MINISTRY OF TRUTH: 'you people' and lawn sign democracy

By Adrian Barnes

It’s been a somewhat interesting week on the campaign trail. Locally, we’ve mostly been experiencing what some call ‘lawn sign democracy’ whereby the two main candidates, incumbent Alex Atamanenko and Stephen Hill have been playing an extended game of checkers. When one puts a sign up, the other soon follows with a counter-sign. Pretty gripping stuff!

Beyond that, I didn’t hear much from the local candidates in the media this week, though that will change once the local debates and media profiles begin next week. How about the federal scene?

Last Sunday, Stephen Harper, speaking to a South Asian audience back east, now famously used the phrase ‘you people’ when referring to those who have fled unstable nations for the (relative) peace of Canada.  Somewhat absurdly, Harper conflated, say, political instability in the Middle East with the imagined threat of a coalition government, saying “People like this ... they don’t want members of Parliament who are going to be part of an Ignatieff government put in office by the NDP and Bloc Québécois even if they don’t win the election.”

The intellectual dishonesty here is in equating an immigrant’s concerns about getting his or her head blown off in their home country with the possibility (denied by all involved) of a coalition government here in Canada. It’s also worth noting that coalitions are something Harper was on the record as favouring until he began to fear it might impact his chances of governing). I’ll call this the ‘Appeal to the Crowd’ fallacy: Harper is attempting to play on immigrant fears of instability.  It’s also a faulty analogy in that Harper implies that instability in the country of one’s origin is the same as life under a Canadian coalition. That’s pretty shameful and warrants another penalty point on our scale.

As for the ‘you people’ comment itself, that seemed fairly innocuous to me. Was it a Freudian slip that pointed toward Archie Bunker-like depths of prejudice? I doubt it. However, Michael Ignatieff was quick to leap on the phrase and then spent the rest of the week going around shaking his head while piously claiming that there is no ‘ethnic vote’ but only a voting pool of generic Canadians. But who was all Ignatieff’s puffery aimed at? Why, the imaginary ethnic vote, of course! Stereotyping is a kind of logical fallacy that assumes members of a given group share certain characteristics. Since Ignatieff apparently believes that immigrants are easily swayed by being called ‘regular Canadians’, I’ll award him a penalty point on this count.

On Monday, Harper promised income splitting in five or so years—but is this a real promise given that it will only come to pass after not this, but the next electoral mandate? Income splitting mostly benefits working families who spend almost all their income each month and thus makes for a better economic stimulus than corporate tax cuts given that corporations don't do this to the same degree or in as direct a manner. If anything, income splitting should be implemented now and corporate tax cuts at a later date. I call this sort of vague promise a ‘red herring’ fallacy in that it gains the Conservatives support in the current election while not offering any concrete benefit during the next government’s term of office. Another penalty point against Harper.

Finally, we have the specter of the coalition of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP which, though denied by all three implicated parties, continues to be insisted upon, rather rudely, by Harper who also continues as of this writing (April 4) to insist on the false dilemma of ‘a Bloc-inclusive coalition or a majority Conservative government’.

Why is Harper so irrationally insistent on this point? Probably because this election is likely his last chance to run unless he gets a majority. Another minority government and the Conservatives will have to start looking for a more embraceable candidate next time around.

Finally, Ignatieff said over a week ago that Stephen Harper “wouldn't know the truth if it walked up to him and shook his hand." I forgot to write about it last time, but this slur has to be counted as an ad hominem argument (attack the man). Not cricket! Stick to the points at hand, Mike, and don’t make the dishonourable leap into character assassination.

So that’s two each for the big boys. Nothing yet on the NDP, but not through any lack of trying on my part. Stay tuned…

PENALTY BOX

Alex Atamanenko (NDP): 0

Stephen Hill (Conservative): -1

Bryan Hunt (Green): 0

Jack Layton (NDP): 0

Stephen Harper (Conservative): -3

Elizabeth May (Green): 0

Michael Ignatieff (Liberal): -2