now that the climategate emails have shown us the extent to which climate alarmists have engineered the peer review process to exclude dissent, this claim has been fundamentally undermined.

Without an open and honest peer review process, the climate alarmists have no scientific consensus.

Rex Murphy has been one of the Canadian mainstream media journalists to recognize this simple, inescapable fact. And for that the editors of Rabble.ca clearly resent him very deeply.

“When Rex denies climate change, that has an impact," Dobbin says. "But a lot of people are despairing over the state of the CBC, the National in particular, and in this case Rex is sort of symbolic.”

In other words, Rex Murphy is symbolic of the failure of Dobbin and his cohorts to banish any dissenting views from the public sphere -- regardless of how desperately they would like to.

There's no better reason why Murphy should continue to be at home on the CBC: the National desperately needs someone who is willing to call a spade a spade.

Huh. So That's What It Is

Murray Dobbin loses all contact with reality

More than three years after Elizabeth May became leader of the Green Party, the party has elected no members -- but pulled out all the stops to elect one -- May herself -- and is continually nursing a deteriorating reputation.

Rabble.ca columnist Murray Dobbin has a word for this: "master plan". Elizabeth May's master plan.

It's the kind of phrase that brings to mind cartoonish images of comic book villains toiling away in secret laboratories, just waiting for the day they can rise up and take over the world. If only it weren't for the interference of interlopers.

In May and Dobbin's case, the "interlopers" seem to be the Canadian voters who won't support the party enough for them to win a seat in so much as a single riding. And, predictably, May believes she has the answer.

When asked "What has to happen to ensure that the Conservatives do not get a majority in the next election?", May resorts to a rather predictable answer: proportional representation and coalition government.

"The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a multi-party society in a two-party voting system," May insists. "We either have to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are going to make them work."

"I still feel that the aborted coalition was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the political stage," May continues. "I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper continuing his government."

As it turned out, Canadians didn't share May's assessment of the situation, and preferred an election -- an opportunity to decide themselves who would govern the country -- to the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition simply taking over power after a Parliamentary defeat of the government.

Moreover, Canadians have also rejected a transition to proportional representation on many occasions. During referenda on the topic in BC and Ontario, voters rejected proportional representation.

Canadians, as it turns out, aren't willing to sacrifice effective local representation in favour of a system that will only empower political parties.

Nor do Canadians seem to think that simply defeating Stephen Harper is worth such fundamental and detrimental re-designs of our political systems.

But if anyone thinks that May's words have been sheer ideological lunacy, they have yet to contend with this little nugget. When asked "Do you think Harper has deliberately set out to discourage people from voting?" (itself a lunatic question), May responds affirmatively.

"Absolutely," May says. "People thought that Harper had become more popular between the 2006 and 2008 elections but not so: 170,000 fewer people voted for a Conservative candidate in 2008 than in 2006. His larger seat count is a tribute to his ability to discourage people from voting. The 700,000 fewer people voting for the Liberals did so on the basis of attack ads. None of what the attack ads do is to make people like the Conservatives more -- it's a question of framing, first Stephane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff in the worst possible terms based on the most sophisticated marketing genius of the Karl Rove variety."

Now, if the Conservative Party had run nothing but attack ads during the 2008 election campaign, May would have a valid point. She could even make her point if the Conservatives had run more attack ads than their opponents. But the truth of the matter is that the Liberal party launched no less than eleven attack ads during the 2008 election (more if one includes advertising by local candidates), whereas the Conservatives used only six.

But this is the kind of ideological fantasy world Elizabeth May and Murray Dobbin live together in. Dobbin even describes May -- a woman who once said that she agrees that all Canadians are stupid, even though it's actually clear that she never meant to -- as
"articulate".

One would wonder if the Canadians who watched her and George Monbiot lose their Munk Debate to Bjorn Lomberg and Lord Christopher Monckton would agree that May is "articulate".

If Elizabeth May's political strategy is a "master plan", a lot of Canadians would be forgiven for not recognizing it.

Panic! Panic! Panic, Panic, Panic!

Murray Dobbin: Stephen Harper = Ronald Reagan

In a recent column published on Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin produces what seems to be the result of many a cold-sweat soaked night, in which Dobbin has dreamed visions of Stephen Harper as Ronald Reagan, and suffered nightmares of the ignominity of Harper refuting Dobbin's ideological vision for the country.

"As I watch with alarm Stephen Harper's lead over the Liberals solidify, even as he displays contempt for climate change efforts, and disdain for parliament, I am reminded of Ronald Reagan. What I remember is this: on almost every major issue on which he took a strong public stand, he was opposed by a majority of Americans. But that did not stop them from supporting him, giving him high ratings as President -- and re-electing him."

As in so many cases, Dobbin's memory is clearly extremely selective. A perusal of Ronald Reagan's approval ratings -- the best indicator of how much the American people supported him -- there were only two times at which a majority of Americans opposed him: during the high unemployment of January, 1983 (42% approval) and during the Iran-Contra affair (44% approval).

During the remainder of his Presidency, Reagan's approval numbers never dropped below 64%. His disapproval rating would never climb above 28%.

Likewise, Harper's polling lead in leadership categories only continues to grow. Dobbin insists that a majority of Canadians oppose him. Unfortunately for his thesis, the majority of Canadians have yet to back him up.

"What explains the contradiction?"

Perhaps that the contradiction doesn't exist?

No, that can't be good enough for Dobbin.

"Americans saw in Reagan a man who, specific policies aside, believed strongly in what he was doing. And conversely, they saw in the Democrats a party of shameless opportunists who would claim to believe in anything if it got them a few extra votes. They were tired of trying to decipher the complexities of the issues, tired of the spin, distrustful of government and the media. Their default position was to go with the guy who seemed to say what he meant and mean what he said. They were looking for someone with principles -- and apparently any principles would do."

Of course, Dobbin seems to overlook the fact that Reagan governed during the 1980s -- the time of the famed "me generation".

The 1980s were known as a time of self-centred materialism in the United States. The truth is that Americans very likely appreciated Reagan's principles at the time. A socialiist as committed as Dobbin should be looking at this as a flaw of the United States of the day, not ignoring it for the purpose of making an ill-fitting argument.

If Dobbin wants to (mistakenly) equate the United States of the 1980s with the Canada of today, he at least seems to appreciate the significance of the principles of deficit some of Canada's political leaders.

"If Stephen Harper is Ronald Reagan then Michael Ignatieff seems destined to play the role of Hubert Humphrey or Bill Clinton or Al Gore -- Democrats with infinitely flexible principles and an ethical relativism that has degraded democratic politics in the US. The Liberal Party of Canada is the classic party of opportunism whose century of success as the natural governing party was predicated on running from the left with progressive policies, and then governing from the right, with policies designed to favour Bay Street. It worked so long as it was well-executed, and the party maintained internal unity and self discipline.

But now the Liberals are neither united nor disciplined. Paul Martin's ruthless ten year assault on his own party in aid of becoming its leader is still itself playing out in new incarnations of backstabbing and public disputes. So divided by the trench warfare between the two camps that no one within the ranks of party could lead it without being immediately assassinated, they went to the US recruit an outsider with no battle-baggage.

But what they got was a postmodern academic with no convictions that couldn't be trumped by particular circumstance. A human rights advocate who okays torture; a leader whose philosophy dictates that he can't feel strongly about anything -- for whom right and wrong are so intertwined he just can't be sure which is which."

Moreover, Canadians would be forgiven for not fully understanding where the Liberal party stands on a great number of issues. The federal Liberal Party opposed the HST before they were tenuously in favour of it. They were prepared to support the government before they wanted to defeat it. Ignatieff was in favour of tax cuts before he was opposed to them.

And so on.

"Such a leader may well be incapable of fighting the pitbull ruthlessness of Stephen Harper whose passion for dismantling Canada knows no bounds. Ignatieff's persona is that of the effete snob personally offended by a man who refuses to play by the rules. But he can't adjust and recognize that it is Harper who is now making the rules and thus defining the landscape on which the battle takes place."

But as Dobbin as previously indulged himself in forgetting, it wasn't Harper who made the new rules. It was actually Jean Chretien and Warren Kinsella.

Hell, Kinsella even wrote two whole books about it. (For fuck's sake, Murray! -ed)

More over, the pure ideological nature of Dobbin's panic shines through his bombast. Stephen Harper doesn't have a "passion for dismantling Canada". He has a competing vision for Canada which an increasing number of Canadians share. His vision challenges Dobbin's vision of Canada as an ideological left-wing construct. But this isn't a bad thing.

It's actually a good thing.

It's only natural that the scant praise Dobbin has for Ignatieff are on the occasions in which Ignatieff echoed Dobbin's vision of Canada as a left-wing ideological construct: as a high-tax state with a deeply embedded nany state, with arms of the government devoted to promoting the official state ideology.

"To his credit, Ignatieff has had some promising moments in the past few months -- as when he mused aloud about the necessity of (ultimately) raising taxes to deal with the structural deficit. But he didn't have the courage to stick to it and the media and his own party smacked him so hard he almost forgot he'd ever said it. And his messaging on Harper was dead on. He attacked him on the tax issue: 'We pay taxes, Mr Harper, because we're all in this together. It costs us something, but it makes Canada the place it is: a place where we look out for each other.' And he revealed the theme on which he should fight the next election: 'Stephen Harper ...believes that the only good government is no government at all.' He topped it off, at about the time he was going to force an election, with 'We can do better' which sounds a bit like 'A better world is possible,' the theme of the World Social Forums.

Combine these themes -- and all the sub-themes they harbour -- with a campaign using Liberal veterans to tag Harper with all the frightening, anti-Canada statements he has made in the past, and Ignatieff would begin to claw back the ground he has lost in the past two months. And most importantly, he could claw it back from the radical libertarians how running the show, and not the NDP. But these gems come in fits and starts and there is no momentum."

The problem is that the Liberal Party and the NDP teamed up to wage this campaign three times before. On one occasion, they succeeded in preventing Harper from forming a government -- although the Liberals were able to win only a minority government.

On the next two tries, the Liberals were beaten.

It's been five years since the last federal election campaign in which fear-mongering was a successful tactic. Only an ideologue as foolish and boorish as Dobbin would actually advocate for political fear-mongering -- so long as it's directed at the "right" target.

"As for the NDP, it, too, is operating well below its potential. The longer Jack Layton is in Ottawa the more trapped he seems to become in the daily obsession with tactics. The NDP will never form the government (Quebec ensures this) and its strength therefore is squandered in this endless search for the perfect tactical maneuver. That game makes sense for the two contending parties but the NDP's strength is its vision (it's got to be there, probably locked up in a back room so it won't provoke anyone).

The NDP has no coherent vision that it is willing to boast about, just a series of disconnected policies, some of them admittedly very good but all of them harnessed to the singular strategy of replacing the Liberals. This is the critical weakness of the NDP -- it has decided that it will present itself as the real government in waiting with Jack Layton as prime minister. This strategy all but destroys any possibility of appealing to Canadians on the basis of a hopeful vision of what the country could be. Inadvertently, the NDP hobbles itself in the contest for hearts and minds.

Instead of boldly contrasting itself with Harper's dystopic vision of the country and the ruination of Canada's international reputation, the NDP attacks the Liberals, acquiesces to policies such as Harper's draconian crime bills, and allows free votes on the long gun registry. Then there is Layton's personal musing about eliminating income taxes for small business (lost revenue: $5 billion a year)."

And, of course, who cares if such tax cuts could help create jobs and bring the country closer to the NDP's laudable traditional goal of full employment?

Clearly, not Dobbin. What really matters to Dobbin is all of the often-superfluous government programming the government could fund with that revenue, regardless of the fact that the job-creating stimulus of those tax cuts would help alleviate human poverty in the first place.

"The NDP seems so caught in the minutiae of tactical maneuvering that it cannot see the forest for the trees. The constant opportunist calculations are reducing the NDP to the ethical equivalent of the US Democratic Party (one party fundraiser even referred to the party as the Democratic Party even though the suggested name change was never debated at the party's convention). Their strategy of slowly replacing the Liberals is like slow suicide -- at the end of the process they will of necessity become the Liberals."

It's on this note that Dobbin actually raises a worthy point.

Canada needs the NDP to serve as a credible alternative to the Liberal Party. But it will be nothing of the sort if it simply emulates the Liberal Party as closely as possible.

"Does being bold entail risks? Of course. Could the NDP lose seats in the next election? Yes, but they might anyway -- as they certainly would have done had there been a fall election. Wouldn't it be better to risks seats by being bold and visionary, inspiring Canadians to think big, rather than risk them racing to the bottom with the Liberals assuming Canadians are too dull and unimaginative to reclaim their country?

If neither the Liberals nor the NDP find the courage to present a vision to the country and redefine the political discourse, it is virtually certain that Stephen Harper will be prime minister after the next election. But if even one of them manages, they could save the country."

Of course, so few Canadians are aware that their country is in such peril!

How could this be?

Oh, right. That's because the country is not in peril. Murray Dobbin and Michael Byers' vision of Canada as a left-wing ideological construct very much is in peril, but that's actually a good thing.

At far-left websites like Rabble, however, the sense of panic is absolutely palpable. Murray Dobbin seems to think it's his responsibility to spread that panic so he can advocate a "stop Stephen Harper at all costs" crusade.

The problem for Dobbin is that as long as the Conservative Party's poll numbers continue to climb, it seems that fewer and fewer Canadians want Harper to be stopped, or even to stop.

In the meantime, the only option Dobbin seems to have is to try to spread anti-conservative panic, even if fewer and fewer Canadians are listening.