Is Stephen Harper Canada's Nixon?

[cybercoma]

The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.

Full commentary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/24/thecanadiannixon?fbParam=native

Four years ago Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer from the Guardian wrote a commentary on the thesis that Stephen Harper's prime ministership is akin to Richard Nixon's presidency as argued by Garry Wills. Harper's sole purpose, they claim, is to undermine the government and all of its institutions.

Anastakis and Heer support their arguement by pointing to the way Harper undermines the media's ability to hold the government accountable by only taking questions from friendly outlets if at all. He also demands this of his MPs. Harper and Canadian conservatives more broadly, according to the authors, also attack our legal institutions by claiming judges are activists when they make decisions that oppose rightwing ideology. Anastakis and Heer also point to Harper's attack on the House of Commons, when as leader of the opposition he said that the same-sex marriage vote was not valid because it included votes from the BQ. Today, we can point to the Conservatives being found in contempt of parliament or the times when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament for the sake of avoiding uncomfortable questions. Perhaps most damning thing Anastakis and Heer point to, illustrating Harper's contempt for the House of Commons and Parliament, is The Black Book. If you have no idea what that is, you need to read the link to Don Martin's article.

Then we get to the part about Elections Canada. Mind you this is from 4 years ago, but given the current issues with the previous election it's important to refresh our memories. Let's not forget that it was elections Canada that raided Conservative headquarters, resulting in the CPC pleading guilty to breaking funding laws. According to Anastakis and Heer, "[a]s head of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition (NCC), Harper fought for years against Elections Canada's laws around "third-party advertising"." Indeed, there was even a case brought before the courts by the NCC headed by Harper. Wouldn't you know it, the case was called Harper v Canada. That time Harper lost. And don't forget that Harper also criticized the head of Elections Canada for enforcing electoral laws when the CPC was busted for the "In and Out" scheme.

So goes the argument from these guys. Stephen Harper is not in power to govern, but to attack Canada's institutions. In the four years since this article Harper and the Conservatives have continued their assault on our institutions. It should be surprising to no one then that the Conservatives would not favour a public inquiry into the robocalling issue, nor will they cooperate with the legal duties of Elections Canada and the RCMP. No one knows who is responsible for the robocalling and thus the attack on democracy. One thing is for certain though, given their history, Harper's Tories will continue to show nothing but contempt for Elections Canada and continue to undermine our institutions, whether they were responsible for the calls or not.

[fellowtraveller]

Harper is more like Hitler, or Pol Pot.

[fellowtraveller]

Anastakis and Heer support their arguement by pointing to the way Harper undermines the media's ability to hold the government accountable by only taking questions from friendly outlets if at all.

By my count Harper has been interviewed by Peter Mansbridge at least four time between Jan 2011 and Jan 2012.

If your thesis holds true, then either Mansbridge, Harper or both are holograms and all of those interviews are faked.

The only other possibility is that you think the CBC is a Harper-friendly outlet. You'll have to back that one up with some facts. Even one would do.

[cybercoma]

By my count Harper has been interviewed by Peter Mansbridge at least four time between Jan 2011 and Jan 2012.

If your thesis holds true, then either Mansbridge, Harper or both are holograms and all of those interviews are faked.

The only other possibility is that you think the CBC is a Harper-friendly outlet. You'll have to back that one up with some facts. Even one would do.

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/freedomofthepressandprimeministerharpersmediapolicy.php

The press in Ottawa believe that they are not being given sufficient access to the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers. Journalists complain that their calls are not returned, that they are given copies of speeches only when they are days old, and that cabinet meetings are held in secret allowing ministers to avoid the press who wish to meet with them after the meetings and ask questions about their portfolios.[5] The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) sought to manage press conferences by compiling a list of journalists who wish to ask questions and then selecting from that list.[6] Journalists walked out of a press conference to protest the new measures. Outside of Ottawa, the government banned the media from attending the repatriation of dead soldiers returning to Canadian military bases from Afghanistan.[7]

Not to mention the current issue of gagging scientists, not allowing them to talk about their research to the media, unless approved by Harper's government.

Saying that Harper undermines the media is not the least bit contentious. Conservatives claimed the media is biased and that it was a necessary tactic because they were always painting the CPC in a negative light.

I don't think you're unaware of this, so you're being pretty dishonest by pretending you are.

[j44]

Four years ago Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer from the Guardian wrote a commentary on the thesis that Stephen Harper's prime ministership is akin to Richard Nixon's presidency as argued by Garry Wills. Harper's sole purpose, they claim, is to undermine the government and all of its institutions.

Anastakis and Heer support their arguement by pointing to the way Harper undermines the media's ability to hold the government accountable by only taking questions from friendly outlets if at all. He also demands this of his MPs. Harper and Canadian conservatives more broadly, according to the authors, also attack our legal institutions by claiming judges are activists when they make decisions that oppose rightwing ideology. Anastakis and Heer also point to Harper's attack on the House of Commons, when as leader of the opposition he said that the same-sex marriage vote was not valid because it included votes from the BQ. Today, we can point to the Conservatives being found in contempt of parliament or the times when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament for the sake of avoiding uncomfortable questions. Perhaps most damning thing Anastakis and Heer point to, illustrating Harper's contempt for the House of Commons and Parliament, is The Black Book. If you have no idea what that is, you need to read the link to Don Martin's article.

Then we get to the part about Elections Canada. Mind you this is from 4 years ago, but given the current issues with the previous election it's important to refresh our memories. Let's not forget that it was elections Canada that raided Conservative headquarters, resulting in the CPC pleading guilty to breaking funding laws. According to Anastakis and Heer, "[a]s head of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition (NCC), Harper fought for years against Elections Canada's laws around "third-party advertising"." Indeed, there was even a case brought before the courts by the NCC headed by Harper. Wouldn't you know it, the case was called Harper v Canada. That time Harper lost. And don't forget that Harper also criticized the head of Elections Canada for enforcing electoral laws when the CPC was busted for the "In and Out" scheme.

So goes the argument from these guys. Stephen Harper is not in power to govern, but to attack Canada's institutions. In the four years since this article Harper and the Conservatives have continued their assault on our institutions. It should be surprising to no one then that the Conservatives would not favour a public inquiry into the robocalling issue, nor will they cooperate with the legal duties of Elections Canada and the RCMP. No one knows who is responsible for the robocalling and thus the attack on democracy. One thing is for certain though, given their history, Harper's Tories will continue to show nothing but contempt for Elections Canada and continue to undermine our institutions, whether they were responsible for the calls or not.

I’m not Harper’s biggest fan but even I don’t doubt that he is there to govern. He obviously has a hardball style but I think his attacks on institutions (if you want to call it that) is to further his agenda. That agenda is to change Canada into something that he wants. What he wants Canada to look like is up for debate but I have little doubt that his dream would be to govern a Conservative Canada that fits with his values and policies. He is moving the country in that direction. He sees these institutions criticise his policies, put up a fight against him, investigate the Conservatives when they (depending on your opinion) bend or break the rules and so forth. He doesn’t want these obstacles to stand in his way of governing the Canada he wants so he attacks them. His attacks are a means to an end. Not the ends themselves (Is that proper grammar???).

Nixon was paranoid and thought everyone was out to get him. He even spied in Kissinger. I don’t see Harper in the same light at all. He isn’t paranoid. He seems buildings in Ottawa filled with Liberal appointees and doesn’t like it. Are his tactics harsh? Yes. Are they very, very harsh sometimes? Also yes.

While I don’t think Harper is as far right as his critics see him I do think he is further right than any other PM I can think of off the top of my head. But he is pragmatic.

Fairly recently (and I can’t remember the exact details of the case) but a judge disagreed with a federal law because she thought the law would give a man a sentence that was too harsh. Now I tend to agree with her but didn’t she overrule a law? A law passed by an elected government? I’m not a Conservative but I would be livid if I was. This is what Harper sees standing in his way. Call the judge an activist or something else but I can see Harper and other Conservatives being very, very upset about this sort of stuff.

This is getting long so I’ll stop before I get into Nixon too much but until Harper carpet bombs South East Asia I’ll disagree with the comparison. 

Edited March 6, 2012 by j44

[DogOnPorch]

Harper is more like Hitler, or Pol Pot.

Where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuol_Sleng_Genocide_Museum

[scribblet]

Harper is more like Hitler, or Pol Pot.

Wow, over the top hyperbole or what... prove that one... and let me know when Harper starts murdering millions.

[Guest Peeves]

No, he's our Lincoln. He's the peoples\'s choice.

Rae's our Nixon. Or wannabe.

The NDP our red Communists.

And our Liberals strutting supercilious leftist popinjays like father and son both.

[fellowtraveller]

Saying that Harper undermines the media is not the least bit contentious

Undermine? How so? Is he bombing journalism schools.

What the problem is- from the media viewpoint- is that Harper will not do what he is told- by the media. Anybody who does not sit up and bark on cue is their enemy.

Shrug. So what? Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

They are learning that in our brave new world the government, individuals and corporations have many methods and platforms to inform. If they choose not to stand in front of a braying horde in a scrum, so what?

[j44]

Oh come on now. This was a good topic to discuss and it took less than a page to get off the rails.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow, over the top hyperbole or what... prove that one... and let me know when Harper starts murdering millions.

Agreed...PM Harper is none of these, not even as a MinnieMe. Wrong country and wrong scale.

[fellowtraveller]

Wow, over the top hyperbole or what... prove that one... and let me know when Harper starts murdering millions.

I was attempting over the top sarcasm. Missed, eh?

[capricorn]

I was attempting over the top sarcasm. Missed, eh?

I didn't miss the sarcasm ft. I know your views from your previous posts and yes, that was sarcasm. It's best to make that clear I've found, like <sarc on....sarc off>.

[WWWTT]

Beware cybercoma,this topic is ripe for a bush_cheney assault.

My two cents is that Nixon was a drunk and from I hear Harper never drinks alcohol.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Beware cybercoma,this topic is ripe for a bush_cheney assault.

Far from it...I am delighted that some members can only define things in American terms.

My two cents is that Nixon was a drunk and from I hear Harper never drinks alcohol.

Nixon was great....he knew that Trudeau was an a-hole from the 'git-go!

[WWWTT]

And so it begins.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Far from it...I am delighted that some members can only define things in American terms.

You are aware of what a "bush_cheney" assault is don't you?

[bush_cheney2004]

And so it begins.

[fellowtraveller]

Beware cybercoma,this topic is ripe for a bush_cheney assault.

My two cents is that Nixon was a drunk and from I hear Harper never drinks alcohol.

WWWTT

You are nearly correct. He will sip on a nice Merlot while devouring a fresh baby at Sunday dinner. Just one glass, mind.

[fellowtraveller]

So that makes him the enemy or opponent. Anyone not falling in line and conforming to the consensus media takes power away from the consensus and renders their voice less effective, which is seen as a threat, making them a target.

You left out an inportant component of that equation, which is that in the end the mainstream media needs Harper a bit more than he needs them. That gap will likely widen over time as fewer and fewer people read newspapers or watch network news.

[madmax]

I was attempting over the top sarcasm. Missed, eh?

Its ok.. I got it ..even if no one else did...