The Endgame
The news of the Emerson and Fortier inclusions in the Harper cabinet provoked in me a reaction similar to that felt, apparently, by most newspaper columnists and most of the right wing Canadian blogosphere (with Kate being a notable exception): nausea, disappointment, anger. But as I stated earlier on and still believe: there's got to be something bigger at stake here. I don't say this because I think Stephen Harper is perfect; I say it because it's so blatantly obvious that it would piss certain people of - especially the party rank and file - that it couldn't have been engineered without some cost/benefit analysis. Stephen Harper is a political chessmaster, and I've learned by now not to underestimate his ability to strategize for the long-term. Given that the rest of us, who have the luxury of casting stones whenever we so feel moved, tend towards a calculation of short-term fallout, perhaps it's best if we step back and think about this without our instinctive cynicism...
Yet doing so would require us to say: there are exceptions to the rule. And what if there are? Do Emerson and Fortier count? It seems clear that having Cabinet Ministers from Vancouver and Montreal are the underlying reasons for the inclusion of these two men. Does that objective - building a cabinet "reflective of the country" - justify what's happened here? I think it's a stretch to say that it does. How do we know? Simple: just consider the reaction if it was the Liberals who did this.
To be sure, there are some obvious differences between this and the Belinda fiasco: the Belinda move ensured the survival of a government, Emerson's move does not. Additionally, Emerson is far more qualified to serve. On the other hand, Emerson could resign and run in a byelection. And what reason would he have not to except that he would probably lose? Fortier, in contrast, can't run in a byelection since there's no seat vacancy. Of course, there was a federal election two weeks ago. I don't doubt Fortier's competence, but what sort of precedent are we setting here? It's certainly good that he agreed to run eventually, but that's sort of like promising you'll apologize for something later on, but won't for the time being.
The bottom line is the optics of all of this look terrible for the Tories today, and has displeased the party rank and file, myself included. I have no problem defending the party when it does something controversial and faces public discontent, if I can see the principle underlying it and concur with its primacy. And while I won't go as far as some to dismiss this as 'just like Belinda' hypocrisy - I don't think it's as bad - the point is that it doesn't matter if it's equally bad, because it's still bad.
Interesting, though, are the howls of black kettle from Liberal pots.
There's really no response necessary here, other than to say: bugger off. It's really rich to hear the likes of Belinda Stronach lecturing on the ethics of floor-crossing and the principles therein. Or Jason Cherniak foaming at the mouth - as if the number of days since election really mattered in terms of underlying principle - and accusing Stephen Harper of every name under the sun ("complete lack of character"!!!) while he was prepared to proffer any available excuse when it was his hero Paul Martin engaging in the same - or worse - behaviour.
The public at large is allowed to be upset. Tories are allowed to be upset (and they are - another big difference between grassroots blogging Tories and Liberals - we actually take our own to task. Proof: was there any similar level of outrage by these Liberal hacks over the Belinda defection? Of course not.) But Liberals everywhere can stuff a sock in it over this one. They have zero credibility on this file. If that party and its supporters ever showed a hint of concern about floor-crossing while in office, then they would be in a position to whine today.
Yet doing so would require us to say: there are exceptions to the rule. And what if there are? Do Emerson and Fortier count? It seems clear that having Cabinet Ministers from Vancouver and Montreal are the underlying reasons for the inclusion of these two men. Does that objective - building a cabinet "reflective of the country" - justify what's happened here? I think it's a stretch to say that it does. How do we know? Simple: just consider the reaction if it was the Liberals who did this.
To be sure, there are some obvious differences between this and the Belinda fiasco: the Belinda move ensured the survival of a government, Emerson's move does not. Additionally, Emerson is far more qualified to serve. On the other hand, Emerson could resign and run in a byelection. And what reason would he have not to except that he would probably lose? Fortier, in contrast, can't run in a byelection since there's no seat vacancy. Of course, there was a federal election two weeks ago. I don't doubt Fortier's competence, but what sort of precedent are we setting here? It's certainly good that he agreed to run eventually, but that's sort of like promising you'll apologize for something later on, but won't for the time being.
The bottom line is the optics of all of this look terrible for the Tories today, and has displeased the party rank and file, myself included. I have no problem defending the party when it does something controversial and faces public discontent, if I can see the principle underlying it and concur with its primacy. And while I won't go as far as some to dismiss this as 'just like Belinda' hypocrisy - I don't think it's as bad - the point is that it doesn't matter if it's equally bad, because it's still bad.
Interesting, though, are the howls of black kettle from Liberal pots.
There's really no response necessary here, other than to say: bugger off. It's really rich to hear the likes of Belinda Stronach lecturing on the ethics of floor-crossing and the principles therein. Or Jason Cherniak foaming at the mouth - as if the number of days since election really mattered in terms of underlying principle - and accusing Stephen Harper of every name under the sun ("complete lack of character"!!!) while he was prepared to proffer any available excuse when it was his hero Paul Martin engaging in the same - or worse - behaviour.
The public at large is allowed to be upset. Tories are allowed to be upset (and they are - another big difference between grassroots blogging Tories and Liberals - we actually take our own to task. Proof: was there any similar level of outrage by these Liberal hacks over the Belinda defection? Of course not.) But Liberals everywhere can stuff a sock in it over this one. They have zero credibility on this file. If that party and its supporters ever showed a hint of concern about floor-crossing while in office, then they would be in a position to whine today.
5 Comments:
Well said. Many are upset but I tend to agree that there's something hidden in all this that could be part of a bigger plan. I want to see Harper implement his promises and I want him to succeed in earning the trust of Canadians. Two controversial appointments won't help in that regard.
I'm curious to see just how this plans out over the next little while.
I think the reason Harper chose Emerson was so that he'd have another experienced hand in cabinet. His stated reasons of wanting representation from Vancouver and Montreal are just window dressing. As other commentators have pointed out James Moore & Lawrence Cannon could represent Vancouver and Montreal respectively just as Flaherty and Mackay will represent the GTA and PEI in cabinet. However, even if one accepts that he recruited Emerson for his experience what was the sense in appointing Fortier? Surely out of his 98 backbenchers there must be 2 other individuals that are capable of handling the Public Works and Int'l Trade portfolios. Emerson and Fortier are not indespensible men. Harper has traded in A LOT of credibility and angered MANY people to bring these two on board; I hope its worth it.
Sorry, more comments. I take back what I said about Emerson not being indespensible. He is uniquely qualified to handle the softwood lumber negotiations. As a former executive in the lumber industry his knowledge on the subject would be broader than any of his counterparts in the Conservative Party. Also he'd be more familiar with how negotiations have proceeded up to this point due to his time in government. My guess is that Harper is hoping to have this issue resolved favourably or at least show substantive progress on this file before the next election. It would quite rightly be a feather in his cap and very popular in BC where there were a lot of tight races. The Emerson switch looks sleazy but may still be worth it.
On a side note, who does Harper think he's fooling when he says this was not partisan? Of course its partisan, politics is partisan. Wishing and stating otherwise does not change that fact.
Fortier is still puzzling though. I can't imagine that what he brings to the table outweighs the negatives. In short Harper appears to be a cronyist, liar ("no unelected ministers") and willing to use patronage when its expedient. He's also parsing his words like an ol' time Liberal when he tries to assert that his statements about the senate , etc were "flexible" enough to allow this scenario. Whether this is a fair assessment is irrelevant because that's what people are thinking.
After campaigning so hard on ethics and accountability I think Harper should have done all he could to avoid anything that smacked like patronage, cronyism, etc. Emerson might have been worth it but Fortier...?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Emerson was elected and is clearly qualified, so I have no problem with his appointment. However, it would be entirely disingenuous for the Conservatives to call the Liberals hypocritical for deriding this appointment given the Conservative position on Ms. Stronach's defection. I have to disagree with the Conservative attempts to differentiate the two situations, whereby it is somehow more acceptable to induce a member of the opposition to cross the floor as long as doing so will not solidify a party's power. Again, this is completely disigenuous, as timing is irrelevant to principle: if you truely abide by a principle you will do so even when it is not to your advantage to do so. Like many have pointed out the optics are horrible for the Conservatives, especially when held up against thier assertion that they are somehow more principled, ethical and moral than the previous government.
The Fortier appointment is clearly inconsistent with the Conservative calls for an elected senate and bringing back accountability to Ottawa. No one voted for Mr. Fortier, he didn't even want to run. As such, Mr. Fortier is subject to no accountability and his appointment bears significant resemblence to the alleged cronyism the Conservatives were all to happy to point out while in opposition. I expect every government to be hypocritical, but did not expect these Conservatives to appear to so on the first day on the job.
If the Conservatives feel any negative impact from these decisions it will be thier own fault for giving the opposition the grounds to do so. On the other hand, moves like these are not made without careful consideration and the party may have to be commended for making politically difficult decisions in the interest of building the best governing team possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home