What is the hold that Stephen Harper has over the Canadian people and how can it be broken?

As I asked in another thread: If you had to choose three points to try and convince a neighbour not to vote Cons, what would they be?

I am assuming that the neighbour is either uninformed or hostile to minorities and/or social programs if he or she has been voting Cons. So I see the challenge as choosing three issues in that laundry list we all have, issues that may well be reasons for his or her reactionary vote, and developing convincing speaking points to turn the tide as if our lives depended on it. (As if they didn't...) 

I'd say do you want to see federal transfer payments slashed as Harper tries to "slay" the deficit?

Just like the liberals did in the mid 90s?

Do you want massive tax cuts for the corporations?

Will the Liberals roll back or delay massive corporate tax cuts. Nope, not even to deal with the massive deficit the Conservatives have created.

We'd see changes brought foward to the Canada Health Act to try to open the door to privatization.

Would Ignatieff help us stem the steady privatization of our public healthcare system? Nope, Ignatieff believes, “more private delivery could yield needed cost-efficiencies.”

Will the Liberals help us protect worker pensions. Nope, in fact they think protecting worker pensions is “irresponsibility of the highest order.”

So far Rob, all is true about Harper but under Iggy it would also be true. See My Blahg

That's the funny thing about the liberals - they are shape shifters. Harper at least you know where he is at.

[url=http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/moneydir.html]Money to the Ref?[/url] We don't allow it in sports - but in politics it's legal!

Quote:

Please help now to get big money out of Canadian politics.
ALERT - it is still legal to make secret donations of unlimited amounts of money, products and services to all types of provincial and territorial political candidates, and to federal nomination race and party leadership candidates!!

Biggest war chests for propagandizing the public wins elections. It's even worse in the USSA where Americans do not pick presidential candidates - big business, Wall Street, and and handful of superrich and powerful ppl do. It's not real democracy but a dollar democracy. And we accused the Soviets of "backsliding on democracy" Throughout the cold war era it was the old grimey pot and frying pan situation.

Reagan, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, Dubya, Harper etc are all proof that big money interests can prop up any stooge and win elections. This is why we have autocratic government in Ottawa. And the next election will be a stooge-off like all the ones before it.

It's his boyish charm.

In any conflict, one can do okay by just concentrating on eliminating one's own mistakes, and forcing your opposition to beat you.  You can play .500 hockey, or baseball with journeymen players, and you can look like a half decent chess player by doing this.

I think this is what Harper's done.  He's kept a lid on the looney's in his caucus, and whatever has escaped he's managed to use his power to make sure the media runs with it, for the most part, his way.

The fact this is turning out to work over a long period, and may even be a winning strategy instead of, really a deffensive strategy one might use to rebuild forces and fortunes, speaks more to the ineptness of the other players in the game.

Let's see:

You have all of the privately owned media on your side, and a vacillating, frightened, public TV and radio, controlled by conservatives.

You have a budget to print propaganda, unmatched by any of the other parties, and you use it in months long rundowns to election time, and fill the airwaves with similar messages that play on the vears and concerns of your target voter.

You have no inhibitions (moral hesitancy) about your campaign of lies and half truths, knowing that politicians are not expected to play by the Queensbury rules, and you leave it to the opposition to try to spell out eh niceties - discussions that are never seen.

And, finally (with apologies to u) you count on the people you are subjecting to this barrage of propaganda, the Unread, to have no means of countering it with factual knowledge of their world, because they are never exposed to those realities.

If one can find the financial means to counter propaganda with another perspective, one can break "the hold that Stephen Harper has over the Canadian people." The very thought of his ascension to power with a majority is just about enough to cause one to call for strategic voting. Even in a venue like this where political suicide is so easily embraced, and practical politics - the only politics recognized by the Unread - is disdained.

Hi, all. First time poster, long-time intermittent reader.

It's probably safe to say that the level of engagement and self-education on display here is not even close to representative of the Canadian public. Most people don't pay that much attention to politics and have the memory of whatever the opposite of elephants is. Mice?

How many people, for example, would you have to stop in the street before you found someone who knows what the SPP or TILMA are? How many people have ever used the Parliamentary website or howdtheyvote.ca to check the voting record of MPs? How many people knew what proroguing even meant before the media explained it (at which point they became overnight constitutional experts*)?

By and large, people consider things to be working pretty well right up until they're hurting personally. In the past, that's translated into gains for the left in hard times, but the, pardon me being blunt, astonishing laziness of the electorate combined with the corrupt corporate media and the absorption of the US myth of self-reliance (except for the rich, of course) through American cultural products seem to have combined to create a perfect storm of political stupidity and identification with the interests of the ruling class.

Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. These days I reside in Vancouver, but I live in Fear. We're so close to the precipice I can smell the sulphur, but we're still too busy watching hockey (—no offense intended to hockey fans) to do much but complain.

*I mentioned that because it speaks to an arrogance that I see all the time. As you all know, in BC we voted in May on a form of proportional representation and it went down to stunning defeat. What really stung about it for me is the absolute conviction that, of those who bothered to cast a vote, most people who voted against it couldn't tear themselves away from the 'Nucks playoff run to actually understand how it works, but they were confident they knew better than 160 people who spent 11 months studying forms of PR before recommending the STV. (I have no personal axe to grind; I wasn't one of them.)

So, I would say that the biggest hurdle to meet the above challenge would be to generate enough interest/respect for one's neighbours to attempt meaningful contact. Could we be overtrained in advocacy, all rhetoric and too little eye contact?

In a word, megalomania. Before there were pop and rock stars that masses of people swooned for, there were the likes of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Harper is the vengeance of the right wing fascists for the rest of us having ignored them for so many decades. Whether this is accurate or not, they see themselves as the stereotypically ignored silent majority and Harper is their champion and hero. Harper speaks for them and to them.

To look at it allegorically, Harper (like Mussolini and Hitler) made a Faustian bargain with the devil for political power. At first, success is heaped upon success. We all know how things ended for Mussolini and Hitler. When the devil calls his dues - and he will - things end rather badly. When Harper's political career comes to an end, I can't see it ending in a good way. Harper's political strength is based on hate and fear. Eventually that hate and fear will turn against him - quite possibly it will come from his own supporters and political base.

Before things get better, they're going to get worse. A lot worse.

That's the negative, fatalistic explanation.

It's not all gloom and doom, however. Here's a positive and inspiring scenario.

Go to:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Download Bob Altemeyer's book: "The Authoritarians" for free by clicking on Whole Book (PDF version 1.35Mb)

Read the (PDF) book. It explains who authoritarian leaders are - people like Harper. It explains who authoritarian followers are - Harper's supporters. The last chapter (Chapter 7) explains what can be done to change our world for the better.

I hope you greatly learn from it (I did). I hope you are inspired by it (I was). I could write on and on (I won't). For those of you who read it, it will make for some very interesting and inspiring dialogue on this thread.

Well, I'm obviously in the right place. I'm a big fan of Altemeyer and took advantage of that free download some time back. I thought his findings about how religious beliefs and RWA values fit together in a study of Manitoba parents were fascinating.

Frmrsldr, I believe you're right about the vengeance thing. I've spent a lot, OK, far too much, time in the past couple of years scanning comment threads on news sites in the hope of getting some sense of what really motivates Harper's supporters and what has stuck out most is the sense of aggrieved, vindictive superiority. I long ago lost track of the number of “Hahahaha, suck it up Lie-berals!” (or leftard moonbats, or whatever) comments I've seen by now.

Oh, boy, my first lecture and I've just joined. This must be a ge-nu-wine left-wing forum.

Actually, at the very end of his book, which was really an addendum written after 9/11, eleven years after the rest of the book in which he'd already admitted that many of the strategies he used to suggest “will only produce changes in high RWAs in the long run,” and expressed doubt about whether there was a long run, Altemeyer stated quite clearly that he believes “the authoritarian threat has grown unabated, and almost all the protections I saw in 1996, such as a “free and vigilant press,” are being eroded or have already been destroyed.”

He was talking mainly to an American audience, but few here would argue that the same can't be said of Canada. He concluded by saying, “We have to contain authoritarianism lest it destroy us,” and offered the opinion that our only hope was indeed to make common cause, but with “other liberals, other moderates, other conservatives with conscience.”

Literally his last words on the subject, after having offered encouragement that we can do a lot by mounting a vigorous defense of free speech, equality and the principle of democracy itself, are, “But time is running out, fast, and nearly everything is at stake.”

stellersjay wrote:

Actually, at the very end of his book, which was really an addendum written after 9/11, eleven years after the rest of the book in which he'd already admitted that many of the strategies he used to suggest “will only produce changes in high RWAs in the long run,” and expressed doubt about whether there was a long run, Altemeyer stated quite clearly that he believes “the authoritarian threat has grown unabated, and almost all the protections I saw in 1996, such as a “free and vigilant press,” are being eroded or have already been destroyed.”

He was talking mainly to an American audience, but few here would argue that the same can't be said of Canada. He concluded by saying, “We have to contain authoritarianism lest it destroy us,” and offered the opinion that our only hope was indeed to make common cause, but with “other liberals, other moderates, other conservatives with conscience.”

Literally his last words on the subject, after having offered encouragement that we can do a lot by mounting a vigorous defense of free speech, equality and the principle of democracy itself, are, “But time is running out, fast, and nearly everything is at stake.”

It seems the PDF you have might be older than mine. The PDF I have makes references to the 2004 Presidential election and the 2006 Congressional elections. I walked away from it with a more optimistic feeling. Maybe it's because I look at history, and rather than seeing linear progression everywhere, I see a "pendulum swing" - especially in the areas of culture, society and politics. Nothing lasts forever. We may be in a bad epoch, but things will get better. However, I am not a fatalist or determinist. I do believe that good people who are aware of what is going on need to use their intelligence to figure out ways to improve things and then act upon the plans they have conceived to make things not only better for themselves but also for everyone else.

frmrsldr, my PDF is from March, 2007. Regardless of whether Altemeyer had a post-Congressional election hiccup of optimism, I believe his dire warnings are apposite. I certainly haven't seen much in the way of developments here or south of the border that would allay my fears.

I agree completely with you about linear progression and pendulums, though, since I also read history, and I'm convinced that Stein's Law (If something cannot go on forever, it will stop) doesn't just apply to economics. These days what cheers me most is remembering our rotten record of predicting the future.

If you have the heart to attempt moral suasion with the RWA types, I salute you, and I mean that sincerely.

That's the ticking time bomb I suspect all three parties are trying to manouver around, George.

While the bail outs and stimulus packages all across Europe and North America have been very successfull for the wealthy, it hasn't "trickled down" to the under and unemployed.  It wasn't intended to, nor will it.

The good jobs that went in this last economic catastrophe are not coming back.

Why the NDP is not screaming this from the roof tops across the country boggles my mind.       

And, it's this kind of leadership vaccuum that makes the mediocrity of Harper look like political prowess.

The economy is not recovering. What we are seeing is the effects of unsustainable government stimulus spending (where are all our right wing ideologues and conservatives to tell us governments can't create jobs?). The so-called economic recovery is artificial resulting from government largesse employing mostly construction workers. The fundamentals, if you will, remain unsound: unsustainable consumer and government debt; no real preoductive economy; an economy still founded upon consumer spending on goods manufactured off-shore; rising energy costs; increasing inequality; failing residential and commercial real estate markets south of the border which will impact the Canadian economy.

What happens when the EI payments to all those laidoff manufacturing workers finally end? What is the state of the economy when the goverment stimulus runs out? How many Canadians can Tim Hortons reasonably expect to employ?

Prior to the crash the media and the politicians were singing all is well, don't worry. Now they're again singing the same song but not a thing has changed.

That sums it graphically, martin.  But we need to know, in depth, why all the items listed by FM seem to be sluffed off by Steve and the boys:

"The economy is not recovering. What we are seeing is the effects of unsustainable government stimulus spending (where are all our right wing ideologues and conservatives to tell us governments can't create jobs?). The so-called economic recovery is artificial resulting from government largesse employing mostly construction workers. The fundamentals, if you will, remain unsound: unsustainable consumer and government debt; no real preoductive economy; an economy still founded upon consumer spending on goods manufactured off-shore; rising energy costs; increasing inequality; failing residential and commercial real estate markets south of the border which will impact the Canadian economy."

And, of course, it's like Kristol, son of Strauss said, "so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government."

And that is the centerpiece of the book of holy writ for the gang out of the Tar Patch. How power corrupts completely.

But he does stay on, like a bad hangover.  So "What is the hold...."?

And please don't leave the fray, stellarsjay.  You were developing an answer to the thread's question. :

"Hi, all. First time poster, long-time intermittent reader.

It's probably safe to say that the level of engagement and self-education on display here is not even close to representative of the Canadian public. Most people don't pay that much attention to politics and have the memory of whatever the opposite of elephants is. Mice?

"
How many people, for example, would you have to stop in the street before you found someone who knows what the SPP or TILMA are? How many people have ever used the Parliamentary website or howdtheyvote.ca to check the voting record of MPs? How many people knew what proroguing even meant before the media explained it (at which point they became overnight constitutional experts*)?

"
By and large, people consider things to be working pretty well right up until they're hurting personally. In the past, that's translated into gains for the left in hard times, but the, pardon me being blunt, astonishing laziness of the electorate combined with the corrupt corporate media and the absorption of the US myth of self-reliance (except for the rich, of course) through American cultural products seem to have combined to create a perfect storm of political stupidity and identification with the interests of the ruling class.

Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. These days I reside in Vancouver, but I live in Fear.

I think most Canadians are a lot more conservative in nature than many people on this board would expect or desire. Harper plays to that. Rightly or wrongly, Canadians see the Conservatives as an alternative to the corruption which is perceived in a non-ideological Liberal Party, and as an alternative to an ideology which is perceived in a non-corrupt NDP.

The more that some people say that the world is coming to an end because we have a Conservative government, the more most people will tend to vote Conservative. As some people say the Conservatives are fascist, most people will consider this unreasonable and support the Conservatives. Indeed, when you call your political opponent a fascist, you have lost the argument.

The other factor which is very important is the distribution of seats which is biased away from the cities and towards rural areas, which tend to be more reactionary or Conservative if you like. Tactically if the Tories keep their hold on these rural seats, they only have to get a few ridings in small- and medium-sized cities like Kitchener and Brandon and a few more in the suburbs of our largest cities to win.

The only way the Tories can get a majority is if they get ridings in Toronto and Montreal, and the chances of this are just about zero, as the recent provincial by-election in the Toronto riding of St. Paul's amply demonstrated.

Slowly but surely the Tories are replacing the Liberals as the natural party of government, and as a result they will become less ideological. They will wave a few flags like "The Death Penalty" to placate their base, but nothing much will come of that.

The way things are is what was chosen by the voters of this country, and it is the height of arrogance to second-guess that.

I've often seen or heard of Conservatives criticized from within the context of money or class only (as in "why would the majority of Canada -- low or middle class -- vote against their best interests?").  I've seen Conservative supporters criticized as "greed heads" even though, if you look at the numbers, voting Conservative isn't really making that many Conservative voters rich... more like the other way around.

I'm more and more inclined to think it's the "moral" component of Conservatism, not the class or economic component.  If, at some level that's important to you, you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, immigrants aren't really like us, Natives get all the breaks, potheads belong in prison, women's strength is looking after the kids, and our troops should kick some Brown Ass, who else are you going to vote for?  That's not greed, that's just backwardness.

To answer the thread title's first question: Greed first and a desire for security second. Few people like Harper but they think they will personally have more with him in power and that what they have is safer with him in control. They believe he will keep down spending on other people and keep their taxes lower than the Liberals would. They beleive he is less risky than the alternatives.

To answer the second, if you believe what I wrote above then you have to convince people that they are not going to be better off or safer with Harper. Appeals on the environment, social justice etc. will go nowhere. Point out how much we are spending in Afganistan and you might have a hope. The NDP should run an ad saying we are spending X dollars per person on this war. This money could buy Y things that you, ordinary voter, needs.

And, the war in Afganistan is not going to work anyway. Fighting the war on moral grounds is a nonstarter because Con voters are motivated by Greed and fear not morality, not love and inspiration. But fighting the war as bad spending -- together with other spending policies this government has followed-- list the squandered public money is a start and then what we could have done with that money-- in that Afganistan is just a part.

This is the kind of campaign it will take to defeat Harper and it starts by recognizing the motivation of the supporters of his party and what it will take to move them.

The NDP imagines that the motives of the voters it has are the same as those it does not have and that is the first mistake-- you can't assume we used this argument to get us 15% then more of it will get us 30%. This next campaign will be about economic security and greed. Most campaigns are about this when you pull away the rhetoric. The other parties have to show how their proposals are  going to lead to greater security if not prosperity. Sounds simple. It isn't. But this is the issue and at least needs to be in the narrative of any party hoping to win.