The bill itself doesn't strike me as terribly interesting - especially since it is mostly in the form of politcal vaporware known as rhetoric. I'll discuss my thoughts on whatever Harper proposes when the legislation is actually tabled in the house and I can review it.
What I found striking were a few other things that Harper said during and after his meeting with the Senate:
Liberal Senator Jim Munson questioned Harper about the possibility that he would "fight an election on the backs of the Senate."
"Well, don't give me the opportunity," Harper replied. He said there would be political consequences if Canadians become convinced that any kind of Senate reform became impossible.
How typical of the bully - if you can't persuade people to think your way, your undermine and threaten them with vague "consequences".
It's amazing how "top-down" this supposedly "grass roots" Conservative party has become. For something that is supposedly driven by its membership at the grass roots, it's a serious non-sequitur to see Harper making such dictatorial statements. But it's not that surprising either.
Bubbling out of the cesspit of The United States right wing, we have a book being published by DoubleDay that argues that the reason for the current "war on terror" that Bush is waging is really the fault of "liberal" values and social change. The author's thesis is that women's rights, gay rights, no fault divorce law, etc. enrage not only Islamic, but other religious cultures around the world, thus making the the United States a target for their outrage.
Besides being horribly misguided thinking (he might take a look at the track record of US "interventionism" in the world for a few clues), the author is basically arguing for a rollback of civil rights.
Now, how is this significant? It's quite simple - the Neo/Theo-Cons are not conservatives at all. The are in fact social regressives. They idealize a social structure and society that existed at the peak of the 19th century, and had a mild rebirth after WWII with the "nuclear family".
When you look at how Harper is acting (very top-down, hierarchical), and you examine the Neo/Theo-Con view of society, the "liberalization" that they are so critical of takes away their ability to control the "lesser power" players in society. The sexual revolution of the 1960s stripped them of their ability to "control" women's destinies; liberalized divorce laws further weakened their power grip.
The civil rights movement that boiled over with Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King removed the notion that civil society needed to be segregated along racial lines {oh yes, do I need to point out the obvious that society has not yet crumbled from that change?} Who did this affect - wealthy, white, male, power brokers. The people whose political and economic interests were dependent upon their control over a subjugated underclass of "colored" people.
This leads me back to Harper and his governance. Why is he so top down? Simple - the particlar brand of "conservatism" he subscribes to idealizes hierarchy, and works on the notion that control is power. Harper's made it clear that he doesn't like being questioned (other than flattering questions - like "Gee, Mr. Harper, why's your deficit so big?") Along with his ideological companions, he is threatened by the notion that someone he perceives as "lesser" on the totem pole might possibly rise out of his direct or indirect control.
Such thinking is positively archaic, and it ultimately relies upon the ability of these people to have a target group to marginalize. The more target groups they have, the better - that way the misery they inflict is "spread about", and is less likely to result in a violent uprising. (until the groups being marginalized figure out what is happening, of course)
No comments:
Post a Comment