Harper: A man obsessed

Written By: FurGaia
Date: 2006-05-06 15:32:29
<a href="/article/93229432-harper-a-man-obsessed">Article Link</a>

But Harper's budget also contains a provision that opens the door not so much to the dismantling of this country as to a rearrangement of its already disparate parts. It is the first building block of Harper's strategy to ensure conservative hegemony upon Canada to replace the liberal hegemony. He cannot reach that goal without Quebec. Therein lies the importance of Harper's budget: its most important element is not governance at all; it is political. It does not have much to do with the here and now. Rather, when passed, it will embark us all on a path towards satisfying Harper's obsession. The journey starts here. By promising to deal with the "fiscal imbalance", Harper has not only secured the support of the Bloc for the budget, but should he succeed he would be dealing a fatal blow to Quebec sovereignists, according to Quebec's political scientist <a href="http://www.vigile.net/06-5/4.html#11">Josée Legault</a>: <blockquote>Staking sovereignty on fiscal imbalance was a major mistake for party You gotta wonder if someone in Andre Boisclair's entourage will have the guts to tell him the truth: the Parti Quebecois is in trouble. Though this week's CROP-La Presse poll hit Premier Jean Charest with a 67-per-cent dissatisfaction rate, Boisclair also saw support for his party go down from 50 per cent to 36 per cent since he became leader. As for the Bloc Quebecois, it's now in a virtual tie with the Tories among francophones. But here's the kicker. In his first budget, Prime Minister Stephen Harper planted a ticking time bomb that could blow up in the face of both the PQ and the Bloc: a clear commitment to remedy the fiscal imbalance in time for early 2007. If Harper succeeds, chances are an election will follow. Should his popularity in Quebec increase, he could get a majority government, and the Bloc would be dealt a major blow that would further weaken the PQ. The next logical step would be an election in Quebec. Charest could use the cash fallout from the newly restored fiscal balance as proof that Harper's open federalism coupled with Charest's collaboration is a safer bet than a referendum with the PQ. Should all that happen, the PQ would have only itself to blame. It chose to make the fiscal imbalance its main political football. But it's Harper and Charest who are now ready to score the final touchdown.</blockquote> Lise Payette calls Harper's courting of Quebec La grande alliance [The Great Alliance], one into which Harper is literally rushing - today with the so-called "liberal" Jean Charest, tomorrow it may well be Mario Dumont, says Lise Payette - the goal being to revive the Conservative movement there. Since he believes that nationalists tend to be conservative, once the Bloc is rendered irrelevant and the PQ crippled for some time to come, Harper's plan to bring back into the conservative fold what he referred to as the "third sister" may well become reality. All that make perfect sense and may even be considered to be fair game. But then what? Two documents that IMO contain the key to Harper's strategy are first the discussion/opinion piece that he himself wrote (with Tom Flanagan), <a href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:3i_sOPlm7jYJ:www.nextcity.com/main/town/6dictat.htm+%22Our+Benign+Dictatorship%22&hl=en&lr=&strip=1:">Our Benign Dictatorship</a> and <a href="http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/003835.php">Andrew Coyne's column</a> on it. They lay bare Harper's plan to bring together the "three sisters", an analogy he uses to illustrate how the conservative movement in Canada is composed of three disparate branches that up to now have hindered the installation of long-lasting conservative government in this land. <blockquote>Essentially, the same story has been replayed since 1917. For the Progressive Conservative party to come to power, the PCs' leader has had to attract support from western populists and Quebec nationalists in addition to core Tory support in Ontario and the Maritime provinces, and the public has had to be desperate to remove the Liberals. Such a "throw them out" coalition can win an election but can't really govern, because its elements have different aspirations, which have been ignored, rather than brokered. Western populists, at least those of the right, want a smaller, more parsimonious government that treats all provinces equally. Quebec nationalists demand a federal government that offers Quebec special treatment by transferring to Quebec both revenue and powers. And eastern Tories generally want a traditional and centralist approach to government. It might be possible to keep this coalition together in the more loosely structured American system, which has a minimal requirement for party unity. [...] But Canada's parliamentary constitution requires disciplined parties able to vote as a bloc in the House of Commons. Diverse coalitions face grave strain, because one element usually sets the party line, alienating the others. In the Progressive Conservative party, the predominant element has been centrist and eastern, anglophone and Tory, leaving western populists and Quebec nationalists feeling that the party does not represent their views or interests.</blockquote> He then went on to explain why Quebec figures so prominently in his strategy: <blockquote>In the longer term, ... [he points out] and assuming that Quebec remains in Canada, the alliance would find it hard to form a stable government without some Quebec support. Although Quebec has lost importance -- in the next election, its share of Commons seats will fall below 25 per cent for the first time in Canadian history -- it nevertheless remains second only to Ontario and much larger than any other province.</blockquote> In light of the above, it is now crystal clear why "solving the fiscal imbalance" may in effect mean giving more moneys to Quebec, even at the expense of other provinces. Which, by the way, is a major Harper flip-flop from his previously stated conviction that "[t]here is little money to bribe Quebec, and voters in the rest of the country are turning against special privilege for Quebec (or anyone else)". So far so good ... if all the pieces fall together as he plans. With Quebec bribed into the fold, Harper may very well get the majority he requires to implement his real plan. <blockquote>Although we, as conservatives, are concerned in the first instance about creating an effective conservative coalition, we believe that our line of thought has broader significance for Canadian politics.</blockquote> According to Coyne and others, and Harper himself, that means "Proportional Representation", which almost everyone agrees is long overdue in Canada. BUT here's the thing, and that is a crucial point, Harper DOES NOT REQUIRE a Conservative majority to implement proportional representation! As he himself indicated: <blockquote>Reform of the electoral system is one of the old chestnuts of Canadian politics. The Progressives advocated the alternative ballot and enacted it provincially in Alberta and Manitoba. The NDP has long had a theoretical commitment to proportional representation, though it failed to follow through when in power at the provincial level. Pierre Trudeau spoke favourably of proportional representation, without acting on it in practice.</blockquote> Thus, one can make the case that should Harper introduce a bill on proportional representation tomorrow, there is a good chance that it would pass even with his minority government. It may be possible to whip up enough public support that would pressure the NDP and the Liberals into voting for it. So there goes that justification that supposedly lies at the root of Harper's hunger for a majority government. Therefore one needs to look elsewhere for keys to Harper's obsession not only with a majority government but also with conservative hegemony in Canada. Perhaps then we should be paying more attention to Preston Manning and <a href="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091902.html">his grand plan</a> to remodel Canada while looking for insights into Mr. Harper's psyche of which there are many <a href="http://www.intheirownwords.ca/harper.html">here</a>. Their obsessions complement each other and may well lead us all <a href="http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timely_002383.php">here</a>! <blockquote>If cooperation is ever to work, the fragments of Canadian conservatism must recognize that each represents an authentic aspect of a larger conservative philosophy. Reformers will have to realize that there is something genuinely conservative in the Tory penchant for compromise and incrementalism. Tories will have to admit that compromise, to be honorable, must be guided by underlying principles, and that Reformers are not extremists for openly advocating smaller government, free markets, traditional values and equality before the law.</blockquote> That may be the most ominous excerpt of Harper's "Our benign dictatorship" and it begs the question what does Harper plan to replace it with. There exists in Islam a concept called <a href="http://www.bible.ca/islam/dictionary/T/taqiya.html">taqiya</a>. More than political brokerage, both Harper and Manning may well be practicing taqiya. If that is so, the sooner we find out, the better. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 7, 2006]

Correction: Lise Payette calls Harper's courting of Quebec La grande alliance [The Great Alliance], one into which Harper is literally rushing - today with the so-called "liberal" Jean Charest, tomorrow it may well be Mario Dumont, says <strike>Josée Legault</strike> Lise Payette - the goal being to revive the Conservative movement there.

Fixed.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Makes no difference what ideology, or economic theory Harper represents, the man is a cold blooded, fanatical maniac. It is written all over his face and body language.

As a portrait artist of many years of experience, his eyes give me the creeps every time I see his picture. I could never paint him, or any of his kind, so I stopped painting men many years ago, and gave up a fortune to paint only women and children of my choice and give away the pictures.

Sounds crazy? Perhaps, but I have seen his doubles in other ideologies, wearing other uniforms.

Ed Deak.

You've hit the nail on the head. Harper has the "look"...very scary. He stated some time ago that he hates the word "tory" because it implies elitism. A more honest conservative would not be afraid of this term ... come what may. Harper knows how to exude the "common touch". He reminds me a bit of Julius Streicher, one of Hitler's inner circle, but is not as physically ugly.

Gee, thanks! I did not know that could be done! BTW, in the 1st paragraph, I meant to say "troubling" not "troublesome" !!! It can stay like that though. I'm sure readers will make the switch in their mind.

Ed, don't know whether you read <a href="http://dynamiteonline.blogspot.com/2006/05/politics-of-breathing.html">this</a>, which was an interesting angle, too. As for me, I am for the moment focusing on his policies. I still do not understand Harper. He is an intelligent man, I am sure. I just do not understand where his loathing of Canada (I do not think that is too strong, do you?) comes from. Or for that matter all the other neocons ... I am quite confused when it comes to those people. There is so much to love and appreciate in this country!

Consider those who Harper is the diciple of: Manning and Mulroney.

Now consider that Harper embodies the worst of both.

Then consider that he is willing to sacrifice anyone who get's in his way, or who he can use as a "martyr" in order to forward his goals.

In short, the man is a sociopathic fascist weasel.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Fur Gaia,

He is a tough one to understand. My instincts tell me that he has a personal desire to prove something either to himself or someone that he thinks needs to be "shown" something. He will use anyone to get there. Because he has changed parties (flight) so often looking for any group to follow his lead tells me that they are only a means to his end. He does not care about his party nor does he care about Canada. In fact maybe he needs to "show" Canada because he's had such a hard time finding support for himself here.

Astrologically, the most rewarding title he could go after with gusto would be husband and then father and then 9-5er. His pursuit of leadership will never give him what he is looking for. A deep, intimate, supportive relationship with a good partner brings someone like him the most happiness. He just hasn't figured that out yet and could lose his marriage if he keeps going the way he is. I read the link you made to about his yearbook and his pet peeve being "reality". Funny because again, astrologically he has a serious problem dealing with reality. He misunderstands many problems that he has imagined and has difficulty identifying the obvious roadblocks. As a kid he probably felt singled out for discipline and would have responded defiantly. Being insecure has led him to seek relationships that require no commitment. Challenges can frighten him and he has a tendency to either bring out the best or the worst in people creating extremes in his relationships.

Stephen if you are reading this you need to develop cooperation, diplomacy and tact. You'll be rewarded when you learn how to be supportive without expecting anyting in return. Create situations where everyone wins. Share. Put yourself in other people's shoes. I'm no Dr. Phil but, that's my "short", free, take on Harper.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

I often agree with you Deacon but Harper thought Manning was soft (despite his former CIA ties??) and thought Mulroney was "too pink".

Why is everyone so surprised that someone like Harper would believe everything he thinks is right? Leaders are supposed to lead--except apparently in this country.

It is as if people expect Harper to not play politics. That is unrealistic.

---
Multiculturalism is neither left nor right, but rather a sickening indication of what happens when 'representative government' fails the majority.

I did say "worst of both".

Considering the "Free Trade" mess we're now in, Mulroney was hardly "too pink", he was Tory greenback all the way.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush