Nice Guy? Please!

In the print edition of the National Post, the headline of Don Martin's column states:

He didn't get it: Politics is nasty

The online edition says -- Nice guys don't last in politics

Both are referring to Stephane Dion.

Gimme a break!

Martin goes on to say:

Like it or not, and I still think it was beneath him, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's instant attack on the do-overs of Mr. Dion's bumbled CTV interview was blood sport politics at its finest and is credited for an overnight downturn in Liberal fortunes. By the time Mr. Dion got around to going dirty by repeatedly shouting "liar" at the Prime Minister, it sounded pathetically desperate.

Go back Mr. Martin -- read your paper from the first day of the election race. From the get-go, Dion called Harper a liar. Let's not pretend his animus was in response to anything. Dion broke from the gate calling the PM a liar. Throughout the campaign, he and his party equated Harper to the most hated man in the world, George Bush. Liar, quitter, classless, malevolent -- the name-calling was all one sided and all from the direction of the Liberal campaign. The Conservatives stuck with one issue -- Stephane Dion -- Not a leader, not worth the risk. It was right. Boo hoo.

All the pejorative adjectives thrown out in this campaign were tossed by either Stephane Dion or his attack dog, Elizabeth May. Is Martin so clueless that he doesn't 'get' that Dion and the Liberals planned that she'd do most of the rude and hostile, English mouthing off? But still, it isn't like Dion held back--he showed hostility, arrogance and he spewed vitriol every time he mentioned Harper's name. And yet he gets labelled a 'decent guy' and a 'nice guy' by the press.
What were they watching during those six weeks?

Harper never once name-called. During the debate, he was the only leader to display manners and courtesy, despite the attacks being levelled on him. He sat and listened as Ms May called him incompetent, accused him of not being able to read, suggested that his only good quality is that she's fairly certain he loves his kids -- despite being a bad enough PM to possibly be intentionally destroying the future of their country, and berating him for not making chit-chat with her at some dinner.

Stephane Dion is whining. Throughout the campaign, he whined. He's a whining, crybaby loser who hasn't learned to take responsibility for himself.

Who's the nice guy?

canadianna

What we have here

is a failure to communicate.

The shocking news isn't that the Conservatives have strategies to get their way or to manipulate committees -- it's that they would write a playbook -- and then allow it to become public. That's careless and stupid.

The methods described by Don Martin in today's National Post are nothing new, nor or they exclusive to the Conservatives. They've been employed to great effect by other parties when the opportunity or need arose. The difference is this time is there is a blueprint, so it looks calculating and manipulative.

Ordinary citizens are led to believe that we can expect our politicians to be 'above partisan politics'. We are duped into thinking that they should be above partisanship -- but the fact is, politics is an adversarial business. Each party has priorities and plans, and much as we'd like to believe otherwise, consensus is not always possible.

The Shane Doan incident, the stalled committees and the Kyoto implementation plan are excellent examples. There should have been no concensus about calling on Hockey Canada, and there can be no consensus on the Afghan detainee issue, the Court Challenges Program or Kyoto. The other parties are fairly solid in their positions on these and so long as the Conservatives have a minority in the House and on committees, it stands to reason that government is going to try to block ideas and issues that potentially go against national security, against their principles and against all reason. While compromise is often necessary, conversion would be required to support the opposition ideas in these areas.

Of course you can't govern like a majority when you're in a minority parliament. The Conservatives had to expect the Opposition would oppose -- that's their job. At least some of the obstacles to success on committees have nothing to do with the opposition working against the government and everything to do with the government's lack of success selling its position to the public.

Take the Shane Doan/Official Languages Committee fiasco.

The Conservatives had a minority on the committee. The motion to call Hockey Canada in front of the committee would have passed without their support. Chong's lame explanation that they were 'giving Hockey Canada a chance to tell their side.' is just asinine. If Hockey Canada doesn't need to justify to parliament its choice of Captain-- why would the Conservatives vote for the motion, when a 'yes' vote gives credence to the notion that parliament has a right to challenge the decisions of Hockey Canada?

I have no doubt that the Conservatives were not in favour of recalling Shane Doan or of hauling Rob Nicholson in for grilling -- but rather than bravely voting against the motion, or even meekly abstaining, they voted in favour of the farce and allowed themselves to be painted with the same brush as the other committee members who were pushing for Doan's ouster and disparaging his character.

That is bad strategy.

As for the Afghan detainee thing --- why try to hide mistakes? When you own up, people respect you. When you obfuscate, they know. Where is the upside in lying? Canadians can understand that it takes time to rectify some problems, but they don't understand why it's so hard to admit to errors and to the lag-time in correcting your errors. If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies. If you try to deny, you'll be caught and that becomes the story.

Bad strategy.

With the Court Challenges Program --- there is reasonable justification for shutting this program down, but what about a grandfathering clause, allowing cases already in the system to proceed? Or actually explaining (without a sneer that says anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot) why the program isn't necessary.

And the Kyoto Implementation bill -- Given the circumstances around the time this was first presented, they could have fought an election on that issue and won. They missed a golden window of opportunity they won't get back.

That's bad strategy.

If the Conservatives are losing ground, it's because they are losing touch with the people. Not just their 'base', but the people.

We don't care about committee procedures or who's the Chair -- we just want to know that our government is doing the right thing and when they don't, that they've got the fortitude to admit it and take the heat.

You've still got time before the session ends. Show some character.

canadianna

Degrees of morality at the War Museum

Don Martin wrote again about the Royal Canadian Legion's fight against one of the exhibits at the Canadian War Museum. Martin is of the opinion that Vets are wrong to object to the wording of the contentious "An Enduring Controversy" display. Needless to say I think he's wrong as usual.

The exhibit in question attempts to give perspective and background to the role of Bomber Command and the air war prior to D-Day. This quote from the War Museum backgrounder is meant to set out the museum's position that they have handled this exhibition respectfully and accurately:

The panel states, essentially, that the morality and value of the Allies' strategic bombing campaign continues to be the subject of intense debate, that the raids achieved a high level of physical destruction throughout Germany, and that they failed to reduce substantially German war production until the later months of the war.

While arguing that this display is balanced because the Museum is simply reflecting the reality that the 'morality' and 'value' of the raids are debatable, they present as FACT that the raids were largely ineffective. If the value of the raids is subject to 'intense debate' why are they saying unequivocally that the raids were largely a failure? If the backgrounder is an accurate telling of what the display holds, a visitor might well come away believing not that the raids were 'controversial' but that they were IN FACT ineffective because that's what the display says. And yet we're told it's a point for debate . . . obviously it's a debate in which the CWM has decided to draw the correct conclusion for us.

Does it really shock them that the Veterans would take issue with such a poorly constructed idea?

Now, if the raids were ineffective, but caused 'large-scale physical destruction' of Germany -- it doesn't take a huge leap to realize that it is being broadly hinted that the raids were also 'immoral'. Such pervasive, continuous, long-term devastation resulted -- and yet without fulfilling any significant military goals. The question becomes why did they keep doing it if it didn't have value to the war effort? Weighed against the civilian death toll, what's a bunch of ineffective destruction?

Where's the debate?

Where's the side that says that the bombing drew resources and attention away from other battles and fronts and perhaps saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and civilians because of weapons never built and shipments that never reached their destinations. Where is the side that says that had the Allies not persisted in bombing, D-Day might never have been possible because the Germans would likely been able to hold the Allies off using the resources that would not have been destroyed in the raids? Apparently that's there. Sort of. The backgrounder doesn't give details, but it says:

The display presents an important episode in Canadian military history, some strategic perspective, relevant military details, and personal testimonies. These individual elements combine to give visitors a clear sense of the historical importance and continuing relevance of Canadian contributions to the air war.

If the display is as limited in its perspective as the backgrounder suggests, it has not presented a debate. It has stated that there is debate, and then it has pronounced its own version of truth.

But what really must irk the veterans is the suggestion that their actions were immoral. IMMORAL. That there's even a debate about this is an insult.

Don Martin thinks not -- he says:

The veterans went to great lengths to decipher defamatory meanings in seemingly innocuous words, argue the exhibit paints them as war criminals and insist it shows more empathy for civilian deaths than their casualties. (...) Unfortunately, despite being a class-act crowd, the veterans did not change my mind.

Is it really that hard to understand that it isn't the facts that are the main point of contention?

Questioning the morality of the participants is what has drawn their ire. It isn't just the morality of the mission the CWM is challenging -- which would be bad enough -- it is the morality of those airmen who obeyed orders as part of the bombing campaign. It stands to reason that if the raids were immoral, then so were its perpetrators -- and we've already established the CWM understanding of 'debate'. Following orders is not an excuse for immoral behaviour in the military. If the raids were immoral, we must conclude that so were our fliers. Maybe. But because we don't know for sure, that means the display is balanced.

How can we place modern day value judgments on the air raids of WWII? How can we make judgments at all without viewing the war in its totality, and purging ourselves of the knee-jerk anti-war sentiments that have coloured our perspective of all of our military history? The CWM insists:

This (display) cannot be done selectively, by ignoring difficult subjects.

It is one thing to say that 'today, we would not use these tactics' but the emphasis has to be on the fact that in those times, in those circumstances, those raids were not immoral. Context is essential, and although the backgrounder says it provides context and lauds the sacrifices of our servicemen, it's a backhanded commendation when this display has as its focus and first comments, the dubious morality of the events. The subject matter is not difficult --- the slant is.

The concentration camps were immoral.
The starvation and execution of our POWs at the hands of the Germans was immoral.

Those who run the War Museum might contend that they are not equating our fliers with the people who perpetrated those atrocities -- but then, what degree of immorality would they attribute to our airmen and their mission?

Germans have acknowledged and apologized for the events of the holocaust, but never have they questioned the morality of their war tactics against Britain. They have never hinted at regret about our POWs. We're not talking here of one-sided, wanton murder -- this was WAR!! Is there anything moral about war? If you've answered no, then get off the idea that these men are somehow deserving of this kind of particular and negative scrutiny in the morality department.

The backgrounder goes on to say:

In part as a result of public comments and suggestions, including consultations with veterans of the air war, the CWM subsequently added material defining the term "strategic bombing" itself and explaining the military-political context in which its use became commonplace. We also added the three first-person quotations mentioned above, additional material on the German resources drained from other fronts by the Allied air campaign, and a photograph of a massive German flak (anti-aircraft) tower. (...) Nowhere in this approach, and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans, does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

To pretend that this is about historical accuracy is disingenuous. It isn't. The display would have been just as accurate without impugning the integrity, character and morality of those who served in Bomber Command. There is no other way to interpret the suggestion of immorality. It taints everything else. It is not fact, it is a value judgment -- and it is a damaging one.

Don Martin said in March:

But after five prominent historians vetted and vindicated the wording, the only quibble from one was to wonder if the agreed-upon facts were worthy of public presentation and, thus, preservation. (...) Damn right they are. This is Canada, not a place like China where history is subject to periodic revision by the ruling class to create non-persons or purge unpleasant events from the record. Our history is factual, not popular fiction.

Unpleasant truths? This isn't the Somalia scandal. What is he implying the Veterans want to purge? They don't want to destroy the record -- they want to have the facts presented without Monday-morning-quarterbacks saying they were wrong to have done what they did, because their side of the 'debate' says they weren't. Is that side presented in the display?

Martin went on to say:

Lest we forget, 10,000 crew members in Bomber Command died defending our freedom. And nobody said that excluded freedom of speech.

So clever to use their sacrifices as a weapon against them -- but where is their voice in all this 'freedom of speech'?

Those who run the War Museum politely resent their efforts being deemed 'disrespectful', so they've set up the backgrounder to set out their point of view.

Gosh, imagine how they'd feel if they were veterans and their wartime service and that of their fallen comrades, was held up as possibly 'immoral' and definitely 'without value'.
They'd probably like to see the record set straight.

canadianna