The Politics of Perception
I don't like Stephen Harper. I don't like the men behind Stephen Harper. I don't like the men in front of Stephen Harper. I don't like men who like Stephen Harper.
But is he any more of a strongman than any of our Liberal Prime Ministers were? Is he selling us out to the U.S. more than Paul Martin did? What about The Old Monster? And Mulroney? Don't forget Mulroney. Is Stephen Harper any worse than Mulroney in terms of selling us out to U.S. interests, for instance?
I'd say yes, but I'm a Canadian Federalist - which Mulroney was in his way, too, and which Harper is most definitely not. He is, in fact - the letter signed, sealed and delivered - an Alberta Separatist. Still, if there's one thing that is distinctly out of fashion in Canadian politics these days, it's Canadian Federalism. You almost never hear anyone in Canadian politics say they want a stronger federal government and less provincial autonomy, do you. Somewhere along the road in Canadian politics, Federalism was kicked to the curb.
Alberta Separatism, meanwhile, is probably stronger than Quebec Separatism was on its heyday of November 15th, 1976.
And, you know, we associate Power Corp (speaking of Rene Levesque), the traditional maker of Prime Ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, with an essential Canadianness, but is it really true? Are we safer in the hands of a Power Corp choice for PM? Or are we just conditioned to think we are while their picks are really just more skillful at politics and selling us out to Power Corp interests that may or may not be Canadian interests?
Because I don't know what goes on behind the scenes but from what I'm seeing up front, Stephen Harper, who comes to us straight from the Rightwing think tanks of Alberta (I know, it's almost a compound oxymoron if you add a word: think tanks/Alberta politics, an oxymoron if you take one away: think/Alberta) is anathema to what I consider a Canadian Prime Minister should be, first and foremost - Canadian, but Stephane Dion and Jack Layton, who don't seem to be affiliated with any specific power group, let alone Power Corp, both seem to me to be very Canadian - and yet hung out to dry by the media in a way which would seem to want to convince Canadians that they are bad for the country, or would be if they got any kind of favourable press that might lead to either one of them being elected Prime Minister.
So, is it really the Canadian political system that isn't working? I mean, Stephane Dion certainly defied the odds the media set out for him by winning the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Stephen Harper defied another set of odds the media set out in becoming Prime Minister. Afterall, Canadian elections aren't rigged. Somebody voted New Conservative in the last election, somebody stupid, in my opinion - but the choice was either Stephen Harper or more of Paul Martin (Canadians being determined, it would seem - and who knows? maybe rightly so - to keep the NDP an opposition only party) so how stupid, really. Would more Paul Martin and less Stephen Harper make for a better Canada? I doubt it.
Anyway, my point is, I don't think it's the political system in this country that's the problem, if there even is a problem (and lots of Canadians on the Right would argue there isn't - if they could stop complaining long enough about the "damn gubmint" to realize it's their guys who are in power) - it's the perception some of us have that Canadians are not being fully informed by our media - enough and until it's too late - as to who is behind the winners and, more importantly, sometimes, who isn't.
