My pessimism about the January 23rd election in Canada is on record, and I’m not yet ready to recede from it. Nonetheless, the polls look promising: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have a double digit lead and are hovering around the 40 percent mark that makes a Parliamentary majority a genuine possibility. Judging by the instant surveys, not to mention Captain Ed’s reaction, last night’s debate only helped. A new round of rather hysterical attack ads hints that the incumbents know that they are sliding fast down a greasy slope.
If my gloomy expectations are falsified by events, it will only be realistic to give a major share of the credit the Gomery Report and its revelations of pervasive Liberal corruption. Paul Martin hoped to counter with two familiar tactics: denouncing the United States and insinuating that the Conservatives have a hidden far-right-wing agenda that they are just waiting to spring on Canada with the cynical assistance of the Bloc Québecois. Last time around, those themes worked magically in the final two weeks of the campaign. This time they are undermined, first, by Mr. Harper’s failure to say anything very scary (or very conservative, for that matter) and, second, by growing public realization that the Liberals are very economical with the truth; if they lied about the sponsorship scandal, voters may suspect they also lie about what a Harper government will do. Perhaps the drummed-in fear of “scary Harper” will fade just enough to give the Tories a chance.
But I’m not yet ready to bet a lot on it.
Update (1/11/06): David Warren is, and he offers a similar take on why the time-tested Liberal strategy isn’t working this time:
I really thought the Liberals were going to pull it out of the fire again. I thought the Conservatives would play into their hands as usual, that the electorate -- well, the Ontario electorate -- would again fall for a “bwahaha”. Pinch me. I do believe the Grits have finally done themselves in. And that their increasingly wild scare campaign is going to backfire, even on NDP voters. If Stephen Harper can avoid rising to any Grit bait in the next 12 days, and maybe suppress that silly smile, we, Canadians, are going to have the most pleasure we have had from an election since 1993.
The result appeared to be clinched in Monday’s English-language debate, as Paul Martin began to unravel in front of people’s eyes. No amount of media cover can save him now.
One of my woman friends explains. If you thought Mildred down the street was a dishrag, then Ethel tells you she is “really scary”, you give Mildred a closer look. And when, after looking, you become the more convinced that she is a dishrag, it’s not Mildred’s sanity you question. It’s Ethel you start wondering about.
The Liberal propensity to clutch onto power by claiming their opposition is “really scary” has worked for them through many elections. Has worked so well, that they thought it would work forever. But the opposition made it work, by panicking whenever charged, and frequently changing its leader. This is what dishrags often do.
Truth to tell, the Conservative Party and its predecessors have never been scary. Not even Diefenbaker was scary; not even Meighen. And especially not that puppydog, Stockwell Day. None would ever have dreamed of paddling seriously out of the mainstream. We have a long history of wet cloth, on that side of the House.
But to return to our present Mildred, I mean Mr Harper. He has run twice. We’ve had a chance for a good look. And no, he is not scary. There is no grand principle of conservatism that he is prepared to defend. He’ll even shy away from policies that routinely get U.S. Republicans elected. He is a dishrag. (Well, an honest and fairly intelligent dishrag.)
Whereas Ethel, I mean Mr Martin, is beginning to put the willies in us. The prospect of losing power is sending him over the edge.
Comments