Despite the constant whining from conservatives about the "liberal media", a close inspection of the last election reveals a media relegated to offering up Conservative talking points, with little critical backlash. Pictures of Harper beside an automobile with the GST logo behind him made for powerful imagery. Sure, the talking heads could debate the merits of the plan, but the overriding theme sent to voters was clear and largely unchallenged. In essence, Harper demonstrated that a clear policy offered by a messenger always on message is a mighty force that uses media as facilitator. In contrast, the Liberals lacked a clear direction, which allowed for "wandering" by an always restless media. Harper manipulated the media, and I doubt they were even aware of their benign posture.
Fast forward to today, with the largely anti-climatic throne speech. Harper's obsession with his five priorities has effectively framed the debate on terms he has chosen. Crafted to illustrate a decisive, focused government who will keep its promises, the media will simply ape the rhetoric, with some tertiary discussion that the general public will largely ignore. This fact suggests that Harper is right to demand message control over his ministers and staff, in effect leaving nothing for chance with the unknown. The Conservatives are so bold as to openly speak of a perpetual election campaign, with all the policies targeted towards the goal of a majority. Governing is seen as simply a tool to present a palatable image for future fights.
The only flaw in the Harper approach is the simplistic arrogance that assumes that they have complete control. The opposition will have its own propaganda campaign to derail the tight message and this will provide cover for a critical media. There is also the inevitability of "surprises". There will be issues that arise, outside of Harper's agenda, that will force the Conservatives outside of their pre-determined comfort zone and allow for forceful counter. This instance is where the scorned media can be pro-active and set its own agenda, rather than report on what the government wishes to divulge. Harper's reaction to the ethics probe serves as one example of how an unforeseen event can rattle the monolith. I hope we see a lot of unforeseen events, otherwise this government may well manipulate the agenda to such a degree that a future majority is a definite possibility.
7 comments:
Mr. Harper's strategy presents both dangers and opportunities to the Liberals.
The leadership contest represents both a danger and an opportunity. The media will be looking for content so it will take on a greater importance for them.
If the Liberal race is one of debate about competing visions and policies then the Liberals will have an opportunity to redefine themselves to Canadians.
If it degenerates into a contest about individuals then the media rehash the theme of a Liberal civil war and infer that the faces might have changed but it is still the same old story.
The other opportunity for the Liberals is they can generate some of those surprises that you talk about. A government this tightly wound is ripe for being knocked off balance and the sitting of the House gives the Liberals that opportunity.
I just hope that the people in the House and on the campaign trail realize both the opportunities and the dangers.
ottlib
I agree, the Liberal leadership is the wildcard. If the race is substantive it affords the party a rare opportunity to articulate its vision to a receptive media. The high drama of a convention can help re-define the party and take the initiative away from Harper.
Steve:
Very well reasoned post. I find no fault with it nor your weighing of the realities of the media environment and how the CPC strategy, which on the surface appears self-destructive may in reality prove to be quite the opposite. Indeed, it is my fear that this could end up becoming the case that has me keeping that aspect of the Harper government front and center in my focus, both in research and in blogging about it I expect. It was watching the transformation of the American media from a genuinely independent institution into becoming total lapdogs to those in power that convinced me that this is something that is too able to become reality for my comfort.
The reason I believe in the need for a strong independent free press is because it is the single biggest tool the voter has to impact the actions of a government between elections. It is the role of that free press to be skeptical of the claims of those in power regardless of their political affiliations. Without that critical perspective to view governments with the press is far too easily turned into a propaganda arm of that government, again political affiliations do not matter here but the lack of a properly distrustful and critical mindset where those with a clear self interest in providing things in the best possible light are concerned. If there is one thing any government in a democracy wants to be able to do is get the most positive coverage of their issues and concerns that they can, it is only natural. It is also why the necessity of a press able and willing to ask tough questions of the elected officials is vital to the transparency of a government.
This is where the core of my strong concerns about the Harper government approach to media control comes from. If a Liberal PM in the same situation was doing the same thing I would be troubled by it, I do not trust those with power without skepticism period, to my way of thinking this is an important POV for a responsible voting citizen to take regardless of political affiliation. Martin got the slack he did from me because of his actual track record (as opposed to all the rhetoric and smear jobs from his political enemies, including Chretien Liberals as well as the CPC and the NDP) for competence, and the recognition that he got to start his very first day in the PM chair dealing with a Chretien created scandal held back by Chretien so that it would be the first thing Martin got to deal with as PM. In other words it was a knife in the back pure and simple. So he never had any honeymoon nor did he have any chance to establish his own stamp/presence as a PM, which helped create the "dithers" perception, although his operating method of looking at things from all sides before deciding certainly contributed as well.
Harper though convinced me with the Grewal affair that he was far more duplicitous than I ever thought he was. You see before then I thought he was an honest ideologue, someone I disagreed with but actually believed in what he said. That he was himself an honest man that would not brook deception in his name beyond standard political rhetoric exaggeration. The fraud that occurred with those tapes and Harper's actions to prevent Canadians from ever finding out who was behind that fraud that put Harper and the CPC in the reality of committing slander about a sitting PM to the entire Canadian public changed that for me.
Then on his first day we find out he approached Emerson with a Cabinet "enticement" to increase his minority position so that with the NDP he could pass things, which Emerson accepted despite having no conflicts of principle or policy with his original party and leader. That though pales by comparison to the doubly corrupt act of appointing his campaign chair in Quebec for both the last election and his leadership race to the Senate and then to Public Works, aka patronage and pork central. Just the place for his Quebec political lieutenant to be able to reward Conservative supporters in Quebec with government contracts to help increase the popularity and support for the CPC in Quebec so as to get that majority with Quebec in the next election. Having this person unable to be questioned by the other elected officials of the government gives him valuable protection from having this come out too soon before he is able to rebuild these networks. After all Harper has been explicit in making it clear that this is a permanent election campaign AND that he believes the best chance for the CPC to get majority requires increased wins in Quebec.
When I take these actions in combination with his actions to silence media coverage that could be unfavourable for his government its image and his own image. I see a government deliberately trying to run this country like a private business where they and only they get to determine what is proper to cover and consider important issues to Canadians and what is not. I see a man pretending to be Mr. Clean and Integrity sitting as PM whose actions show him willing to embrace the traditional corrupt practices used by governments to increase support for their parties in Quebec (something of an age old thing in Canadian federal politics) while at the same time doing everything possible to limit the ability of the press to find these things out and report on them. This is a very dangerous combination to the health of our democratic structure, especially when cloaked in the appearance of virtue, which has been the CPC style for well since its birth.
The problem though is the actions do not match the rhetoric in tone or substance. When the Liberals did things it was considered corrupt yet when the CPC does them they then cite those same precedents they were just some months back routinely demonizing as corrupt and unacceptable. Harper and the CPC want to be judged by comparison to prior Liberal governments, yet they were elected to the narrow minority they got on the promise of cleaning government up because of those corrupt Liberal precedents and actions. The CPC has to realize that they are rightly being held to the standard that they themselves laid down in the election and in all their criticisms of the Liberals since their inception. They created the high expectations on transparency, integrity, morality, and honesty with their running a two year long morals campaign at every turn against the Liberal government they replaced. They have to either realize this for themselves otherwise it is up to Canadians to teach them this lesson, and that includes us poor wee bloggers out here, especially those like myself that are not affiliated with any political party nor aggregator community.
Voices like mine may not command the same degree of notice, but they still have the same legitimacy as any other voting citizen of this county. What this government is willing to do with this weak a minority gives me cause for great concern for the damage they could do to this country if they got even one majority with this leader and direction of the CPC. Thank you for being one of those keeping a close eye on them, and for recognizing the very real danger they represent to the country. I grew up respecting conservatives as well as liberals, but the conservatives I grew up with would not recognize the current incarnation of conservatives in this country at all. If anything I think they would see it as republicanism and not something welcome in their Canada, and especially not welcome being done in the name of conservatism.
scotian
You summed it up quite nicely! I saw an interview with Harper and Duffy tonight, wherein Harper AGAIN openly admitted his philosophy, or motives as the case may be. Paraphrasing- "the issues addressed in the throne speech were ones we felt would EXPAND our appeal". This admission was said directly after Duffy asked about the constitution. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that this government has no overriding soul, apart from the basic instinct of survival.
Steve:
so far the only overarching vision this government has put out there is the vision of a majority government in the next election. While that is fair enough for them to desire and to want to work towards it is not the only responsibility they have right now. Their first responsibility is to run the country and the government and handle all the issues currently in play with government whether they are one of the five priorities or not. Yet it appears that the only aim for running the country now is to get that majority, what the vision for that majority to be doing is as opaque as anything else this government really stands for.
The CPC and Harper used to talk about how rudderless and directionless the Martin Liberals were, and with some degree of reasonable cause. However the idea that strong direction even when it is in the wrong direction is preferable by the public is an assumption I am not sure carries as much truth to it in the Canadian context as it clearly does in the American context. We shall see I suppose.
It is troublesome though to have a government with no stated overall vision or framework within which its policies and principles are embedded and interconnected to. That to my mind is not a good thing to be seeing from any government and especially in the case of this one IMHO. It leaves open the ability to massively reverse themselves from the kind and gentle moderates they are currently trying to be perceived as so that they can get the majority government they must have to implement without any compromise or obstruction to their actual vision. After all we know they must have one unless we are willing to say the CPC has no vision nor goal other than power for its own sake in which case they are inherently unsuited for power and are indeed dangerous to hold power. So which is it, the vision does not exist and therefore the CPC is nothing but power mongers or is it being hidden from view for some unknown reason.
I mean really, does anyone really thing there is no overall defining vision for Conservatives where their party and a government that they run is concerned? I don't. While I may think individual Conservatives may be nothing more than power lusters I do not believe that to be true of Harper nor others within his senior leadership. So since they would appear to have a vision why do they not share it with Canadians with their Throne Speech? Could it be because that vision isn't one they think will resonate with Canadians since it didn't in 2004? Could it be that the five priorities for the most part are not actually consistent with that vision but are too useful for political gains to not go with so the vision must be kept hidden/unstated? I do not really know, I just know that I do not trust those that are not willing to be honest with their visions when they are the ones holding the reigns of power.
Either way though I do not see this as a positive development for Canada overall, at least not the socially progressive one we have today. I also worry for what transformations of foreign policy may await us and how radical a divergence they may be from our own historical/traditional positions. Without the vision it is hard to have much idea of where the government is interested in going until it tells us (when it does even that given the current restrictions Harper put into place) nor how far they plan on taking things.
I thank you for your positive evaluation of my prior post, I can't say I am surprised to hear Harper said the same on Duffy earlier this evening, it is not like he has been keeping his Quebec majority goal and the permanent election campaign perspective a secret. This is why I am so concerned by the Fortier appointment and why the day it was made I saw it as the most egregious thing Harper had done, far worse than the Emerson matter even though that is the one that has gotten all the notice to date. I really believe that Fortier is where he is to reestablish the old PCPC political network within Quebec via use of government contracts, same as has been done for many decades in this country by both parties.
Having him in the Senate keeps any elected MPS from questioning him and gives Harper the defence that since Senators are unelected they do not have the same moral authority to question Fortier in the Senate and expect answers. This way all they have to worry about is the Auditor General calling them out and if they are careful they can keep that to late next year at the earliest and by then I suspect the next election will already have started/ended and Harper would be expecting the majority and then it doesn't matter what the AG says, the CPC and Harper have four years to let it be forgotten until the next election. Again, while I do not know this is Harper's plan it certainly would be a possibility given his actions and "explanations"/defences of them to date.
This is not the government that it claimed it would be in the election nor when it was the Official Opposition. Even the Accountability Act has been significantly weakened with the access to information elements being removed and sent to committee for further study according to Canadian Press and in Maclean's online. I just finished a blog entry on it if you are interested in reading it for yourself, the addy is in the title.
Well, thanks again for your kind words about these missives I keep leaving at your blog.
scotian
I don't mean to suggest that the other parties don't play games with their agendas to curry favor. The Liberals are notorious for "election year" budgets that are clearly targeted to get votes. However, I think the difference is a question of degree. The Conservatives have made re-election the cornerstone of their agenda, with every measure considered from this perspective.
I read your post on "transparency" at your blog. Well said, this government has done a complete 180 in record time. Not only is it not transparent, it may well be the most secretive in history.
Steve:
I did not mean to sound like I was implying you specifically did not think other parties had their own agendas that they will play political games with. I suppose that part was more being aimed at Conservative supporters that read your comments than anything else. I just do not buy the idea that the CPC has no overall vision of what it wants to do, where it wants to go, and why it wants to get there, yet going by the Throne Speech and everything said by Harper since the election we the public still have no better idea what it is than before he was elected to power.
So I posed the question for any Conservative supporters here to answer, which is it? Do they not have any vision and therefore are power sluts only or is there a vision that is not being shared with the general public and if so why not? That any political party in power acting this way is acting in a less than trustworthy manner and raises further suspicion of the "hidden agenda"(tm).
Thanks for your read through of my access denied posting. I really think we are seeing something quite different now than the more typical attempt by a new government to control the message of the new government until they get their feet on the ground. Combined with the prior commentary by Harper of the vision that used to drive him for 15 years straight I am more than a little suspicious of this government's lack of such statement, especially in the Throne Speech where it would have been most appropriate.
Post a Comment