With endorsements like this ….
Who needs enemies? Or scathing reviews? The Globe and Mail just released the most scathing endorsement of a party I’ve every seen. They cite Harper’s bullheaded control of his party, his pithy promises to reform the senate rather than make parliament work, his horrendous environmental plan, his lack of bold answers to the economic situation, on and on. Yes, I said they are endorsing him. Their reasoning rests on two points. First:
In this campaign, Mr. Harper and his Conservative party are only seriously challenged for government by Stéphane Dion’s Liberals.
Well, if you’ve been reading my blog you’ll know what I think of that, there is another option, Dion and others running the government. It is an oversimplified, old view of the options available in our democracy. Their second point, is that given this choice between Harper and Dion that Harper wins even with all his negatives because he’s more flexible. Their definition of flexible seems to be that he can adapt to different situations to look like he’s still a leader, whether he does anything useful or not. Meanwhile, they imply they may even support Dion’s Green Shift plan but argue he’s an ineffective salesman and thus unfit to be Prime Minister.
I have been saying out loud a lot the past few weeks that this is why Dion needs to be more outspoken, clear and decisive. If you don’t look like a leader people won’t pay attention to what substantive things you want to say. But that is very different from saying this is how things should be. The Globe seems to have mixed up the realities of competing in a 21st century media rich election with the way people should vote based on policies. Respected papers such as the Globe and Mail are meant to cut through this noise and give us a clear opinion based on data and policy, not mirror back the irrationalities of people in a media-overwhelmed culture and then say this is how things should be.