John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“What we know about Justin Trudeau’s blackface photos — and what happens next

“From resignations to reactions, here are the questions being asked about the bombshell photos”

 

Some points I think very important.

First, we have three recorded events, not just one, and given Trudeau’s reluctance to say whether there were still more, I think it likely there were.

Whether there were more or not, this tasteless dress-up was a recurring theme for Trudeau, something he obviously thought quite funny, so, to get a laugh, he repeated it and repeated it still again. And the last time he did it, he was almost 30 years old, not an adolescent.

Second, the last event, the one from the school where he taught, happened in 2001, a good thirty years or so after society had already given its verdict on this kind of behavior.

Third, Trudeau, close to instantly, dropped a thoroughly decent man, Hassan Guillet, as a candidate when an influential service organization made an accusation against him.

Trudeau did not investigate nor did he give the accused man a proper opportunity to discuss the matter, and he left the poor candidate shocked by the surprise action.

Why does Trudeau’s own behavior allow such completely different treatment? And behavior where we have photographic evidence.

Fourth, how can he possibly represent Canada now at international gatherings such as the UN or the G20 without arousing derision and sarcasm and perhaps some anger? He cannot.

 

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AARON WHERRY IN CBC NEWS

 

Champion of diversity or high-profile hypocrite? Who is Justin Trudeau, anyway?

All human beings contain contradictions – but when politicians undermine their own images, they pay a price

 

Trudeau is worth no additional discussion. How many words should be written and read about such a disappointing man?

For me, it is his basic performance in office that most counts, and that has not only been awful, it has, in foreign affairs, shut the door on all of our best Liberal 20th century traditions. Just slammed it shut.

Failed important promises such as vote reform? Ignored major national problems such as our oil industry’s plight? Childish antics on trips abroad several times? Letting down conscientious ministers in a scandal?

Those are all important, but flying down to plead with Donald Trump to help him in difficulties with China, difficulties caused entirely by his own decisions and those of his Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, is more than I can stomach.

Not having the judgment even to understand that Donald Trump is, literally, the last man on earth with any influence over China, or even much regard for Canada, is almost beyond understanding.

Trudeau is hopelessly disappointing when it comes to statesmanship or leadership.

The discovery that, for a major part of his years, the man regarded black-face routines as funny and worth repeating is “icing on the cake,” as it were.

Here is complete lack of judgment repeatedly displayed, combined with the arrogance to still ask for your vote.

He should resign. Instead we get another “apology” to add to the stack he has already freely distributed on a dozen subjects.

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AARON WHERRY IN THE CBC NEWS

 

“Why Justin Trudeau’s main foe in 2019 is the Justin Trudeau of 2015

“A leader who frames every issue around ideals can expect blowback when he can’t – or won’t – live up to them”

 

That’s certainly true, but “ideals” can be much over-rated.

After all, some of the worst actors in world history had strong ideals.

What’s needed in an admirable leader is not so much “ideals” as a sense of decency, sound pragmatic judgment, commitment to fairness and justice, and dedication to principles of human and democratic rights.

Those are qualities where Trudeau has often failed despite having “ideals.”

I am very sad the other major parties have not offered us good alternatives. It is a truly barren election.

But I just would never cast a vote for this man who effectively has supported all the major policies of Trump and Company – from support for bloody Saudi Arabia and trying to overturn an elected government in Venezuela to Russophobia and insanely-destructive activities around China.

A very foolish man, I think.

____________________

Response to a comment about Trudeau’s carbon tax:

I very much care about our environment, but I tend to agree with you that the carbon tax is something of a scam.

We know there is climate change for sure, but we do not yet know just what is driving it.

There are a number of scientific theories, from a changed level of solar radiation to small changes in our orbit.

Pretty hard to do convincing controlled experiments on a matter so huge as the entire planet, and controlled experiments are one of the hallmarks of genuine science.

Creating big, costly programs for something you do not understand is not my idea of good leadership. I just do not see it as even very smart. It’s a bit like Gwyneth Paltrow selling her Goop products.

And it is stylish, like giant corporations putting images of pink bows for breast cancer on their packaging.

There are many other important environmental matters on which we could focus until we do understand climate change better, including ones we largely ignore.

And even if we discover to a certainty that carbon is the driver of climate change, a solution may well be beyond us. Adaptation is how our ancestors for two hundred thousand years dealt with climate changes, of which there have been many.

Of course, such taxes are very attractive to deficit-prone politicians like Trudeau, ones with “ideals” to brag about too.

___________________

Response to a comment:

I won’t go so far as you do in claiming a prediction, but I very much sensed and feared Trudeau’s lack of depth and ability. It was long apparent.

His father was a great national leader. Gifted. Justin simply did not inherit that set of qualities. Such is the throw of the genetic dice.

And I suspect Justin, the drama teacher and snowboard coach, long knew that, which explains his early reluctance to enter politics, but it becomes hard to say no when important people keep begging you to do something. We all have egos and like being flattered.

They did win, the Trudeau name and smile defeating a much-disliked Stephen Harper, but in a larger sense they lost.

They lost something precious for a Liberal Party which has given us a number of fine leaders.

Our cringing service to Trump and Company under Trudeau marks a terrible loss of 20th century Liberal traditions, things for which the world admired us, and especially those of Justin’s own father.

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA

 

“Trudeau Sails a Warship Through Taiwan Strait While Begging Xi to Meet With Him at G20

“Trudeau demonstrates again precisely the behaviour that has caused the Chinese to decline communication with his government”

 

 ‘Taiwan Strait transits are “very indirect signals” of disapproval toward China’s claims in the region.

‘“Middle powers [like Canada] are about bolstering international institutions and international law so they can restrain the power of very big countries,” Nagy told the outlet. “They view that China is going to present a bigger risk going forward, and they have to demonstrate some resolve through ships in the region.”’

 

Those last words of Professor Stephen Nagy strike me as being rather deceptive, only superficially plausible as is the case for much disinformation.

After all, he does work at a “Christian university” in Asia, and his words were first published on that distinguished website, “Stars and Stripes,” the old internal house organ for the American armed forces.

Sadly, from my point of view, Canada today does everything possible to support the United States in foreign affairs. That might be okay if the policies were above board and had genuinely good intent, but they very much do not have those characteristics. Quite the opposite, they reflect the American establishment’s effort at dominating the globe.

Under such circumstances, Canada would be in a fairly hard place no matter what, sharing one of the world’s longest borders, having no other adjacent nations, and sharing a massive trade in goods and services.  But I don’t think it was hugely different for Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father, who took many opportunities to oppose peaceably the worst American policies of his day.

Pierre Trudeau ignored Washington’s bitter, intense, and violent Cuba policy and worked to establish a genuine relationship with Castro. Canadian investment and regular tourist travel were positive results.

At the height of America’s holocaust in Vietnam, Pierre Trudeau told Canada’s border services to throw open the gates for all American war resisters of any description, even deserters. They did, and tens of thousands of young Americans came, many eventually making good lives in Canada.

Justin is simply not able, by his very nature, to take bold steps like those. He has a pleasant, go-along-to-get-along personality, actually pretty much lacking any real force of character. He smiles a lot. He apologizes a lot. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against smiles or needed apologies, but when it comes to leadership, a bit more is required. Those things are only the froth of the brew.

Interestingly, the Liberal Party was very keen on having Justin run and tried over a considerable period of time to persuade him to do so, knowing his last name literally was magic in the country.

But Justin shied away – except for smiling and lending support and attending party fund-raisers, his name always able to sell tickets. He stayed with what he was doing, and I believe perhaps because he quietly understood his own limits. However, the point was reached in the last part of Stephen Harper’s government when Trudeau gave in to all the behind-the-scenes pleadings and blandishments.

He did handily defeat Stephen Harper, a rather dark and unpleasant figure who enjoyed a long-running minority government precisely because the Liberals had become involved with in-fighting and scandal. And they went through some poorly-chosen leaders, most notably the politically-inept academic, Michael Ignatieff, who was lured by the Party’s talent scouts from Harvard University in the belief he could bring new luster to the Liberal brand. As events proved, he did quite the opposite.

From leading America’s contrived Lima Group (for the overthrow of Venezuela and, in future, some other Latin American governments) to harassing Russia with tanks in one of the Baltic states and from its compliance with an American extradition request for an important citizen of China on trumped-up charges to sailing through the Taiwan Strait, Canada’s current government has set unpleasant precedents for a Liberal Party government.

Even Washington’s unwarranted jibes against Russia or Iran or China are echoed by Trudeau’s disagreeable Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, albeit in somewhat quieter tones than the bellowing that comes from blowhards like Bolton and Pompeo, but the essential content is the same.

Canada seems to be tightly hugging American policy everywhere, which is what we might expect from a Conservative Party government, and particularly the Conservative Party of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a man notoriously in line with all things right-wing and American, very much including its Neocons.

The great traditions which gave Canada the international reputation it enjoyed through much of the 20th century were largely the work of leaders in the Liberal Party.

Figures like Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau (father of the current Prime Minister), Paul Martin, and still others all came from the Liberal Party. We had some decent, respected Conservatives, too, but they have almost disappeared in a party which is the handiwork of Stephen Harper.

Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister and Chrystia Freeland as his Foreign Minister, the minister he most depends upon, have left those large traditions behind. Almost entirely.

I think it has a great deal to do with the fact that Justin is not a terribly clever or resourceful man, his previous big job having been as a kindergarten teacher. His father, by contrast, was genuinely brilliant, highly educated, with a mind aptly described as Jesuitical.

Justin suffers also from a rather bland personality, one that tries pleasing everyone. Again, by contrast, his father was fiercely independent-minded, once telling a heckler, “Mangez la merde!” and once challenging someone questioning what he was about to do with, “Just watch me.” Justin does a lot of apologizing and uses a great deal of Millennialist yoga-land language that often says very little of substance.

I believe those qualities in Justin Trudeau have caused him to lean heavily upon Freeland. He is photographed with her far, far more than with any other cabinet minister.

She is smart and has a much tougher personality than he does (although one lacking almost any sparkle or charm), hence his dependence.

But, of course, being smart alone does not save anyone from doing wrong or inappropriate things.

Values, integrity and a certain genuine force of character are required to avoid that. Just look at Mike Pompeo or Hillary Clinton or George Bush pere or Canada’s Stephen Harper – smart people all of them.

There is a need for something a little resembling what Flaubert called a sentimental education, and Freeland completely lacks it.

Freeland has made the wrong calls in almost everything she’s done, dragging Trudeau into the fallout. She is regarded by some as a closet American Neocon, and I pretty much agree with that assessment. Her husband even writes for the New York Times, a paper that has been aptly described as the house organ for America’s power establishment.

Her obvious, and inappropriate, anti-Russian prejudice likely comes from being brought up in Ukrainian-Canadian traditions, which, in my experience, were heavily colored by extreme anti-Soviet attitudes.

Today, Canada supports the overthrow of an elected government in Latin America, and never says a truly critical word about such an appalling government as that of Saudi Arabia. Of course, the Crown Prince is a pampered American favorite for his generous help in the task of spreading the blessings of freedom throughout the Middle East.

Even the legacy of Trudeau’s father is fading as Canada recently reduced services at its embassy in Cuba about the time of new American restrictions against Cuba being announced in Washington. The pathetic excuse was offered that some embassy employees had been hurt by unknown “sonic weapons,” a gimmick the United States came up with a couple of years ago, something with absolutely no science to it.

So, it is all quite disappointing. As far as foreign affairs are concerned, Canada might just as well have a Harperite Conservative government. I don’t know, maybe things on the inside with Washington have become a great deal harsher than they were in Pierre Trudeau’s time, but we see not the least effort at independent thought or principle from our present Liberal government.

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL POST

I like Justin, but he keeps making serious errors, almost certainly under the advice of advisers he should have dumped.

You cannot be viewed as fresh and promising if you keep say some of the things he says, such as this about coalitions being back-room deals.

First, there was the disastrous press conference with Eve Adams, a genuinely unpleasant person whose past service-station idiocy was in a video online even as Justin spoke with her.

Then, he supported Harper’s ghastly Bill C-51. You don’t support stupid and oppressive legislation just to differentiate yourself from the party to your left, but that is what Justin did.  Just dumb.

And now, he describes coalitions as “back room deals.”

This last one is just ignorant. Half the parliamentary governments of the world rule by coalitions. The last government of Britain, the government of Germany, the government of Israel – and that’s just for starters.

“Back room deals” is a pejorative phrase used to characterize something which is a normal and open in parliamentary democracies.

And that is precisely the kind of misleading expression which might well have been written by a Harper speechwriter.

I truly dislike that kind of language, which is part of the reason I find Stephen Harper so repellent a politician.

Sorry, Justin, but if you keep going down the road you are going down, people simply have no reason to vote for you. It makes you sound ideological, narrow, old-fashioned, and, yes, boring.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL POST

The article is technically well done, but it seems to me there is such an important set of facts understated in, or missing from, the article that, taken as a whole, it becomes inaccurate and misleading.

I might call it polished propaganda.

There is only one source for the election phenomenon we see now in Canada, and that source is Stephen Harper. It has little to do with “competition run amok.”

Harper is on record for admiring the American system, a system which is so dominated by big money that many astute and knowledgeable observers have said America is no longer a democracy but a plutocratic oligarchy.

Harper is also on record as hating many of Canada’s traditions in politics. His past assertions are so unpleasant and “Canadian self-hating” one wonders why he did not long ago seek a career in the United States. His total set of views and attitudes would have done him well in a place like Texas. They are in perfect keeping with politicians of the quality of Dick Armey or Phil Gramm or Tom Delay.

His major obsession in his entire political career has been to destroy the Liberal Party, the institution he holds largely responsible for the Canada he dislikes so intensely.

His basic method has been simple. Remove as much government funding as possible. Remove as much quasi-judicial oversight and rules as possible. Bend national policy in the direction big contributors want to see. Collect as much money from these special interests as possible. Lengthen the election period so that you can spend more than ever under laws you yourself have created.

Added to those structural changes are changes in practice completely learned from America’s example. Throw lots of dirt through advertising, knowing that if you throw enough, some will stick. Use third-party organizations to fund these whenever possible. Avoid direct contacts with press and interviewers as much as possible, and never answer a question in an honest and straightforward way. Use any costly frat-boy trick – such as robo-calls to misdirect voters – which might make gains for you in a swing area. Afterward, sandbag government officials investigating such matters. These approaches take full advantage of having a treasure chest full of private funds with which to play.

It is a formula guaranteed over time to badly damage Canadian democracy, and it is a formula favored by no other party.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Well said, indeed.

You’ve captured many aspects of the person and the situation perfectly.

The words about Harper being an actor who understands his own limiting persona are brilliantly discerning.

I’m quite concerned about the charming and attractive Justin going for the leadership.

First, his presence in the race may well intimidate other, possibly more talented and suitable candidates.

He does very much appear to lack the fierce intelligence of his father, his personality traits being more like those of his mother, albeit without her excesses.

But even a Pierre Trudeau might well not succeed today, our interests and attitudes having changed a great deal.

There is a huge burden on the shoulders of the next Liberal leader: Harper’s thugs are changing almost everything we have understood Canada as representing, and our international reputation has plummeted as we are seen as a complete servant of American-Israeli interests. Another majority would be hideous.

We desperately need a strong, effective leader of the Liberal Party, someone who can at least prevent a majority, and someone with shrewd political judgment. The NDP certainly has selected the right kind of leader for the times with Mulcair.

Another amateur-hour Ignatieff, a man with no support from people and no expertise and a man with weak personality traits, would be disaster.

The Liberal Party’s insiders are responsible for the entire Harper Era.

First, there was the infighting against a very popular and competent Prime Minister.

Then there was the nasty work inside the Party against Chretien supporters.

Then there was the poor handling of what was in many ways an understandable scandal whose roots were in serious concern with the country’s future, not just graft.

Then there was the failure to select Bob Rae, one of the most polished politicians of our day.

The less able but likable Dion was given no chance and inadequate support.

The pompous and surprisingly thinly talented Ignatieff was stuffed into the leadership with no democratic support, just as the insiders had intended when they recruited him in the United States.

His judgment proved a disaster.

The Party insiders have failed us entirely, and one hopes their role with Trudeau is not similar.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

No, Michael Ignatieff, you have not “allowed” your enemies to caricature you.

It is you who have caricatured a politician.

And it is you who have caricatured being a thoughtful and honest man.

You gave the nasty bunch of frat boys in Harper’s government the ammunition: They just loaded it into a big gun and fired.

And, please, will you stop your tiresome post-losing apologias?

They are almost as annoying as you were as appointed leader, and they are so poorly constructed in logic and force of argument, they make all people wonder how you ever were once regarded as a serious intellectual.
_____________________________

I’m not a betting man, but I would bet on this.

Were Harvard to come up with a new offer of cushy sinecure with a high-blown title, I’d bet good old Ignatieff would grab at it before a full heartbeat passed.

Just think, he would be relieved of the embarrassment and shame of his political catastrophe in Canada. He could quit writing pap like this piece.

And he could go back and be received with open arms to serve in the role he long played at Harvard, pseudo-liberal speaking out on behalf of imperial America’s brutal mass murder and interference in the lives of countless others – in other words, a high-price political prostitute.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY ADAM GOLDENBERG IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

I do not even understand why Adam Goldenberg has written this hatchet-job piece.

And I do not understand his qualification to do so, since having been a chief speechwriter to Michael ignatieff is pretty much an overblown claim to nothing.

Ignatieff plainly is the most terribly failed politician of our time, and his poor judgment and lack of skills have given us a legacy of a national government bent on copying the right wing of the Republican Party down to almost every detail.

Many of us knew that it would be so: Ignatieff is by nature a standoffish man and his spoken words have always been considerably less than dazzling. Mr Goldenberg’s efforts appear to have no spice to a dull dish.

Of course, there was Ignatieff’s past service to the worst war crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, an event in which a million or so perished. his claims to being a genuine liberal (small “l”) were always tenuous.

He proved himself a much overrated person in a dozen more ways when he took on the Liberal leadership.

He made a dumb speech at the convention attacking his own party which then became useful attack-material for the Harperites.

He accepted being parachuted into a riding, and then arrogantly chose not to live there, after having promised he would.

He accepted being parachuted into the leadership, an act which starkly cast doubt on Ignatieff’s democratic values.

Ignatieff went on that ludicrous Ma and Pa Kettle Cross Country Bus Trip when it became obvious to Party leaders he had no ability to communicate and empathize with people.

Since when does a bus trip change one’s character? It only made him look ridiculous on top of all his other shortcomings.

He always raged and blubbered against a coalition when it was clear to many – given the Liberal Party’s weakened status – that that was the only way to wrest power from Harper’s minority.

And Ignatieff chose when to call an election – he didn’t have to do so, but he did – and it was the most destructive election call in my lifetime.

Compared to Ignatieff’s fumbling, preachiness, lackluster speechmaking, poorly chosen issues, lack of organizational skills, and just plain boring personality, Bob Rae still looks remarkably good.

“Then he ran and lost, then ran again…”

That is subtly but definitely dishonest. There was no second-time race. Ignatieff was handed the leadership by a small group of Liberal Party insiders.

I and many others believe Bob Rae could have beaten Ignatieff, Rae being one of the most eloquent politicians of our generation, rising to levels of clever observation and well-chosen words Mr ignatieff could only dream of.

Of course, the genuine question is not why the talented Bob Rae ran and is running but why the inept Michael Ignatieff ever thought he had something to offer, other than some kind of legacy claim to crown his family’s achievements. Pure arrogance.
_____________________________________________

“Liberals are now in third place and electing a man with a track record of failing to run provinces well during a recession (which is exactly the situation we are in now) will do nothing to fix that.”

You have it precisely wrong: he ran it well under the circumstances.

There were hard choices to make, and he made them.

“Rae Days” were a thoughtful and decent option to large dismissals.

Union leaders and cheap columnists have never forgiven him.

And that doesn’t say a lot for their speaking in an informed manner or displaying effective intelligence.

For completely different reasons however I think Bob Rae’s day may have passed. I do not see the Liberal Party regaining its position any time soon.

Harper’s potential for growth is exhausted, 39.6% certainly being his high-water mark, a number interestingly which is close to the highest number achieved by the National Socialists when they ran as a democratic party in the early 1930s.

There is a dazzling new star on the political scene, and his name is Thomas Mulcair.

I do believe he has a serious chance of making the NDP Canada’s other major party and of rising above the old sort-of Boy Scout image from which the Party long has suffered.

I don’t see anyone else in the Liberals remotely up to the challenge. Talk of Justin Trudeau is pathetic. He has more of his mother’s genes than his father’s.

Dalton McGuinty is sickening and tiresome to almost everyone in Ontario, and it is only the PC’s stupid moves that have kept him going – first, John Tory’s insistence on committing political suicide and then the Party’s electing the current nasty gnome, Hudak, as leader.

Dominic LeBlanc is an intelligent and attractive candidate, but he never seems to have caught fire in the Party.

While intelligence is important, politics is far from a rational process, many emotional and lucky factors playing roles.

The Liberals cannot succeed without Quebec, and they are now far out-shown there by Mr Mulcair.

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Mr Ignatieff, here’s what I consider serious unfairness in our politics.

A few Liberal Party insiders go down to Harvard to lure a boring academic to return to Canada with the promise of likely leading the party about which he knew nothing.

The boring academic got parachuted into a riding about which he also knew nothing, and he refused to live in the riding, even though he once said that he would.

The boring academic made some speeches, in the course of pursuing the party’s leadership, undeserving of it as he was, with thoughtless statements ready-made for exploitation later by Conservatives in attack ads.

The boring academic later, after the political demise of the politician who beat him out for the leadership, accepts being parachuted into the party’s leadership without being tested by any meaningfully democratic process.

The boring academic proves a boring and genuinely inept political leader.

Every poll and gathering proves Liberals themselves do not like the boring academic, but he persists until he can lead the party to its degrading defeat.

And sure enough, the boring academic makes a dumb decision for an election which dooms Canadians to at least four years of Harper’s slash and burn.

After quitting in a rush and accepting a sinecure at the University of Toronto, the boring academic manages to pound out a boring article every once in a while to be published in the Globe and Mail.

Sound familiar, Mr Ignatieff?

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Yes, you might well have thought that.

But recall Richard Nixon’s behavior for his second election.

As anyone knew then, he pretty well (sadly) had being re-elected a certainty.

His opponent was one of the most honorable men ever to run for the presidency, but being honorable in America is little more than a sign of weakness to many: it is, after all, a country organized and administered on principles of Social Darwinism.

So despite the near-certainty of a win, Richard Nixon had a gang of thugs doing break-ins, smear-jobs, and was seeking secret contributions by the sack-full. The White House was staffed up with unpleasant men ready to do anything for their leader.

He ended, of course, by ending his own presidency.

The general frame of mind of Richard Nixon at that time is a close parallel to Harper’s today.

There are the clearest elements of paranoia, immense anger, relish for frat-boy dirty tricks, and a tendency towards monomania – all the stuff we saw with Richard Nixon and stuff we’ve seen again with the likes of a Newt Gingrich or Tom Delay.

Harper is a genuinely sick puppy.

Sometimes it happens that people who were known as narrow ideologues do rise to the office to which they are elected or appointed (in the case of judges), but not this kind of unbalanced personality.

I’m afraid so long as Harper holds his office we will continue to see Canadian political traditions of decency and ethical behavior eroded.
_____________________________________________

“Autocracy verging on dictatorship….. Don’t agree? Just wait and watch!”

Indeed.

But the fault is also in a political system where a man of Harper’s unpleasant character, once given a technical majority 39.6% of the vote, can pretty well do anything, if he is so inclined.

We have not suffered from this serious flaw in our political structure before only because we have not been so unfortunate to have a man of Harper’s almost demonic personality in office.

Canada suffers from a democratic deficit as serious as that of many other countries one does not normally associate with the goodwill Canada has enjoyed internationally for decades.

Harper of course also realizes that his opposition is divided hopelessly, and he will take the fullest advantage of that fact.

Tyrannical-oriented personalities always have used the principle of “divide and conquer” in their governing. Hitler ran the Third Reich by creating a whole series of competing fiefdoms whose chiefs endlessly squabbled, having recourse only to Hitler himself, floating as it were above the ugly turmoil.

It is an effective method, at least for a time, if your concern is not with the people of a country but with your personal rule.

I’m certainly not suggesting any relationship between Harper and Hitler – only the parallel of the way a power-driven dark personality operates to hold power.

Well, the Liberal Party handed Harper this situation on a platter. Twice they turned down a very intelligent and effective politician, Bob Rae, on the basis that there were bad memories in Ontario of aspects of his premiership but also on the basis of a genuinely stupid effort by some back-room boys to parachute Michael Ignatieff into the leadership, a man of almost unparalleled political ineptitude.

Now they’ve given Bob Rae the job (temporarily), but it is a hopeless way to give someone a big job: the party is in pathetic shape, Rae looks without genuine support, and he is just that much older.

Jack Layton’s magnificent triumph in Quebec was in large part because the Liberals had Ignatieff hopelessly droning and sputtering. Quebec always admires genuinely eloquent men: just look at the record of leaders in the PQ or the BQ, some of the greatest firebrand speakers of our time.

So Harper’s current position is almost more an accident than a personal achievement, but here is a man whose dark animal cunning will seize every advantage he can from the luck of the draw.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO AN INTERVIEW IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Ignatieff just becomes more pathetic with each passing day.

First, he played Pa Kettle in the re-make of “Ma and Pa Kettle Take the Bus.”

Now, he’s knee-deep in Facebook, one of the most trivial and meaningless sites on the Internet.

And all that comes after the clear identity of rather dull academic.

Oh, and then there’s his long-term role as Defender of the American Empire.

Please, Liberal Party, you have become as trivial and tending to dumbness as CBC Radio One these days.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY RICK SALUTIN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

He’s a bit of a snot actually.I don’t know why he even pursued politics except that backroom boys promised him the top, and Ignatieff thinks being at the top will cap his family’s achievement.

Besides snottiness, Ignatieff just really does not like mobs of people. It’s obvious in his facial expressions in many, many pictures. Maybe he has Asperger’s Syndrome?

You cannot cure a quality like that. It is equipment no politician should have.

Then there is his clear inability to even say anything that excites or interests people.

He’s a writer – a man who spends hours a day bent over a keyboard, talking with no one.

He is not a public speaker. He is not a people person.

But above all for me is his groveling – there’s no other word for it – posture towards American imperialism.

Essentially that was his master at Harvard. The stuff about human rights was window dressing, much like hearing a man of Bush’s quality talk about women’s rights.

Ignatieff is simply not a liberal in the best meaning of the word.

His only poor service to Canadian politics is effectively extending Harper’s ugly minority rule.
____________________________________________

“Let’s face it, the only thing ingrained here is our anti-intellectualism, which borders on anti-intelligence (Canadians are actually proud of it).”

This and similar comments are ridiculous.

Most people who oppose Ignatieff do not do so because he writes books.

They oppose him because he has almost none of the classic political skills. In political terms he’s an idiot-savant.

His only true meaning in the political world has been to extend Harper’s time for smashing up Canadian traditions.

And I find an (effectively) appointed leader repulsive to my democratic values.

We need intelligent people in government, and I dearly hope we never go the way America has, taking seriously people like Sarah Palin or George Bush, people with brains the size of a gnat’s.

We’ve had many intelligent leaders, and, truth be told, Harper is intelligent, although I reject his values and the nasty minority crowd he tries to please.

Intelligence in government must be effective – effective for action, not for writing books.

While Ignatieff can write books, he almost totally lacks the kind of effective intelligence required in a good politician.

Intelligence for me is always a primary quality in a politician, but I find Ignatieff utterly unappealing and almost laughably ineffectual.

And apparently so do a lot of other Canadians.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY LAWRENCE MARTIN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Let Ignatieff be himself?

God, what a treat that will be for voters.

Let him drone on in his drab tone.

Let him display his arrogant and stand-offish attitude.

Let him display his striped trousers and silk stockings while crossing his legs on podiums across the country.

Let him speak about relatively trivial points while the great issues of the sweep past him.

Let him blubber about the democratic values his entire sordid little political career in Canada has worked against.

Let him smile his sardonic smile and be self-satisfied about his changing his mind about past support for torture and mass murder in Iraq.

God, I wish the Liberal Party would come to its senses and dump this political albatross.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED SERIES OF RESPONSES TO TWO COLUMNS IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL 

It’s time for Dhalla to step down.

The caregivers’ advocate who has just testified is a sincere and decent woman who has not the least reason to attack Dhalla, not even knowing who she was originally.

So we have four independent people speaking against Dhalla: the two widely quoted caregivers; the advocate; and another caregiver.

None with the least motive to attack her.

Indeed, were it as pleasant to work in Ruby’s home as Ruby claims, any caregiver would go out of her way to keep the job.

What is so crummy about this is that Dhalla, by sticking to her position, is effectively calling all these perfectly decent people liars.

We learned, from a previous poster under one Dhalla story, that Dhalla is known in Ottawa as a difficult person with whom to work, as well as having the highest turnover in staff of all members of parliament.

Funny how this advocate’s testimony precisely confirms this information about a politician she never knew about until now.

Have a little shred of honor, Ruby, and resign.

________________

Ms. Dhalla does herself no favor by blubbering about conspiracies. It sounds a bit flaky, to say the least.

The committee may handle this badly, as the Conservatives handle so many matters badly, but public opinion is what is important in this matter.

Three women, all hard-working women from abroad, have independently said much the same thing.

They have no common motive for saying what they say, other than the wish for some fairness after considerable unfairness.

Why would Ms. Dhalla be the object of any conspiracy? She simply is not that important or controversial a public figure.

Of course, one is not guilty in courts until proven so, but here we are dealing with the court of public opinion, and it does not work the same way.

Sorry, Ms. Dhalla the court of public opinion thinks your behavior stinks.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Bob Rae is, of course, absolutely right here.

What Ignatieff is showing us now is what a very close twin to Harper he is.

Secretiveness is a basic Harper characteristic, as is being an angry control-freak behind the scenes.

We already understood Ignatieff was a divisive man. We already knew he supported the state-terror of the Iraq invasion. We already knew he was arrogant and aggressive. We already knew he had little of what honestly can be called ethics.

With this behavior, he proves he cannot be distinguished from Harper. The only differences are style.

Which monster do you like? A Frankenstein-like creature who smiles with a two-second delay to any stimulus (Harper) or do you like a low, cunning were-wolf type (Ignatieff)?

With Ignatieff, the Liberal Party becomes an irrelevant copy of the Conservatives.

I would not vote for the one over the other under any circumstances.

_______________

Ignatieff unquestionably represents a watershed in Canadian national politics.

It will be the end of the coalition of interests we have called the Liberal Party for decades.

There is no reason on earth to vote for this unethical man over Harper.

Any success he could hope to achieve would only reflect old sentiments and associations people have in their minds concerning the party.

But these emotional connections are already frayed.

They will snap altogether with the emergence of this dark, unpleasant man as leader.

_____________

M. LeBlanc is actually the Liberals’ greatest prospect.

He is altogether an energetic, intelligent, informed, and likeable man.

He has the French name and language so important in Quebec.

He could create some real excitement.

But no, the boundless, unwarranted personal ambition of Ignatieff will prevent that happening.

It is a very troubling set of circumstances.

____________

“…but Iggy is the better liberal.”

A ridiculous statement.

The traditions of the modern Liberal Party – the party of Pearson, Trudeau, and Chretien – are violated in almost every aspect by what Ignatieff represents.

There is no connection whatever, anymore than there is between Harper and that tradition.