- Polar Politics: Puzzle Me This Stephen Harper, 'When is an Extremist Not An Extremist'

Posted: 10:53 AM on November 23, 2010
The 1993 election changed everything,
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, 23 Non.10

- Puzzle Me This: When is an Extremist Not An Extremist

Mr. Martin you are looking at the problem inside-out.

It is not the Parties, it's the people.

The Parties are mere manifestations of the people.

"The tumult of 1993 saw the simultaneous beanstalk ascendancies of the Reform Party in the West and the Bloc Québécois in the East. Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar. The arrival of the Bloc, which would take half or more of Quebec’s seats in the following campaigns, removed it. On the Prairies, the Liberals’ misfortune had begun long before. But they were still potentially competitive. Reform’s 1993 rise effectively sealed the door. Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation."

"Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar." - if I recall it was Quebec's support of Brian Mulroney that put and kept him in power."

"Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation." - this is an oversimplification, that hides the gravity, and polarization, of the situation.

What has happened since the 90's - and I would put in more towards a general trend in the mid '90's as opposed to a particular event in '93 and would likely attribute it, in large part, to the last recession and the growth of prosperity in the West - is a polarization, the precipitation of relatively small groups of extremist, die-hard conviction.

One is readily identified as extreme-right wing, epi-centred in Alberta (sorry, I meant, "While the Conservatives have a powerful and reliable support base on the Prairies"). Another, of course, is the core Block in Quebec. These people maintain their own position and promote their own agenda no matter what, irrespective of the overall good of Canada (that's why they're 'extremists'). The growth and prosperity of the Western Provinces has added fuel to the fire.

Approximately 33% (currently under review for adjustment downwards) of the vote can be attributed to this die-hard extremist effect in the West and 10% to the Block in Quebec. That makes over 40% of the vote. To this must be added the already existing 17% for the extremist left - NDP.

Given that it is the extremists that are motivated to vote and the middle of the roads not so much, they actually have a far bigger impact on elections, as we can see (in the last election the Con's got 36% of the vote).

It is not fair to pin this on the Liberal Party and it is unwise. The Liberal Party has remained the central, moderate party, the 'big tent', pragmatically looking for solutions that are in the best interest of all Canadians and all of Canada. This is in stark contrast to the polarized, extremist, ideologically based factions represented by the Con and the Block.

All Canadians must ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics. If not then they must, stand up, be counted and consolidate against extremism.

Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate such consolidation.

In a democratically based, tolerant, open and free society Parties based on extremism may make good oppositions and may even make a contribution by pulling one way or the other - for example Canada's Health Care. However, if given the helm they no longer pull but take or even drag the country to the extreme, it is what they are. A middle of the road, pragmatically, non-ideologically based, 'big tent' Party is much better at the helm since they do not drag people one way or the other, they respond to the pulls thus stretching the tent in every which direction for the good of all and not a small but well-defined group with a special interest that lies at the extreme of society.

When is an Extremist Not An Extremist - easy, when they, themself, are an extremist.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html