began writing Right of Center a year ago this week, and I must say I'm happy with the response its garnered over the past fifty or so appearances. If nothing else, I have been allotted the opportunity to present conservative commentary, encourage fellow right-wingers, and give opponents pause for thought. In light of the one year anniversary, I have decided to revisit the subject of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this time focusing on his greatest contribution to Canadian politics: unapologetic, calculated partisanship.
It may shock progressives especially, but the fact of the matter is one cannot have principled leadership, intelligent political discourse, or effective government action without partisanship. While this may sound counter-intuitive to Canadian ears, long indoctrinated by weak hearted, leftist interpretations of Canadian history and political activity from Vimy Ridge to Repatriation, one need only look to our mother England or cousin America to see that both liberal and conservative legacies have partisan goals and methods to thank for their triumphs.
Harper, plagued as he is these days by disappearing cabinet ministers, floor crossings, and Supreme Court interventionism, remains the most honest PM we've had in many a decade when it comes to his stances, policies, and projects.
Where does Canada stand on Israel and conflicts around the globe? Even children know now. How does this government treat constitutional responsibilities of the provinces? Like they're provincial issues, by leaving them alone. What is every CPC Member of Parliament expected to make their primary concern at home in the riding or during question period? Development, technical training for Canadians - particularly aboriginal people, sound budgets, eliminating bureaucratic redundancies, harsher sentencing for violent criminals, greater focus on the military, immigration reform, legislation that curtails cyber and physical terrorism, et cetera.
In a sentence, oft-repeated by Harper himself, this government is unapologetically concerned with "what matters to hardworking families that pay their taxes and play by the rules."
Of course this methodology has its critics, many of whom pine for the "good old days" of polite parliamentary debate and less partisan attacks. Let's briefly look at that legacy:
A divisive, confusing, and still not wholly ratified constitution; a failed national energy policy; an unsustainable, constitutionally mandated healthcare system; gun legislation that makes law-abiding citizens criminals; a public broadcaster that spends tax dollars on DNTO; a defanged military; willful iconoclasm against the monarchy; a national pension that doesn't pay; a Supreme Court that can overrule Parliament; the cowardly preservation of the racist and inept Indian Act; a human rights commission that stifles free speech - need I go on?
I don't know about you, but that all sounds awfully partisan to me. It's at least terribly short sighted, bordering on wilfully blind to the obvious issues these policies would incur. In fact, it almost seems that if anybody had been forced to argue for some of these things from a more honest, even fiscal, standpoint, instead of arguing that these items already aligned with Canadian values, a good deal of these projects would never have lifted off the ground.
The fairest argument is that while there's always been partisanship, the language has changed so that it is in fact more honest today. These new terms of engagement have given a voice to people on the Right especially, and forced the Left to clarify its contradictory positions and policies. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a good thing for Canadian democracy in general.
