What Stephen Harper has in common with Glenn Beck

Politics of venom: voter turnout is near historic lows, and the sniping is only going to get worse

by Paul Wells on Friday, September 3, 2010 8:44am - 0 Comments

Chris Young CP/ Alex Wong Getty Images

How was your week? Glenn Beck’s was pretty good, thanks. On Saturday he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and faced a crowd conservatively estimated at one million people (but liberally estimated at 87,000). “Something that is beyond man is happening,” Beck said. “America today begins to turn back to God.”

Two days later, Beck launched an Internet news website, The Blaze. (“The flame of freedom is dwindling,” he told a different crowd last week. “If you don’t want it to go out on our watch, then you must stand in the blaze. The fire of truth that does not burn those who stand in it, but consumes everything that is not.”) As I write this, The Blaze’s front page has three stories about the “Ground Zero” mosque, one about the “ballooning welfare state,” four about Glenn Beck and three about how Al Sharpton’s simultaneous Washington rally wasn’t as good as Glenn Beck’s.

Also on Monday, a Gallup poll showed the largest Republican lead over congressional Democrats that Gallup has ever measured.

What you will make of these events will, in a profound way, depend. Christopher Hitchens, sometime advocate on behalf of Republican presidents, was baffled. “What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated?” he wrote. “Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces, and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned?”

Hitchens’s answer was that what it takes is “white self-pity.” Whatever it is, there seems to be a lot of it going around. That crowd in front of Beck was big, and people who think like the Fox News host are contributing many of the foot soldiers for the Republican wave that seems set to push back hard against Barack Obama’s foundering presidency in November’s mid-term elections.

I’m not sure my own opinions about Beck are as important as the simple observation that so many other people have such strong feelings about him. And opinions about Beck, like opinions about so much else in public life today, are written in acid and invective.

In the U.S., but also in Australia after the photo-finish elections there and, increasingly, in Stephen Harper’s Canada, the gulf between cultural visions on the left and right is so wide the two sides cannot even speak comprehensibly to each other. Ottawa lifers have taken to calling the two sides Starbucks and Tim Hortons, but the rift is deeper than one’s choice of coffee. It’s the gulf between daycare and church, between the faculty club and the tool shop. It is coming increasingly to define our politics, and to envenom them.

In 1992, the Catholic conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan sought to mend fences among Republicans at the nominating convention for George H.W. Bush’s re-election effort. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.” Buchanan’s speech felt a little hot for the ’90s and was considered to be one of the reasons for Bush’s loss to Bill Clinton that year. But this fall the culture war, with more than a dose of religion to it, is back.

Bookmark and Share
  • NorthernPoV

    OK – I posted this in a reply (to scf I think – but am re-posting here where it isn't buried) when he referenced "Obama's deficit"

    Though the media has accepted that idiotic talking point, the real owner is GWB http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-…

  • Blue

    While any thinking person would know that Obama did not start off with a clean slate, it would be an " idiotic talking point " to use a graph that uses the assumed policies of the previous administration as a basis for the future deficits.

    If it`s a blame-game you`re playing why not go back even further and go after that spendthrift Truman ?

  • Placentia Bay Ex-Pat

    This country,like the US has had it with the left telling us we should be ashamed of who we are and how we built this country.Enough of the were sorry to every group who thinks they should be paid off for something dead people did before most of us were even born.The media in this country are one of the biggest problems we have and should be held accountable for the lies and half truths they print,yes you Mr.Wells are a part of the problem,your writing prove you think like one of those elites you speak of,you spend your time talking down Harper but you fail to see most of us think like him.The time is coming when you lefties will pay the piper and its starting in Toronto with Ford.Watch out lefties you are about to be run over, we are taking back our country and mostly the right to teach our childern our own values and not your twisted view on whats right and wrong.

  • Les Vancer

    "The Politics of Venom and Accusation" by Paul Wells.

    I am not sure that I understand Mr. Wells analogy of Mr. Harper as "disorienting the federal Liberals. I thought they started to become disoriented as soon as Jean Chretien step down. As for Mr. Harper pulling our politics on the rewarding terrain of culture, patriotism, and religion, I have never heard Mr. Harper mention the word Christianity let alone say it was in danger. Mr. Harper has done more to boost our international image than any leader has in many years. I agree that our politics have become "nasty and hotly accusatory" but you have to agree that the Liberals were in power for a long time, and they had a good kick at the cat before the Conservatives came on board. The Conservatives are merely trying to "clean up" some of the mess that was created by other side.

    The Liberals are suffering from all the lefties that moved over from the NDP, such Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, etc.that's the change you have seen in the Liberal camp and no fault of the Conservatives. No wonder they can't find a leader who would stand up for what they stand for. They are not quite sure anymore themselves. The Liberals have not presented any policy or plan, but they are quick to criticize and oppose anything the Conservatives bring up.

    It seems that Mr. Wells has a leaning towards the Liberals in his article and trying to dissuade voters from voting for the Conservatives. It stands to reason that many people are fed up with the antics of the restless politicians in Ottawa, who do nothing but bitch and complain about anything and everything, when they should be governing the country.

    Mr. Harper is the first Leader in a long time, who has a statesman presence on the world scene. He is intelligent, and well spoken, and certainly is a no nonsense person, with a sensible head on his shoulders. Patriotism? Is protecting our Northern borders patriotism, maybe, but he is the first who has gone there to provide the support that is long over due. The Liberals certainly did not do very much to develop our northern borders, let alone visit.

    • Ryan

      And of course you get a thumbs down for that great comment. Expect no less from macleans commenters.

      But again, well said.

    • The Big JC

      Agreed. I don't like Harper one bit, but to project US' right-wing thinking and actions onto Harper & the Conservatives is incorrect. There would be some cross-over, as there would be with the right-wing government of the Netherlands, but mostly there are differences. Why? Because (as much as this is nearly impossible for Canadians to grasp) Canada and the US are two separate countries. With two separate histories. With different parties. With their own histories. With different individuals leading those parties. With their own separate histories. In two different countries.

  • Spudnik7

    So it's Harper who is engaging in the politics of polarisation? I seem to recall the Liberals winning an election or two by insinuating that the opposition were closet extremists (because –you know– most Christians are extremists). It seems to me that the concerns of voters over legitimate problems like spiralling deficits and aggressive refashioning of culture by the left are dismissed as merely "bitter, fearful people clinging to their guns and religion." Through conversations with left-thinking friends I have increasing doubts whether the left –which for the most part can no longer be called liberal– still favours the democratic process over rule by those who assure themselves of their intellectual and moral superiority. That is, I fear for the future of democratic pluralism. Neither self-congratulation nor the demonisation of dissent are helpful.

  • Roberta

    This is so much nonsense. The Liberals are the ones spreading all this venom and trying to portray Harper in a scary light. Liberal propaganda is all this is. Stop trying to compare him with Sara Palin or other Republican members. He is no fanatic as he has show us many times in his actions. Where is all this coming from? The Macleans magazine hasn't had a good arcticle in ages. They should change their writers and be able to report in a manner that is not so partisan. You are expressing an opinion which most of the media do.

  • The Big JC

    I always like your writing, Wells, and usually enjoy the construction of your arguments. This time, no. You unfortunately fell into the same weak trap that so many writers of Canadian politics and culture do where they lazily use US events to back up their claims of this country. Most of your historic and current event highlights were about a fully foreign country, the States, and therefore come across to me as weak and loose and, like I say, lazy.
    Now, I know what you and most Canadians will respond with: But but but, There's a strong NORTH AMERICAN culture; We cannot take the States lightly; Elephant; Mouse; Peril; Blah, blah blah.
    That would stand if the article was about North American culture, but it's about Canada's. You don't use the words "North America", but rather cite US political examples to back a Canadian trend.
    Now I agree, there IS a N.A. culture, and that the politics of these 2 countries have some significant cross-overs and therefore can be used for comparison. But I'd say there is an equal amount of complete dissimilarity between the two countries, their parties and their mindsets. Enough so that using Reagan's actions to back up what Harper is doing is quite nonsensical.
    Why not do more research and go back into Canadian history to show a trend in this country? Why not? An idea so simple, it just might make sense. If you must, sure, tie in a bit of the States (I mean, NO Canadian writer could ever NOT mention SOMETHING about the US…) but also use other countries, and preface it all by saying that the trend in Canada extends throughout N.A. and possibly into the Western World. You do this sometimes, but in this article, you mostly sneak around it. This kind of integrity in our national writing happens sometimes. Just not near enough.

  • Bina at the lake

    Fundamentalist religion of any kind is incredibly dangerous when mixed with the political reigns of power. It scares me and should scare everyone else it becomes an unfair system where a church/temple/synagogue/mosque makes decisions for all. There seems to be very little tolerance when that happens, there seems to be a lot less understanding and we all know that there are wars raging right now that are totally religiously driven and those that are of neither faith are being caught in the middle. Just trying to get through the day in one piece, finding a little ray of sunshine to share with family and friends and hoping they won't get blown to bits in the process.
    We seem to forget that the basic premise of all religions is that of the golden rule of doing unto others, of compassion, of harming none. The world would be a whole lot bet off with a whole lot less religion and politiking and a whole lot more simple compassion. Find me a political party that will simply do the right thing for everyone without worrying about them having some other agenda that frankly is supposed to be divided from the state anyway. Find me a political party that just wants to make sure that everyone will be treated equally and fairly. A party that does not seem to have to be political but could be oh I don't know what is the word…..oh yes honorable, who want to be public servants which means to serve the public good and trust. Find a political party like that and people will vote in droves but right now you seem to have a choice of slimes and yet I still vote in every election with hope.

  • Marcus Toole

    Note: The US just came off from a high turnout mid-term ellection which followed a high ternout presidential ellection. (Mid terms allways have low ternouts in comparison to presidential ellections.) At least in the US ternouts are low when people feel there is no real choice or they are content with the status quo.

  • PolJunkie

    "One more feature of the new landscape: because the new conservatism is resolutely populist and frankly doesn’t seriously care about fiscal balance, it risks running some surprising characters offside."

    I think Harper should worry about the PCers staying within his ranks at the next election.

  • LaxAtlDfwYow

    "…it risks running some surprising characters offside."
    "I think Harper should worry about the PCers staying within his ranks at the next election. "

    If the US experience is any guide, the exact opposite is more likely. The tea party now and neo-cons before them drove the moderate GOP into hiding. Lately, (e.g., John McCain) they've been emerging reborn as exactly what they need to be to compete with the tea party: tea "partiers" in all but name. It's questionable if a moderate GOP even exists anymore.

  • PolJunkie

    "If the US experience is any guide…"

    Canadians aren't Americans.

  • DBM

    There's a difference between guys like McCain and guys like Black, though – and that is that Black isn't running for anything.

    Black is the type of guy that someone like McCain used to try to placate, but have now spurned in favour of the Beck influenced masses. While the zeal may not be ratcheted quite as high in Canadian politics that the cleavage is as apparent, it's definitely catching on – as repeated laments in the writings of Coyne and now Black indicate.

    The imperative to abandon conservative 'elites' in favour of the 'populist' 'reactionary' crowd may be even greater in Canada, where an 'Elite' can only write you a check for $1000 (or two checks for $1000).

  • s_c_f

    It's also questionable if a moderate Democratic Party exists anymore.

  • LaxAtlDfwYow

    The political parallels with the US – except for Quebec and, so far, the extreme religiosity – are pretty darn strong.

    No, Canadians are not Americans – at least not very many of us – but a Venn diagram of economic, cultural, religious, social, and ethnic characteristics and would show massive commonality. We're not nearly as different as we (might like to ) think.

    Back to the topic. I just don't see any significant likelihood of fiscal conservatives abandoning the CPC in numbers.

    Harper has been and equal opportunity failure/success; alternately infuriating every point of the political spectrum. The elephantine failure has been spending control. But, with the continued weak recovery and real risk of economic relapse, it seems to me that folks are clearly not paying attention or are willing to put up with huge deficits for a while longer. Iggy's weakness further tempers any mild inclination to stray.

  • PolJunkie

    " but a Venn diagram of economic, cultural, religious, social, and ethnic characteristics and would show massive commonality. We're not nearly as different as we (might like to ) think."

    We are discussing politics and on that front, we are quite different. Americans are far more conservative than us, hence the reason why people like Beck and Palin are able to have such an appeal. Even Harper recognizes this and it is why (until recently) he's always tried to appear more moderate and has gone to extraordinary lengths to gag a good chunk of his caucus.

    What works in the US politically will not work here.

    "Iggy's weakness further tempers any mild inclination to stray."

    Yeah well this one no longer holds. Harper has swung so far right of late that he just may have become the greater of the two evils for quite a few people.

  • s_c_f

    The elephantine failure has been spending control

    I don't buy that. While I'm the first to say that our government is too big, too expensive and spends far too much, I'll also point out that compared to the rest of the developed world Canada is in good shape in that category.

  • madeyoulook

    Your statements are correct about Canada's situation, scf, but I will still call Harper's "spending control" an oxymoron, and a major failure. If a Conservative can't be conservative when it matters most, why bother?

  • madeyoulook

    B-b-b-b-but the press calls Dem positions moderate, and Repub positions extreme, so it must be true…

  • s_c_f

    In fact, in some cases, the press calls the position of the majority extreme, and the position of the minority moderate.

    Sometimes they'll even say everybody is wrong. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09…

    The most common mistake they make, is that they'll look at polls at make ridiculous conclusions. for instance, if you have three polls with the results:
    60% support lower taxes
    60% are against spending cuts to A
    60% are against spending cuts to B

    Then the press will look at these results and claim the public is schizophrenic, they want tax cuts and no cuts in spending at the same time.

    But all this does is expose the stupidity of the press. Because it's quite easy to explain such results:
    30% want tax cuts with spending cuts to A, and no spending cuts to B
    30% want tax cuts with spending cuts to B, and no spending cuts to A
    30% want no tax cuts and no spending cuts to A or B
    10% are undecided

  • s_c_f

    Sometimes it's all relative. Harper could have killed spending and been turfed from power in a month.

    How does that help the conservative cause?

    Look at what happened when he refused to blow up the budget with a stimulus. We nearly had a 3-headed leftist coalition that would have spent a gazillion dollars. So instead, he compromises and produces a smaller waste of taxpayer money. Would we be more conservative or less with the 3-headed monster coalition in place? Spending control would have gone out the window, just like it did in the US with the lefties in charge.

    You know, when Mulroney was in charge I did not like that he betrayed conservatism in so many ways. But these days, I just don't see it the same way. Politics is the art of the possible.

  • Thwim

    Got any proof it was smaller than it would have been?

    Hint: Simply being "not conservative" is not proof.

  • Jenn_

    Of course you are totally ignoring the fact that he could have brought in a far smaller stimulus package–and not stuck a poison pill or three in there at the same time. Who knows what would have happened if he'd taken the recession a little more seriously, and his desire to screw the opposition a little less seriously?

  • madeyoulook

    scf, if Harper would come before the public and confess, "Yes, it was a waste of money, and yes, we knew it would get wasted on dumb projects in haste, but it was the least damaging decision we could come up with to stave off the coalition menace, which would have been far worse for Canada" then I would STILL resent him for the decision, but I might trust him a wee bit more. But that's not what he and his ministers are spewing. They are actually taking credit for Canada's enviable economic position being thanks to their Goldilocks-just-right amount of stimulus. Blech.

  • Russ

    You are a fool to even ask. Do you have any proof that the sky is blue?

  • s_c_f

    Well, apart from Russ' astute comment…

    There is the fact that the opposition leaders were telling us that they wanted to spend a gazillion dollars. If a politician is telling you he will spend money, you can believe it. Additionally, you can look at what parties of similar persuasion were doing elsewhere, in Europe and the US, and you can conclude that if our own liberal and progressive parties behaved similarly, they would spend a gazillion dollars. Thirdly, there is the fact that Harper himself said that his stimulus would be modest and small, and for saying that the opposition attempted to turf him from power with their 3-headed monster coalition.

    If that is not enough for you, refer to Russ' comment.

  • Mike Amos

    "Iggy's weakness further tempers any mild inclination to stray"

    I agree with you that this may no longer hold. Only talking for myself here, I have always voted conservative but I will unlikely do so in the next election. I do not want the Canadian conservatives trending so far right. I will likely vote Liberal, not because I agree with everything suggested by Iggy, but the Liberals do not seem to be extreme right or left.

  • Jenn_

    You are right, for now, on how Americans are more conservative. What worries me mightily is that many Canadians will be, if we're not already, where the Americans were a few years ago. Which means that a few years from now . . .

  • Thwim

    Hint: Opinions pulled from your arse are not proof.

  • s_c_f

    Hint: Russ is right, you're a fool. Obviously the facts don't matter in your bizarre world. Those things I mentioned are facts, and anybody who is or was paying attention to anything over the last few years would know that. I'm not gonna waste my time proving the sky is blue.

  • PolJunkie

    "What worries me mightily is that many Canadians will be, if we're not already, where the Americans were a few years ago."

    You must have been under the impression that Americans used to be as moderate as us. That's not the case. It's just that the Far Right is now getting more media exposure but they were always there. Remember the era of Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition? They were responsible for the 1994 GOP/Gingrich sweep.

    I don't share your worries, Jenn.

  • Jenn_

    Boy, I hope you have the right of it.

  • Blacktop

    I have read Perlsteins book "Nixonland" and was on the lookout for his latest, but lost interest and forgot to see if it was published yet.

    It is a long time since I have spent many days in the South, but remembering the codes from the results of the Civil Rights legislation, I see similar codes now that to me express the reality of what is going on down there but about which nobody writes and speaks out loud. . Not to be dense, they say something like ,"How did we ever let that N-word into the White House? Mutter mutter words like, they say he wasn't born in Hawaiii (in the WH illegally), mutter mutter something like "he's really a muslim, mutter mutter.'" I suspect that unless you have lived in the now-Republican South (was once Democrat for a century because of the Civil War Reconstruction) it is hard to appreciate that despite how smooth they are on the outside there is roiling hate still there; witness the awful way the poor (mostly African American) were treated in post Katrina.

    And look at the opprobrium the Pres is collectiong for not curing problems that are 90% leftovers from the Bush days As if anyone could in 2 years).. Not in the swim there anymore, but it sticks out like a sore thumb. Little to do with policy, little to do with politics, but seething with deeply buried hate. I don't see any parallel there in Canada. Just Harper too close to the religious right and that's why he must never get a majority, whereas he is safely penned in a minority, and as such is better than a money-les bunch of corrupt libs led by a novice.

  • madeyoulook

    He took the looming recession a little more seriously in the Ef-You Fiscal Update. I recollect that it didn't go over so well. He abdicated limited-government conservative philosophy after that.

  • Jenn_

    MYL! Rewriting history? At the time of the FU, they were still on about how we weren't going to have a deficit, and were only going to have a "technical" recession in Canada, later, not now, etc. etc.

    If that's your idea of seriously, that's maybe the problem. I mean, I didn't need him to do the whole "economic action plan" thing, but maybe extending EI benefits in addition to fixing the banking structure they broke previously would have been enough–as well as not attacking the other political parties, civil servants and women.

  • madeyoulook

    Don't re-write the present, Jenn. I said "a little more seriously." Not "a lot more seriously." And the comment on abdication of conservative philosophy stands on its own just fine.

  • Jenn_

    "And the comment on abdication of conservative philosophy stands on its own just fine."

    No quibble there, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what "a little more seriously" response would have been.

  • s_c_f

    That type of argument is something a politician will never do, along the lines of "we only did it to remain in power and avoid the far worse predicament of being turfed". Or even worse "we did not want to do it but we did it anyway".

    Perhaps you'd trust him, but he'd be polling in the low single digits with that type of remark. Politicians will also be blamed for what happened while they were in office, and if they try to evade it, then voters will punish them.

    I guess I'm arguing that the reason for their course of action is something they would be loathe to admit, even though it makes sense.

    I would agree with you though, that there is lots of room for them to be arguing that the invisible hand of the free market is the primary source of economic recovery. This, they are failing to do, and instead we are getting the same old same old that has become commonplace in Canada.

From Macleans