Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Low Road Chronicles

Susan Delacourt's offers five steps to effectively dose any and all political fires. In the context of Cotler and "reprehensible" actions on the part of the Conservatives, I suspect Delacourt's theorem will hold, once again nothing in the way of recourse or price to be paid, every week amounts to an almost fresh start, that's just the way politics work now, and have for years. These Conservatives have mastered the art of damage control, their method is deliberate and consistent, and above all MASSIVELY successful.

It truly is remarkable that the Conservatives can be found to have acted in "reprehensible" fashion, and yet there will be NO sanction forthcoming. In the absence of new information, the Cotler story lacks the requisite "legs" to stay on the front burner, so whatever action is quite irrelevant in terms of real world impact. In fact, the precedent here reinforces the idea that political parties can say whatever they desire, with little fear of formidable blow back. As well, overriding this whole discussion, the cynical idea that all parties operate this way, it's the natural order, hardly something to get all "uppity" about, par for the course. With each successive example of "reprehensible" behaviour, we cease to be surprised, outraged, reaction outside of partisan circles becomes a shrug, a passive disposition which only cultivates further indiscretions.

We live in a world with no attention span, political parties have wisely incorporated that reality into their strategies. As well, a certain jaded mature mentality takes the view that we've "seen it all" so it is very hard to truly shock the conduit, as well as their audience. Any partisan outrage is relegated to just that, a almost hypocritical selective memory, issues tend to get lost in this relative haze, objective judgement haphazard and undependable.

Almost everyone does agree that the Conservatives behaved badly in relation to Cotler. But, perhaps the fact that "political" behaviour will result in little consequence is what's really reprehensible, when you apply clarity to jaundiced eyes.


Frunger said...

Why would somebody step down after a "scandal" like this or any of the others in the last number of years?

You can debate the severity of the ethical lapse, but the only truth is that somebody stepping down just makes the public relations issue worse. It extends the story and for those who only read headlines, substantiates the accusations.

This was one of Mulroney's biggest problems. Kicking out cabinet ministers and MPs doesn't make you look accountable and repentant, it makes you look guilty.

Denying works if the infraction seems minor to the general public. So far, the public sees all these Conservative "scandals" as meaningless noise.

Omar said...

The above comment kind of says it all about the supporters of this government, doesn't it? Taking the 'low road' and proud! Sad.

Paul said...

"Trudeau calls Kent a 'piece of sh**' in House of Commons"

Yea...low road. Getten pretty crowded down there.

sharonapple88 said...

Government sets to tone.... ;)

But really, there's a big difference between calling someone a four-letter word and using a company to spread rumours about a sitting MP.

Koby said...

There is important element that you have left out. Namely, half the columnists in Canada are Conservative toadies, all the talk radio personalities are, and the Sun papers are a Conservative version of Pravada.

Koby said...

"Trudeau calls Kent a 'piece of sh**' in House of Commons"

Trudeau was mispook. That is true. He should have called Kent a lying piece of sh**.

Tof KW said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tof KW said...

Why pick on Kent when the entire Harper government is a lying pile of sh**?