There are a few things quite odd about this politics of personality poll in this morning's Globe and Mail but the weirdest has to be the proposition that Mr. Harper is somehow patriotic - and that is outside of the question of whether "patriotic" is something one should value at all. I am not suggesting he is not patriotic but it just never strikes me that he actually has any substantive values that he presents as part of his public image. But then again, he is only seen as patriotic by 37% of those asked. Hardly Johnny Canuck. What else is odd about the poll?
- The pollster states: “I think the Liberals will make [an election] campaign issue of Mr. Harper, and the Conservatives will make the campaign issue Mr. Ignatieff” yet it is the polling firm that set the questions being around personality leading inevitably to the result.
- "Mr. Ignatieff is seen as moderately more inspirational than Mr. Harper (23 per cert to 19 per cent)" Yawn--a-rama. Is that the best we can do?
- "Respects the views of others"? What would I say to a question about that? I have no idea. These are politicians who are supposed to push their own vision and policies. And how can Stephen Harper actually be seen by anyone as being better at this? Yet he leads.
- The format of presenting most of the results according to the margin as opposed to the actual support for each as is set out in the text seems to be an effort to give each leader more support than each actually has. The responses "both" and "neither" are not included making me suspect that the views of the majority of Canadians are actually not being reported.
Given that it is quite easy to question whether our Prime Minister is even a real Canadian at all, how do you deal with these sort of tepid results across the board? And how do you rate a population that can apparently be affected as to its core political beliefs by a series of cartoons like the Tories run on TV but not the return of monumental deficits or a war or the lack of even a coherent vision arising from any party? Were Manning and Parizeau both right, that Canada is not a real country?
Comments
seanie - May 30, 2009 10:25 AM
Many years ago, back we were a lot less population wise, a lot more UK based (with a modicum of inborn Loyalty to the crown) and a lot less educated. The people were more macro thinking and less micro. More concerned about the state and less themselves. We jumped behind our leaders and blindly did what we were told because that is why we elected them, to be the bosses. This being the case, nowadays people are, well, frankly and not to be judgmental, selfish. Concern for political affairs is often limited to what is done for you as an individual or family unit and if all is just well and not disastrous or spectacular, you take a "meh" approach to things.
Nowadays, IMHO, Canada is like a great big walmart. the provinces are the various departments, the masses are the "sales associates", the politicians are the floor managers. We do our flag waving when appropriate, jumping jacks and cheers when told it is time to do so and we tell others how great a place it is to work there. Clean uniforms, okay pay, tidy place to work in, well defined expectations. We scoff at those who work at Sears and cannot understand why they put up with the crap they put up with, yet we turn a blind eye to the higher pay and better quality of food in the lunchroom. So long as we can do our thing and leave to go home at the end of our shift, we don't rock the boat. Its not a real job but its passable and most of us really don't sing the corporate mission statement when in private.
seanie - May 31, 2009 7:35 PM
Okay, I feel kind of like the world flipped poles when no-one pops on to tell me I am full of pudding. Someone please set me straight.
Hans - June 1, 2009 8:45 AM
Yes.