FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Harper is Finally Right: the Canadian Election is About Security Versus Risk

Powell River, British Columbia.

Stephen Harper chose the Calgary Stampede Rodeo (now Rachel Notley country) to launch the theme of the now full-blown election campaign. Harper proclaimed he was confident that “…this October Canadians will choose security over risk.”  Let’s hope so. The question is, of course, what kind of security and risk are we talking about? Political language is never simple or straight forward. It is subject to sophisticated manipulation by professional word-smiths and public relations experts. The choice of what language to use is subject to hundreds of hours of deliberation and enormous resources because if you get it right, you usually win. If you get it wrong, well, it’s a lot harder. Getting it right means no one even suspects you of manipulating them.

Experts in the art of issue framing will tell you that those who frame an issue first have a huge advantage because they force their opponents to reframe it  – in other words get you to take the time to reconsider what the words actually mean. Maybe that is why neither the Liberals nor the NDP have taken the trouble to challenge Harper’s framing of the security issue as exclusively a foreign policy and military issue: security against terrorism.

That’s unfortunate because not only is Harper vulnerable on his own limited anti-terror grounds he is extremely vulnerable when it comes to the kind of security that actually affects millions of Canadians. When it comes to economic and social security the vast majority of Canadians haven’t been this insecure since the Great Depression.

It’s not as if we don’t know the numbers – 60 percent of  Canadians just two weeks away from financial crisis if they lose their job; record high personal indebtedness; real wages virtually flat for the past twenty-five years; a terrible work-life balance situation for most working people (and getting worse); labour standard protections that now exist only on paper; the second highest percentage of low-paying jobs in the OECD; young people forced into working for nothing on phony  apprenticeships; levels of economic (both income and wealth) inequality not seen since 1928. Throw in the diminishing “social wage” (Medicare, education, home care, child care, etc.) and the situation is truly grim.

Most of these insecurity statistics are rooted either directly or indirectly in twenty-five years of deliberate government policy designed by and for corporations. Governments have gradually jettisoned their responsibility for economic security, slowly but surely handing this critical feature of every Canadian’s life over to the “market“ for determination. Economic policy has been surgically excised from government responsibility to citizens and is now in the singular category of “facilitating investment” – a euphemism for clearing the way for corporations to engage in whatever activity enhances their bottom line.

From corporate rights agreements (which constitutionalize corporate power), to the decades old “independence” of the Bank of Canada (independent of democracy); from irresponsibly low corporate income tax rates to punitively low social assistance; from EI that only 30% ever quality for to taxes grossly skewed in favour of the wealthy and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has bestowed citizenship status on the most powerful and ruthless economic entities on the planet, Canadian governments have abandoned their citizens to the vagaries of an increasingly unregulated capitalism. This is not even a complete list but it demonstrates just how corporate globalization and its promoters like Stephen Harper have created the greatest insecurity for Canadians virtually in living memory.

The brilliance of the project hiving economic security off from democratic governance is that it has been so gradual and systematic that we have all come to accept it as if it were ordained by nature. There are no angry anti-austerity marches here and as a result there is no political party basing its platform on such a sentiment (the NDP seems desperate to mimic the Conservatives’ and Liberals’ dedication to balanced-budget idiocy). We have never been so fearful of our economic future but we have been convinced that we (even those of us with full time, low-paying jobs headed for the food banks to make ends meet) are somehow to blame.

As for the kind of security Harper likes to talk about we are in fact less secure now under the Conservatives’ policies than we have ever been. Harper’s foreign policy could easily make us targets for the very “jihadists” that Harper rails on about. His eager involvement in the destruction of Libya, his aggressive stance in Afghanistan, the carte balnche he provides Israel in its brutal oppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the illegal occupation of the West Bank and his comically ineffective “engagement” in the war on ISIL all contribute to terrorists identifying Canada as a reasonable target for retribution. If we actually had some smattering of national interests in the Middle East it could be argued that the risk is worth it. But we don’t. The net result is not only increased national insecurity but the trampling of our rights to privacy and our civil liberties with Bill C51  – legislation that does nothing to enhance our defence against terror but dramatically undermines our personal security as citizens.

The Harper Conservative could still eke out a minority government in the October 19th election. If they do it unchallenged on their fraudulent promotion of enhanced security for Canadians the NDP and Liberals will have no one to blame but themselves.

More articles by:

MURRAY DOBBIN, now living in Powell River, BC has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for over forty years.  He can be reached at murraydobbin@shaw.ca

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail