Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

In his Owen words

by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 12:13am - 126 Comments

Oh for goodness sake. I’d like to join the pile-on over Stephen Harper’s alleged plagiarism, but really…

1. If Harper had knowingly plagiarized, in Parliament, a highly-publicized speech by a sitting Australian Prime Minister, delivered just 36 hours before, it wouldn’t call into question his judgment — it would call into question his sanity. It was crazy enough when Joe Biden did it, a hundred million years ago (I’m estimating). But this was in 2003, well into the age of the internet. Is it really to be imagined, knowing everything we know about Harper, that he would be so foolish as to think he would not get caught?

2. Since when does Harper need to steal anyone’s words, or thoughts? He’s famously opinionated, and notably articulate. I’ve read his stuff over the years – newspaper articles, magazine pieces, speeches. He has an unmistakeable voice, a clear writing style, analytical sharpness. If he hadn’t been a politician, he’d have been a fine pundit. So if he wrote the speech in question, it would be an odd departure, to say the least, for him to suddently start borrowing whole paragraphs from another person, even ignoring point 1.

3. But of course, he didn’t write the speech in question, if we believe the confession of poor Owen Lippert. Certainly, it is more persuasive to me to think that as the newly elected opposition leader, with a million other things on his plate, Harper would have started using a speechwriter, rather than write them himself. I saw Bob Rae on the CBC puffing himself up over this, as if that were the scandal. Sorry, Bob: I’m prepared to think better of politicians who write all their own speeches, but I can hardly think ill of those who don’t, since that’s almost every politician there is.

4. So to believe this is a big deal, you have to ignore points 1, 2, and 3. That is, you have to think that Harper is insanely reckless, insecure enough about his own thoughts and expressions to steal someone else’s, yet not so insecure as to hire a speechwriter. And you have to think that Owen Lippert is lying, and that Harper is lying about Lippert.

Alternatively, you can believe that a harried speechwriter took a shortcut. In which case, how is that a reflection on Harper?

Looking at the speech he delivered, I’m just upset at being reminded how far he’s fallen since then. The Harper of 2003 supported a just war, and Canadian participation in it, forthrightly and without apology or equivocation — even if it was somebody else’s words. I’ve no idea how the Harper of 2008 would respond.

Tags: Election Watch, Iraq, Joe Biden, John Howard, Plagiarism, Stephen Harper

More by Andrew Coyne

Dot

I agree with most of Andrew’s points, but differ only in degree (I’ll stay clear of his closing paragraph, however). Yes there is a difference between someone who delivers a speech, and someone who crafts it.

Ironically, to make my point that Coyne is not entirely consistent in his arguments – while in 2008 we are “well[er] into the age of the internet” -I couldn’t locate on the Maclean’s site, nor on his now largely abandoned andrewcoyne[dot]com, a column that he wrote on Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech of March 18, 2008. While he gushed over Obama’s speech, claiming he hit all the right notes, he failed to acknowledge that Obama’s golden words in all likelihood were written by someone else (Ted Sorenson protege or disciple one presumes).

Same with his gushing words about Sarah Palin’s convention speech, whom he described as “The best natural speechmaker since Reagan” (this one I found). Consulting the on-line dictionaries, I have found two interpretations of “speechmaker” -1) One who makes a speech. 2) One who delivers a public speech. One presumes Coyne meant interpretation #2, as her subsequent Couric et al interviews demonstrate that there is no way she cold have written the whole thing (I’ll concede the lipstick joke was probably hers).

So, I’m willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt on this one, provided there is a consistency of argument – If one gushes over the oratory skills of a politician in this day and age, at the same time one must acknowledge the word smiths in the background that package the product for mass consumption

“We’re going to sell Jack like soap flakes” – Joseph P. Kennedy, 1960
Gustav

Bob Rae doesn’t write his speeches.

No-one writes his speeches. He just speaks his mind.
Oh Boy

mecheng : “I would suspect that Harper might be throwing a few lawsuits at all of the people who keep saying he plagiarized something were we not in an election campaign right now.”

Right. And that would be followed by John Howard suing Harper for “appropriation of personality” a la the Cadman tapes?

Just admit it: Harper wasn’t very strong on foreign affairs when he was head of the Alliance (still isn’t his strong suit), and took his lead from conservatives he was fond of … like Howard and Bush. So fond, he often hired the same people they had and, surprise, his team put together a speech using much of Howard’s proclamation, given just two days prior. The shock isn’t that speechwriters plagiarize, it’s that Harper could internalize and so forcefully advocate someone else’s beliefs in only two days.
JK

Coyne says:

“Looking at the speech he delivered, I’m just upset at being reminded how far he’s fallen since then. The Harper of 2003 supported a just war, and Canadian participation in it, forthrightly and without apology or equivocation — even if it was somebody else’s words. I’ve no idea how the Harper of 2008 would respond.”

Wow, that is dead on Andrew.
Ti-Guy

but because they belong with the NDP and have confused voters who normally would vote Lib if they had any coherent message.

And how exactly have I done that, billg?

I think Canadians would be better off if some people stopped vilifying other people and stuck to making assertions for which they have credible evidence.
Ti-Guy

Forget about how utterly ridiculous calling Andrew COyne “an idiot” is, what absence of humanity compels someone to make such a declaration? What would someone think they would gain from doing so? Would it service the larger point they are making?

I was very tired, Charles. Calling Iraq a “just war” manifests a degree of inhumanity I’m completely incapable of. Calling someone an idiot for having that belief is, in fact, being charitable.
Austin So

Gee mecheng, so Harper punishes Owen just because he just wanted to vent from having to wear the tight sweater-vest with the frozen smile?

Where’s the compassion for this poor misunderstood super-genius? Where’s the humanity?

And yes, I will have to admit that I am taken aback that Harper hasn’t tried to sue everybody involved. At least we can agree on that point.

Austin
Michael

Maclean’s bloggers were so quiet last week that the blog looked like a live blog of the green train, but during yesterday’s Rae Day the bloggers tripped were tripping over each other jump into a s***-storm of crazed insuation.

You’d expect Coyne to be excitable and Feshchuk to be partisan, but things got so silly that the sanest blog entry is Coyne’s and the sanest posting is Feshuck’s:

…the truth is that Harper was speaking in response to a supply day motion from the Bloc. He probably had 24 hours notice…his speechwriter panicked and swiped a lot of the boilerplate history… Inconvenient to those determined to see a greater conspiracy here
Ti-Guy

There’s no conspiracy required to assert that Harper at the very least, is easily gulled.

But since that’s not really the impression I have of him, I really do suspect something else is going on.
http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

A retort.
Alberto

” a just war” ???? Too bad I had to wait until the last paragraph to see that. If it was in the beginning, I would have not wasted my time on Andrew’s pantings.
http://www.chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

Okay, Ti-Guy. I understand. You know that I like too keep things light, which includes a good ribbing, but “idiot” read very strong (see your comments re: villification).

On the Iraq war, I’ll stay silent except that, on balance, I am happy Saddam Hussein isn’t around funding Palestinian suicide bombers anymore.
stephen

But the ads today explain it all….and show the Liberal campaign has gone over the cliff into hyperventilation. They are all sucking on brown bags at this stage.

Harper/Bush bumper stickers….so this wasnt just waiting or a videotape, was it coming by steamer to Chile and then overland? This was the masterstroke, the coup de grace, the hail mary….all that’s left is the A Bomb and if they pull that one out I think even the Toronto Star will relegate it to the back pages.

No surprise, co-ordinated effort…about the only co-ordinated thing the Dion campaign has done….to link Bush to Harper. I will at least give the campaign credit for getting this logistically right. Good freaking luck on it making a difference. The Liberal campaign is drinking its own bathwater at this point and are engaging in a campaign so self indulgent and mastubatory that they seek to please only themselves. Bush isnt relevant to this election, the Iraq War isnt relevant to this election, do they think its 2003?

I dont kow know if this is worse than, “Soldiers in our streets we arent making this up”, or not.

I look forward to Dion screeching about Busharper tonight, you can probably gather all the troother votes in the country together with this campaign. Welcome ladies and gentleman the leader of the opposition, Mr Jack Layton.

The Globe, of all things, placed the story on page 13, even with a hyperventilating column from Lawrence, I heart Stephane, Martin talking about a momentum changer. Wonder if Lawrence and Eddie called each other nasty names when that decision was made….this is the moment I wish there were sources within the Globe leaking to a place like Drudge.

The debate tonight should be a howler as Stephane increasingly recognizes he has led the troops to disaster.

Sauve Qui Peut!!!
Just visiting

Scott Feschuk wrote that Harper was “speaking in response to a supply day motion from the Bloc. He probably had 24 hours’ notice of the topic of debate, and certainly no more than 48. So his speechwriter panicked and swiped a lot of the boilerplate history stuff from John Howard’s speech.”

Really Scott? So you figure that Harper and his speech team were the only sentient beings on the planet who didn’t know that the invasion was imminent, and knew that he would therefore be called on as Leader of the Opposition to speak to it in the House when it occured?

The more one thinks about this, the more likely it seems that both Howard and Harper were using, unknown to each other, identical material supplied by the neocon cabal in Washington. That’s the only explanation that makes sense.

So I guess the point isn’t that it was plagiarism, but that it was exactly what Bob Rae said it was: proof that Harper had no independent voice on the matter, and just mouthed whatever the Bushites sent him.

Now there’s a real leader, eh?

- JV
BobbyB

If Harper DID NOT write that speech and DID BORROW most of it then why does he not admit he did that? Why does the poor sap that wrote it fall on his sword bit Harper not acknowledge that fact? Haroer sure has no troubles taking the “atta-boys” that were heaped upon him after he delivered these words in Parliamen. Why now when the cat is out of the bag does Harper, the leader, the one that takes decisive action, why does he not stand-up before the electorate and admit it was not his material and take responsibility for the speech “he” delivered but had not put a single word into?

I have no problem with Harper demonstrating his leadership qualities and showing us what he “says” he is made of. Come on, Harper, fess up, it’ll be good for the soul (and good for the electorat to hear that the emperor really does have no clothes!).
Brian

I actually agree with Scott Feschuck, and considering that he is a former Paul Martin speechwriter, I think he knows what he is talking about.
stephen

I wrote
at 3:05
“you can probably gather all the troother votes in the country together with this campaign”

JV wrote at 3:13
“The more one thinks about this, the more likely it seems that both Howard and Harper were using, unknown to each other, identical material supplied by the neocon cabal in Washington. That’s the only explanation that makes sense”

Wow, that only took 8 minutes to come true…..Building 7 its all about Building 7!!
polpundit

I am afraid that Andrew Coyne’s unrepentant, misguided, and over the top defence of PM Harper’s plagiarism – yes he is ultimately responsible since the buck stops with him – displays excessive partisanship and unprofessional journalism. He laments Harper’s lose of principle while failing to see his own disregard for principle
Andrew knows deep in his heart and mind that this story undermines Canadians’ already limited trust in Mr Harper. For partisans, the best defence is always an all out offense.
I do agree with Andrew that Harper has tried valiantly to bury his very hawkish approach to Iraq with obfuscating language and a misguided promise to les Québécois et Québécoises to respect the 2011 end of mission date for the CAF. Harper did so without consulting Canada’s NATO Allies. The fixed date was imposed on him by Stéphane Dion and Harper was visibly angry at having to accept it.
Harper’s plagiarized advocacy to get Canada into Iraq will probably deny him his cherished majority. Now les Québécois et Québécoises have yet another reason not to trust Harper. Harper, they understand, does not share in any way, shape or form their values.
Harper’s recognition of les Québécois et Québécoises as a nation was a cheap ruse. With a majority, the Québécois believe that Harper is quite likely to succumb to pressures from the US and other NATO allies to extend the mission, especially if the current negotiations with the Taliban fail and the war expands into Pakistan as it seems it already has.
Just as important, plagiarism is plagiarism. University students get expelled for this sort of unethical behaviour. Authors are taken to court for aledged plagiarism and some are found guilty and fined.
There must be consequences for PM Harper’s highly unethical behaviour in this important matter! It is not enough to fire an underling. Canadians should think hard before voting for CP candidates.
Oh Boy

comment by Brian on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 3:19 pm:
“I actually agree with Scott Feschuck, and considering that he is a former Paul Martin speechwriter, I think he knows what he is talking about.”

Um, Brian, I’m a former speechwriter and can assure you that, contrary to Mr. Feschuck’s point, no speech on foreign policy — especially one addressing military actions — is just slapped together without being throughly vetted. I’ve been through the draft and redraft sessions, the fact-checking and the “murder boards”. This wasn’t a speech to the local Rotary Club, and Harper was up on his feet 30+ times on this issue during the period of this speech.

I think the most telling aspect of this affair is that it’s quite likely Harper’s Alliance staff would consider using a speech already delivered by John Howard … as if that were the same thing as vetting. That is, for their purposes and in their world view, Howard and Bush were the gold standards to be measured against on this issue, so using Howard’s text was a form of vetting. Just not the kind we’d hope for from a Canadian party leader trying to demonstrate he’s was PM material.
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

For those nattering on about Rae delivering the critique:

He’s the foreign policy critic. Criticizing Harper’s foreign policy is his job. See, regular leaders do something called “delegate”. It’s when you allow someone else to do something, instead of doing it yourself. Harper doesn’t do that much, so I can see why you’re a bit confused. (Though Bush does it an awful lot, so I’d think you’d be familiar.) But trust me, Rae’s involvement was perfectly logical.

(More than, say, the idea that someone who doesn’t allow ministers to act without direction and supervision would grant the same freedom to his lowly speechwriters.)

And I notice that—though Coyne rails against the “empty” election on a regular basis—he seems to have written not one jot or tittle about the rest of Rae’s speech on the Republican-style foreign policy that Harper inflicted on Canadians. Interesting, that. Maybe he’s saving it for that thing he does for the CBC.
Brian

Um, Oh Boy, don’t jump so fast. I’m a former speechwriter too and I wrote drafts of speeches on foreign policy for Liberal governments so I also know what I speak of. Some of the speeches I was involved in were also written on the fly.

I think you are confused aboout the issue. No one is challenging the substance of what was said – which is what needs the fact-checking especially if the speaker is speaking on behalf of government. Don’t forget Harper was in opposition, not government at the time.
KRB

No one ever thinks what would have happened in Iraq, the Middle East, and the wider world if the U.S. had climbed down from its threat to invade Iraq, and let the U.N. resume issuing resolution after useless resolution?

Fortunately, Coyne does (and did here).

The great majority out there somehow believe that things would play out all nice and neat if the U.S. had just taken their finger off the trigger. For them, actions (or lack of action) yield no subsequent reaction.

Seems to me these are the same sort of people who will only go to war when it’s the only option left. Thing is, when it gets to that point, it’s millions (instead of thousands) that have to die before the issue is settled.

So while you’ll only ever have a fraction of the populace onside in the limited “luxury” war, rather than near full support in the “existential” war, the difference in the ultimate tally of dead outweighs any harm done to any democratic leaders’ legacy and support ratings.
nome

does harper need a speechwriter? i’ll be his speechwriter
Jack Mitchell

No doubt you’re right, KRB, that it’s better to fight necessary wars early rather than late; I can’t quite think of an example to back you up, but it rings true.

The question is how you decide which wars are necessary and which are reckless wars of choice.

In the case of Iraq, we had a concerted campaign of manipulation on the part of the Bush administration to convince us that there was a real threat which should be nipped in the bud. Turns out that was a complete fabrication. Looks like there actually is a danger of leaders dragging their countries into optional wars through deception – gee, who knew? – and that was the main objection at the time to the Bush position. It didn’t smell right. It was not backed up by real evidence, just “Trust us, we know. Oh baby, we know.”

And actually it turns out that hundreds of thousands of innocent people are dead as a result, if you want to play the numbers game.

The right way to do it would have been to wait for Hans Blix and his inspectors to finish inspecting Iraq’s facilities. Instead Bush told them to get out, whether because Rumsfeld just wanted to fight right away (which he did) or because, conceivably, the thing he dreaded most of all was for Blix to come back and say, “We’re thoroughly checked everything and Iraq is in compliance.” That would have been a real bummer for Karl Rove.

It’s rather incredible that your ilk are still blaming the UN for the Iraq disaster. I think that’s pretty much case closed by now, boyo.
Gustav

David Frum wrote the original White House draft, I’ll wager. Can someone ask his wife…?