A Pilgrim's Journal

It reads like a laundry list of the failures of Stephen Harper, and that much I kind of expected. The new perspective that comes across, though, is that when you're running a one-man operation, personal flaws start to actually matter. In such a situation, the flaws of the operation are reflections of the flaws of the leader. If control were not so central, perhaps the group could better compensate for its members' flaws.

The opposition (all parties) so often look like lambs to the slaughter, when trying to stand up to the lies, money, and focus of the Harper machine. The tactics that are used just roll over the opposition in surprisingly effective ways, and the opposition assume that the other side will play by the rules, when that clearly doesn't happen.

Canadians as a whole somehow don't see it, and end up getting manipulated.

Yet in all the carnage, I see hope and Providence. Perhaps a disciplined evil is required to purify and refine a principled good.

Not all of the Conservative's actions are evil. But since when are lies considered righteous? Why treat over 50% of the country as mortal enemies that must be destroyed? We Canadians need to start looking at the facts and work a little harder to find the truth, instead of just letting ourselves get carried away with the emotional propaganda that the Conservatives want us to see.

I think that perhaps our current apathy is due to the lack of any inspired alternative options. I understand that. It is fuelling my apathy too. But I'm sick of the lies. I'm sick of the wedge politics. I'm sick of the morally relative answers in Question Period that make the lowest common denominator look like the best we can ever hope for.

I wish I could listen to some calm reasoning from the Conservatives without the constant verbal jab tacked onto the end of every answer, or weaved into the fabric of every message. I don't want to be treated like a citizen specimen to be probed and manipulated into doing the government's will, but rather like an adult that can handle reasoning beyond the kindergarten level.

I can't be too angry at Harper though. In some ways I feel sorry for him, and in other ways, I can see that I have very similar flaws. Thankfully, I'm not Prime Minister, where my flaws would be exposed for all to see. The book is very enlightening when read with a wider view, including oneself and all humanity. But I sometimes wonder if Harper looks into the mirror at night and wonders what he has become. Does he ever read his old articles and shudder at the path he's taken? (It is a sobering exercise, available to anyone who has bothered to write their opinion down on paper, or on a blog.) Does he remember old arguments he used in Question Period and have a vague unease that they could be used against him now? Surely that can't feel good. That can't feel very inspiring. What an unbearable weight that must be, to have this all out in public, and still try to act like the principled leader.

Or does he think the tactics are all acceptable if the end result is ok?

Until we pull up our socks as a nation, it probably is the best we can hope for. We are reaping the reward of our own apathy, and that reward is Stephen Harper.

I find that while some of the ideology of Stephen Harper matches my own, his tactics reek to high heaven. It is his tactics and secrecy and underhanded methods that make me so concerned. I can actually see some of the logic behind Conservative actions, after having read this book, but the effort required to find that logic is monstrous, and the process distasteful. It feels as if my dog swallowed a precious ring, and I'm trying to find it by going through the excrement.

Lawrence Martin has handled this subject with calm balance. I think that it would be possible to have a Conservative supporter read the book and come out supporting Harper, while a Liberal reads the same book and comes out stressed over the state of our country. This is good in one sense: a reporter should pursue the facts, not vent a spleen. But I wonder if most readers will put the mental effort into this book and think long-term about the actions they see.

Take the controversy that caused the first proroguing of Parliament in late 2008. Harper attempted in the first budget after the election to remove taxpayer support for political parties. This was a reversal of the reforms that the Chretien Liberals did in 2003 that outlawed large political funding contributions from big companies and unions, and replaced it with taxpayer funding of $2 per vote for each party.

Looking at it from the Conservative perspective, I'd imagine the 2003 change would have been a blow to their fundraising system. It would be going against their ideology that supports the free market and big business. Back when the Conservative parties had less support, it would have also distributed a smaller share of the money to them. So from that perspective, turning the tables on the Liberals, at the soonest available opportunity, would make some kind of sense.

Looking at it from the Liberal perspective, it was a strategic move that potentially hurt the Conservatives. But more than that, it put limits on what kind of influence big business had over the government. It also gave some support to the smaller parties, like the Green Party and NDP, who do have some measure of voter support, even though they might not have enough to get seats or win majorities. With a multi-party system, we avoid some of the polarizing splits seen in the United States, where so much politics looks like a choice between only two options.

Taking the long view, and knowing that money talks in political circles and even in political results, who do you want to have in the financial driver's seat of Canadian politics? Should the Green Party have to struggle to get donations from the average Joe concerned about the environment, while the Conservatives get cheques from every major industry that wants a tax break? It's pretty obvious where the financial slant would be there. If you are a CEO, your answer might be different than if you are a single parent living beside power lines.

The book does not go into much detail on this issue or others, which I believe Canadians need to be thinking about in rigorous detail. Instead, the book focuses on the tactics and the panic and the paranoia. This is fine, since this is what the Conservatives bring to Ottawa, and needs to be discussed. But it also means that some of the background work and some of the long-term thinking is left to the reader. It means that any pre-conceived beliefs about government policy won't be very strongly challenged in a book that focuses primarily on government maneuvering.

This falls right into the hands of Stephen Harper. The longer that Canadians ignore the big picture, and ignore the long-term, the easier it will be for Harper to defend his icky behaviour by saying it's no worse than what the Liberals did. Sometimes the behaviour is better; often it is worse. But if the focus is always on who is less slimey, are we really looking ahead, as a captain watches the seas as he pilots his ship? Or are we shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Harper has succeeded in both confusing debate and stifling the flow of information. It is like choking your opponent in a wrestling match while he's trying to figure out why his shoelaces are untied. As long as your opponent is distracted, he will soon lose. And both the opposition and all of Canada are similarly distracted. One corruption after another floats across our headlines, and either we don't care, or are too busy, or something more shiny comes along and we forget the importance of the issue. And Stephen Harper is only too happy to provide Canada with that shiny new thing if he can. And when he can't, he'll gladly use any tool at his disposal to delay, obfuscate, and obscure until we forget. Remember prorogation.

Lawrence Martin has a list of "audacities" at the end of his book, that runs about 55 items long, of the things Harper has done to win during his 4 years in office. Most of these items are not pretty. If you appreciate that Canada is a polite society, that we respect our neighbour, that we respect due process and rule of law, and open government and access to information with checks and balances, these items will be an affront to you.

If you get a chance to read this book, take it. If you only have time to read the last 100 pages or so, do it. Stephen Harper does not deserve your vote until he starts to respect Canada more than his own party.