Sunday, May 6, 2007
There are storms and then there are Storms
Jeff Berg
To those who say that Ms. May was not comparing the Harper government to Nazi's but appeasers, what can one say but exactly right? As to those who question whether such a comparison is apt, just or ridiculous what else can a rational being do but look at the context?
On the one side we have Neville Chamberlain who as we all know has gone down in history as the politician who single-handedly had the power to nip the rise of fascism and by extension the holocaust in the bud and failed to do so. What he did instead of standing up to Hitler after the invasion of Czechoslovakia was give in to Hitler's act of war and infamously declare the result of this appeasement as "Peace in our time". Whatever one may believe about Chamberlain's rightful place in history one has to agree that this was not one of his better feats of political prognostication.
Now without a doubt one could endlessly debate whether Chamberlain deserves the ignominy that history has laid at his door as it is doubtless that he was not alone in wanting to do everything possible to avoid plunging the world into a conflagration that had any chance at all of resembling the mass carnage of the first world war. Be that as it may the basic outline and conventional view as I have stated it here is sufficient for our purpose.
Fast forward 70 years and we have Ms. May comparing the Harper government to the most caricatured PM in the history of Britain . On one level at the very least this has got to be galling for the PM and the image makers in his bunker (oops there's that WWII comparison thing again:-) since they have made it crystal over the top clear that they are more than willing to take every possible opportunity to style our dear leader as the manliest of manly men. Aiming to present him as the kind of leader that every red meat eating, red blooded, gun toting alpha male idealizer has got to love. A manly lover of the military, a defender of gun ownership, a PM Rambo so to speak ready to shoot first, ask questions later and take no prisoners. Though at a guess I'd say they might be looking to shed the last part of this equation given the week they've just had in the Commons.
In other words in every way Harper, his always at his side stylist and his image makers have done all they can to portray him as a blood and guts PM ready to meet a dangerous world with the violence that most every man knows in his heart of hearts is at the very least sometimes the only way to keep your family/country safe. So yes I can see how having some tree hugging feminista brandish the appeaser label might be something they'd go ballistic over.
Considering the brand they've invested so much time and political capital in creating, this is just the kind of thing that Harper and his spin doctors would want to make damn sure doesn't stick. Something that they would want to guarantee the media understands is totally and utterly off the meter unacceptable.
After all if the label of "Appeaser" were to stick, then "Tough Man who can make the Tough Decisions" is up in smoke and then what's left for Harper and the Conservatives to sell the country on? I'm thinking a switch to a "kinder gentler Stephen" at this point is pretty much out what with our own very own made in Canada torture scandal and mission going south debacle.
And what is the most sure fire way for them to get “back on message”? Simple, the same way that the right wing in America has got down to, if not a fine art, at least a clinical science. i.e. Throw your base a little red meat and indulge in the kind of political theatre you do best: Attack & Accuse. In this case the attack being to accuse your opponent of calling you a Nazi and if you can manage the trick (what's Latin for lobbying your lobbyists?) top this off with having a Jewish lobby group toss in the always potent "You are diminishing the holocaust" accusation.
The result? In one fell swoop the news cycle goes go from a completely legitimate question and an essentially innocuous metaphor to the classic right wing game changers: "Who you calling Nazi you hysterical out of control eco-extremist!" in tandem with the implication that you are insensitive to the history and suffering of the Jewish people. Which, if you can get the media to run with it for you, is a very weighty one two punch. I will leave it to you to decide how "fair and balanced" our media was on this one.
For those who are seasoned observers of the cut and thrust of Western democratic politics, that Harper and his team would coordinate such an attack at this time should come as little of a surprise. The fact of the matter is this past week and a bit has been the worst week for Conservatives since they formed the government. First the $650 million tank purchase gets portrayed as U.S. style corporate war profiteering directed by an arms industry lobbyist turned Defence Minister. 1 Next the torture story breaks and the human rights groups start piling on. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and even the International Red Cross comes across as no friend of this government. Then the threadBaird Clean Air plan comes out in time for a one two Gore-Suzuki punch just when Toronto is putting on its Green Living Show and so is guaranteed to get maximum media exposure.
This was not what the PM envisioned after he finally pulled the lever on the trap door he had long ago set Ms. Ambrose over. She had been set up to fail and so it was no great loss or surprise when she had to be sacrificed. But methinks what Harper and his handlers were hoping for from the Baird led revision was a plan that the media would portray as one that most Canadians could live with and perhaps even a secret wish in his heart that the opposition would bring his government down over it leaving the Libs, New Dems and Greens to cannibalize the environment first vote amongst themselves. The net result being just enough room left for the Conservatives to sneak up the middle in enough ridings to win a majority. Instead it very much looks like the any roll of the die in 2007 is just as likely to come up snake eyes as it is boxcars for any of the parties.
What I find most interesting on a personal level about the manufactured tempest resulting from Ms. May's choice of metaphors occurred at the Hummingbird Centre just this past Saturday where I was surrounded by much of Toronto's financial elite listening to one Mr. Albert Gore. There he talked about the looming climate disaster that is facing us if we continue on our current path. Framing an argument and a thesis that stated in every possible way and in the strongest possible terms that all we need to do is nothing to ensure a disaster that will wreak a level of devastation on humankind to dwarf any war we've ever seen. And how did he try to bring this point across to the assembled thousands? Many of whom no doubt voted for Harper and the Conservatives. Why Mr. Gore used the pre-WWII words of Winston Churchill " The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences."
Now unless I am very much mistaken, and I'm not, what Mr. Gore is doing here is drawing a parallel between appeasement of the Nazis by the governments of that time and our governments of today's willingness to appease our GHG emitting industries despite the very evident GW storm clouds a brewing. And what was the audience's response to Mr. Gore's talk? A standing ovation as roused and raucous as anything I have ever heard in my 47 years. And I am sure it will surprise none of you to hear that I've not seen, read or heard one word of mention anywhere in the media about this parallel being somehow inappropriate. And I challenge anyone to find one.
Little else need be said about this matter I think. Though I will add that if you read the Hansard transcript of the question asked of Harper before he went off on Ms. May you will see just how little his right-angled segue related to the question he was asked. A sure tip off that this “game changer” was a talking point memo discussed earlier in the day as a way to shape the news cycle. Harper and his team knowing full well that they can count on a coterie of editors and journalist more than willing to play along in whipping this kind of non-story story into the kind of distraction the Conservatives desire. i.e. The kind of meaningless media storm useful for deflecting attention from where they don't want it to be: On the fact that they are in charge, that they have the power to change the way Canada handles GHG's, and that they are in a Parliament where they are the only obstacle.
In a nutshell, that they are ones who are procrastinating, indulging in half-measures, in baffling expedience, in delays and yes in appeasement before the GW storm.
By the by for those of you who don't know massive military expenditures like this are essentially guaranteed as a result of WTO rules. The reason for this being that military spending is the ONE area where governments are allowed to interfere with the "rules of the marketplace". The U.S. has long used this exemption to pump-prime all but all of their major corporations.
More importantly for we who are of this country, irrespective of Jack Granatstein's rants, Canada has not exactly been virginal or virtuous in this area. We were seventh in military spending in the OECD before Harper goosed the military budget by $16 billion mostly for items our military had not asked for but that U.S. corporations like to build, followed by another $3 billion for the Afghan mission and topped with a further $650 million for WWII style weaponry in a 4GW world.
Jeff Berg and I am a member of a political action committee and public outreach group called Post Carbon Toronto. www.postcarbontoronto.org
