Like many of you, I am heading away for the long weekend before the election - away from the politicians, pollsters and the media. I have to be at the other end of the province on Friday for work so may not be able to post again until election eve, even if then. The road will decide. But I am going to have a think about how I am going to vote and how we got here.
Mostly, I will think about Stephen Harper. This election has, after all, only been about him. He is his party. He is the platform. His opponents are really only what they are in comparison to him. He is the measure of all things and, if the polls are to be believed, he has been found lacking. But not based on his vision or his secrecy or his alleged but little proven policy wonkishness. In a way, he has become something of an icon for himself. Be calm. Be reserved. Be prepared. He stands for all that Stephen Harper stands for.
And we must be honest. He is all of that. These two wonderful clickable photos from Chris Wattie of Reuters that were making the media rounds today capture some of that part of him...and something else. He is also self-contained and maybe a little self-satisfied. Even if he is not aloof, these are not good qualities in a politician. They make him seem to lack the fire to be what he may want to be. In a way, he seems to fit that characature of Canadians that some hold - like Rex Mottram of Brideshead Revisited, there seem to be bits missing. But there is also a sweetness about him that has nothing to do with either the blue sweaters or the babies, that is not needy. He wants to help. I am not sure he knows how. I am not sure we want him to help us in the way that he wants to.
This has been a good election campaign. I may not vote the way I am planning but you never know. There's still a long weekend and a few days more to go.
Other news for Day 33 and thereafter:
Comments
Jay Currie - October 9, 2008 1:11 pm
What, no more, "I for one welcome our new rural overlords."
I agree with most of what you write and imply about Harper. The difference this election is that, try as they might, the Grits and NDP have not been able to paint him as scary. We know him too well to buy that.
It has been an odd election and, going into Tuesday, I have no idea why I am liking Harper more than Dion save that he has been honest enough to point out the Swiss like stability of the Canadian economy and the inability/undesirability of the federal government becoming too involved with the stock market.
I would fight you on Iceland...We already have a cold hunk of rock in the Atlantic...We need a warm one. If Bermuda goes bust let's get on it.
Paul of Kingston - October 9, 2008 2:43 pm
Have we warmed to Dion? Yes - I think so. I forced my 10 year old daughter to sit down with me and watch Dion co-host a spot on Much More Music yesterday and it dawned on me that he is the one who should be PM. Why? Because he seems an honest and almost idealistically intelligent person wth a good idea that represents three important things:
One: He is about a better future. The Liberal platform is about shaking (albeit just a little bit) up the status quo to get a better result for our children's world. The Torys are intent on preserving the staus quo and thus I understand why my parents and grandparent seem to gravitate to Harper.
Two: As I said he seems an honest man with a good plan. While I earlier bemoaned the fact that this seems a boring election; we are I think lucky to have such a person in the mix that is normally three or four shades of power hungry politicos untrustworthy all.
Three: The Liberals are electable. While Elizabeth May also falls into the category of an honest person with a good plan, the Greens cannot form a government yet.
David Janes - October 9, 2008 4:56 pm
Funny. Do you think Canada kinda sucks now -- the status quo -- Paul? I'm voting CPC to try to protect my daughter from authoritarian hierarchical vision of Canada that all the parties are peddling.
Josh - October 9, 2008 8:33 pm
Authoritarian hierarchical? That seems rather... hyperbolic, particularly since it's Harper whose government is a one man show, who restricts ministers and MPs to centrally-approved talking points, and whose government has meddled in municipal politics (e.g. Ottawa), with local public health issues, and with arms-length regulatory agencies.
David Janes - October 9, 2008 10:15 pm
Hierarchical in terms of government and me; not hierarchical in terms of how the government runs itself.
Just for a laugh (since I haven't seen you here before): should the government persue policies to propagate correct values? For example, even if recycling was shown not (e.g.) to have any particular value to the environment, should the government continue to do it because it raises awareness of important issues?
Brother Iain - October 10, 2008 1:42 am
I'm all for annexing Iceland. Think of it ... a third official language with words like "Landsbanki."
sean - October 10, 2008 9:35 am
I'm with Paul. THis election I have fluttered from the Green to Jack (!) to apathy and now, seeing all that I have in the past few weeks, I am back where I started, with the Liberals. I am not completely satisfied with Dion as a leader, but he is the best of the lot, is electable (unlike the Greens) and presents a valid, balanced alternative to the Oil dirty, stable statist governance that the Cons present, that as Paul points out, appeals to the older crowd.
I do like Jack(!) more than ever, but as someone that lives a lifestyle slightly higher than that of the average NDP voter, I'm honestly afraid that Food Basics would become the norm and not the frugal alternative. Sounds selfish, but with kids and a mortgage one must lookout for #1 and all my little #1's I helped bring into this world.
Paul of Kingston - October 10, 2008 11:55 am
No David, I don't think that Canada sucks now (the nationalism card?). But I do think that we could do much better on many things that seem utterly unimportant to the present federal leadership. I would like to get back to the good old days when Canada could stake some claim to global leadership on environmental stewardship. I liked it when Canada moved away from the narrow definitions around "normal" and "family" toward a more wordly view. And frankly I want Canada to move toward 2050 not 1950.