本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Messy campaign reflects Martin as PM
Jan. 12, 2006. 02:26 PM
JAMES TRAVERS
What's wrong with a Liberal campaign now free-falling toward a jolting landing is what's wrong with Paul Martin as prime minister.
Contradictory, inconsistent and still searching for a focus, this Liberal tour and Martin's leadership reflect the dangers of power exercised without discipline.
Even the most desperate attack advertising — and new Liberal television spots shout panic — can't hide that this election isn't about Stephen Harper. It's about expectations Martin couldn't meet, a pinball government that ricochets bumper-to-bumper and a ruling party so accustomed to privilege that skimming public money to pay friends is just taking care of business.
Democracy may be a slow-witted beast but it's smart enough to know when the risk of change is less frightening than the risk of doing nothing.
So Liberals who foolishly believed they could fight and win this election the way they fought and won the last must now stop the erosion of core support and find the energy to soldier through 11 difficult days.
How else to explain the sudden preoccupation with Toronto and what should be safe Liberal seats? By spending time where they are strongest, Liberals are repeating the Conservatives' damaging 2004 retreat to rock solid Alberta.
Truth is, the Prime Minister and Canada's natural governing party are now in the most tortured of political positions. Momentum belongs to Conservatives, Martin has trouble getting attention even when he makes more policy sense than Harper, and it won't be long before fingers point at unloved Liberal strategists, cabinet ministers start hoping to lose and barely hibernating leadership campaigns decide spring is here.
How so much went so wrong will eventually bulge the covers of quickly remaindered books. But no waiting is required to grasp what's happening to the Prime Minister.
Credibility comes with consistency and in this election as well as in office Martin has been the antithesis of both. A prime minister who came to power promising mature relations with Washington recklessly attacked the U.S. president for campaign advantage and is wrapping himself in the federalist flag after weakening the central government with one-off, backroom deals with premiers.
Those are examples, not aberrations. To conclude otherwise is to forget that Martin put aside his commitment to do politics differently long enough to appoint the discredited Art Eggleton to the Senate, further concentrate power in an unelected elite and let focus groups guide his pragmatic, zigzag course.
Liberals will dismiss all that as salt rubbed in a seeping wound. But that's not the purpose or point. Odds against Martin now sandbagging the rising tides of change are directly proportional to his past performance. Had he done what he said he would do, if he had grown into the prime minister he promised to be, Liberals would be winning, not losing and those high-risk ads would be superfluous.
For Liberals, the problem now is starkly simple. Why would voters trust Martin to tell them the truth about Harper or to provide sound, steady and predictable leadership?
Confidence in the speaker is a prerequisite for a compelling proposition. In 2004, voters still held enough residual faith in Martin to listen intently and act accordingly when told Harper would drip acid on Canadian values.
But Harper is now threatened less by what Martin says than by Conservative success. Only a sudden shift in the perception that the next government will be a minority stands between Conservatives and an election upset that in November stretched the imagination.
Voters are now appreciatively kicking the tires of a Conservative government but still could be scared away if the price is too high, the commitment too great. Punishing Liberals is one thing, a Conservative majority quite another.
Still, without a rebirth of the demons that hounded Harper to defeat less than two years ago, Martin will be lucky to keep this election close enough to persuade disaffected Liberals that he deserves a third chance.
That won't happen if on election day voters conclude that what's wrong with this campaign is exactly what's wrong with Liberals and this prime minister.
Unfocused and undisciplined, together they are carrying Liberals away from the power that defines the party.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Jan. 12, 2006. 02:26 PM
JAMES TRAVERS
What's wrong with a Liberal campaign now free-falling toward a jolting landing is what's wrong with Paul Martin as prime minister.
Contradictory, inconsistent and still searching for a focus, this Liberal tour and Martin's leadership reflect the dangers of power exercised without discipline.
Even the most desperate attack advertising — and new Liberal television spots shout panic — can't hide that this election isn't about Stephen Harper. It's about expectations Martin couldn't meet, a pinball government that ricochets bumper-to-bumper and a ruling party so accustomed to privilege that skimming public money to pay friends is just taking care of business.
Democracy may be a slow-witted beast but it's smart enough to know when the risk of change is less frightening than the risk of doing nothing.
So Liberals who foolishly believed they could fight and win this election the way they fought and won the last must now stop the erosion of core support and find the energy to soldier through 11 difficult days.
How else to explain the sudden preoccupation with Toronto and what should be safe Liberal seats? By spending time where they are strongest, Liberals are repeating the Conservatives' damaging 2004 retreat to rock solid Alberta.
Truth is, the Prime Minister and Canada's natural governing party are now in the most tortured of political positions. Momentum belongs to Conservatives, Martin has trouble getting attention even when he makes more policy sense than Harper, and it won't be long before fingers point at unloved Liberal strategists, cabinet ministers start hoping to lose and barely hibernating leadership campaigns decide spring is here.
How so much went so wrong will eventually bulge the covers of quickly remaindered books. But no waiting is required to grasp what's happening to the Prime Minister.
Credibility comes with consistency and in this election as well as in office Martin has been the antithesis of both. A prime minister who came to power promising mature relations with Washington recklessly attacked the U.S. president for campaign advantage and is wrapping himself in the federalist flag after weakening the central government with one-off, backroom deals with premiers.
Those are examples, not aberrations. To conclude otherwise is to forget that Martin put aside his commitment to do politics differently long enough to appoint the discredited Art Eggleton to the Senate, further concentrate power in an unelected elite and let focus groups guide his pragmatic, zigzag course.
Liberals will dismiss all that as salt rubbed in a seeping wound. But that's not the purpose or point. Odds against Martin now sandbagging the rising tides of change are directly proportional to his past performance. Had he done what he said he would do, if he had grown into the prime minister he promised to be, Liberals would be winning, not losing and those high-risk ads would be superfluous.
For Liberals, the problem now is starkly simple. Why would voters trust Martin to tell them the truth about Harper or to provide sound, steady and predictable leadership?
Confidence in the speaker is a prerequisite for a compelling proposition. In 2004, voters still held enough residual faith in Martin to listen intently and act accordingly when told Harper would drip acid on Canadian values.
But Harper is now threatened less by what Martin says than by Conservative success. Only a sudden shift in the perception that the next government will be a minority stands between Conservatives and an election upset that in November stretched the imagination.
Voters are now appreciatively kicking the tires of a Conservative government but still could be scared away if the price is too high, the commitment too great. Punishing Liberals is one thing, a Conservative majority quite another.
Still, without a rebirth of the demons that hounded Harper to defeat less than two years ago, Martin will be lucky to keep this election close enough to persuade disaffected Liberals that he deserves a third chance.
That won't happen if on election day voters conclude that what's wrong with this campaign is exactly what's wrong with Liberals and this prime minister.
Unfocused and undisciplined, together they are carrying Liberals away from the power that defines the party.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net