Andrew Coyne said it best when he used the term “bullet proof” in figurative reference to how difficult it would be for opposition parties to take down the Harper government over the throne speech.
It’s an observation I’ve thought hard about since, and one I have come to the conclusion epitomizes the success of the Harper government, if success is to be defined as keeping the other parties at bay.
Like other soap-operas that come and go, I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I too have been glued to the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, keenly interested in observing the strategies at play. But even if in the unlikely event former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tomorrow confirms Karlheinz Schreiber’s assertion that government corruptness runs rampant, one can’t help but wonder, has the change in channel benefited only opposition parties, or has it also served has camouflage in the one area bullets may have penetrated?
I’ll ask the question differently.
Who is, once again, proving to be the superior political strategist? The guy using the time afforded by the change in channel to try and get his ducks in a row for a possible spring election, or the guy taking full advantage of what he can manage to slip-by without so much as a peep because too many are more interested in whether or not another guy can stave-off extradition, while yet another guy explains why he accepted envelopes of cash?
Shame on us, and I include myself, for allowing lesser issues take our attention away from the truly critical and important.
In this new era of anything-goes retail politics, it was not a half-bad strategy to argue Canada is not against accepting absolute and binding GHG limits, that Canada ‘…only wants to ensure other big emitters (China, India, and presumably the US) are equally on board.’
To voters only superficially committed to climate change, it’s an easy-out. In terms of the public opinion psyche, it’s an easy sell to make people not feel guilty about Canada not taking the lead when others won’t even join. And therein lies the problem, that Canada is – a little too gleefully – using China, India, and the US as the excuse for taking a back seat instead of, say, jumping to the front of the line.
But is this not the very flaw in the logic, and the double standard, opposition parties should be pursuing, instead of wasting time hoping to pin the alleged failings of a former prime minister on the current one?
In Afghanistan, and more specifically Kandahar, Canada is the pointy edge of the sword that is leading the way with troops on the frontlines where the fighting and casualties occur, while Canada purportedly also laments other NATO countries who remain well back and safely out of harms way.
Interesting, isn’t it, that in a matter of a war in which Canada has no well-defined stake, we apparently have no problem leading the way with no such insistence that others be “equally on board,” yet on the matter of climate change, in which we have a huge stake, we are seemingly only too happy to sit back, and perhaps even commit to sabotage, while claiming to be working to get others on board.
Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., when we sit glued to CBC and it’s continuing coverage of Mulroney-gate, lets at least think of how not-so-bullet-proof the vest might have been had we chosen to tune to an altogether different change in channel.