本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛In January 2001, Stephen Harper and five others published an open
letter in the National Post urging Alberta to beef up its fight with
Ottawa by building a "firewall" around itself and take greater
control over its own affairs.
Complaining that tax revenues from Alberta were subsidizing other
Canadians, the "firewall letter" sounded downright hostile to the
rest of the country.
Its attitude is typical of a group of right wingers, centred around
U.S-born academic Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary. This
"Calgary school," with which Harper is very closely allied, peddles
a Canadian version of Paul Wolfowitz-style neo-conservatism, and it
likes the idea of using oil-rich Alberta as a right-wing battering ram
against the more socially democratic vision of Canada that prevails in
much of the rest of the country.
Certainly, the authors of the "firewall letter" don't sound much
concerned about fostering national unity - presumably something we'd
expect in a prime minister.
If the "firewall letter" had been published during this campaign,
Harper would almost certainly be heading for a crushing defeat, instead
of perhaps poised to become prime minister.
I bet most Canadians don't know about the letter, or have forgotten
what's in it. After all, people don't have time to go looking up what
Harper wrote years ago.
The media have time, but little interest. Instead, the media treat the
campaign as a horse race, fixating on polls, offering voters little
more than their own reflection in the mirror.
So, despite the "firewall letter," the Conservative campaign has
largely got away with spinning Harper as a strong defender of Canada
and Canadian sovereignty - and independent of Washington.
Carefully out of sight is Harper's attack on Ottawa two years ago for
not joining the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Harper even stirred the waters
of anti-Canadian feeling south of the border by denouncing Ottawa's
decision in an interview with U.S. TV channel Fox News, and also in The
Wall Street Journal.
No wonder Harper was recently lauded in the Washington Times as
"pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative ... the most
pro-American leader in the western world."
Also gone from sight is Harper's suggestion three years ago that Canada
was becoming a "second-tier socialistic country." Now, according to
Harper, this is a "great country."
Is Harper showing a willingness to compromise?
Not likely.
As fellow right-wing Albertan Ted Byfield once noted in an interview
with the Walrus magazine: "I don't think (Harper) knows how to
compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: How do we fool the
world into thinking we're moving left when we're not?"
No problem.
With a co-operative media, Harper has managed to render largely
invisible his links to a cabal of right wingers determined to transform
Canada in the way their American counterparts transformed the U.S. -
despite widespread Canadian revulsion for George W. Bush's America.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
letter in the National Post urging Alberta to beef up its fight with
Ottawa by building a "firewall" around itself and take greater
control over its own affairs.
Complaining that tax revenues from Alberta were subsidizing other
Canadians, the "firewall letter" sounded downright hostile to the
rest of the country.
Its attitude is typical of a group of right wingers, centred around
U.S-born academic Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary. This
"Calgary school," with which Harper is very closely allied, peddles
a Canadian version of Paul Wolfowitz-style neo-conservatism, and it
likes the idea of using oil-rich Alberta as a right-wing battering ram
against the more socially democratic vision of Canada that prevails in
much of the rest of the country.
Certainly, the authors of the "firewall letter" don't sound much
concerned about fostering national unity - presumably something we'd
expect in a prime minister.
If the "firewall letter" had been published during this campaign,
Harper would almost certainly be heading for a crushing defeat, instead
of perhaps poised to become prime minister.
I bet most Canadians don't know about the letter, or have forgotten
what's in it. After all, people don't have time to go looking up what
Harper wrote years ago.
The media have time, but little interest. Instead, the media treat the
campaign as a horse race, fixating on polls, offering voters little
more than their own reflection in the mirror.
So, despite the "firewall letter," the Conservative campaign has
largely got away with spinning Harper as a strong defender of Canada
and Canadian sovereignty - and independent of Washington.
Carefully out of sight is Harper's attack on Ottawa two years ago for
not joining the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Harper even stirred the waters
of anti-Canadian feeling south of the border by denouncing Ottawa's
decision in an interview with U.S. TV channel Fox News, and also in The
Wall Street Journal.
No wonder Harper was recently lauded in the Washington Times as
"pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative ... the most
pro-American leader in the western world."
Also gone from sight is Harper's suggestion three years ago that Canada
was becoming a "second-tier socialistic country." Now, according to
Harper, this is a "great country."
Is Harper showing a willingness to compromise?
Not likely.
As fellow right-wing Albertan Ted Byfield once noted in an interview
with the Walrus magazine: "I don't think (Harper) knows how to
compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: How do we fool the
world into thinking we're moving left when we're not?"
No problem.
With a co-operative media, Harper has managed to render largely
invisible his links to a cabal of right wingers determined to transform
Canada in the way their American counterparts transformed the U.S. -
despite widespread Canadian revulsion for George W. Bush's America.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net