Is Harper Djibouti's Poodle? I think not.

On March 22nd, 2007, I booed when David Suzuki said something quite vexing at an event in Montreal called “Less Talk, More Action”. My friends in attendance (all socialists, the whole damn lot of them) jovially rose in a standing ovation to a phrase that has consistently ticked me off. Don’t get me wrong, I respect David Suzuki quite a bit, and joined in the applause several times later on that day. He is an extremely erudite and engaging man who has done wonders for heightening the profile of environmental activism in this country. But when Mr. Suzuki went to the clichéd and weathered old method of criticizing Stephen Harper by connecting him to George W. Bush, I had to voice my disapproval. Needless to say, my voice from the back section of the conference room at the Palais des Congres was drowned out by the cacophony of a thousand other cheers and golf-claps.

Stephen Harper has been described as too much of an extreme republican, too ideological, too right-wing, a neo-con, George Bush’s “poodle”, Bush’s “cheerleader”, and just about everything but George Bush’s principal secretary. But does this accusation actually hold any weight? If Harper and Bush happen to agree on a certain policy issue, is it suddenly the case that Canadians are being subjugated to American power and annexation is looming ominously around the corner?

I have no problem with people criticizing Harper on what they believe is wrong with his policy. If someone disagrees with the Prime Minister or his government’s view on any particular issue or an overall governing philosophy, I am completely open to having a discussion or debate on it. But when someone stoops to connecting Bush and Harper where no connection exists, it is demagoguery in its worst form, meant to stir up the passions and stereotypes, not the ideas or the minds, of a crowd. Invoking this hollow connection does nothing but lower the level of discourse in a discussion about policy stances. My favourite example of this connection is when a blogger once equated the two leaders by stating that they both use PowerPoint:

“PowerPoint, a technology familiar to anyone who’s seen the inside of lecture hall lately, allows us to shroud our speech in bullet points, on the theory that that’s all anyone will remember anyway. Harper, incidentally, isn’t the first politician to use it. It’s been employed most effectively by U.S President George Bush and his crack PR team.”

What?!? Harper and Bush both use PowerPoint? Oh dear god, the invasion is just around the corner!

Harper and Bush disagree plenty, but I shouldn’t be forced to make a list of all the things that Harper and Bush differ on to make my point. The simple fact is that as people who use similar political philosophies in governing, they will, from time to time, agree on certain points. Back in December of last year, Ezra Levant was heavily criticized for questioning whether it was appropriate for Stephane Dion, a citizen of France, to lead Her Majesty’s Official Opposition in Canada. “Back off”, the vast majority of political commentators declared in defense of Dion. “We’re not questioning his loyalty”, they said. But you will see no such defense when politicians and critics routinely question Harper’s loyalty to his country by accusing him of being a cheerleader or a poodle.

So why does the ad hominem ensue? Because it’s effective, and because the average Canadian has always been afraid of the United States’ dominance in international affairs. But taking similar stances on policy issues that have nothing to do with the United States does not threaten Canadian sovereignty. As one of our major allies and a country to which we are physically attached, the United States will often hold the same position as Canada does. Artificial connections based on fear tactics only discredits the criticism being leveled at any given government initiative or position. No one would care if Canada and Djibouti happened to take the same stance on an issue. If that were to be the case, would we accuse Harper of being Prime Minister Ismail Omar Guelleh’s poodle? Would the Toronto Star allege that Harper is catering to Djibouti’s People’s Rally for Progress? Could we be on the verge of annexation by Djibouti?!?

The connection between Harper and Bush is founded upon fear of the porous cultural, economic and political barriers between our two countries. But this fear is unfounded. Let’s raise the level of political discourse in this country. Let’s start talking about the real issues.