Persky is half wrong.
The Canadian Alliance didn't kill the NDP.
The NDP died in it's sleep in the House of Commons during the bombing of Belgrade.
Bye bye Svend!
Bye bye Libby!
Bye bye Nelson!
------------------->snip<-----------------------------
vancouversun.com
-
Stan Persky: 'Why do I feel so good?'
-
Stan Persky Vancouver Sun
-
If truth is the first casualty of war, the primary victim of federal elections is thought. As Canadians head to the polls in less than 10 days to decide the fates of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Alliance leader Stockwell Day, it might be a good idea to examine the fate of ideas in this campaign. Take, for example, the most obvious idea on offer, that hoary election-time cliche the Canadian Alliance adopted as its bland campaign slogan: "It's time for a change." The equally obvious and seldom-heard question in reply ought to be, Is it really time for a change? I'm not a Liberal -- just your average lost-in-the-wilderness social democrat -- but I have to ask, Are things really that bad in Canada? Is the urgency implied by slogans of change justified after seven years of Chretien's government? The answer is no. Unless you're a religious fundamentalist or a political revolutionary lost in a time warp, you'd have to say that Canada is in pretty good shape. I realize that's not the sort of dramatic or crisis-laden assessment that various histrionic opposition parties want to hear. And yes, I realize that our "ironclad fool's paradise," as one waggish friend puts it, could go bust in the blink of a digital eye. But consider: in seven years, the budgetary deficit has been turned into a large enough surplus that politicians are squabbling about how to spend it; the country's debt is being reduced; unemployment is down; so is crime. The cuts to health care and education are being restored. The ideas about tax cuts put forward by the Alliance have been largely adopted by Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin, albeit in a somewhat more reasonable form. Further, business is doing well. The nation is dealing relatively successfully with globalization and computer technology, given the subsidiary nature of our economic power. The social welfare state is being trimmed, but not shredded. The Chretien government is mildly sensitive to environmental issues, though not particularly successful in dealing with them. (What government is?) Canada plays an ameliorative, if modest, role in world affairs. The truth is, Canada is not in need of a saviour, political or otherwise. While there are substantive and damaging criticisms that can be made of the Chretien Liberals, this is not a country in crisis. But you'd hardly know that, reading some of the national press, as well as much of the Western Canadian regional media. A corps of columnists and anonymous editorial writers have been going at it hammer and tongs, trying to persuade us we're in dire straits. We're not. There is, however, an ideological irony about ideas in this campaign. The Liberals have few new ideas, but can't bring themselves to admit to their main idea: namely, that we're not desperately in need of new ideas. I guess "no new-fangled ideas" isn't a vote-getter. But the basic Liberal idea is that Canada needs to maintain the institutions that make for a tolerant, sane, comparatively safe, relatively gentle country. What we don't need is economic or cultural extremism. Stockwell Day and the Alliance, on the other hand, have a lot of ideas, especially about social issues like abortion and capital punishment, but have to keep their mouths shut about them for fear of alienating voters. The Hatred That Dare Not Speak Its Name is a spin strategy in which the country's ultra-right party can only wink at its zealots, if it wants to rub elbows with the mainstream. The leader of the Alliance, for understandable political reasons, can't reveal his agenda. Day himself is an experienced provincial politician, a vigorous and rather attractive public figure. But to understand what the Alliance really thinks, you have to look not at what their zipper-lipped candidates can't say, but what their true-believer grass-roots supporters and defeated nominees say. Listen to the Surrey school board, read Alberta Report, look at the "family values" groups' Web sites, tune in to radio hotliner Pia Shandel. The Alliance ideas about society are straightforward. They're for fundamentalist religion, against abortion, against homosexuality, against public support for culture, against the CBC and against an independent Supreme Court. They're for privatizing education and medical care, for capital punishment, for unregulated guns and for allowing the marketplace near-absolute free rein. In a sense, it's a shame that the Alliance can't be forthright about the ideas they believe in, and instead fudge their views with muddled talk of referenda and a pretence of fiscal moderation. It's not only a shame, it's duplicitous. I don't agree with most of their views, but their ideas are perfectly legitimate. They're also perfectly frightening. I've been moved to mirth by Alliance supporters loudly crying foul every time someone says that they're scary or extremist. I find their social conservatism scary enough that on election day, for the first time in my life, I'll vote strategically. If I were living in a riding represented by the NDP's Svend Robinson or Libby Davies, naturally I'd vote for them. But since I live in a riding with a Liberal incumbent, that's who I'll be voting for, instead of for my usual hapless NDP candidate. I want to be sure that I'm not giving the Alliance so much as one additional opportunity. Of course, in British Columbia, we've been through this once before. His name was Bill Vander Zalm, and we found out what fundamentalist fervor and rampant free markets meant. One of Vander Zalm's opponents quipped, "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing." In the case of Stockwell Day, we might add that charisma with extreme right-wing substance is an even more dangerous thing. |
