Two important lessons, and one silver lining, featured in just the first few pages of “Harperland”

“One of the most controversial aspects of the Harper story,” journalist Lawrence Martin writes in the brief but compelling introduction to Harperland, “involves his authoritarian methods. As a journalist during Jean Chrétien‘s years in power, I spent a good deal of time – much to the delight of conservatives – exploring abuse of power under the Liberals. That experience has helped shape my perspective in assessing what the Harper Conservatives have done in this regard.”

Martin’s not just some partisan hack who’s out to make a cheap buck through character assassination. He’s a seasoned political correspondent with a thorough understanding of the Hill and its history. And right from the green light, he’s careful to look at Harper and his government in their proper context.

I’m only a few pages into Harperland, but already the results of that approach are illuminating. Even if you put the book down forever after reading the first couple of chapters, you’ll walk away with two important considerations in mind.

The first concerns Harper himself. The portrait Martin paints in these early pages isn’t one that I’d necessarily consider flattering; he quotes those close to Harper describing him as “cold,” “condescending,” “an emotionless robot” and a “sonofabitch.” But Martin also acknowledges Harper’s intellect, persuasiveness, and above all, determination.

And that’s where things get interesting – because by all accounts, Harper’s determination is driven by resentment and acrimony toward a Liberal Party that has arguably focused its efforts on voters in Ontario and Quebec since the late fifties, at the expense of the rest of the country.

“It was an attitude not readily found in the traditional Canadian middle-of-the-road parties,” Martin goes on to clarify, “but more common to a strain of American Republicans. It was a current of bitterness, an anger born of a sense of exclusion.”

“He hates the Liberal Party,” according to senior advisor and National Post columnist Keith Beardsley, “and I would say his aim from day one… was to break the brand. The long-term strategy, that was it.”

Which brings us to the second point, which is more relevant in general to the Conservative Party of the day. Harper’s hardly the only member of his party whose attitude toward the opposition veers beyond political disagreement and into abject hatred. But as Martin explains, there’s a little more to it than that.

He reminds us, for example, that there has been a remarkable shift in recent years in the priorities and the tone of what we in Canada call “conservative.” Martin takes us back to the collapse of the old conservative order, and to the merger between the rather radical Alliance and traditional Progressive Conservative party that got the Canadian right back on track.

Within this context, and when compared to predecessor Brian Mulroney – well, technically successor Kim Campbell, but come on – Harper is shown to be a radical with a staunch, if cynical, devotion to a socially conservative base.

Consider Scott Brison, a former conservative of the “old” order who Harper attempted to recruit into the new fold because he liked his economic thinking. “When Brison raised the issue of gay rights,” Martin says, “it became clear to him which of the two parties would be running things. Harper told him that social conservatism” – which many Canadians rightly view as outright bigotry in this regard at least – “was a large part of his support base and was here to stay.

“A short time later,” Martin notes, “Brison, who appreciated Harper’s frankness, crossed the floor to the Liberals.”

Martin carefully stresses that the new Conservative Party “was hardly the party of John A. Macdonald, Robert Borden, John Diefenbaker, or Brian Mulroney.” Simply put, the people who are now in power represent a more radical, and certainly a more hateful, breed of conservatives than our country has ever elected to lead us.

The bright side, if there is one, is an idea that I’ve been pushing ever since Harper and his people started getting cocky – namely, that the conservative movement of the day probably doesn’t reflect the attitudes of a great many good Canadians who identify as Conservative just because it’s their least offensive option.

I mean, I’m a card carrying NDP member, and I respect and support the Liberals in spite of their present spinelessness. But honestly, who among us can judge an ordinary decent Canadian – particularly one that doesn’t live in one of our two largest provinces, and is therefore at least somewhat ignored by the Liberals – for voting to the right?

What this country needs, aside from an opposition with some backbone, is a right-wing party that isn’t driven by an immature hatred. And what we as pinko leftist kooks need to do, if we genuinely care about our country’s welfare, is to work with decent conservatives, treat them with respect, and help enable that movement to rise again.

If you’re already on board, then great. And if you’re not on board, then maybe you need to grow up and get on board.

Posted in Uncategorized