Populist Party: Stephen Harper’s Conservative Criminal Justice Policy
Conservative Policy Discussion
I am going to steer away from prorogation for a moment here and bring up some old but interesting points. Perhaps the following can be seen as being applicable to that issue, I leave that to the reader.
Populism=Anti-intellectualism.
I do not intend to engage in a debate about proper criminal justice policy. I intend to prove that Stephen Harper and his Conservatives adopt a position of Anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is an ignorant position. Either the Conservative leaders are ignorant or they intentionally champion ignorance. We’ll assume that the Conservative Party knows anti-intellectualism is ignorant. The only logical explanation for a political party’s intentional championing of ignorant policy is to garner votes. The Conservative party champions ignorant policy to garner votes. The Conservative Party banks on voters’ ignorance.
One should not vote for politicians who banks on one’s ignorance.
Mr Harper has said that “[s]ome try to pacify Canadians with statistics.” He went on to applaud the validity of Canadians’ personal experiences. There is some rhetorical beauty to the man’s arguments, but if anyone’s position is analogous to the Wizard of Oz telling us not to look behind the curtain it is the politician who instructs us to ignore the numbers.
World renowned criminologist Neil Boyd calls Tory crime policy “not tough on crime, but stupid on crime” (as quoted at Macleans.
John Geddes in Macleans explores why Conservatives do not pursue “evidenced based policy.” Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Harper’s chief of staff from 2006-2008 tells us “Politically it helped us tremendously to be attacked by this coalition of university types.” Stephen Harper revels in populist mentality. More evidence of this (by a former speech writer of Harper’s) ought to cut it.
The Conservative Party (to a higher degree than the other parties involved in our governance), like a gang, banks on participants’ ignorance. They bank on us not recognizing their lies.
Arguments in the Conservative’s defense:
Mandate of public – Essentially “might is right”. This argument fails as it is arguably true of any government and does not justify their actions.
Populism is a viable position – The assertion I expect to catch the most flak over is that Anti-intellectualism is an ignorant position (the history of the philosophy dams that leak fairly quickly: Nazis and Commies. Oh my: it is easy to resort to scare tactics) or that populism is not a synonymous position. Intellect and a grasp of symbols is the basis of progress and what separates us from animals. Scholarship is intellect and symbolism embodied. One of Canada’s strengths is our half decent record of avoiding tyrannies of the majority (comparatively anyway). Besides which Conservatives are on record accusing others of populism (one example comes from Conservative candidate Chris Alexander); they know that the position is untenable.
They are keeping voters’ best interests in mind by following popular sentiment – The Conservatives do not make it a rule to follow popular sentiment. The Afghanistan war, and the rights of indigenous peoples are two examples, their record on conservation another. Citizens’ interests are best served by effective criminal justice policy. The refusal to research what that might be evidences that the Conservatives have only their own interests in mind when following this popular sentiment.
The means (playing upon fear and ignorance and adopting harmful policy) justifies the end: a majority – this is the Conservatives’ truth, not an argument in their defense.
Concluding:
This website’s moniker (InformedVote) strikes me as a cry for us all to band together and overcome the ignorance that makes “the best argument against democracy … a five minute conversation with the average voter” (Winston Churchill). I suggest that Anything But Conservative ought to be each informed voter’s imperative until such time as the party desists in assuming that we who vote are not informed. If you bother to read, if you bother to think beyond yourself, you are the natural enemy of this Conservative Party.
Related posts:
- Proroguing Parliament and Conservative Crime Legislation: A Cagey Stephen Harper Takes Two Steps Back The unabashed cowardice of Stephen Harper’s latest move may rekindle...
- Baseless: Stephen Harper’s Liberal Solution HCBAX9NPSJB8 It is a truism that the Conservative’s base votes....
- Stephen Harper and Conservative Action on Climate Change: Are You Getting What You’re Voting For? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives enjoy decent support in...
- Barack Obama the Conservative Ever since Barack Obama was elected President of the United...
- A Strong Stance on Climate Change in Copenhagen Could Lead Stephen Harper to a Majority The Copenhagen summit is a hot topic for conversation....
Tags: anti-intellectualism, criminal justice, populism, stephen harper
Loading ...
January 19th, 2010 at 6:59 am
The populist style governance is not limited to this issue.
Chantal Hebert notes that “anti-intellectualism has evolved into a mantra of the current government” (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/751087–hebert-court-of-public-opinion-turns-on-tories). Her article goes on to talk about Quebec, and ties in populism to the Conservative prorogation.
Andrew Steele mentions the GST cut as an avowedly populist tactic in his article “Going Populist” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/going-populist/article1426020/). He also reiterates what can be found under the “evidence” (http://www.c2cjournal.ca/blog-articles/view/where-is-conservatism-today-postus-election-and-after-harpers-election-victory) link above; namely how this tactic is a Republican mainstay.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
You fail to point out, however, that is the current position of many young Liberals (though not a party position), at present, that the way prorogation is used in Parliament can be reformed. The Liberals have been, however, happy to allow this deception in oder to swell their ranks in the last two weeks. Populism is easily seen on both sides. Also, I seriously question your anti-nuclear position, seeing as nuclear power is like the safest and most environmentally friendly source of power the planet has.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
You fail to point out, however, that is the current position of many young Liberals (though not a party position), at present, that the way prorogation is used in Parliament can be reformed. The Liberals have been, however, happy to allow this deception in order to swell their ranks in the last two weeks. Populism is easily seen on both sides. Also, I seriously question your anti-nuclear position, seeing as nuclear power is like the safest and most environmentally friendly source of power the planet has.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Okay one at a time
It is absolutely true that some level of populism is apparent in each party. However it is a matter of scale, on this issue the Conservatives’ avowed policy on determining a course of action is to NOT WANT TO KNOW. They pit themselves against intellectuals, not the ruling elite, not the moneyed elite, experts and scholars. Find that in another party.
I am not in contact with any Young Liberals so it is hard to speak to specific positions individual ones may have adopted. Again it is a matter of scale; if a few party members’ actions are evidence of party policy then… you get the picture. Your point fails for the very reason that you state it so weakly. Also Liberals are on record saying that it is the irresponsible use of the prorogation and not the law itself that is problematic.
“Provided a Prime Minister respects Parliament and its authority, legislation isnt needed. Mr. Harper used prorogation to duck a confidence vote and to evade tough questions in the House. That;s(sic) wrong. Ive already pledged not to use prorogation that way. The problem is not the power itself, so much as its abuse.
Mr. Harper has abused his power. ” Micheal Ignatieff today, replying to a question about supporting NDP prorogation reform legislation(http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/blog/17333_transcript-of-michael-ignatieffs-online-town-hall). This was after a 2 minute search, and not the first time I have heard the Liberal Party line on this issue.
Again, don’t get me wrong populism has been seeping in everywhere. It’s just that in the Conservative case it is more of a flood, in the Conservative case the danger is immediate.
I don’t have an anti-nuclear power position, in my meagre understanding of the topic it is indeed a very good source of energy (possibly one of the best for the reasons you mention above). I don’t recall ever having had an anti-nuclear power position and find this questioning of this nonexistent position quite odd.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Fraser, I am sorry for the Nuclear comment, I believe it was cut and pasted into my comments and intended for someone else. Sloppy on my part.
The Afghan issue is and was a Liberal intellectual position. The writings and scholarship of Isaiah Berlin (Ignatieff’s won mentor) make this clear, as does work by Ignatieff himself. Ignatieff was even consulted by the party in 2001 as an academic for his advise on the matter, advice that was summarily followed. I must say, however, that I support the initial position of Mr. Ignatieff on the issue. His back-peddaling since has largely been for the purposes of votes. A public pledge by Mr. Ignatieff in this respects is really nothing more than an empty promise. I will agree that proroguing parliament can be abused, but it was abused by the governor general and her advisor Mr. Hogg who felt it best for our country that we did not have a Coalition government under a lame duck like Dion.
I think, though, that we can both agree that that on both sides of the blue and red, neither of which I like anyway, there is a massive growth of misinformed populism. This type of whiny ill-informed polemic is derived largely from the bantering nonsense, and the subsequent trendiness of dumbing down political debate, that we saw with the Obama campaign (and the Clinton, Palin, and McCain campaigns). it is precisely the making of such statements of promise by parties, and the public’s acceptance of them that indicates how utterly dumb they thin the rest of the population is. Politics in Canada are increasingly, and in all parties, taking a condescending tone towards the public. For the most part they can get away with this because the average educated Canadian is, in fact, hardly educated. Those of us that are indeed highly informed, but not either a Mandarin Official within the government or attempting to run for office, are written off as outsiders. Truth be told, it is more likely that your neighborhood tax lawyer knows a hell of a lot more about the working of Parliament than the actual donkeys who work there. Mind you it has always been the role of the legal branch to supervise the government, but it is getting to the point where the government itself is so ill informed it can not even receive the criticism it gets because it itself has no idea what it is doing. The result is an increasingly frustrated minority informed group of people, and a rapidly breeding and cynical group of pseudo-literates who think that a BA or BSc proves that they can read.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:39 am
I don’t really want to get into the Afghan issue until it plays out in the open, I find it unlikely that anything resembling incriminating is going to come out against the Liberals. They wouldn’t be pursuing it if it were, the Cons would.
I agree that the change of approach by the Liberals in their position on the act of Proroguing is a foolish one, except of course in that well recognized tradition of dumping ones principles out of the boat to make more room for votes. Do these particular empty promises look to be taking us down the road towards human rights abuses, an increasing Prison Industrial Complex, or generally ignoring the very existences of experts except as punching bags? But again in fairness, this is a really sad move by the Liberals, my only thought is that they are gearing up for election and want to appear responsive to the Canadian people, yes I use the word appear advisedly. BTW has anyone heard anything new on the NDP and Liberal cooperation on this crazy (and useless) prorogue limiting bill?
The very polarization encompassed in the idea of Blue and Red is indicative of populism running rampant. It reminds me of the circle graphs we learned about in kindergarten.
That said I will point out a few things wrong with taking swings at the population instead of the ruling elite.
1.The populace won’t care.
2.The average citizen will not be able to effect the education system in a meaningful way.
3. “Truth be told, it is more likely that your neighborhood tax lawyer knows a hell of a lot more about the working of Parliament than the actual donkeys who work there” Ummm since the beginning of Confederation approximately 75% of Parliamentarians have been lawyers. So ummm you’ve been misinformed.
4.I haven’t achieved the level of “pseudo-literate” (no degree for me) and don’t think that degrees are a necessity in the road to becoming an informed and active citizen.
5.You can and often must buy degrees, law degrees are still technically undergraduate, and you ought to start by reading Justice Defiled or the Rich Get Rich the Poor Get Prison, and other theory books and articles before addressing the issue of just how useful our legal system is, or rather just who it is useful for.
Talking down to people does not encourage discourse, it encourages disconnection. I reiterate here what I have said before: Ms May is right in that the Conseratives gain more ground the less involved the populace is and thus are the largest threat to democracy amongst the parties.
The dumber we are the better for Conservatives, that should bug someone wanting a more informed and active citizenry.