You think you know… But you don’t

I am probably proving my light weight as a political observer with this post, but some of the things I have been hearing and reading are leaving my panties in a bunch.

I am growing increasingly tired of some of the comments made in regards to our Prime Minister. Of course, mud-slinging is to be expected by those who share opposing views to those of the PM or the Conservative Party, but some of the assumptions being made simply blow my mind.

Here are a couple of these statements, which I am becoming allergic to hearing:

1- Stephen Harper does not care about Canada, he is only power hungry and clinging to power.

I could not disagree more. I can’t say I know everything that goes on in the PM’s mind, but neither do most political observers. However, I can say the research and readings I have done about Stephen Harper bring me much closer than these opposition naysayers to understanding the PM’s motivations. Reading such books as Tom Flanagan’s Harper’s Team brings a lot of insight into Harper’s mentality, and if there is one conclusion to be drawn it is definitely that Stephen Harper loves our country and is doing what he judges to be in its best interest, period.

2- Harper is turning his back on what real conservatives want.

This accusation mostly comes from other conservatives who feel the PM is not addressing grassroots concerns in his policy, on subjects ranging from abortion, to gay marriage and even cutting the funding to the CBC. I realize that many conservatives feel very strongly about these issues, but the fact that they remain unaddressed testifies of Harper’s incremental and moderate approach. We cannot forget that the Conservatives are working under a minority government, and that they should not be expected to rule as a majority nor would the opposition let them.

Some may even argue that by remaining neutral on certain issues, Harper is in fact proving his demagogy and power hunger. But I beg to differ. This is larger than having Harper as the Prime Minister, even for him. There is evidence to that in the risks he had to face when trying to unite the right too. He does this to make sure that the conservative voice remains alive and relevant, in the Canadian political ring. By giving in to a vocal yet minority views demanding specific intervention in certain files, Harper would effectively alienate a majority of right-leaning Canadians who share broad conservative values but do not necessarily see the need or the usefulness in acting in these files. As well, by remaining distant from these controversial positions, the Conservatives are getting the chance to be recognized as a valid governing alternative to the “natural governing party” in Canada, i.e. the Liberals.

3- Harper cannot be trusted with his promises.

Again, those who say this are usually ideological opponents to conservatism. They have a short memory, and purposefully remain blind to the real accomplishments which were the fruit of electoral promises made by Harper and the Conservatives. These same opponents usually refer to three items in their “broken promise” spiel: fixed election dates, Senate reform and his partisanship.

He is called a hypocrite, a liar and is demonized left and right. However, one must consider the reasons behind these so-called broken promises before judging them. Again, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

On the fixed election date, I believe the idea behind this move was to give a defined mandate to a majority government, preventing it from calling an election when the public opinion was favourable. I don’t think it was created to deal with a minority government, since in these circumstances, the opposition would continue to have the power to defeat the government on confidence votes. When Harper called the last election, he felt (and I truly believe this) there was no way forward in the current Parliament. With the opposition intent on stalling government initiatives and the Liberals under Stéphane Dion refusing to bring down the government, despite their clear opposition to most of its measures, this left the PM with few other choices. He gave the opposition many opportunities of defeating him, while standing for what they believed in, yet they preferred abstaining while making it impossible for the government to advance many of its objectives.

The same goes for Senate reform. By nominating 18 senators last month, Harper did not act against his promise to work towards an elected Senate. But again, the opposition left him little choice in governing. He could have maintained his stance, but then would have been put in a position where there would be no chance of ever bringing change to the Senate – and this because, in order for Senate reform to happen, the Senate itself must support it. There is little chance that an “entitled,” mainly Liberal Senate would ever accept to short-change itself, so the only possible solution was to add reform-friendly Senators to the Red Chamber, to shift – however slightly, and with whatever time it does take – its balance of power.

Finally, regarding his partisan politics Harper is being regarded as a liar for vowing that he and his caucus would be civil in the House of Commons. The media rapidly focused their attacks on the Conservatives for breaking this promise. However, we should not forget that the opposition promised the same thing, and from my viewing of Question Period in the House of Commons, I feel they were the first to break this promise – whether the MSM was ever willing to admit or even realize it. And now that Harper is promising again more civility and cooperation, the opposition say they can’t believe him. They are giving him no chance and are proving that they themselves prefer partisan obstructionism over making the effort to collaborate with the government.

All this to say, I realize more and more that people on both side of the divide tend to speak about many things which they know little on. It reminds me of something a friend used to say in high school, when people would gossip… “You think you know… But you don’t.”