- Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World (Opposite) Twin of "Open Democracy"

You wrote:

the further question posed: How did a Party so politically and media sophisticated devolve into the current Liberal Party and what, if any, relationship is there between the concurrent Conservative rise and Liberal decline?

I won't mention any names but . . . . . . ah ah aaaa "Dion" chooo, sorry sneezed.

Probably one of the worst repercussions of the sponsorship scandal was allowing Harper to get a foot hold. It is hard to imagine that Canadians would vote for such a right wing extremist ideologue, morphed dictator, as Harper except for something as catastrophic (politically) as that. The way Martin handled it, although was the morally right thing to do, had Canada's best interests at heart and despite being predictably bad for the Liberals, it was politically a disaster (Harper has, obviously, learned from this political mistake, i.e. - don't convoke an Inquiry).

Of course, once Harper and the Con's obtained power, every 'red neck' and their right wing extremist brother (figuratively, that is) jumped on the band wagon. For the next 6 months there were all these so called experts coming out and saying how great Harper was (barf me out!).

The Chicago School has a very well developed strategy (Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine"*) of right wing conservative extremism being able to capitalize on disasters - basically, people are more willing to accept them since they give the appearance of "action" - sound familiar, for a year or two Baird, et al, ran around saying how they were party of action.

Although Harper would never admit it, and Flanagan seems to enjoy taking the credit, it is strongly indicated that this all comes out of the South i.e. the good ol' U.S.of A.

Consider Harper's actions as well. It is no mistake that last year he went on a PR circuit to the talk shows in the US. Of course, the real question is what was he doing all the other time he was there. I don't recall ever seeing an accounting of his time. Perhaps these TV, et al, appearances were just a cover for meeting with people of the extreme right conservative persuasion he would rather the Canadian people not know about. There are other 'gaps' in his times with other meeting. For example, apparently there was about 10 -15 minutes where he and Obama were alone without any one else, including aides. Also, the infamous meeting with the Governor General last December where he met with her for a couple hours without his ever accounting for what he said.

I am not suggesting, of course, that Obama or our Governor General are right wing extremists, however one can only wonder if Harper were somehow pressing his extreme right wing agenda, in a fashion that he would rather Canadians not know about for fear of backlash.

This type of covert activity is outrageous when you consider that the only reason he has these opportunities is because he is representing all of Canadians as our Prime Minister. It is very difficult given the circumstances to imagine any circumstances that would warrant such obfuscation and lack of transparency.

It is also no accident that he is 'tying his, sorry I mean our, horse in the US stable, with respect not only to Global Warming but also just about everything. Of course, not the least important factor is the Oil and the US dominance in the Oil industry in Alberta, as well as their having a claim on it after extraction to the extent that Bush including it in the US reserves (if I recall) - thanks to Mulroney and the Free Trade Agreement, of course.

Never mind what Flanagan does when "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" is sung. We should seek Flanagan's advise on the proper Etiquette and nuances how to sing the "Star Spangled Banner".

Read the following and tell me to what extent Stphen Harper and the Con's have adopted it.

The neo-conservative core

The three chief tenets of neo-conservative ideology are:

- the human condition is a choice between good and evil, and the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter

- the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it

- the Middle East and global Islam is the prime theatre for American overseas interests.

In making these tenets active, neo-conservatives:

- see international issues in morally absolutist categories; they are convinced that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement effectively offers comfort to the enemy

- emphasise the unipolar nature of American power and are prepared to exercise the military option as the first rather than last policy choice; they repudiate the received “lessons of Vietnam”, believing they undermine American willingness to use force - and rather embrace the “lessons of Munich”, believing they establish the virtues of pre-emptive military action

- disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the state department and country-specific, pragmatic analysis because they dilute and confuse the ideological clarity of their policies

- eschew multilateral institutions and treaties while drawing comfort from international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_1998.jsp
Neo-conservatism and the American future, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, 6 July 2004

"Stefan Halper " " Stephen Harper" is it possible, . . . no, not possible, . . . yes . . . wait . . . it's confirmed . . . Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World twin.

*****
* In "The Shock Doctrine" Naomi Klein talks about a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes. (Ms. Magazine Review: The Shock Doctrine** Ronnie Steinberg, Ms Magazine, Fall 2007)

When you read this Harper's statement during the last election makes sense, and it becomes clear that it was no slip but an expression of his core neo-con beliefs and code for a re-assurance to all the neo-con's out there that he has not lost his way vis.: "I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up with some of the panic we've seen in the Stock market in last few days". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgfjpZkAPQ - 23 seconds)

** Reviews of The Shock Doctrine,
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews

President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, but even he would be horrified by the Faustian bargain we see in today's neoliberal model of globalization. Not to be confused with the political liberalism of John Stuart Mill, neoliberalism is characterized by investigative reporter Naomi Klein as a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes.

The New Road to Serfdom
Christopher Hayes, In These Times, November 9, 2007

In the early ’80s, as Margaret Thatcher attempted to hack away at England’s substantial public sector, she found a frustrating degree of public resistance. The closer she got to the bone, the more the patient wriggled and withdrew. Thatcher doggedly persisted, yet her pace wasn’t fast enough for right-wing Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, her idol and ideological mentor. You see, in 1981, Hayek had traveled to Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, where, under the barbed restraints of dictatorship and with the guidance of University of Chicago-trained economists, Pinochet had gouged out nearly every vestige of the public sector, privatizing everything from utilities to the Chilean state pension program. Hayek returned gushing, and wrote Thatcher, urging her to follow Chile’s aggressive model more faithfully.

War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From 'Disaster Capitalism'
Paul B. Farrell, Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007

Hot tip: Invest in "Disaster Capitalism." This new investment sector is the core of the emerging "new economy" that generates profits by feeding off other peoples' misery: Wars, terror attacks, natural catastrophes, poverty, trade sanctions, market crashes and all kinds of economic, financial and political disasters.

In this Orwellian future, everything must be seen with new eyes: "Disasters" are "IPOs," opportunities to buy into a new "company." Corporations like Lockheed-Martin are the real "emerging nations" of the world, not some dinky countries. They generate huge profits, grow earnings. And seen through the new rose-colored glasses of "Disaster Capitalism" they are hot investment opportunities.

To more fully grasp this new economy, you must read what may be the most important book on economics in the 21st century, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, whose roots trace back the ideas of three 20th century giants:

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html