Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

One entirely optional question about the census

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 19, 2010 7:03pm - 0 Comments

Now that Maxime Bernier has spent a week as the Harper government’s point man on the hotly-contested census changes, does anyone still believe he’s a maverick speaking his mind in defiance of the PMO’s wishes?

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    LOL Harper probably wishes Max would fall into the Gulf Gusher.

    • Inkless

      If that were true, do you not think Harper would already have pushed him?

      • http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

        I disagree, Emily. He's definitely the point-man for this. He wouldn't have been at A-Channel News in London on the weekend getting interviewed and defending their measures/attacking the Liberals if he weren't.

        • Emily

          Since he's not in cabinet, but is an MP, I fail to see how Harper could stop him.

          If Harp bounced him out of caucus at the moment, what would that say about the census?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

        Perhaps Harper is putting him up there as a prelude to reversing himself? Maybe he's shifting Clement out of the line of fire and putting up a more "expendable" body in case he has to leave one on the field, so to speak.

        • wilson

          Or maybe….as reported, this is a cabinet (Harper) decision and all are in agreement.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

            I don't doubt that Bernier is sincere about the issue.

          • Emily

            He was also sincere about the Biker Babe.

          • wilson

            adscam

          • Emily

            Soooo last century, shame on you. LOL

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

            I just meant that I don't think he's taking a position contrary to his own beliefs. I'm just trying to suggest – somewhat awkwardly – that Bernier's beliefs and Harper's calculations may be only temporarily aligned. If Harper does make one of his rare tactical retreats he might be looking to leave Bernier holding the bag, rather than Clement.

            This is groundless speculation, of course.

          • Emily

            I'll agree with that.

            Temporary agreement is entirely possible.

            Bernier left holding the entire stinking mess is also possible.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            Well, we know Harper doesn't take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault.

            You'd think Clement and Bernier would know what he's like.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

            First, he would have to hang Max the bag… i.e. make him Minister. I don't see anyway that Bernier wears this, it was not his decision.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            He wasn't when he was Minister of Industry

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

            heard reports last night Flaherty and Clement were against the move.

          • Loraine Lamontagne

            You mean the cabinet is Harper?

      • Emily

        It's entirely possible he just did.

      • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

        Bernier has just said that all the 1000s of emails he got complaining about the long-form were deleted by his staff, because the emails were part of an "organized campaign" and did not represent legitimate public sentiment.

        D-Day: says X.
        D-Day + 1: says NOT X.

        Tomorrow Harper strangles Bernier, eats his heart in public.

        • Marion

          If we assume that that is the truth, I have two questions:

          1. Why has this organization not come forward at the beginning of this debate, since it would be a major victory for them?

          2. Why were other MPs not copied on the e-mail? Usually e-mail campaigns address the Minister, and copy the local MP (and sometimes the party leaders). Some campaigns copy all MPs. Yet nobody seems to remember getting them…

        • Patchouli

          Photo opp only; no questions.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

          Aren't all government emails, etc. kept – archives or somewhere?

          I think it's BS.

  • bergkamp

    " …. does anyone still believe he’s a maverick speaking his mind in defiance of the PMO’s wishes?"

    I don't know what to make of Bernier and him becoming Harper's wing man. If Bernier has PMO approval to do this, why don't Cons send him out right from the start to offer explanations. Bernier is one of few Con MPs who actually sound conservative at the moment so I don't understand why Clement and his half-assed explanations are tolerated.

    If Cons are so keen on messaging, why do they send out Clement because he makes neither side happy while Bernier actually sounds conservative and irks liberals.

    Wells: Was it you that wrote in tweet that Bernier was freaked out when he learned that he was in charge of StatsCan when he was Industry Minister? I thought that was interesting, gives us an idea of Bernier's ideology.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      Which ideology? He has more than one, and conflicting ones at that. Just ask his old boss Landry.

  • Dee

    On a slightly related note, anybody catch Pierre Poilievre's lame performance on CBCNN's PandP, (very) weakly attempting to defend the Conservative's idiocy regarding the census?:
    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/ID=154745…

    It's squirm-arrific! And kudos to Rosie Barton for not letting Poilievre just spout talking points…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

      Rosie should have her own show.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

        She put Flanigan in his place a few days ago when he tried to misinform about the CBC – it shut him right up.

        Solomon just doesn't cut it – he's like a deer in the headlights.

    • Marion

      Thanks for that! It was fun to watch!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

      Pierre was weak.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

        but hot

  • herringchoker

    That's the wisest statement I've read on a Macleans blog in months.

    • herringchoker

      …excepting PW's advice to Alf Apps over the weekend 'natch.

  • Olaf

    Paul,

    You're normally pretty good at coming up with plausible explanations regarding otherwise inexplicable moves by the current government, but you may have (arguably, correct me if I'm wrong) Wherryized your commentary here (ask a question in an 'I know the answer and if you don't than you just don't know how the world works' sort of way). Alternatively, and more likely given your willingness to actually defend your opinions, you're genuinely curious what kind other people think, which is fair enough. Personally, I can't sort out the complicated relationship between Bernier and the PMO (and how Bernier is essentially Harper circa 1994), and wouldn't mind a little speculation, if you're up for it.

    • bergkamp

      " … and wouldn't mind a little speculation, if you're up for it."

      I second this. What is PMO doing? I wonder if Harper is not hurting himself a bit when Bernier talks to reporters because he sounds conservative while Harper has completely lost the plot and thinks he's a Liberal. It is some kind of good cop/bad cop routine but I am not sure who is which.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

        Okay, okaaaaaaay. Speculation coming, probably tomorrow. Tonight I feel lazy and rhetorical.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

          Don't I?

          • Olaf

            I trust that you are. Ok, since you're feeling lazy, I'll give you an easy one (and reveal for posterity my lack of music-cred in the process), which I'm sure someone else will answer if you need a nap: of whom is your picture?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Craig Finn.

          • Olaf

            Yea, totally new that. The band that guy is in is/his solo career has been awesome. So good, too bad he doesn't get the recognition he deserves in his time/isn't appreciated by later generations. Just making sure everyone else knew. Hey, how 'bout those recent poll numbers? Crazy, right? Who'd a thunk it?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

            Hahaha. I look forward to your informed/uninformed opinion.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            C'mon Mr. Wells, you are on a mission to drive Canadians nuts. People can't stand not knowing and you are having fun

            LOL

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        good cop/bad cop

        Too funny! This would probably work with some reporters (but never with Wells).

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/YSP YSP

          Shouldn't that be Bon Cop / Bad Cop?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Twisted_Mentat Twisted_Mentat

        I don't think it's very complex.

        Bernier is politically tainted goods: If he does poorly explaining why the Conservatives want to scrap the census, then people will just think, "Oh Bernier, it's Breast-gate all over again." The bonus being the census is a policy issue. But, if Bernier pulls it off and makes sense then he can sidestep the Couilliard (sp?) issue by saying at least he's strong on policy.

        I suppose you could suggest they tried doing that with Clement after all the G8/G20 spending, but he was like a fish out of water every time I've seen him.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Brammer Brammer

    Maxime's "stay out bedrooms" statement strikes me as a shot across the social conservative reformer bow.

    Maybe he still is defining himself as the (un)Harper for purposes of a leadership run that would appeal to traditional PCs.

    • Emily

      Max should talk about staying out of bedrooms!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

        LOL

        Once bitten, twice shy!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

        Maybe he left copies of those emails at some chicks place

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Brammer Brammer

    …and a set of steak knives to someone who can tell me why the self initiated census controversy and, why now? Are we being re-directed from something else? (that rhymes with broken bus?)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

      F-35 purchase?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/canon70 canon70

        You're right. They have been running up large bills on the credit card lately. With the media focusing on the census, no one is paying attention to the tax dollars jetting out of Ottawa by the fiscally responsible Conservatives.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

      Throwing a bone to his core, who he expects will soon be in a voting booth?

    • canon70

      Perhaps it is to distract from this breaking story. Do I win the steak knives?

      Former executive gets $1.4M settlement for 'sham' dismissal by Harper gov't
      PS labour board says government used dismissal as 'scapegoat' to protect itself
      http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Former+executiv…

  • Anon 001

    I'm sure he's freelancing. Or, maybe he will be the next Finance Minister.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    It makes perfect sense to send out a libertarian to make a justifiable libertarian argument, rather than to send a political hack to make the argument.

    The libertarian argument against the mandatory long form census is simple. It just isn't any of the government's damn business. It isn't abour privacy. It isn't about whether the information is useful or not. It just isn't the justified for the government to ask many of the long form questions under the penalty of jail time.

    Stats Can backs off when the rich and powerful object (see Warren Kinsella) and threaten to challenge the legitimacy of the long form census in court. So the long form census is already voluntary for the elites, and only mandatory for us serfs without the ability to launch a court challenge.

    And if the court challenges program was still around, the statists who ran the program would never take up a libertarian case.

    The issue is not the utility of the information, or the importance of the information. The issue is that it isn't the state's right to demand that one answer all of the questions by threatening to take away my liberty.

    • Orson Bean

      "And if the court challenges program was still around, the statists who ran the program would never take up a libertarian case. "

      That much I agree with. The interest groups who habitually fed at that trough tended to be decidedly left of centre and pro-big government.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

      See, now that is an argument I could respect. It is sincere and principle based and, in its way, logical, even if hypocritical. I still don't accept it, but it would be a more intelligent argument and defence than we are getting from the government.

      From them we've heard the "coercive government" argument (even though they defend the mandatory agriculture census and others), the "privacy" argument (even though there have been but 3 complaints in 15 years), the "lack of accuracy/Jedi" argument (which statisticians easily deal with and the voluntary form makes worse), the "voluntary is just as good" argument (when anyone who knows anything about stats including the US government knows this is an outright lie). A floundering make it up as we go because this is what we want to do damn everyone.

      • shouldIsellyourwheat

        The agricultural census is a business survey, not an individual survey. Agriculture is a business that has large government subsidies and intervention. (Supply management, Wheat Board, government insurance). If you want the government business supports, the business better respond to the survey.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

          Farmers provide income information and all sorts of info or risk going to jail or be fined for no other purpose than to implement the government's policies more effectively. A lot of these are family businesses if not directly the farmers themselves.

          But the argument against government coercion is equally applicable.

          Even moreso would be jury duty or even the short form census itself which asks for personal information well beyond that which is necessary to count the number of Canadians.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

          Kind of a, sort of a form of welfare

      • Cats

        Shorter Ted Betts:

        Harper hasn't been libertarian enough, therefore lets replace him with Uber-Statist Liberals!!

        Cats saved you all some time!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

          Um, no.

          Shorter Ted Betts: Harper is making it up as he goes, doesn't care about good policy as long as he has power, we know that, his staff have actually admitted it expressly, and the competence of government and Canadians suffer for it.

          This Cats is not a night-time feline, clearly.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

            The PMO doesnt pay its shills online any overtime pay, obviously.

          • Cats

            Really Scott Tribe ?

            Actually I notice Ted Betts trolling Blogging Tories websites and leaving comments all over the place. He's done the exact same posts here over there.
            http://canofcontemplation.blogspot.com/2010/07/hi…
            http://rightchik.blogspot.com/2010/07/maxime-bern…

            Does the most excellent blogger Scott Tribe think Ted Betts is a paid shill ?

            (OK i'm being sarcastic about that excellent blogger thing, I think what you do is chicken scratch and laugh everytime you guys run around screaming "that's actionable" whenever your criticized)

            Inquiring cats want to know.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

            a) If you don't like what I have to write, that's no skin off of my nose.

            b) Ted is writing his comments with his real name.. not an alias. When you have the courage to do the same thing, you can start complaining about him posting stuff elsewhere.

          • Cats

            a) yes it is or else you wouldn't have had a prissy insecure response.
            b) ever hear of an alias ? I could be Acton Bell for all you know.

            Cats loves this. I've caught two blind mice.

    • Damon

      I've already liked this and would like to do so again–and hence this comment. Just when exactly did technocracy become synonymous with democracy for non-Family-Compact Canada, anyhow? And just how is that a mandatory confession to the state, under legal sanction, of my fiscal, educational, professional, confessional, fiscal, erotic and other engagements, is the very pith and substance of my rights and freedoms as a citizen? I dunno–my stock is Acadian (among the first nonclassical peoples to be made forcibly subject to a census–and look how swell that worked out)–but I say all those NGOs and bureaucrats and Globe and Mail reporters who are so exercised about this matter pursue their own personal programmes of unfettered full-disclosure and leave the left of us to live our lives, thanks.

      • Damon

        We'll try that again with copy editing:

        I've already liked this and would like to do so again–and hence this comment. Just when exactly did technocracy become synonymous with democracy for non-Family-Compact Canada, anyhow? And just how is it that a mandatory confession to the state, under legal sanction, of my fiscal, educational, professional, confessional, fiscal, erotic and other engagements, is the very pith and substance of my rights and freedoms as a citizen? I dunno–my stock is Acadian (among the first nonclassical peoples to be made forcibly subject to a census–and look how swell that worked out)–but I say all those NGOs and bureaucrats and Globe and Mail reporters who are so exercised about this matter pursue their own personal programmes of unfettered full-disclosure and leave the rest of us to live our lives, thanks.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

          "Just when exactly did technocracy become synonymous with democracy…"

          What you call "technocracy" could also be called "good government" and I don't see anybody equating it with democracy.

          "how is it that a mandatory confession to the state… is the very pith and substance of my rights and freedoms as a citizen?"

          I don't hear anybody making that claim either. Sheesh.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    Wonder what Bernier thinks of Clement and Harper trying to have their cake and eating it too:

    "Clement says the agricultural census is used for valuable measures "that will help farmers," adding, "The argument obviously to farming associations and to farmers is, 'You fill out the form, it'll help the government help you in your farming activities.'"

    Critics of the government move have been arguing that's exactly what the regular long-form census does for the general population, and particularly for minority and disadvantaged groups.

    Clement concedes that he did not consult with the groups and organizations that rely on census data."

    • Cats

      Shorter Ted Betts:

      Harper is trying to have his cake and eat it too, therefore lets replace him with the Liberals who under Paul Martin had developed a reputation for trying to have their cake and eating it too!!

      Cats saved you all some time!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

        Shorter Cats:

        Anything Harper does is not just good but great, and no one is allowed to criticize him. Heil Harper!!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/YSP YSP

      'You fill out the form, it'll help the government help you in your farming activities.'"

      Somehow I don't think that message will play well in farming country.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    Why doesn't some intrepid mainstream media reporter demand a summary of the socio-eoonomic background the the 5% of the people who are granted exemptions (like Warren Kinsella)?

    I'll wager a loonie that rich and powerful people receive a disporportionate number of the exemptions.

    • James Connors

      I'll wager a loonie – and more! – that you are not rich and powerful.

      There's probably a reason for that.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

      Kinsella is rich? and powerful?

      That makes the real rich and powerful political elites like Harper, Flaherty, Clement, Baird, etc. positively royal blue blood.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

        Harper's not rich. Not even close.

        • tedbetts

          I suppose it depends how you define rich, doesn't it.

          Median family income in Canada is $63,000 andthe average household income is about $40,000. Harper's annual salary now is over $300,000 plus huge benefits and a lifelong "goldplated" pension. Not to mention income from other sources (writings, savings, etc.). He is in the top 10% 1% [Updated] income bracket of the country. I suppose you could argue that he isn't rich, hard to argue but you could, but it is a little, um, rich to suggest he isn't even close.

          More to the point, I rather think if Kinsella is Wheat's definition of rich, then Harper is most assuredly very much upper class rich.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        I agree that Kinsella isn't rich, but are any of the four "elites" you listed actually rich?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

          Average household income is about $40,000 per year.

          Harper makes over $300,000 in straight salary plus benefits including the fabled "goldplated" pension and income from his investments and writings and whatever Laureen makes. That puts him in the top 1% of the country. So yes, I would call that rich.

          Flaherty had a successful law practice before politics and his wife has also been successful out of politics. A cabinet minister makes about $250,000 plus benefits and pensions and their own investments and other sources of income (like spouses).

          How far above the ordinary Canadian's income do you have to be before you are considered "rich"?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Obviously the PM's income is much higher than average household. The same is true for any other MP. I guess the House of Commons is stuffed full of "rich" people, according to your definition.

            I was really thinking more of assets. I always figured Harper was one of our least wealthy PMs, with a net worth lower than Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, etc.

          • tedbetts

            Not my definition. Just my observation that being in the top 1% of income earners in the entire country is not an unreasonable way to define being "rich" (though more to the point, I only stated that if Kinsella is "rich" than Harper is royalty).

            But net worth is definitely probably a better way to measure true wealth. I guess Harper is in the top 10% but that is just a guess. Certainly the top 25% with prospects as an ex-PM of great wealth.

            I would agree with you that his net worth is definitely less than Martin and Mulroney who made their big self-made successes in the business world and Trudeau who came from wealth. Chretien is more interesting.

            Both Chretien and Harper are career politicians, lived their careers at their desks and not in the world at large. So if you are going to make a true comparison of these two, do you compare them now? the dates they became PMs? or at the equivalent age? I would guess that Chretien's net worth was probably less than Harper at the age of 50 (Harper's age now; Chretien's in 1984, ironically the year he probably should have become PM), but almost assuredly more than Harper when they each became PM (for Harper age 46; Chretien age 60). But that is a factor of the fruits of a successful career in politics (Chretien exiting then re-entering pollitics and sitting on boards, etc.) which Harper won't benefit from until later this year.

          • Cats

            And Ignatieff ? He does appear to have a home in the south of france …

            Percentage of Canadians who can say the same? Less than one percent.

            Cats away!

            Or shorter Ted Betts:

            Harper is rich! Therefore he can't be part of the Tim Horton's crowd! EH EH!! He can't!!! Cause he's rich. Its all been a lie. I just proved he's rich!! Don't vote for him! Vote for the rich elitist instead!!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            You are getting seriously deranged, Cats.

            Time for a catnap. Make it a Rip Van Winkle type of catnap.

          • Jan

            Ignatieff inherited his parents vacation home. Not uncommon.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

            Care to share what income level, in your view, separates rich from well off?

          • Lord Kitchener's Own

            First, people seem to be missing that Ted was saying that if one is going to call Kinsella "rich and powerful" then Harper is definitely more rich and powerful than Kinsella, so Harper must be "rich and powerful". I don't think there's any argument to be made that Kinsella is more rich and powerful than the PM.

            Also, as Ted points out, if having a salary higher than that of 99% of the Canadian population doesn't count as "rich" then what does? I'd say Harper's definitely "rich" in comparison to the rest of Canada, but the question is, is he "wealthy". LOL

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            oooooo, fact based argument and with a touch of nuance. Shame on you LKO!!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            How would you define it Phil? Does the top 1% sound like a reasonable line to draw between rich and the rest? If not, please let me know what you think would be more reasonable.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

            Hmmmm, I'll go with incomes of $1000K or greater qualifies you as rich. That still leaves room for the very rich ($2.5M/y), the super rich ($5M/y) and even the filthy rich ($10M/y). I don't know where Harper, Kinsella, Baird etc would fall using those benchmarks.

            But ultimately the actual incomes that mark those breakpoints actually aren't all that important to me. I say that because I find that using the term rich tends quickly lead to a tangential discussion about the exact definition of rich, which gets in the way of what could and should have been an interesting discussions about some other topic (as it did in this case).

            I believe that the original premise in this thread was that Kinsella and his type (can we agree to call them well to do, or well connected?) may often benefit from special breaks to which most of the rest of the population does not have access.

            Can you buy into that?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    Yes. He's just being consistent. Bernier is after Harper's job. Clear as day.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    FWIW I agree with you. Bernier still carries a lot of political capital in Quebec, so it's not surprising that the PMO is trying to kiss and make up. At this point, based on his most recent musings he's also one of the few Conservatives in caucus that are saying the right things to appeal to the base.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CndnRschr CndnRschr

      Bernier may have a lot of capital in Quebec but Quebecers also have a lot of capital in the census as a means to track and defend their societal values.

      This whole caper is nothing more than a means to remove facts from decision making. Ignorance is bliss. How else can one justify the loss of information that helps in planning and that's intrinsic value is in its continuity over time? Changing the rules and making the long form non-obligatory basically shreds its statistical utility. We are starting from year one.

  • Dot

    Now that Maxime Bernier has spent a week as the Harper government’s point man on the hotly-contested census changes,

    Is that so? The answer is framed by the question.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    Now that Black is the new Black, I am looking for Conrad and Max to join forces and liberate Canada from the leftist creeps that lurk in opposition and the leftist creeps draped in righteous rhetoric that have infiltrated our government.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/YSP YSP

      Once you go Black, you don't go back . . .

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

    On most issues, Bernier is saying what the PM really believes.

    We all know that, right? (Right?)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      True. The difference is that Bernier is not burdened by the responsibility of having to answer to an electorate that has little tolerance for such right wing views. Bernier has the luxury of being able to maintain a purist position on all these matters.

      Harper cannot.

      I personally find it really fascinating to watch Harper having to find a happy medium between keeping his rightwing base satisfied and maintaining a progressive facade for the rest.

      • http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

        Here's an analogy that'll get under a lot of people's skin.

        Stephen Harper and Barack Obama are up to the same thing — true believers in an ideology that is at odds with the broad middle of their country's electorate.

        Harper's a libertarian in a somewhat more socialist polity, and Obama's a democratic socialist in a somewhat more conservative/libertarian polity.

        These things change over time — for instance, from the 1930s to the 1970s, the natural governing coalition was a left-wing one in the States — but Harper and Obama are embarked on the same project, albeit from diametrically opposed political standpoints.

        Both have to perform a very delicate balancing act.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          I agree with what you are saying except for the part about Obama. The man is most certainly not a democratic socialist. I realize that he may be viewed as such in the US but, as you say, the political climate there is much more conservative than in Canada.

          Obama is simply not far enough to the Left to be called a socialist anything. He's center right. In this country, the man would be considered a progressive conservative, not a leftist. And I'm not just looking at his record as President. His stint as Senator is also very telling.

          • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

            You aren't looking far enough back. Look at his Chicago time. He supports single-payer, he thinks taxation is about redistribution of wealth, and for all the faculty lounge, leftwing causes, he is right in line. And also look at who he chooses as his mentors in "Dreams From My Father".

            Now, as senator and then as president, he has tacked away from it. Of course he would — he is playing to the middle, to be elected and reelected in what is still Ronald Reagan's America.

            Again, precisely the same play as libertarian Stephen Harper in Pierre Trudeau's Canada.

            If Obama could pick his stances by what he _really_ wanted to do, he'd be with the NDP — Libby Davies wing, not Thomas Mulcair wing.

          • PolJunkie

            "You aren't looking far enough back. Look at his Chicago time. He supports single-payer, he thinks taxation is about redistribution of wealth, and for all the faculty lounge, leftwing causes, he is right in line."

            Single-payer is not a leftwing issue. It is a common sense issue. Mulroney and Martin believed in it too. Are they socialists? As for taxation being about wealth redistribution, that's just not true. In a country where advocating tax increases is just plain political suicide, any politician looking to do sound fiscal management has no choice but to increase taxes on the 250k-and-up earners. In America, to increases taxes on the middle class is tantamount to signing one's own death certificate.

            "Now, as senator and then as president, he has tacked away from it. Of course he would — he is playing to the middle, to be elected and reelected in what is still Ronald Reagan's America."

            C'mon now. Dude was a Senator representing Illinois. All of the Illinois senators at the exception of one have been democrats since the 70s. As a democrat, Obama only needed to show up.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "If Obama could pick his stances by what he _really_ wanted to do, he'd be with the NDP — Libby Davies wing, not Thomas Mulcair wing."

            We'll just have to agree to disagree. The farthest left that Obama would move to in Canada would land him with the Liberals… and the Martin Liberals at that.

          • http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

            Re Illinois, not true. That seat was a GOP one before 2004, and had Ryan's divorce records not been unsealed, it was going to be a tough race in a Republican year.

            Obama still would have won, but he was going to have to work for it — needed to trim his sails.

            Re his ideology — I take him at his word in his pre-politics autobiography.

            In Canada, yes, Obama would be a Liberal — not because of ideology, again, which is what it is (way left), but because he would want to be able to win government.

            Incrementalist ideologues — that's who we have running North America right now.

          • PolJunkie

            "Re Illinois, not true. That seat was a GOP one before 2004, and had Ryan's divorce records not been unsealed, it was going to be a tough race in a Republican year."

            I believe I said "at the exception of one" when talking about the list of Senators. Traditionally, Illinois Senators have all been Dems as far back as the 70s. Fitzgerald was the first GOPer in 20-some years to win that seat.

            "Re his ideology — I take him at his word in his pre-politics autobiography. "

            And I don't. It's just a book. I look at his record and the man is no socialist.

          • http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

            That and the community organizing, and the New Party membership…

            With respect, if that's your standard, one can just as easily say "Stephen Harper is no libertarian".

            (Which most libertarians actually do say.)

            Which renders this whole thread moot. If actions in office are all that count, why, Stephen Harper is a bleeding heart moderate! ;-)

          • PolJunkie

            "If actions in office are all that count, why, Stephen Harper is a bleeding heart moderate! ;-) "

            Not at all. In the case of Harper, we have yet to see the true measure of the politician (though sometimes cracks in his facade do give us glimpses) because he's bound by his minority standing and that keeps him in perpetual campaign mode. Harper tells Canadians what they want to hear and I-love-firewalls-shame-on-Canada-for-not-going-to-Irak Harper would certainly not get elected in this country.

            Obama the Senator and Obama the President don't have that problem. The Dems have almost total control of all three branches of the Legislative. The Obama that we see is the true Obama, free to move however he sees fit.

            Honestly, the only disagreement that we seem to have is over your belief that Obama is a socialist. That just may be due to where we both stand politically. For me, to suggest that Obama is as far left as Libby Davies is quite the exaggeration. I put him as far left as Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff, which means center right. No lefty there.

          • Orson Bean

            In any event, I'd take issue with BTT's assertion that Harper's a libertarian. In some respects, I suppose. But in lots of other respects, not at all. E.g., Insite? Recreational drug use?

          • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

            He's in a political coalition.

            Social conservatives would never support a party that legalizes marijuana, for instance. (Legalize it all, I say. Actually, that's one way the Liberals could peel off my vote from the Tories for an election or two — if they promised to end drug prohibition. Save us so much money and jail space… I'd trade that for tax hikes for which I could then vote Tory to remove…)

            Harper's career has been about building a consistently centre-right party in Canada that can contend for power on a regular basis — one that will be sympathetic to libertarian impulses, but not always governed by them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

            Where you stand depends on … where you stand. :p

            Remember that party discipline is much looser down there, and nominations are not controlled by the centre. (Not at all.)

            Bush had 230 seats in the House and 55 seats in the Senate, and couldn't even get a Social Security reform bill _written_, much less introduced. Obama has 256 in the House and 60 in the Senate last year, sure. but with Republicans unified in opposition against his agenda, he needed every last one of those votes.

            Harper is going to push as far to the right as he possibly can, while remaining politically viable, and Obama has been pushing as far to the left as he possibly can, while still remaining politically viable. Occasionally, Harper has overshot the mark, and had to retreat ignominiously; Obama has done the same, and the fall midterms will give him a Congress making a course correction. (If he's as smart as he seems, he'll make that course correction and move just far enough to the right to get re-elected. If not… well, we'll see. He has plenty of time.)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Again, our disagreement is in determining if Obama is a socialist. You say he is, I say absolutely not.

          • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

            And we can end friendly-like on that point of disagreement.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Yes

          • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

            Re Illinois, not true. That seat was a GOP one before 2004, and had Ryan's divorce records not been unsealed, it was going to be a tough race in a Republican year.

            Obama still would have won, but he was going to have to work for it.

            Re his ideology — I take him at his word in his pre-politics autobiography.

            In Canada, yes, Obama would be a Liberal — not because of ideology, again, which is what it is (way left), but because he would want to be able to win government.

            Incrementalist ideologues — that's who we have running North America right now.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

    Bernier is performing the role of useful idiot, same as he was with his casual musings on climate change and no growth spending. Makes the leader look moderate that he can include all these points of view.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      You would be making a mistake to dismiss Bernier as an idiot. While I completely and absolutely disagree with Bernier on just about everyone of his positions, I believe him to be a more reasonable and palatable rightwingers out there. I'd take him over any of these angry Reformers any day.

      Bernier is just reciting libertarian mantra and he's quite predictable in that way.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

        If a politician speaks drivel what else is there to judge him on? His record?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          I don't think it's drivel but clearly you do.

          Compare Clement's nonsense to that of Bernier. Clement is trying to make us believe that the data can still be accurate with a voluntary long form. Now THAT is drivel. Utter stupidity even.

          Bernier, on the other hand, doesn't even talk about the integrity of the data or whether getting this information is important. He strictly focuses on an individual's right to privacy. That's not drivel. I too firmly believe in the importance of privacy in a democratic society. The problem is that key programs and policy decisions are based on the information gathered through these long forms and I find myself having to make an exception on this particular point.

          This is why I say that Bernier, unburdened by the responsibility of power, is properly maneuvering this discussion into a debate which suits his libertarian musing. He doesn't have to debate the importance of accurate information. He'll leave that to Harper and Clement.

          That's not drivel.

          • tobyornotoby

            He weighs in on climate science:

            "Data from tree rings in the forests even show some cooling; that’s why they were replaced by temperatures considered more accurate from meteorological stations in the IPCC graphs."

            He weighs in on budgeting:

            "Let’s say that the federal government is big enough as it is and that expenses are not going to grow anymore. And I’m not saying zero growth adjusted for inflation and population or GDP increase. Just zero growth. The overall budget is frozen. From now on, any government decision has to be taken within this budgetary constraint."

            And you think he's being clever and rising above it all? That you can seriously propose a zero growth budget when you have an aging and growing population? Drivel of the first order.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "And you think he's being clever and rising above it all? That you can seriously propose a zero growth budget when you have an aging and growing population? Drivel of the first order."

            That's because you aren't a true libertarian rightwinger. For them, a zero growth budget is perfectly feasible because they would do away with just about every social program we have. Remove Medicare. Remove education. I don't even think that social security is sacred for them. If you are a purist like Bernier and believe that all social programs are expendable, a zero growth budget is most certainly possible.

            Just because one disagrees with his viewpoint doesn't mean it is drivel. If it's any consolation, Bernier would most certainly change his tune if he ever arrived to power.

  • Mike T.

    And with a single sentence Mr. Wells earns his keep once again.

    I think we can all be grateful, no matter what our left/right stripe, for a political journalist who relies on insight and first-rate analysis rather than generating hits by cranking out outlandish theories.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      Oh for pete's sake, it's a blog.

  • surusm

    I note to-day the Toronto Sun carries an editorial in support of Clement along with essays by Cement literally alongside one by ……EZRA LEVANT. Someone should caution the good Minister about being judged by the company he keeeps.

  • Aster

    Political decisions could reasonably reflect political philosophies but should not contradict basic facts about the functioning of reality. One basic mathematical law of sampling theory is that, for a sample to be representative of the population to which it is compared, it must be randomly chosen. Allowing people to choose whether or not to fill out the long form insures that it will not be random and this insures that the sample (no matter how large) will be biased and therefore useless.
    Conservatives could logically decide to scrap the long-form census completely without contradicting probability theory (whether it is a good idea is something else). However, rendering the long form cencus optional is simply denying reality – it will be worse than having no long-form because it will give the wrong information rather than simply no information.

    • Jan

      And this is why it is simply not believeable that Statscan offered the voluntary long form as a viable alternative. So the next question has to be – does the current government want to preserve the integrity of the data collection?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    I wonder if Bernier is just taking the opportunity to self-promote on an issue important to him. If I recall, StatsCan was a particular bugaboo for him when he was Industry Minister. Perhaps he tried to do something then or wanted to, but was shut down by others and got criticized by his own base. Now he gets to speak his mind?

    Having said that, it is very convenient for Harper to have Bernier talk like a real conservative when no one else in government will act like one. Mostly because Bernier is careful to never do more than imply a soft criticism of the government at most.

    The result of which, I think, is to remind hard right voters that Harper – or at the very least Harper with him – is the not only the best thing going for them, but the only thing.

  • Cats

    Shorter Ted Betts:

    Harper hasn't been enough of a real conservative, therefore lets replace him with leftist Liberals!!

    Cats saved you all some time!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    "I wonder if Bernier is just taking the opportunity to self-promote on an issue important to him."

    Yes. And it's working. Look at how much ink he's getting on this.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    The Liberals since Chretien are to the "right" of Harper on most fiscal policies, except deficits. It seems from history of the last few decades that fiscal conservativism includes big deficits and deficit spending as a core principle.

  • Cats

    Oh yes you're sooooo right wing eh Ted ? That's why you proffesionally troll Blogging Tories websites and leave comments on them:
    http://canofcontemplation.blogspot.com/2010/07/hi… http://rightchik.blogspot.com/2010/07/maxime-bern…

    Are you a proffesional concern troll or do you just do this for free ?

    Inquiring cats want to know.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    Why are you making statements about me, Cats? You obviously don't care about what I believe or not. Facts never seem to get in the way of your, um, let's be nice and call it… "commentary".

    All I said is that Chretien and Martin acted more fiscally "right" than Harper has. In fact, if you look at the spending and deficit habits of US and Canadian national leaders like Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Mulroney and Harper, you would have to conclude that deficit spending is a core conservative principle as is creating huge deficits.

    By contrast, Clinton, Chretien, Martin are all deficit slaying tax cutters who believe in the fiscally prudent view of "pay as you go" instead of deficit spending.

    Harper is the biggest spender, biggest waster in our entire history. If that is the definition of conservativism then "fiscal conservativism" and "fiscally responsible/prudent" are opposites, not synonyms.

  • Cats

    Your brain must struggle under the cognitive dissonance Ted.

    First budget under the Liberals after Mulroney was a mess. Widely panned as a false start. So Chretien did a 180 and copied who other than Preston Manning. All through the 90's the reform party was calling for deeper and faster cuts to balance the books.

    Paul Martin ? He started us on our disastrous fiscal course by making huge spending promises.

    Bill Clinton had a huge tax increase in his 1993 budget. What on earth are you talking about calling him a tax cutter ??

    Seriously Ted this proffesional i'm a fiscal conservative concern troll thing is beyond weird. It seems to be your gig.

    You working for the Liberal war room ? Sow dissension amongst the Tories ? Lower morale ? Try and dry up donations or get people to stay home on election day ?

    Cats would like a straight answer.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    I gave you some straight answers. Chretien and Martin – i.e. the last two Liberal governments – cut spending, cut taxes, eliminated the deficit, created a surplus. Clinton in 1995 started cutting taxes Cats. Cut more taxes than Reagan the Great Tax Fighter.

    Harper – like Mulroney, Reagan and Bush I – has increased and decreased taxes and Harper – like Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Mulroney – hugely increased spending, hugely increased deficits and Harper – like Bush II – turned a huge surplus into a huge deficit almost overnight.

    You can judge a politician by their propaganda all you want Cats. I prefer judging politicians by their actions and results.

  • Standing By

    A big question for me is how long will Canadian media and pundocracy continue to portray Harper as a "moderate" without a radical right-wing agenda.

    if you look at the last year (more prisons, deliberate triggering of abortion controversy, undermining R&D, ruining the census, etc.) Harper has clearly become the leader of the Teabag Party North. Through his issue selection, he is obviously trying to promote a "culture war" among Canadians.

    So how long will the pundocracy keep portraying him as a "moderate" without a radical right-wing agenda?

  • sbt

    "Clinton in 1995 started cutting taxes Cats. Cut more taxes than Reagan the Great Tax Fighter."

    Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Clinton elected in November of 1992. I wonder what could have happened in the last few months (November-ish?) of 1994 that may have resulted in Clinton starting to cut taxes in 1995?

    I don't know what I find more funny. That you're trying to argue that Clinton and Chretien were more Reagan than Reagan or that you're receiving mega-thumbs up on these boards for saying it. Like the people who populate these boards secretly dream of a Canadian leader even more draconian Ronald Reagan who will cut taxes and spending even deeper.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    Actually, I should correct that. His first round major tax cuts came in when he signed the Economic Package in August 1993. That year he also brought in a tough deficit fighting plan.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    As for being more like Reagan, you completely misread me. What I am saying is, looking at the record and not the rhetoric:

    - a conservative believes in huge tax cuts (Reagan, Bush 2, Harper) but more than willing to increase taxes (R, B1, H, Mulroney), significant spending increases (R, B1, B2, H, M), deficit program and military spending (R, B1, B2, H, M), economic stimulus in recessionary times (R, B1, B2, H, M). To a conservative, taxes are the most significant fiscal/economic policy; spending and deficits don't really matter. As Dick Cheney said "Reagan showed that deficits don't matter".

    - a liberal believes in a "pay as you go" balanced fiscal policy, moderate tax cuts if we can afford it, moderate spending cuts when we need it, no deficits except in recessionary times to stimulate the economy, aim for a surplus, build a fiscal contingency, in good times spend on programs but not at the expense of creating a deficit. For a liberal, balance and no deficit is the most significant fiscal/economic issue.

  • sbt

    Your summary about conservatives doesn't really make sense. If conservatives believe in huge tax cuts and don't believe in deficits then why do they raise taxes? And I would like to know the context of that Cheney quote about deficits not mattering. I know American commentators who have argued that deficits of 3% of GDP are "sustainable" (presumably as long as the economy is growing fast enough). If that's his view then what he's really saying is that a balanced budget isn't necesarily the only indicator worth looking at in terms of economic performance (and he would be correct). I still like the target to be balanced budgets rather than a 3% deficit to GDP but I can appreciate that view.

  • sbt

    As for your view on liberals, I have little doubt that those largely sum up your views and you view yourself as a liberal. I largely share those views. Still, I find it difficult to get around how balance and no deficit being the single most important fiscal/economic issue when you support economic stimulus in recessions. By definition, the balanced budget cannot be the most important fiscal/economic issue if you support that. And I've seen little to no evidence from our current crop of Liberal MPs that there is any serious concern about the level (or existence) of the federal deficit. It is simply used as a club to hammer the Conservatives with. It would be a good one if they were consistently arguing for ways to balance and were against the stimulus But since they weren't, it's largely ineffective.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    "Your summary about conservatives doesn't really make sense."

    Tell me about it. I keep looking at the records of stalwart conservatives, the ones held up as examples to follow, and scratch my head too. They are without question all the most fiscally irresponsible, make-it-up-as-they-go, vote-buyers we have had since Trudeau (Obama is still early days but clearly trying to make a go of it too to be honest).

    Context for the quote: Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, attempting to convince the Prez and VP that they can't afford yet another major round of tax cuts. Rove goes after him too at the time. O'Neill was soon fired for his position advocating fiscal responsibility. According to him, there was no analysis of the deficit: there was only tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    It is certainly my view.

    But what I am really trying to describe is how liberals and conservatives have acted once in government. Notwithstanding what they said they were going to do or what they have said about themselves, what did they actually do when they had the chance.

    As for balancing the budget vs stimulus in recession, the priority is the balanced budget but there is an asteriks for emergencies – economic or military – and no government should rule out a deficit under every single circumstance.

    As for the "current crop of Liberal MPs", I'm not – here at least – venturing an opinion because the point of the comment thread was what did they actually do when they had the chance and Iggy obviously hasn't had that chance yet.

From Macleans