In trying to determine who is at fault in the robocall scam and other voter manipulation schemes, look to the numbers.
If the evidence of dirty work is limited to just a few random ridings, it means some low-level flunkies could have been the culprits, out of sight and out of mind of the Conservative Party’s power brokers. If it develops, however, that this was a widespread operation with multiple swing ridings involved, then it is time to get suspicious.
Given the top-down absolutist manner in which the Conservative Party is run, there is no chance an election operation of any size or significance could be carried out without the knowledge of the party brass. In Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party all power resides in the hands of a few. No dissent and no going off message is tolerated. The party even did away with college and university youth clubs. It’s what Tom Flanagan calls the garrison party.
Thus far, the evidence as to the incidence of the dirty work in the last election is mixed. No one should start jumping to any conclusions. It’s very unlikely that Stephen Harper was an architect of any widespread vote suppression campaign. Even if he were, it’s unlikely we’d ever know about it. Failproof deniability scenarios would surely have been put in place.
But it’s not simply a question of whether the prime minister had any direct ties to such operations. It’s a matter of whether he had any knowledge of his party being involved in black ops, up to and including vote suppression schemes, and whether he turned a blind eye.
There are several reasons why this cannot be dismissed as a possibility.
First, as mentioned, is that Harper heads up a supercentralized administration. Nothing of any consequence escapes or is supposed to escape the leader’s eyes.
Second, we need recall the circumstances of the last election. The prime minister was under enormous pressure to win a majority. Going into the final weekend of the campaign, a majority victory was far from certain. Many Harper strategists thought they were going to fall short. In such a pressing situation, it’s not unreasonable to think that the green light might have been given to whatever shady tactics were deemed necessary to win.
Third, it need be recalled that respect for democratic practises has never been high on the list of this prime minister and his coterie. If getting their way required running roughshod over the system, they were prepared to do it. There are dozens of examples, not the least which were Harper’s being found in contempt of parliament, his proroguing of parliament for crassly political ends, his use of closure and time limits to cut off debate, his putting in place a vetting and censorship second to none. Given all this, it would hardly be shocking to imagine voter suppression tactics being employed.
Fourth, and related to point three, is the track record. If the Harper Conservatives had no record of dirty deeds it would be hard to take the robocall charges seriously. But their history of underhanded behaviour – See iPolitics: Trouble in Toryland; Their Dirty Tricks History – includes more than twenty examples. The “in and out” affair is only one of them. It’s hard to jump to the conclusion that higher-ups in the Harper food chain wouldn’t have known about some of the dirty work we are now hearing about when they knew about the “in and out” affair. They not only knew about that scam. They ran it. The perpetrators included Harper’s former campaign manager.
Fifth is Stephen Harper’s relationship with Elections Canada. Going all the way back to when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, it has been poisonous; a “blood feud,” in the words of conservative commentator Gerry Nicholls who worked with Harper at the NCC. Elections Canada was at the centre of the “in and out” affair. Harper’s men circumvented EC’s campaign spending limits. The drawn-out battle featured RCMPs raids and lawsuits. If there is any agency in Ottawa that Harper has wanted to stick it to, it is Elections Canada.
Sixth is the question of denials. Harper and Guy Giorno, his former chief of staff, have both strongly denied any involvement by the Conservatives in the robocall scam. Those denials were so categorical that they should be accorded a good deal of weight. At the same time, a lot of denials on a lot of charges have been made by this government over the years and the record shows that many of them have not withstood the test of scrutiny. In matters relating to the Afghan detainees affair or the “in and out” scam, or the G-8 spending boodoggle to name just a few, the track record for truth telling is hardly impressive.
All things considered, on the question of who is at the root of the voter suppression campaigns, there is simply too much in the Harper’s government’s history to give it much benefit of the doubt. The jury is still out. It could be out a long time.
Original Article
Source: ipolitico
Author: Lawrence Martin
If the evidence of dirty work is limited to just a few random ridings, it means some low-level flunkies could have been the culprits, out of sight and out of mind of the Conservative Party’s power brokers. If it develops, however, that this was a widespread operation with multiple swing ridings involved, then it is time to get suspicious.
Given the top-down absolutist manner in which the Conservative Party is run, there is no chance an election operation of any size or significance could be carried out without the knowledge of the party brass. In Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party all power resides in the hands of a few. No dissent and no going off message is tolerated. The party even did away with college and university youth clubs. It’s what Tom Flanagan calls the garrison party.
Thus far, the evidence as to the incidence of the dirty work in the last election is mixed. No one should start jumping to any conclusions. It’s very unlikely that Stephen Harper was an architect of any widespread vote suppression campaign. Even if he were, it’s unlikely we’d ever know about it. Failproof deniability scenarios would surely have been put in place.
But it’s not simply a question of whether the prime minister had any direct ties to such operations. It’s a matter of whether he had any knowledge of his party being involved in black ops, up to and including vote suppression schemes, and whether he turned a blind eye.
There are several reasons why this cannot be dismissed as a possibility.
First, as mentioned, is that Harper heads up a supercentralized administration. Nothing of any consequence escapes or is supposed to escape the leader’s eyes.
Second, we need recall the circumstances of the last election. The prime minister was under enormous pressure to win a majority. Going into the final weekend of the campaign, a majority victory was far from certain. Many Harper strategists thought they were going to fall short. In such a pressing situation, it’s not unreasonable to think that the green light might have been given to whatever shady tactics were deemed necessary to win.
Third, it need be recalled that respect for democratic practises has never been high on the list of this prime minister and his coterie. If getting their way required running roughshod over the system, they were prepared to do it. There are dozens of examples, not the least which were Harper’s being found in contempt of parliament, his proroguing of parliament for crassly political ends, his use of closure and time limits to cut off debate, his putting in place a vetting and censorship second to none. Given all this, it would hardly be shocking to imagine voter suppression tactics being employed.
Fourth, and related to point three, is the track record. If the Harper Conservatives had no record of dirty deeds it would be hard to take the robocall charges seriously. But their history of underhanded behaviour – See iPolitics: Trouble in Toryland; Their Dirty Tricks History – includes more than twenty examples. The “in and out” affair is only one of them. It’s hard to jump to the conclusion that higher-ups in the Harper food chain wouldn’t have known about some of the dirty work we are now hearing about when they knew about the “in and out” affair. They not only knew about that scam. They ran it. The perpetrators included Harper’s former campaign manager.
Fifth is Stephen Harper’s relationship with Elections Canada. Going all the way back to when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, it has been poisonous; a “blood feud,” in the words of conservative commentator Gerry Nicholls who worked with Harper at the NCC. Elections Canada was at the centre of the “in and out” affair. Harper’s men circumvented EC’s campaign spending limits. The drawn-out battle featured RCMPs raids and lawsuits. If there is any agency in Ottawa that Harper has wanted to stick it to, it is Elections Canada.
Sixth is the question of denials. Harper and Guy Giorno, his former chief of staff, have both strongly denied any involvement by the Conservatives in the robocall scam. Those denials were so categorical that they should be accorded a good deal of weight. At the same time, a lot of denials on a lot of charges have been made by this government over the years and the record shows that many of them have not withstood the test of scrutiny. In matters relating to the Afghan detainees affair or the “in and out” scam, or the G-8 spending boodoggle to name just a few, the track record for truth telling is hardly impressive.
All things considered, on the question of who is at the root of the voter suppression campaigns, there is simply too much in the Harper’s government’s history to give it much benefit of the doubt. The jury is still out. It could be out a long time.
Original Article
Source: ipolitico
Author: Lawrence Martin
No comments:
Post a Comment