Thomas Mulcair is the national leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada and leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons in Ottawa. It is a position he can be expected to hold for the next few years, barring unforeseen circumstances.
It's an enviable position in a way, because he can fire unrestricted pot shots across the Commons' floor at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, while making endless and often wild, impossible-to-fulfil recommendations for social reform. Unfortunately for Mr. Mulcair, that's all he can do. Across the floor, protected by the majority of votes granted him by the people, sits the untouchable, benign in appearance, ruthless in practice, prime minister and lawmaker-in-chief.
Mulcair knows that barring some as-yet-unveiled scandal, PM Harper sits secure behind the ramparts majority governments can build and hold. The prime minister knows it too. Mulcair can whine, shout, gesticulate, point his finger, tremble with indignation and demand revisions in programs or in law - and for the next few years Harper and his government can, and will, ignore him.
All of which leads me to wonder who on Earth is writing the Mulcair attack commercials airing in recent weeks on television. We see the NDP firebrand in full rhetorical surge although we can't hear his voice. Text flashes on the screen while a sombre male voice tells us the silent but animated Mulcair is a danger to Canada - that if he's allowed to impose his "risky theories" and establish his "dangerous economic experiments," Canadians will suffer great hardships.
As the commercial ends, there's a brief glimpse of text acknowledging the message comes from the Conservative Party of Canada. It flickers only briefly, a possible indication that the Conservatives want us to believe their fiction but don't want us to remember who wrote it.
In recent general elections, federal and provincial, we have suffered through attack advertising from political parties with more money to spend defaming rivals than explaining their party policies. It can be hoped that while the Conservatives now appear determined to spread personal negative attack campaigns beyond election boundaries, other organizations will not respond in kind. I fear it will be a vain hope.
Let it not be thought I am recommending an end to robust criticism of politicalparty leaders - in government or in opposition. We need more of it, but delivered with respect and presented in a form that leads the electorate to the understanding of key issues.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to present Mulcair as a dark force menacing the well being of Canada with "dangerous economic experiments," why not spend it to buy space to explain why his theories are dangerous? No need to even mention him by name. Just state the theory being "advanced by some" and tell us why it wouldn't work.
I confess that's just a dream, for while many voters prefer facts on which to base their ballot-box decisions, the majority appear to enjoy being swayed by innuendo - which the producers of attack commercials develop with persuasive skills. In the United States, politicians have successfully used negative advertising for years and with great success - if political victories by any means can be called success - and it was to the south that Stephen Harper's Tories, in search of majority government, cast their eyes for election strategies. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff became the unfair target of choice and he and his party suffered disastrously.
Seventy-odd years ago, an American man of letters - Henry Brooks Adams (1881-1960) - wrote in his book The Education of Henry Adams: "Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds," which would indicate dirty work on or between election campaigns has been around for some time. And not just in "the new world."
Margot Asquith once said of British prime minister Lloyd George: "He couldn't see a belt without hitting below it." Loved, hated, feared and praised, he was a Liberal with strong Conservative support as a coalition PM during the First World War, and wasn't above a bit of perjury if it was needed to win a fight.
We could go on with an almost endless list of leaders who could, and have, justified fear-mongering advertisements, unfounded gossip or lies to obtain and hold power. In dictatorships, or back when kings and queens reigned with unbridled power, political opposition was silenced by execution.
In 2012, we are much more civilized with nothing more violent that a destroyed reputation here and there. Prime Minister Harper, as he permits his pit bulls to start tarnishing the reputation of Thomas Mulcair, should remember the advice of the great U.K. Tory prime minister Benjamin Disraeli: "No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition."
We need a strong opposition, prime minister. So do you. Time to call off the dogs.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Jim Hume
It's an enviable position in a way, because he can fire unrestricted pot shots across the Commons' floor at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, while making endless and often wild, impossible-to-fulfil recommendations for social reform. Unfortunately for Mr. Mulcair, that's all he can do. Across the floor, protected by the majority of votes granted him by the people, sits the untouchable, benign in appearance, ruthless in practice, prime minister and lawmaker-in-chief.
Mulcair knows that barring some as-yet-unveiled scandal, PM Harper sits secure behind the ramparts majority governments can build and hold. The prime minister knows it too. Mulcair can whine, shout, gesticulate, point his finger, tremble with indignation and demand revisions in programs or in law - and for the next few years Harper and his government can, and will, ignore him.
All of which leads me to wonder who on Earth is writing the Mulcair attack commercials airing in recent weeks on television. We see the NDP firebrand in full rhetorical surge although we can't hear his voice. Text flashes on the screen while a sombre male voice tells us the silent but animated Mulcair is a danger to Canada - that if he's allowed to impose his "risky theories" and establish his "dangerous economic experiments," Canadians will suffer great hardships.
As the commercial ends, there's a brief glimpse of text acknowledging the message comes from the Conservative Party of Canada. It flickers only briefly, a possible indication that the Conservatives want us to believe their fiction but don't want us to remember who wrote it.
In recent general elections, federal and provincial, we have suffered through attack advertising from political parties with more money to spend defaming rivals than explaining their party policies. It can be hoped that while the Conservatives now appear determined to spread personal negative attack campaigns beyond election boundaries, other organizations will not respond in kind. I fear it will be a vain hope.
Let it not be thought I am recommending an end to robust criticism of politicalparty leaders - in government or in opposition. We need more of it, but delivered with respect and presented in a form that leads the electorate to the understanding of key issues.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to present Mulcair as a dark force menacing the well being of Canada with "dangerous economic experiments," why not spend it to buy space to explain why his theories are dangerous? No need to even mention him by name. Just state the theory being "advanced by some" and tell us why it wouldn't work.
I confess that's just a dream, for while many voters prefer facts on which to base their ballot-box decisions, the majority appear to enjoy being swayed by innuendo - which the producers of attack commercials develop with persuasive skills. In the United States, politicians have successfully used negative advertising for years and with great success - if political victories by any means can be called success - and it was to the south that Stephen Harper's Tories, in search of majority government, cast their eyes for election strategies. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff became the unfair target of choice and he and his party suffered disastrously.
Seventy-odd years ago, an American man of letters - Henry Brooks Adams (1881-1960) - wrote in his book The Education of Henry Adams: "Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds," which would indicate dirty work on or between election campaigns has been around for some time. And not just in "the new world."
Margot Asquith once said of British prime minister Lloyd George: "He couldn't see a belt without hitting below it." Loved, hated, feared and praised, he was a Liberal with strong Conservative support as a coalition PM during the First World War, and wasn't above a bit of perjury if it was needed to win a fight.
We could go on with an almost endless list of leaders who could, and have, justified fear-mongering advertisements, unfounded gossip or lies to obtain and hold power. In dictatorships, or back when kings and queens reigned with unbridled power, political opposition was silenced by execution.
In 2012, we are much more civilized with nothing more violent that a destroyed reputation here and there. Prime Minister Harper, as he permits his pit bulls to start tarnishing the reputation of Thomas Mulcair, should remember the advice of the great U.K. Tory prime minister Benjamin Disraeli: "No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition."
We need a strong opposition, prime minister. So do you. Time to call off the dogs.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Jim Hume
No comments:
Post a Comment