Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

BTC: Ken Dryden is not amused

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, September 21, 2008 5:34pm - 92 Comments

Been awhile since we’ve checked in with Ken Dryden. And, admit it, you’ve missed his irony-free, dauntingly earnest, but probably necessary, ranting against the current state of Canadian politics. 

Completely unsolicited, a copy of a speech he delivered today has been passed along. Here it is for your review. The shouty bits appear to be in caps. Imagine Ken trembling as you read.

We’re now about a third of the way through this election campaign.  What’s been happening up until now?  Where does it all seem to be going?

Stephane Dion has been talking about our economy – our economy now and in a very changing world; about the environment; about poverty, what it does to people, to kids, and the need to engage that fight now.

But really, up to this point, Mr. Harper has controlled the message of this election.  Yet, this message has often been odd and surprising. 

Like their slogan: “We’re better off with Harper.”  This is their slogan; their ad – “We’re better off – with Harper” – like saying “taking everything into consideration, despite all this or that, on the whole, really, probably we’d have to say, (“we’re better off with Harper”).  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.  Nothing energizing about it, nothing exciting.  Nothing that makes you want to wake up in the morning and race into the possibilities of your day.  Yet this is their message.  Even in their dreams they can’t quite express anything stirring, anything big.  Is this what being a Prime Minister is about?  What Canada is about?

Then there’s the blue vest, the “Mr. Nice Guy” ads.  Ad firms are paid millions to tell the story their client wants told.  It’s much easier for them when it’s a new “product” or a new “person” launch.  When the information they provide is the only information – when the public knows nothing else.  The problem for Mr. Harper is that the public does know something else.  They’ve been watching him for 2 ½ years and Stephen Harper, they know, may be lots of things, but he’s not a “nice guy.”  He’s not.
 
Nice guys don’t cut literacy programs. Nice guys don’t cut funding to women’s groups, aboriginal groups, health and childcare and poverty and disability groups.  Toying with them month after month, teasing them with silence and desperate hope.  If, they say to themselves, if I don’t say anything, if I just go quiet, maybe I might get something.  Please.  Then crumbs, or nothing.

Nice guys don’t decide there’s only one voice in this country that matters.  Not these voices of our communities.  Not those of his own Cabinet or Caucus.  Not voices in the arts who get their programs cut because they say things that might make us squirm.  Not any voice competent and professional who disagrees – Linda Keen, Adrian Measner, Jean-Guy Fleury – who then feel the pulverizing weight of a Government machine come down on them just so they know: you don’t mess with “the vest”. 

Arts groups, literacy and poverty and childcare groups – it’s the same story. Nice guys don’t make the weak weaker and the vulnerable more vulnerable.  

Nice guys don’t act like there are Canadians and not-quite Canadians.  Those who fit Mr. Harper’s understanding of how life is supposed to be lived, and those, Canadians too – single mothers, addicts, gays and lesbians – who don’t.

And nice guys don’t take someone else’s person, as he did Monsieur Dion, they don’t take their personality, their character, their life, what they’ve worked hard to build, what is decent and substantial and good.  What they’ve earned.  They don’t take that, twist it, stretch it, caricature and distort it.  They don’t buy air time and in front of millions of people, assassinate it.  And pretend, ahh, that’s just politics.

Oh, and the puffin and the poop – oops, sorry.  Didn’t mean it.  Just like I don’t mean all the other just-as-new ads on the Conservatives’ website, that reach tens of thousands just like the Mr. Nice Guy ads on TV, that are just as abusive as the others in the pre-Mr. Nice Guy time.

If it quacks like a duck, put a blue vest on it, it’s still a duck.

But who says you need a “nice guy” to be a Prime Minister?  It’s a tough, often disagreeable job.  As they say about war – with the enemy all around, who do you want in that foxhole next to you.  In politics, in sports and business, some not-so-nice guys are good leaders and win, and some nice guys are good leaders and win too.  And some nice guys and not-so-nice guys fail.  Being a good leader isn’t about that.  It’s something more.

From these first 13 days, it is clear that Mr. Harper has decided this election is about him. He’s saying to Canadians: I’m a leader.  I know what I want – I’m decisive – I deliver.  And that, he says, is leadership.  And in uncertain economic and global times, he says, Canadians need that and want that.  But what Mr. Harper confuses is the posture of leadership, and the substance of leadership.  Leadership is .  .  . leading – getting others to follow.  But critically, fundamentally, leadership is direction.  It is going  .  .  . somewhere.  The question is “where”?  Leadership matters because the “where” matters, and it’s the job of a Prime Minister to know better than anyone else what the best “where” is.  For the country.  For your life and my life.  That’s real leadership.

As a golfer, I can hit the ball a long way.  The problem is I can’t hit it in the right direction.  And a ball hit – decisively, competently – in the wrong direction is a ball that goes further and further and further into the woods.  History is filled with leaders who have competently, decisively gone in the wrong direction with disastrous results.

Where is Mr. Harper’s “where”?

He doesn’t seem to want to talk about that.  In making this election all about him, he is doing his best to make this election about nothing.  It’s his “Seinfeld campaign.”  But in 2008, how can that be?  This is a time when the cost of carbon economically and environmentally is forcing the world’s countries to re-imagine the future.  To reward the constructive and punish the destructive.  To act.  To change.  To create the hard-won possibilities to compete in the economy ahead.

It’s a time when the gap between rich and poor is growing.  When too many Canadians live the way no Canadians should have to live.  When too many don’t have a real chance at a real future. 

It’s a time when our children need more and better opportunities to learn – when they’re young and need a good start; later in college and university.  A time when aboriginal peoples finally and forever need the chance of a full Canadian life. 

It’s a time when, as Canadians, we need to think about ourselves differently. We are 33 million people – one of the world’s largest economies; one of the world’s richest nations; with a land mass so big and abundant amidst a world of countries that have neither.  We are safe, secure and stable; we can count on tomorrow, plan for tomorrow, imagine and build tomorrow, when just about everyone else cannot.  With our French and English past, with our present where people from almost everywhere live within our borders – we are a country which has learned to live with difference, accept difference, learn from difference; live the global world of the future, when to much of the rest of the world difference still means guns and blood. 

Countries come and go, prominent at one time, pushed to the sidelines in another.  History is a long time.  And undeniably, whatever Canada has been in the past we will be far more in the future.  The world knows that.  We need to know that too.  And our leaders need to know that, and embody it and act that way in everything they do.

There is more to us, more to Canada, than tax breaks as the answer for everything.  More to Canada than life as pieces and parts – East; West.  Quebec; the Rest of Canada – firewalls everywhere.  More to us than Mr. Harper’s small, pinched vision of ourselves and our future.

“Better off with Harper”? 

NO.

We are more than this.

This election is about something.

Stephane Dion may get a lot of criticism, but he is trying to make this campaign about something.  Mr. Harper is not.

Leadership, real leadership, is first of all, most of all, knowing what’s important – then focusing on it, sharing it with others, then determinedly, relentlessly, together, getting there.

I don’t believe in “hidden agendas.”  I find arguments like that just too easy.  I just want to know where Mr. Harper’s going.  Tell me.  Tell us.  What is your vision of this country?  How should it work?  What should it be?  What is the best “US” now and for the future?  How does Canada become what Canada can be?  Tell us.  We need to know.  Tell us how, person to person, we, as Canadians, should relate to each other?  What we can expect of others, and what others can expect of us?  Tell us what role government should play, and shouldn’t?  Tell us about families, in busy, complicated real, not fanciful lives, how as parents we give ourselves and our kids a real chance at all that’s in us to be. Families are not just card games with kids – tell us.  We need to know. 

And once you’ve told us that, tell us why you’re not saying to Canadians that to realize this vision, one you believe so important to our present and future, so unbelievably exciting to you and to all of us, that you need us, all of us, that you need a majority to do it? Say it, say it, why wouldn’t you?  Shout it from the rooftops -   – after you’ve told us your vision of the country, and for the country.  After you’ve decided this campaign is not about nothing.

Mr. Harper wants this campaign to be about nothing because on all those things the campaign needs to be about, he has nothing to offer.

This campaign is NOT about Mr. Harper.  It is NOT about him.  It is about our present and future economy, about climate change, poverty and learning.  It is about all Canadians having a real chance.  It’s about encouraging, allowing, seeking out voices different from our own, that make us smarter; that bring us to our best and keep us from our worst.  It’s about our understanding of ourselves as a country, about the importance of Canada in the world of our future.  This is a campaign about BIG, IMPORTANT things.

In an election about nothing, Mr. Harper will win.  In an election about something, we will win.  We have 23 days.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HIM.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT NOTHING.

Bookmark and Share
  • Sisyphus

    Yes. A very good writer of non-fiction.
    I particularly enjoyed “The Moved and the Shaken”.

  • madeyoulook

    LKO, you have an interesting observation about the ideological distribution of those who voted against the governing party. Please note, however, that there is a substantial portion of Tory voters who would love to actually pull them into real honest-to-goodness conservatism. It’s not like nobody’s “pulling” them to the right.

    Of course, I can hear the lying liar Beary now: you see? Even his own voters don’t really support him, so he’s getting even less than 38%, so he’s even more anti-democratic for presuming to govern with such a flimsy vote. Since realism has no place in a debate with such a position, I will just leave it at that.

  • Pat G.

    I agree that this is a great speech for the insight shown into Harper’s narrow agenda and simplistic understanding of how a diverse society can be brought together to form a mutually-beneficial, more harmonious country.

    Mr. Harper is from the Leo Straussian philosophy, infused into his disciples by Tom Flanagan of the notorious ‘Calgary School’.

    Tom Flanagan has shown his great pleasure with the success of the Harper government. He even crowed that Harper and Flaherty had emptied the coffers of government so completely that it would make it impossible for any future government to bring in social programs. He does not believe, as neo-cons pretend, that Canadians know best how to spend their money because neo-cons are not willing to let the majority influence how the money should be spent.

    The opposition parties represent the majority of the Canadian population. They all believe that government is best-positioned to do for us what we, as individuals, cannot do for ourselves. What person, in today’s enlightened world, would believe that private enterprise has all the answers? We have seen huge corruption in the private sector — more than we have ever seen in a democratic government where we can vote out the incompetents.

    I could go on about Harper’s and Flaherty’s incompetence in handling the finances of this country such as Flaherty’s mistake in allowing 40/0 mortgages, which, if he had a clue about what was around the corner, he should never allowed. At least this hand to the greedy was brought to an end. And the loss to Canadian government of immense tax income from BCE when they decided to tax income trusts — they didn’t even see this coming! Or did they? There is the matter of the blacked-out pages.

    Too much to ruminate about here but people should be watching more closely and not just Harper’s expensive attack ads against Dion.

  • KRB

    Spit it out, Ken!

    That was a fairly long speech. That must’ve easily taken an hour for him to deliver.

    Or perhaps he’s still going …. (check against delivery) …

  • http://kitchenersown.blogspot.com/ Lord Kitchener’s Own

    madeyoulook,

    Good point on the fact that many in the CPC are pulling the Tories to the right (or trying to). Certainly many in Canada decry the lack of “true” conservatism from the current batch of Tories (I’ve always said that I think the Harper minority has been WAY more “liberal” than a Paul Martin minority would have been, for a number of complicated reasons). However, all of those people pressuring for a move to the right today are in the CPC’s hypothetical 40% right? There’s no “outside” pressure on the Tories to move right. All of the external pressure on the Tories to move on the ideological scale is pressure to move left (well, not ALL but you’ll allow me some simplification for the sake of argument).

    My comparison between Harper and Chretien was more about where the REST of the country (the 60% not already behind the PM and his government) wants the government to move. I’d maintain that in Chretien’s case, in simplified terms, roughly half of that 60% wanted to go left, and roughly half wanted to go right (actually, under Chretien maybe a bit more right than left, but you get the point).

    Again, none of which is meant to question the legitimacy of a hypothetical Tory majority with 40% of the pop. vote, I’m just interested by the more compelling nature of the (relative) unity of the opposition in such a scenario. I liken it to the PM driving us along in our collective car, and he gets to drive because his 40% of the electorate gives him a majority in the car (the House). Now, under Chretien, when the car came to a fork in the road, roughly 30% of the passengers said we should turn right, and roughly 30% said we should turn left, and Chretien’s 40% broke the tie by making the decision with their majority power. In a Tory majority, when Harper gets to the fork, one could argue that 60% of the passengers want to go left, and Harper’s 40% majority can (whether or not they WOULD is another question) simply make the decision (and overrule them). Again, that’s no less legitimate systematically, but it’s a heck of a lot more complicated. It’s one thing to run the country and constantly be at direct odds with 30-40% of the people. It’s another thing entirely to run the country and constantly be at direct odds with 50-60% of the people.

  • T. Thwim

    LKO: I try not to look at it in terms of right and left, but in terms of choices.

    NDP would of course prefer they win, but if they don’t, then the Liberals are tolerable, and vice versa. However, both of them tend to agree that Harper’s Conservative Party is not tolerable, and this is the difference.

    Does that delegitimize the 40% plurality-majority government? I tend to think that in some respects it really does.

  • Mike T.

    I quite like the bus analogy. But I think roughly 20% of the passengers were just saying “let’s go to Quebec!”

  • http://www.FairVote.Ca Wayne Smith

    Liberal or Conservative, 40% is not a majority. Why should one political party get all the power when most people voted against them? Monopolies are bad in business; why would we think they are they good in government?

    What to do about it? Check out this website:

    http://www.OrphanVoters.ca

  • Ryan

    “He does not believe, as neo-cons pretend, that Canadians know best how to spend their money because neo-cons are not willing to let the majority influence how the money should be spent.”

    That’s because we don’t believe Canadians know best how to spend other people’s money.

  • T. Thwim

    Which is because you’re either hypocritical or not thinking things through.

    If you believe all things should be privately funded, then you believe that the military should be voluntarily funded. That only people who can afford to send their kids to primary school should have the opportunity to do so, and the rest can become uneducated migrant workers. That there should be no saftey standards on products, nor requirements for labelling. No emission or pollution controls, no nationally operating police force to catch criminals who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You believe that funding for infrastructure, like, say this internet thingy you’re using right now, should not be built or regulated by the public, meaning our farmers and rural dwellers would essentially be without telelphones right now. You believe that a national mail service should not exist (couriers don’t go everywhere, even at their exorbitant rates, because some places just don’t get enough mail for them to bother with)

    You essentially believe that all progress in Canada should be slowed by a factor of 10 or more since there would be virtually no ability for a national government to leverage economies of scale.

    As a friend of mine used to joke “Categorical statements are never correct.”

  • M JH

    Liberal party values are NOT my values or the values of many Canadians. The Liberals are so arrogant that they think those who don’t agree with them are evil. Ken Dryden is an academic preacher and a wooz. You get too much of him after 50 words. GO AWAY.

  • sf

    Funny how the left wants to whine about 40% majority governments now, in the middle of an election campaign.
    You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
    It’s just sour grapes. I dislike sore losers.

    Lord Kitchener: the middle way is not always the best way. Perhaps veering to the right is the right way to go. And there are a heck of a lot of issues that don’t slot nicely into the left-right spectrum. Most people don’t even know what left vs right means.
    And finally, you characterization the the Libs are in the center just because there are two or three parties to the left is bunk.
    If the NDP/Greens/Bloc were eliminated then the Conservatives would get over 50% of the vote.

    How do I know? Do the math on the voter retention poll from ekos Sept 17. http://www.ekoselection.com/index.php/2008/09/retention-rates-%e2%80%93-a-deeper-analysis/

    The Conservatives have received over 1/2 of the votes departing the greens (which would give them an extra 5% if the Greens disappeared), 1/3 of the votes departing the BQ (which would give them 3%) and 20% of the votes leaving the NDP, which would give them another 5%.
    The conservatives are polling at 38%, and the grand total is 51%. So you can conclude that with the polls the way they are now, if the BQ/NDP/Greens disappeared then the Cons would get a majority.

  • Austin So

    You get too much of him after 50 words. GO AWAY.

    if the BQ/NDP/Greens disappeared then the Cons would get a majority.

    ???

    Need to keep it simple folks, otherwise these guys have a hard time unnerstandin’..

    Austin

  • Cascadian

    After reading that pitiful, arrogant long winded self serving bit of trash- I can only wish that Mr. Dryden had stayed in Hockey and stayed out of politics.

    It was just more self serving crap from a privileged member of what it’s members believe is the Natural Ruling Party- and a reminder to the rest of us of why they no longer are (and may never be again).

    Mr. Dryden does not seem to get it- Canadians have finally seen the emperor and that he has no clothes. As usual the NRP is morally bankrupt. In fact they are totally bankrupt- and they want ours- all of it. And they want to re-make Canada according to their fantasies.

    Well, Mr. Dion can take his massive tax grab and his social shift and shove it. Does he believe that our country can survive another carpet bagging Liberal Prime Minister robbing from the West to feed the East?? Well sure he does- it’s always worked before.

    Not this time. As a wise man once said, “Fool me once- shame on you…. Fool me twice-shame on me!!”

  • Wayne

    Hey Cascadian : your handle (username) is it from the movement years ago? I seem to recall that there were a bunch of Oregonians, Washingtonians , a few Californians and some of us up here in BC and Alberta that were talking separation and the name of the new country would be Cascadia … is this the foundation for the name?

  • Cascadian

    Hi Wayne- no foundation, just personal inclination, But I’m willing to start small- say BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan, perhaps smaller than that even- every movement has to start somewhere.

    Liberal Prime Ministers drove me to it- Trudeau, Chretien and now this Dion wannabe. I’m tired of feeding the monster- and then getting my hand bitten off in return.

  • jp

    The Canada Ken is talking about is the moderate balanced Canada I have known for the past 30 years. I am so confused why Canadians are losing their train of thought. Socialism does not work it bankrupts the system, and the American dream leaves the majority behind. Moderation is the key to everything else in life, why would that not apply to our daily Canadian life? Thanks Mr. Dryden, and Conservatives think about more than yourselves.

  • J.Friesen

    The Liberals should take some Dryden’s comments and craft ads with them. This is what people are saying at Tim Horton’s and Starbucks, in offices and factories. No one trusts Harper (except his greedy or mean-spirited base). Fight back stronger and louder. Doesn’t mean be mean – just honest. Honesty will bring down Harper – because he is incapable of it himself.

  • Cascadian

    Well it seems to me that when average Canadians read stuff like Ken’s drivel or Dion’s elitest blather it is they who are not amused!!

    Most of work hard for our living and it’s hard to sit back and watch our country and society go to hell in hand basket like it has for most of the past 30 or 40 years.

  • Cascadian

    “The Liberals should take some Dryden’s comments and craft ads with them.”

    Great idea- in fact pair them up- Pompous Ken and Sill Stefan- the Liberals would really be in free fall then. Yes!

  • Austin So

    Well Cascadian, I for one would like to understand what you think has happened in Canada over the past 30-40 years to warrant the “hell-in-hand-basket” epithet.

    Austin

  • Cascadian

    I’ve got a fairly long list but I could condense it down to a few main issues-

    1. High Taxes without government accountability
    Poorly thought out and ineffective social engineering (no I’m not a rabid neo-con, color me fiscal conservative but social progressive- I have no problem with gay marriage or freedom of choice.
    2. Rampant crime (in spite of government spin, hey Uhjal)- people have just quit reporting it because the police rarely come anyway.
    3. Revolving door justice (injustice) system- after someone has been convicted 20 or 30 times throw away the key- but here in BC they get a reduced sentence (the experience discount). And for those who say that punishment is not a deterrence, I would like to point out that it will at least deter that individual from committing another crime while is incarcerated.
    4. The Gun Registry- It is illegal (and has been for a long time) to own a handgun or automatic weapon-and it should be. Quit penalizing the legitimate firearm use of farmers and hunters. Clamp down on the gangs, street punks and illegal importers- lock’em up (add 15 years consecutive, no parole to their sentences- gun crime will go away).

    4. No funding for interest groups of any kind. If it interests you- you support it and pay for it.

    5. Immigration. I have no problem with legitimate refugees- but let’s ensure that they are legitimate and not war criminals in their homelands first. After that target younger, educated and trained professionals and trades people- people with skills that our country needs. These kind of people build the Canada of the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s. Restrict extended family immigration to those families willing to guarantee support.

    That’s a start- I could go on, but it’s time to go to work- someone has to support the nanny state.

  • Greg

    Oh please. Libs loved to demonize Harper. Compare him to Hitler, remember soldiers in our streets etc. Libs even went after their own during the Paul M/Jean C wars that saw political careers ended. Don’t complain about not being nice. No political party is ever nice. Not the cons, not the libs.

  • http://www.andynorthrup.com Andy

    Mr. Dion represents integrity, respect, vision and a cohesive approach to issues that he has experience in. I hear his party advocating the same and pointing to a leader who refuses to be bullied into a mud-slinging shouting match that no one can win. I certainly don’t see the same qualities in any candidates of the party currently governing. From them I see silenced, cowed, paranoid individuals afraid of the person that is in charge regardless of whether they will admit it or not. Something the obviously right wing slanted media refuses to acknowledge. Albert Einstein said that “unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth” and I really feel that the sitting MPs on the Conservative side of the house are forced into this automatic response for their leader. When we used to hear from them (when they were Alliance, Reform, and the precious few Progressive Conservatives), we at least saw how human and flawed they were and we were able to make an assessment accordingly. These days I can barely name a sitting Conservative MP because I know so little of them. They’re not allowed to speak, They’re not allowed to represent anything other than party line and more importantly they’re not allowed to contribute to governing the country which is what they were elected to do. Those few who do represent to the media and the Canadian public are such Harper oriented individuals that I might as well be listening to a PR firm. Garth Turner found out what it costs to be an individual in that party and why hasn’t Canada glommed on to this fact or become worried by the nature of his expulsion? With respect to those that intend to vote Bloc, Green or NDP I say to you, you will cause a Conservative majority and I wonder just how your ineffectual posturing will suit you when that occurs. My worst fear is that Canadians have become so blase and selfish that they can’t be bothered to inform themselves about Mr. Harper and his party. It sure seems like most Canadians can’t be bothered to stand up and reject the very thing that threatens what they claim to love about being Canadian. If that’s the case I shudder for what I know Canada to be and what it once aspired to be because we have regressed to the point where we deserve a majority under a man as small as Mr. Harper. The thought makes me fear for our future more than anything else on the current political spectrum.

  • http://www.michaeltripper.com Mr. Tripper

    good speech.

From Macleans