Harper Thinks You're Stupid
Crossposted from christindal.ca
For years, Stephen Harper has, through his words and actions, displayed what could charitably be described as a lack of confidence in anyone other than himself. This extends not only to his MPs and members of the civil service, but also the Canadian public at large. In his memoirs, Preston Manning wrote of the Harper he knew from the Reform party as someone who "had difficulty accepting that there might be a few other people (not many, perhaps, but a few) who were as smart as he was with respect to policy and strategy." In a June 1997 speech to an American think tank Stephen Harper said, "I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."
In short, he doesn't trust us. He doesn't think we're smart enough or knowledgeable enough to make good decisions about the direction of our country.
One of the ways he displays this disrespect is by making completely ridiculous statements that us idiotic citizens couldn't possibly see through. For example, right after the most recent meeting to advance the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Harper attempted to diminish the importance of the multilateral talks, describing the SPP as an effort to "standardize the jelly bean." As if such a thing would require a meeting of three world leaders, massive security (including US Army interference with Canadian rights and disturbing police tactics), and a top secret agenda.
Today, Conservatives turned their guns against the Green Party (again) in an equally insulting attempt at spin. This time, it had to do with our position regarding Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, and specifically our response to the Manley report. The Green Party believes (quite rightly) that the nature of our military presence in Afghanistan must change. One of the major reasons for this is that we are currently perceived by many people in the region (and not without reason) as being aligned with George Bush's War On Terror, which in turn is seen by many as a quasi-religious war of West vs. East, or Christianity vs. Islam. As long as that perception exists, danger to our soldiers is increased while our chances for success are decreased.
The Conservative party responded with the following:
Green Party Leader and Stéphane Dion ally Elizabeth May criticized the presence of Canadian and other ISAF forces in Afghanistan as representing a "Christian/Crusader heritage," that would actually "fuel" the "jihad."
Elizabeth May's comparison of the Afghan protection and reconstruction effort as a Christian Crusade is evidence of her shocking ignorance of foreign policy, Afghanistan and the current mission.
The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are serving at the invitation and with the active encouragement of the Afghan Government. Every day the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces are risking their safety and security to help the people of Afghanistan live peaceful and secure lives. Considering that Canadian soldiers have lost their lives protecting the people of Afghanistan, it is outrageous that a Canadian politician would make such an insult of this sacrifice.
Ms. May's comments also betrayed a shocking lack of knowledge about Afghanistan’s people and its history. None of the Crusades ever came anywhere close to Afghanistan.
Even people who think the Green press release should have been more clear recognize that the above statement is ridiculous and lowers the level of discourse. Fortunately, Canadians are smart enough to understand the difference between saying that we need to "counter the Islamic militants' portrayal of the war as a 'clash of civilizations'" to prevent the Taliban from being able to continue to "frame the Afghanistan conflict as a 'Jihad'" and saying that Canadian soldiers are actually engaged in a Christian Crusade. Canadians are also smart enough to realize that the real negative perceptions of our involvement have very little to do with the physical locations of the Crusades. (To not grasp that last fact could almost be characterized as, say, a "shocking ignorance of foreign policy, Afghanistan and the current mission.")
And Canadians are smart enough to realize that if anything is "risking the safety and security" of the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces, it's overly partisan rhetoric that's designed to shut down real democratic debate. (It's also worth noting that this government also continues to place our soldiers at risk of being accused of involvement with war crimes, and has demonstrated through their actions that "supporting the troops" is sometimes little more than a soundbite.)
Details aside, the second most discouraging thing about this is that our prime minister has such little respect for foundational democratic principals that he frequently tries to trick the public into believing partisan distortions of reality. The most discouraging thing (at least for the moment) is that this kind of nonsense moves people like Rick Mercer to write what he did today: "[Liberals and Conservatives] both say they support our troops, but what they really love is using them."
- Chris Tindal's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
ad hominem response?
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
We really should stick to policy and leave ad hominem attacks to those who want to be associated with them.
It can be very useful to point out that an opponent is indulging in ad hominem attacks instead of debating policy, but it works best if we are very careful to avoid indulging in this.
One wins no political points by pointing out the sins of others if one thereby condemns oneself.
Not a personal attack, just factual
Donald, I agree that ad hominem attacks are beneath us and will harm our credibility. However, I think it is also important to point out significant flaws in leadership and thinking. Just calling Mr. Harper a Bush-wannabe, for example, is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out all the ways he panders to the Americans, if true, is something voters need to know.
The Democratic Party in the U.S. has failed miserably over the past 25+ years - at least since the Reagan era - by failing to point out the corruption, the double standards, the outright falsehoods propagated by the Republican Party. The United States is in a desperate way now as a result.
Part of the job of a political party is to point out to voters the flaws in the other parties' philosophies and actions. If Mr. Harper is an arrogant cowboy who considers himself 'the smartest man in the room,' as did the Enron executives, we need to expose that. Chris Tindal's post did that by quoting Mr. Harper. We do that not by a cheap shot, but really by allowing or forcing Mr. Harper to show his true colours.
A perfect example is Ms. May's recent post pointing out that Mr. Harper has plastered pictures of himself everywhere, something we generally think of dictators as doing. Ms. May did not attack Mr. Harper; she just allowed him to show us what he is really like.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
Setting The Bar High: Behaviour Standards and Balancing Acts
The Green Party of Canada is a new kind of party, one that sets itself above the counterproductive bickering of partisan politics. We have set a high standard, a code of behaviour that is honourable and honest, which is truly mind-boggling in the current government. As high and idealist as this sounds, it is also a double-edged sword. While we will gain votes by following this virtuous path, we'll be judged harshly for any misconduct, which the mainline parties will be quick to point out.
Thanks to Chris Tindal for his post on Harper. It's very interesting (and for me, who had hope in Harper, depressing), but be careful. The post is very reasonable, but the GPC must be extra careful not to indulge in negative rants at the government, tempting though it is.
We've made a big gamble, but if we can consistently show ourselves to be the only party with honour, decency and honesty, we make ourselves more attractive to the chunk of Canadians turned off and disillusioned by partisan politics.
We've made a promise to Canadians, and now we must keep it.
Thanks,
Aden Murphy,
Edmonton
The High Road
Thank you Chris, an excellent post. I do agree with the comments made in regards to negative commenting and keeping the GPC a party of honour. That is just treating Canadians with respect. But as a political party we owe it to our fellow citizens to raise issues and question decisions that are not in anyone's best interest, including the people making them. Two of Einstein's quotes, "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." and "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." come to mind when considering the the political decisions being made.
On a positive note, if the Conservatives are starting to take swipes at us that is a good sign, it means they consider us more than a blip on the political scene. Stephen Harper's background is from the Reform Party so he knows the power that grassroots, populist parties can generate.
Karren Brown
Edmonton East EDA
One obvious case of personal attack: want more?
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
For years, Stephen Harper has, through his words and actions, displayed what could charitably be described as a lack of confidence in anyone other than himself. This extends not only to his MPs and members of the civil service, but also the Canadian public at large.
To qualify as legitimate comment this would have to be in no-holds barred muck raking. You are explicitly attacking the person. You are characterizing the person uncharitably. You are not conveying fact but purely negative impressions. You go on to tell us that someone else felt the same way. Now it is a fact that the sourced you quote did say what you accuse him of saying, and we might want to know just how low that person will stoop. But that person too was indulging in ad hominen attacks. Repeating an ad-hominen attack is also an adhominen attack.
It is appropriate to tell the whole world what I have said, and to explain why it is wrong, but it is not appropriate to go on from that to surmise in public about my character flaws that might prompt me to say what I have said. It tends to come back on you.
When you quote Mr Harper's little mishap, suggesting that Canadians might not know one country well, you fail to mention what a brilliant save that was. He had gone down the path of remarking that Americans don't know much about other countries... a big no-no when you are talking to Americans. He had to save the day with a bit of light self deprecation. We have to allow leaders to say a few things for effect. It does not imply that the leader is fit for the pit!
If we allow ourselves to get into a round of deprecation aimed at leaders, we will get our fair share of hits. People will find equally embarrassing comments coming from our leaders, our candidates. We really have to keep discussion on policy and principle, not derived character flaws. We can deal with character flaws best by telling the voters what the person has proposed and said, without any embellishment that asks voters to infer character flaws.
Personal attacks
Donald, when you said this:
When you quote Mr Harper's little mishap, suggesting that Canadians might not know one country well, you fail to mention what a brilliant save that was.
you are giving Mr. Harper credit where none may be due. You are reading his mind.
Secondly, we will get our share or shots at our leaders and ourselves, no matter who we conduct ourselves. Some will be deserved, many will be distortions and outright fabrications. That's part of today's dirty political climate (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it has been this way for many, many years).
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
Explaining Stephen Harper - personal attacks
Fact, a $300+ billion dollar budget and stewardship of a trillion dollar economy is being run by the PMO.
Fact, one man allows no others to contribute to public management.
Fact, one man alone cannot do the job
For example, the "character" flaw is costing Canadians 100s of thousands of manufacturing jobs... to name one example of mismanagement
The above is why Stephen Harper's arrogance aka the "character flaw" is significant. He cannot, and is not, appropriately managing our public affairs. One man simply cannot do the job... even if he thinks he can.
.
The character issue is significant when choosing a PM.
Cheers,
Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)
Government muzzles scientists
Unfortunately, the inherent correctness of Chris Tindal's analysis was demonstrated sharply by the revelation this week that "Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists around the country, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."
http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/newsstories/tc-20...
We have seen this type of action by the Bush administration. It should send chills through the hearts of all Canadians who value democracy and open government.
True, we should not make personal attacks on anyone. But we must hold our elected representatives accountable for their own actions. When those actions denigrate the intelligence of Canadian voters, we must speak out.
Chris Aikman
Vancouver Island North
northislandgreens.ca
Chris Aikman Vancouver Island North northislandgreens.ca
We never know directly how anyone thinks.
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
Chris could in a way be right on in his unflattering analysis of Mr. Harper.
That does not change the fact that 'Harper thinks you're stupid' is an uncivilized ad hominen attack. It attacks the person rather than anything the person is doing.
Any political leader, even any candidate for leadership of any political party will exhibit a characteristic view that same is the best qualified to lead.
Some will be so humble as to make a point of consulting with party members before announcing a policy shift, some will show decisive leadership by announcing it after discussing with only a few top aides. Try to think of any PM or premier who made it a practice to let party members know of every decision to be made, and asking for input.
Even our own leader does not appear to me to follow a practice of broad consultation. She probably has a group of yes men around her who are consulted,
We have a long way to go before we announce that our party membership as a whole will be part of our leader's guidance. It takes away from the illusion that we are being guided by our leader.
Organizations often make public statements via an agreed spokesperson. That can be a perceived leader or a lowly secretary. It is not a question of arrogance but image. Political parties that have multiple voices can be perceived, and particularly portrayed as divided and inconsistent.
Allowing a party to be so portrayed is the cost of allowing dissenting voices to be heard loud and clear. Yes, it is a refreshing change from centralized control of the party message. Yet it allows party enemies to play off one dissenting voice against the other.
A decision to make decisions within caucus and convey them in a controlled manner is not what Progressive Conservatives have traditionally done. We have always had lone wolf MPs, even cabinet ministers, who have allowed the party agenda to be submerged in dissent. Yes, the public has noticed this, the press has punished them for it, and yes, they have likely over corrected.
But if we insist on strong and decisive leaders, we get what we deserve. If we by contrast insist on every party member being consulted before anything that we consider a change, or even before we do not change, we will have to portray our leader as non-decisive in a world that bows before the alter of decisive leadership.
However, our Conservative spin machine is trying hard to portray Mr Harper as a strong, decisive leader, and Mr Dion as a weakling who can not set priorities.
What we are saying is that we agree with those characterizations, when what we should be saying is that executive power needs to be circumscribed and kept in check by Parliament, that decisiveness in leadership needs to give way to more democratic process.
The fault of decisive leadership is also a public fault of buying the concept of decisive leadership.
We should not be faulting the person for displaying what we appear to prize so highly in society, but discussing ways we can get sound decisions without autocracy.
We may have to LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Our Bonser ballot would suggest we have missed the boat on this one.
Harper Sez UR Stupid
How about this as a modified title:
"Harper Say's You're Stupid"
It would accurately describe his comments about Canadians without second-guessing his actual mindset.
Or: "Harper acts as if he believes all other Canadians are stupid"
There is no value in decisive leadership if that leader keeps making the wrong decisions. This is a message we need to get out there. Just as there is no value in keeping promises if you are promising to do stupid things. "Gee, he promised he'd kick me in the crotch, then he kicked me in the crotch - what a great promise-keeper!"
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
"The PM thinks we're all idiots" - Mercer
"The Prime Minister of Canada thinks we're all idiots." Rick Mercer, Rant, Oct 17 2006 (the one where Elizabeth cuts down a tree).
"I've noticed lately that every time he address the Canadian people like that, he sounds less and less like a prime minister and more and more like a special ed teacher" he continued.
You can even see it here:
http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/video_player.html?r...
(Thanks to Devon Rowcliffe for the link)
This was independent news commentary, not partisan or ad hominem attack, and is almost word-for-word what Chris is stating.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Ignoring dishonourable behaviour doesn't make us more honourable
We cannot simply ignore the dirty tricks and cheap shots by the other parties. The Democrats have tried this to death in the United States, and we can see the results. In one of the Bush-Gore debates, Bush was deliberately and intentionally rude and vicious with Gore. In one example, after progressively escalating his insults, Bush flat-out refused to answer a good and fair question that Gore asked, because "This man has no credibility."
Gore took the 'high road' and did not respond to this, and a significant chunk of the electorate saw him as weak as a result. You ignore attacks on your character at your peril. And part of our job is to point out character flaws in the other candidates that we believe should disqualify them for public office, like being arrogant, secretive, and controlling. People vote more on (perceived) character than on issues and policies.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
Now, come on!
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
Lobbing personal attacks at your opponent is not an acceptable way to defend your own character.
Nor is it effective for that purpose.
Personal attacks are usually used to distract the opponent from putting forward their agenda.
The public gets wise to that, do they not?
If an opponent attacks one with anything that is false or grossly distorted, it is appropriate to advise them, publicly, that they risk lawsuit on grounds of slander, libel, defamation, whatever is appropriate. Mr Gore was caught in the trap of too little time to explain how he was more credible than his detractors. But his detractors had said that he is not credible. This ad hominen attack worked. Using Ad hominen attacks because they sometimes work? Not a good reason to support GPC.