Why Stephen Harper is beset with nickel-and-dime scandals

When Stephen Harper first became leader of the Conservative Party, he set out to solve one pressing problem: how to cancel out the Liberal assertion, repeated ad nauseum, that Conservatives are too extreme for Canada. The implication of their assertion is that because Canadians are moderates, the Liberal Party is therefore the de facto Party of Canada. Harper worried because he saw what had happened to the Democrat Party in the US after it had assumed the mantle of anti-Americanism, which gave the Republicans a monopoly on American patriotism. They saw how this had helped the Republicans out countless number of times while burning the Democrats as many times. Harper was afraid that 10 years of Chretienite propaganda was reducing the Conservative party to becoming the un-Canadian Party of Canada.

To combat this, the 2006 campaign slogan was chosen to be, “Standing Up for Canada”. It’s hard to tar somebody as anti-Canadian when all he talks about is standing up for Canada.

The next step Harper took was to prove by action that the Conservative Party isn’t extreme. This is why Harper has assiduously avoided rocking the boat in his first 5 years as PM. And this strategy has worked for its intended purpose. Liberal cries that the Conservatives are “too extreme!” are sounding increasingly hysterical as time goes on. 

Mission accomplished.

The weakness of his strategy is that it leaves the Conservatives open to attack on small change scandals like the Bev Oda “not” affair. Why? Because, just as nature abhors a vacuum, the body politic abhors a political vacuum. The Liberals and the NDP are the loyal opposition. Their job is to oppose, so that’s what they do. That means that they have to complain about something. And if the government does very little that is substantively controversial, they will carp about something else.

If Stephen Harper had played it big by adopting an ambitious conservative agenda, none of these scandals would have ever seen the light of day. Instead, Canadian political debate would have been dominated by big topics. The opposition wouldn’t care if Bev Oda had written the word “not” into an agreement or not. They would be expending all their energy trying to stop the forward march of conservatism.

If you don’t believe me, look at Mike Harris. His tenure was remarkably scandal-free. Why? Big issues, that’s why. You were either for his Common Sense Revolution or against it. There was no middle ground and little interest in anything else. Another example: the 1988 federal election when Brian Mulroney chose to make that election a referendum on free trade. As soon as he did that all of the myriad scandals that Mulroney had accumulated receded into obscurity. The result: he won the debate on conservative principles and he was re-elected.

When you play it small, peace and quiet is not the result. That is impossible in Parliament. The result is partisan bickering over the kind of petty scandals that inevitably arise when something as big as the federal government is being governed.

The real worry for the Harper government is that if these scandals are allowed to accumulate over time, there may be a point in time when Stephen Harper looks as corrupt as Jean Chrétien or Brian Mulroney. 

 

Comments

[Paul]

Don't forget, despite what the media and teacher unions say Ontario voters loved Mike Harris. He did win back to back majorities. When he was replaced by an inept(progressive) Ernie Eves Conservative fortunes plummeted. Since then we have been saddled with the usual reliably corrupt Liberal government.

[mikey d]

You neglect to mention that if these same things where happening to the liberals, you would not hear a peep! As in the latest Liberal conviction which is 10 times worse.Also the opposition can lay bogus charges to almost anything in a minority government since they have control over the committees,let's not dwell on the foolish small stuff but let's focus maybe on getting the 40 million back from the sponsorship scandal,and actual convictions.

[The Watcher]

Michael Ignatieff spent his first year as opposition leader trying to generate a scandal of the week and look where that strategy got him.

Now the left leaning liberal media are attempting the same thing.

I find it funny that the Adscam Liberals are the ones complaining about letter head, and signatures, and other non events when they stole MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND GAVE IT BACK TO THEIR OWN PARTY.

Let the Liberals take this issue to the voters and lets resolve it for once and for all.

[Ontario Girl]

The coalition want to create enough noise, and maybe the unwary will be duped -or enough of them anyway.

Canadians want a government that is honest, competent and responsible. They have got that government. And if they are sent to the polls by an opportunistic opposition on a bogus scandal , Canadians will certainly reelect it, hopefully with a majority, so PM Harper can get on with running the country, and be rid of the coalition games for POWER.

[Frank]

Good analysis.

[robinottawa]

Too late! ;-)

[WiseGuy]

Ya gotta admit that so far Harper has stayed decisively on top with this strategy. Short of Iggy spontaneously resigning, there is no chance of the Conservatives losing an election for the foreseeable future.

[bmatkin]

We have not learned the lesson that the Republicans are learning in Wisconsin.
It is that the left cannot sustain itself with internal funding from its adherents.
They must get taxpayer money in dollars and Kind in order to exist. (Kind means liberal media freebees) Aoorn, Trial Lawyers, Unions, GE, Soros and "pay to play" money men make up about 80% of the lefts money. The stingy ideologues don't contribute to anything but themselves.
So, Harper must turn off the tap that feeds the left, slowly, but surely.
Did anyone notice the flak that Harper got when he defunded some Quebec cultural whatever?

[Cincinnatus]

Excellent point. I agree, though I also agree with Machiavelli that unpleasant things should be done all at once.

[bmatkin]

Ahh, Cincinnatus, a follower of Machiavelli, I wondered.
At once with a minority would lead to a defeat.
No, in Canada's case the drip should be slowly until the patient is cured.