Saturday, 5 March 2011

The man who would be king

I have a feeling that the Conservative Party of Canada is counting on the apathy and ignorance of Canadians to remain in power, and, ultimately, to become a majority government.

Yesterday, I realized that Stephen Harper has been putting out trial balloons to call this current regime, The Harper Government.

What's up with this guy? Does he think he has the originality to warrant a political brand? Is it his "style" of economics he wants to be known by?

On questions of original "political brand" and economics style, he does not seem to realize that only despots and autocrats of notoriety "earn" their epithet: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Khomeini; or, when they run ruin (inter- and)national economies and civil society: Thatcher, Reagan, etc. (the last three aren't really worthy of their names being as they merely affected anti-Keynesian economics in the ironical sense).

I know of no instance where great leadership actively sought out a name to be known by. Only by their legacy are great leaders known (ie, only after they've legitimately relinquished power and some time has passed, or they've died).

Some notes of interest: -much of the long form census sections that were taken out had to do with "unpaid labour" or demographic cohorts susceptible to poverty and political violation (women's rights groups, aboriginal groups, the homeless and the underemployed); the Public Service Integrity Commissioner was bought out for about half a million Canadian dollars on the condition that she does not divulge anything about her tenure; following parliamentary procedure, the word "Harper's government" couldn't be said in the House of Commons so parliamentarians resorted yesterday to invoking "the H word" as if it were too holy to mention outright in debating the "delusional ambitions" of Harper. Only pure disdain would deign the good name of a democratic process and force such idiocy in its governance system.


No comments:

Post a Comment