Listening to Afghans

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:26 PM - 12 Comments

Fawzia Koofi signing books at the Taj Banquet Hall, Toronto. Photo by Andrew Potter.

A few years ago, the Canadian novelist Yann Martel embarked on a project he called “What is Stephen Harper reading?” For as long as Harper was prime minister, Martel vowed to send him a book, every two weeks, accompanied by a letter explaining why he thought Harper should read the book.  I really disliked the project; I thought it was a smug little exercise built around the prissy conceit that Harper lacked “stillness.” Nevertheless, Martel’s idea was in the front of my mind last week, as I found myself sitting a table in a banquet hall in the north-east reaches of Toronto. If there is one book I’d like to press into Harper’s hands, and sit on him while he reads it, it is Letters to my Daughters, by the Afghan member of parliament Fawzia Koofi.

***

Continue…

Coyne v. Wells on the 'alleged outbreak of civility' in Parliament

By macleans.ca - Friday, June 3, 2011 at 3:49 PM - 26 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

Got Senate reform if you want it

By Andrew Potter - Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM - 98 Comments

I can think of three possible explanations for Stephen Harper’s feckless approach to the Senate. Two speak to his long term strategic goals:

1. He hopes to spur real reform to make the Senate a more effective and legitimate federal institution.

or

2. He doesn’t want reform. What wants is to exacerbate and accelerate the decline of federal institutions, in order to further undermine Ottawa’s legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians.

But there’s a third possibility, which is that

3. For Harper,  Senate reform is just a tactical device designed to placate his base, enrage the opposition, and titillate the media.

My belief is that Harper’s strategic goal is (2), and he’s happy to engage in (3) to the extent that it might also result in (2). But let’s adopt the principle of charity and assume that Harper actually wants to reform the Senate in order to improve the federal government. Or if that’s too much of a mental stretch, let’s pretend that we had a prime minister who actually cared about the legitimacy and effectiveness of federal institutions. How should we reform the Senate?

Let me take the occasion to once again break a lance for Campbell Sharman’s 2008 paper for the IRPP on how to give political legitimacy to an un-elected Senate.

What bedevils the debate over the Senate  is the assumption, shared by  reformers and abolitionists alike, is that the status quo is  intolerable in a modern democracy and the only way to give the Senate  any legitimacy is to turn it into an elective chamber. Sometimes, though, it takes an outsider to give your slumbering dogmas a shake.    Continue…

Coyne v. Wells on Harper's new government and Layton's new job

By macleans.ca - Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM - 8 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

Next up: rush for perimeter security, regulatory harmonization

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM - 12 Comments

With the Harper government winning a majority, expect a sense of urgency on moving ahead with the perimeter security and regulatory harmonization talks with the US. Harper campaigned on this issue and is being warned that the window to move ahead is closing as the presidential campaign cycle draws nearer.

Working groups made up of senior officials from both  governments have been holding consultations with a variety of on what perimeter security and regulatory harmonization should look like. They are working on putting together “action plans” for the leaders. There are expectations for another Harper-Obama meeting this summer at which the leaders would approve the action plans and instruct their governments to implement them.

The consultations in Canada have not been made public, but my story in Maclean’s rounds up some of the proposals the US government is receiving. They include some ambitious ideas such as a two-country visa,  mutual recognition of agricultural inspections, and cross-border embedding of customs inspectors, among many others.

Story is here:

The US and Canada — singing in harmony? US and Canadian groups are urging their governments to coordinate rules and ease restrictions

Paul Wells on who's losing out in the polls

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 11:56 AM - 16 Comments

Video from the Harper campaign

By Paul Wells - Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM - 35 Comments

Here’s some video I shot while covering the Harper campaign. On Wednesday he was outside Toronto. On Thursday he was in Halifax. Both times he delivered a strong economic message to a handpicked Conservative party audience. And on the first day he issued a challenge to Michael Ignatieff he would soon regret.

Coyne v. Wells on why we still have to talk about a coalition

By Claire Ward - Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 1:27 PM - 11 Comments

Shot and edited by Tom Henheffer
Produced by Claire Ward

Download | Feed | iTunes

Coyne v. Wells on the looming election

By Claire Ward - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM - 65 Comments

Shot and edited by Tom Henheffer
Produced by Claire Ward

Download | Feed | iTunes

Aaron Wherry on why we're heading to an election

By Claire Ward - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 4:22 PM - 5 Comments

Shot and edited by Claire Ward

Coyne v. Wells on the budget

By Claire Ward - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:00 PM - 10 Comments

Shot and edited by Tom Henheffer
Produced by Claire Ward

Download | Feed | iTunes

Coyne v. Wells on the unlikely possibility of an election

By Claire Ward - Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 3:12 PM - 23 Comments

Shot and edited by Kerrin McNamara
Produced by Claire Ward

Download | Feed | iTunes

Transcript: Obama and Harper's remarks

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 5:33 PM - 9 Comments

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                               February 4, 2011
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA

AND PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER OF CANADA

IN JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY

South Court Auditorium

3:21 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Please be seated.

I am very pleased to be welcoming my great friend and partner, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, back to the White House to reaffirm our extraordinary friendship and cooperation between the United States and Canada.  I’d like to talk a bit about what we accomplished today, and then address the situation unfolding in Egypt.

The United States and Canada are not simply allies, not simply neighbors; we are woven together like perhaps no other two countries in the world.  We’re bound together by our societies, by our economies, by our families — which reminds me my brother-in-law’s birthday is today and I have to call him.  (Laughter.)

And in our many meetings together I’ve come to value Stephen’s candor and his focus on getting results, both when it comes to our two countries and to meeting global challenges.  Although I, unfortunately, have not yet had the pleasure of seeing him and his band jam to the Rolling Stones — but I’m told the videos have become a sensation on YouTube.  So I’ll be checking those out after this bilateral.  (Laughter.)

We’ve had a very successful day.  Our focus has been on how we increase jobs and economic growth on both sides of the border. Canada is our largest trading partner and the top destination for American exports, supporting some 1.7 million jobs here.  So today we’ve agreed to several important steps to increase trade, improve our competitiveness, and create jobs for both our people.

First, we agreed to a new vision for managing our shared responsibilities — not just at the border but “beyond the border.”  That means working more closely to improve border security with better screening, new technologies and information-sharing among law enforcement, as well as identifying threats early.  It also means finding new ways to improve the free flow of goods and people.  Because with over a billion dollars in trade crossing the border every single day, smarter border management is key to our competitiveness, our job creation, and my goal of doubling U.S. exports.

And, Mr. Prime Minister, I thank you for your leadership and commitment to reaching this agreement.

We’ve directed our teams to develop an action plan to move forward quickly.  And I’m confident that we’re going to get this done so that our shared border enhances our shared prosperity.

Second, we’re launching a new effort to get rid of outdated regulations that stifle trade and job creation.  Like the government-wide review that I ordered last month, we need to obviously strike the right balance — protecting our public health and safety, and making it easier and less expensive for American and Canadians to trade and do business, for example, in the auto industry.  And a new council that we’re creating today will help make that happen.

Third, we discussed a wide range of ways to promote trade and investment, from clean energy partnerships to the steps Canada can take to strengthen intellectual property rights.

And we discussed a range of common security challenges, including Afghanistan, where our forces serve and sacrifice together.  Today, I want to thank Prime Minister Harper for Canada’s decision to shift its commitment to focus on training Afghan forces.  As we agreed with our Lisbon — or our NATO and coalition allies in Lisbon, the transition to Afghan lead for security will begin this year, and Canada’s contribution will be critical to achieving that mission and keeping both our countries safe.

Finally, we discussed our shared commitment to progress with our partners in the Americas, including greater security cooperation.  And I especially appreciated the Prime Minister’s perspective on the region as I prepare for my trip to Central and South America next month.

Let me close by saying a few words about the situation in Egypt.  This is obviously still a fluid situation and we’re monitoring it closely, so I’ll make just a few points.

First, we continue to be crystal-clear that we oppose violence as a response to this crisis.  In recent days, we’ve seen violence and harassment erupt on the streets of Egypt that violates human rights, universal values and international norms. So we are sending a strong and unequivocal message:  Attacks on reporters are unacceptable.  Attacks on human rights activists are unacceptable.  Attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable.

The Egyptian government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its people.  Those demonstrating also have a responsibility to do so peacefully.  But everybody should recognize a simple truth:  The issues at stake in Egypt will not be resolved through violence or suppression.  And we are encouraged by the restraint that was shown today.  We hope that it continues.

Second, the future of Egypt will be determined by its people.  It’s also clear that there needs to be a transition process that begins now.  That transition must initiate a process that respects the universal rights of the Egyptian people and that leads to free and fair elections.

The details of this transition will be worked by Egyptians. And my understanding is that some discussions have begun.  But we are consulting widely within Egypt and with the international community to communicate our strong belief that a successful and orderly transition must be meaningful.  Negotiations should include a broad representation of the Egyptian opposition, and this transition must address the legitimate grievances of those who seek a better future.

Third, we want to see this moment of turmoil turn into a moment of opportunity.  The entire world is watching.  What we hope for and what we will work for is a future where all of Egyptian society seizes that opportunity.  Right now a great and ancient civilization is going through a time of tumult and transformation.  And even as there are grave challenges and great uncertainty, I am confident that the Egyptian people can shape the future that they deserve.  And as they do, they will continue to have a strong friend and partner in the United States of America.

Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  Well, first of all, thank you, Barack.  Both thank you for your friendship both personal and national.  And thank you for all the work you’ve done and all of your people have done to bring us to our announcement today.

[Speaks in French.]

And I will just repeat that.

Today, President Obama and I are issuing a declaration on our border, but it is, of course, much more than that.  It is a declaration on our relationship.  Over the past nearly 200 years, our two countries have progressively developed the closest, warmest, most integrated and most successful relationship in the world.  We are partners, neighbors, allies, and, most of all, we are true friends.

In an age of expanding opportunities but also of grave dangers, we share fundamental interests and values just as we face common challenges and threats.

At the core of this friendship is the largest bilateral trading relationship in history.  And since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, a milestone in the development of the modern era of globalization, that partnership has grown spectacularly.

Not only is the U.S. Canada’s major export market, Canada is also America’s largest export market — larger than China, larger than Mexico, larger than Japan, larger than all the countries of the European Union combined.  Eight million jobs in the United States are supported by your trade with Canada.  And Canada is the largest, the most secure, the most stable, and the friendliest supplier of that most vital of all America’s purchases — energy.

It is in both our interests to ensure that our common border remains open and efficient, but it is just as critical that it remains secure and in the hands of the vigilant and the dedicated.  Just as we must continually work to ensure that inertia and bureaucratic sclerosis do not impair the legitimate flow of people, goods and services across our border, so, too, we must up our game to counter those seeking new ways to harm us.

And I say “us” because as I have said before, a threat to the United States is a threat to Canada — to our trade, to our interests, to our values, to our common civilization.  Canada has no friends among America’s enemies, and America has no better friend than Canada.

The declaration President Obama and I are issuing today commits our governments to find new ways to exclude terrorists and criminals who pose a threat to our peoples.  It also commits us to finding ways to eliminate regulatory barriers to cross-border trade and travel, because simpler rules lead to lower costs for business and consumers, and ultimately to more jobs.

Shared information, joint planning, compatible procedures and inspection technology will all be key tools.  They make possible the effective risk management that will allow us to accelerate legitimate flows of people and goods between our countries while strengthening our physical security and economic competitiveness.

So we commit to expanding our management of the border to the concept of a North American perimeter, not to replace or eliminate the border but, where possible, to streamline and decongest it.

There is much work to do.  The declaration marks the start of this endeavor, not the end; an ambitious agenda between two countries, sovereign and able to act independently when we so choose according to our own laws and aspirations, but always understanding this — that while a border defines two peoples, it need not divide them.  That is the fundamental truth to which Canadians and Americans have borne witness for almost two centuries.  And through our mutual devotion to freedom, democracy and justice at home and abroad, it is the example we seek to demonstrate for all others.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  All right, we’ve got time for a couple of questions.  I’m going to start with Alister Bull.

Q    Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Is it conceivable to you that a genuine process of democratic reform can begin in Egypt while President Mubarak remains in power, or do you think his stepping aside is needed for reform even to begin?

And to Prime Minister Harper, on the energy issue, did you discuss Canada’s role as a secure source of oil for the United States, and in particular, did you receive any assurances the U.S. administration looks favorably on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone Pipeline to the Gulf Coast?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I have had two conversations with President Mubarak since this crisis in Egypt began, and each time I’ve emphasized the fact that the future of Egypt is going to be in the hands of Egyptians.  It is not us who will determine that future.  But I have also said that in light of what’s happened over the last two weeks, going back to the old ways is not going to work.  Suppression is not going to work.  Engaging in violence is not going to work.  Attempting to shut down information flows is not going to work.

In order for Egypt to have a bright future — which I believe it can have — the only thing that will work is moving a orderly transition process that begins right now, that engages all the parties, that leads to democratic practices, fair and free elections, a representative government that is responsive to the grievances of the Egyptian people.

Now, I believe that President Mubarak cares about his country.  He is proud, but he’s also a patriot.  And what I’ve suggested to him is, is that he needs to consult with those who are around him in his government.  He needs to listen to what’s being voiced by the Egyptian people and make a judgment about a pathway forward that is orderly, but that is meaningful and serious.

And I believe that — he’s already said that he’s not going to run for reelection.  This is somebody who’s been in power for a very long time in Egypt.  Having made that psychological break, that decision that he will not be running again, I think the most important for him to ask himself, for the Egyptian government to ask itself, as well as the opposition to ask itself, is how do we make that transition effective and lasting and legitimate.

And as I said before, that’s not a decision ultimately the United States makes or any country outside of Egypt makes.  What we can do, though, is affirm the core principles that are going to be involved in that transition.  If you end up having just gestures towards the opposition but it leads to a continuing suppression of the opposition, that’s not going to work.  If you have the pretense of reform but not real reform, that’s not going to be effective.

And as I said before, once the President himself announced that he was not going to be running again, and since his term is up relatively shortly, the key question he should be asking himself is, how do I leave a legacy behind in which Egypt is able to get through this transformative period.  And my hope is, is that he will end up making the right decision.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  You asked me about the question of energy, and, yes, we did discuss the matter you raised.  And let me just say this in that context.  I think it is clear to anyone who understands this issue that the need of the United States for fossil fuels far in excess of its ability to produce such energy will be the reality for some time to come.  And the choice that the United States faces in all of these matters is whether to increase its capacity, to accept such energy from the most secure, most stable and friendliest location it can possibly get that energy, which is Canada, or from other places that are not as secure, stable or friendly to the interests and values of the United States.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think we’ve got a Canadian reporter.

Q    Prime Minister, can you answer this in English and French?  Canadians will be asking how much of our sovereignty and our privacy rights will be given up to have more open borders and an integrated economy.  And while I have you on your feet, I want to ask you about Egypt, as well, whether you feel that Mr. Mubarak should be stepping down sooner, it would help the transition?

And, Mr. President, on the sovereignty issue, you’re welcome to answer it — you don’t have to speak in French, though.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Now, I love French, but I’m just not very capable of speaking it.  (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  On the question of sovereignty, this declaration is not about sovereignty.  We are sovereign countries who have the capacity to act as we choose to act.  The question that faces us is to make sure we act in a sovereign way that serves Canada’s interests.  It is in Canada’s interests to work with our partners in the United States to ensure that our borders are secure, and ensure that we can trade and travel across them as safely and as openly as possible within the context of our different laws.

And that is what we’re trying to achieve here.  We share security threats that are very similar on both sides of the border.  We share an integrated economic space where it doesn’t make sense to constantly check the same cargo over and over again — if we can do that at a perimeter, if we can decongest the border, that’s what we should be doing.  If we can — if we can harmonize regulations in ways that avoid unnecessary duplication and red tape for business — these are things that we need to do.

So that’s what this is all about.  This is about the safety of Canadians and it is about creating jobs and economic growth for the Canadian economy.

Let me maybe — I’ll do French and then I’ll come to Egypt.

(Speaks in French.)

On the question of Egypt, let me just agree fully with what President Obama has said.  I don’t think there is any doubt from anyone who is watching the situation that transition is occurring and will occur in Egypt.  The question is what kind of transition this will be and how it will lead.  It is ultimately up to the Egyptian people to decide who will govern them.

What we want to be sure is that we lead towards a future that is not simply more democratic, but a future where that democracy is guided by such values as non-violence, as the rule of law, as respect and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities.

(Speaks in French.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  With respect to security issues and sovereignty issues, obviously, Canada and the United States are not going to match up perfectly on every measure with respect to how we balance security issues, privacy issues, openness issues. But we match up more than probably any country on Earth.

We have this border that benefits when it is open.  The free flow of goods and services results in huge economic benefits for both sides.  And so the goal here is to make sure that we are coordinating closely and that as we are taking steps and measures to ensure both openness and security, that we’re doing so in ways that enhances the relationship as opposed to creates tensions in the relationship.  And we are confident that we’re going to be able to achieve that.

We’ve already made great progress just over the last several years on various specific issues.  What we’re trying to do now is to look at this in a more comprehensive fashion, so that it’s not just border security issues, but it’s a broader set of issues involved.  And I have great confidence that Prime Minister Harper is going to be very protective of certain core values of Canada, just as I would be very protective of the core values of the United States, and those won’t always match up perfectly.

And I thought — I agree even more with his answer in French.  (Laughter.)

All right.  Thank you very much, everybody.

END                       3:49 P.M. EST

Harper and Obama announce new regulatory council

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 3:25 PM - 35 Comments

To advance a vision of “perimeter security”, “Canada and the U.S. intend to establish a Beyond the Border Working Group composed of representatives from the appropriate departments of our respective federal governments.” It will report annually.

They announce the creation of a U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council composed of senior officials from both governments to work on “increased regulatory transparency and coordination.”

This will “in no way diminish the sovereignty of either Canada or the U.S.”

This will include early notice of regulations that could have effects across the border and to help make regulations more compatible.

Coyne v. Wells on five years of Harper

By macleans.ca - Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 10:04 AM - 39 Comments

ON NEWSSTANDS NOW: Paul Wells and John Geddes’ special report ‘What you don’t know about Stephen Harper’ and Andrew Coyne’s column ‘The damage done by doing so little’

Download | Feed | iTunes

Canada’s fossilized G20 protesters

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM - 0 Comments

It’s a good thing for the G20 protesters that the focus has gone all meta and shifted to the realm of civil rights, including the questionable five-metre rule and the behaviour of the police. Because if the attention was on the protesters themselves and their actual agenda, they’d have a lot to answer for.

No, I’m not here to rehash the condemnation of the Black Bloc types who smashed up the city and torched police cars. I’m actually more interested in the ones who were there for the peaceable reason of desiring to influence public policy. What sort of policies were they opposed to? Which ones did they support? It’s surprisingly hard to say. I’ve been trolling through the stories in the aftermath of the summit, and it would appear that most of the protesters had no real clue either.

When a firm agenda was expressed, it tended to be absurdly general: “People not profits.” “Stop the G20”. “Justice Now.” “Animal Rights are Human Rights.” “Free Palestine.” You get the picture. Even the supporters and organizers of the protests seemed less than pleased with the discordant messaging. At one point, in a rally and march held the day after all of the major arrests (on June 28), the Globe’s Anna Mehler Paperny tweeted “The telling moment when Rebick shouts ‘what do we want?’ and everyone shouts something different. (They settle on ‘justice’)”.

Why am I bringing this up, so late to the party? Because the absence of any coherent and informed protest agenda has allowed a great scandal to pass virtually unnoticed. Continue…

NDP challenge Harper to do what he said he'd do

By Andrew Potter - Monday, January 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM - 22 Comments

From a new NDP press release:

OTTAWA—New Democrats today challenged Stephen Harper to, as a bare minimum, place enforceable term-limits on the next round of Senate appointments, a long promised policy of the Conservative Party.

“Mr. Harper’s record on Senate reform is long on rhetoric, and short on action,” said New Democrat Democratic Reform Critic David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre). “Making new Senators agree to an enforceable term limit, as Mr. Harper has repeatedly promised, would be a modest step toward Senate reform.”

I have a column in the Citizen today arguing that if Harper is serious about Senate reform, the appointments process is the place to focus his attention. Except I don’t actually think that Harper cares about Senate reform one way or another; like abortion in the US, it is one of those useful issues that Conservatives in Canada use to keep their base on a low boil. They are always just about to do something about it, though they never seem to get there. Senate reform for Harper is a tactical device, not part of a serious strategic agenda.

Coyne v. Wells on torture spin and HST pirouettes

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM - 11 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

Harper lays foundation for his legacy

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 9:03 AM - 56 Comments

Le Devoir’s Alec Castonguay has a great story today about Harper starting to lay the foundations of his legacy, a central pillar of which will be a new democracy-promotion agency. Its central mandate will be to smooth the transition to democracy in former dictatorships or authoritarian states by promoting the creation and flourishing of new political parties.

Minister for Democratic reform is said to be preparing to introduce a bill in January, having just received a report from a group of four people tasked with setting out the priorities of this new organization. The leader of the group was – get this – Tom Axworthy. It is to be a publicly-funded, non-partisan agency, and will look to foster democratic institutions in countries such as Haiti, Afghanistan, Cuba and Zimbabwe.

Not everyone in the demcoracy/Human Rights NGO community is happy. Why build another agency when there are a bunch, already functioning, that could simply be expanded? And will the money for this agency just cannibalize pre-existing budgets?

Harper goes all in

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 10:18 AM - 67 Comments

Is there any stage upon which this man is not completely at home?

UPDATED: Constitutional NON Crisis

By Andrew Potter - Friday, October 9, 2009 at 8:46 AM - 40 Comments

UPDATE: GG has put out a press release saying it was all a mistake long-planned relaunch of the website.

***

The GG.Ca site went dark overnight. The link Geddes has in his post no longer works. The site is working now, very slowly. The splash page when I woke up this morning was a massive picture of Michaelle Jean at the UN. The page bore no resemblance to standard gc.ca website. There was, though, a link to a Heritage Canada page with a picture of the Queen on it: Note: Last night, it was impossible to find a reference or photo of the Queen on the GG website.

The new site has another new splash page, with three photos of Jean. No other links are working at this time — they are clearly loading the pages on the fly.

Is Jean is declaring war on Harper. Or did he declare war first? And how much of this goes back to the crisis of last fall?

Of course, anyone who knows what is really going on should write me jandrewpotter@gmail.com

UPDATED WITH A QUESTION:

Geddes above/elsewhere is making the operationalist claim that someone who walks/acts/speaks like a head of state must be one. But here’s a question, which I’m told Michael Bliss raised during the crisis last fall:

What happens if Harper asks the Queen to dismiss the Governor General?

UPDATED WITH A PIC:

This is what the site looks like at 10:27. Totally off the reservation:

The Re-framing of Stephen Harper

By Andrew Potter - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 7:09 PM - 48 Comments

Just because you haven’t heard enough of Stephen Harper’s Ringo impression last weekend, the Ottawa Citizen today had dueling columns about what the upshot of the performance really is.

On the left is former Paul Martin speechwriter and Blackberry roundtable member Scott Reid. After conceding the immediate PR value of it all, he argues that this was a one-off that signifies “exactly nothing”.  As Reid sees it, unlike Chretien waterskiing, or Peter Mackay going to boot camp, Harper’s sing-along was not intended – and did not succeed – in changing his brand or “frame”.  He has no desire to suck up to the black-tie crowd, because he remains resolutely committed to his Tim Horton’s constituency, which disdains the latte crowd who clapped along with him the other night.

In sum, says Reid: “His appearance was an enjoyable play against type and a great bit of theatre. But it was a brief departure from his political strategy — not an expansion of it.”

On the right is Don Martin, who begs to differ. Unlike the sweater-vest gambit, which was seen by the public as transparently fake attempt at positioning himself as a man of the people, “the new act has sold well enough to generate a faint Harper-mania.” And the money graph:

While this all might be crass political optics to wow the middle-class women voters of suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the general public increasingly likes what they see in happy Harper and increasingly loathes what they see in the dark-furrowed brow that is Michael Ignatieff.

I find myself in Don Martin’s corner….

Continue…

Parliament and the intellectuals

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM - 37 Comments

“Dispelling ignorance should be the first duty of the intellectual.”

That’s the opening line to Adrienne Clarkson’s introduction to Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, edited by Peter Russell and Lorne Sossin, reprinted in today’s Post.

I couldn’t agree more, which is why the fourteen essays in the book are in many ways so disappointing. There are some highlights (especially Ned Franks vs Andrew Heard on whether the GG made the right decision in granting Harper’s request to prorogue), but for the most part the book is beset by a problem that is basically a corollary of Coyne’s third rule, to wit:

In any sufficiently large group of academics, the more complete the agreement the more complete the error.

And so you have the essays in Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, a dozen or so academics in total agreement that there were two central problems during the Madness of last fall: Harper’s perfidy, and the public’s ignorance. One after the other, the essays take turns berating Harper for his behaviour and condescending to Canadians about their constitutional befuddlement. The possibility that there was something else at work, or at least, another side to the matter, is considered only to be dismissed.

The upshot, as I argue at some length in a forthcoming issue of the LRC, is that far from dispelling ignorance, this book only creates more of it.

Changing heart, changing mind

By Andrew Potter - Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM - 11 Comments

Harper is glad the US has turned its attention to Afghanistan:

“We have been losing ground the last several years. Ultimately whether it was right or wrong, the war in Iraq was a diversion from the central, the original mission to Afghanistan,” Harper told Sky News in London, where he was attending the G20 summit today.

Of course, what he thought (and said) at the time was somewhat different:

As we learned, or should have learned, on September 11, having no malice toward these groups will not absolve the citizens of any country from the hatred they direct toward us and toward our civilization.

The principal objective is the disarmament of Iraq but it has now become apparent that objective is inseparable from the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Earlier this week President Bush requested the support of his key allies in the participation of a coalition of nations that would be prepared to enforce Security Council resolutions by all necessary means. That same day the allies delivered an ultimatum to the Iraqi leadership: Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours or face military conflict.

These allies did not seek a military conflict today any more than they sought it 12 years ago. The world has tried other means for years but to no avail. We cannot walk away from the threat that Iraq’s continued possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes to its region and to the wider world.

In the final analysis, disarming Iraq is necessary for the long term security of the world, to the collective interests of our historic allies and, therefore, manifestly it is in the national interest of this country.

And so on…