Lately the G&M comments boards have been declining my longer posts. So I decided to post the longer ones here to be sure they're not lost. I would recommend to anyone who posts lomger than 5 or 6 sentences to the G&M comments to do the same. Especially if your posts reference either Harper's ignored history or the failures of the national media.
"The G&M again calls the Harper Conservatives "Tories"
John Diefenbaker was a Tory. Robert Stanfield was a Tory. Joe Clark was a Tory. Even Brian Mulroney was a Tory.
Those men had Canada's welfare at heart. They respected our institutions and our traditions. They and the party they led were honorable and trustworthy. As much as I disagreed with them, in particular Mulroney, I never once believed that their motivations were less than honourable.
Harper's brand of conservatism is another kettle of fish altogether.
Viewed with a long lens, not just one or two elections, his stated aims would have confederation becoming little more than a nominal, even ceremonial, condition. Provinces, like US states, would become so much more autonomous and disconnected from the federation that our current understanding of the Canadian state would be meaningless.
I don't think this is well understood as the Conservatives have done a good job of removing all references to Harper's past writings and speeches. The national media have helped in this by not referring to that past body of work which he has never disavowed.
Should Harper gain his majority and be able to repeat it at least once more we would eventually awaken to a Canada changed beyond all recognition and almost certainly unrecoverable.
Just as he and his closest confidantes have always told us we would."
A tail dragging romp through the swamps of the world
No comments:
Post a Comment