Chris Alexander just the latest of Harper's attack dogs

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Chris Alexander became the latest Harper factotum to hit the wall last week. As immigration minister he had to hoist the burden for the Syrian refugee debacle. He'd been a shiny diplomat before entering politics and many, including Syrian-Canadians, felt hopeful when he became minister. Then he went into the Harper sausage machine and emerged just another snarly A-hole. He rubbished journalists (not only the CBC's Rosie Barton) and snottily insisted Canadian citizenship is a privilege granted by Tories, not a right. But as the pressure mounted he crumpled. He wasn't the first to fade.

The parade of Tory attack dogs has been long and luminous. It's how John Baird and Jason Kenney got their Ottawa start, fangs ever-bared. You thought it came naturally to them but as they moved up, they grew less vicious and slid out of the role while others arrived: Joe Oliver, implying environmentalists are terrorists, yet never quite at ease in the part; Julian Fantino, snubbing wounded vets, more comfortably. Dean Del Mastro. Peter Kent, formerly a smooth TV journalist who went straight for the jugular as a minister (he provoked an early, endearing Justin Trudeau obscenity in the House) yet was dumped anyway: did Harper simply not trust the type? Kent was still at it this week, falsely slagging a Syrian "terrorist," then half-heartedly apologizing.

Paul Calandra is an interesting case. He seemed a born potty-mouth. You could picture him during recess in the schoolyard. Then one question period he overreached, yammering irrelevantly about Thomas Mulcair supporting genocide against Israel as if he couldn't shut it off. Next day he was back tearfully apologizing and hasn't been the same meanie since. He still shows up on TV but without the old bile. Maintaining high rabidity levels isn't that easy for most people. (There are exceptions: Pierre Poilievre.) These guys were recruited to play a role and you don't say No to the boss. But what role and why?

(I'm not suggesting, by the way, that other parties are unblemished. The Liberals in the 1980s had their "rat pack," who were aggressive and hostile but not essentially nasty. It's meanness that marks the Harper brand.)

I don't think they're simply an externalization of Stephen Harper's id, though that's a tempting way to go. I think we got a clue when we saw Angrycon early in the campaign. He's the Tory dude who blasted reporters as "lying pieces of s---" who all cheat on their taxes worse than Duffy. (In one of the great moments in campaign annals, a mortified Hannah Thibedeau of CBC bleated, "Why would you say I cheat on my taxes?")

We finally had an actual visual of the Harper base. A face for the base. These are the 25 per cent of voters (not of Canadians) who are the solid core of the Harper vote: resentful, mostly white and mostly male -- I generalize ruthlessly. With them in line, Harper can reach for another 10-15 per cent by appealing narrowly to Ukrainians, Jews, etc. The vast 60-70 per cent majority who'll never vote for him are irrelevant due to our idiotic voting system. But the base needs reassurance in the form of rhetorical red meat. That's what the attack dogs provide.

Harper himself is in an awkward position. We saw it as the refugee issue exploded. National Post columnists and Globe and Mail editorialists agonize over why he won't take the lead in showing compassion, like Merkel in Germany. But this risks enraging the base; they fear terrorists, who are self-evidently Muslims, slipping in.

So Harper, who is heard by a national audience, speaks in code to them; in effect employing two languages at once. He says he won't relent in putting Canadians' security first, code for: we won't let those refugees in because they're jihadists. If reporters asked him why Germany can absorb 800,000 quickly without security angst, you can picture angry cons screaming, like Basil Fawlty: "Germany! Don't you know who we fought in two world wars?" Then Harper adds that he'll prioritize "minorities" and "the most vulnerable," more code for: Christian Arabs, at least they're not Muslims. Base mollified.

I don't think this is just Harper's personal impulse; it's electoral reality. You can please the Globe and Mail and lose your core vote. What profits it then?

This column was first published in the Toronto Star.

Image: Alex Guibord/flickr

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.