Belinda Who?
by John FitzGerald, publisher emeritus, NEW IMPROVED HEAD.
Sometimes I despair of the press. For the last couple of weeks we Canadians have been reading and hearing endless reportage about a new political figure in Canada, and not one single journalist has pointed out that her initials are B. S.
Chiefly known heretofore for her sagacity in contriving to be born after her father (Magna International founder Frank Stronach), Belinda Stronach now has stepped forward to offer to take a role in public life, as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada if possible, or if that is not possible as a candidate for the House of Commons.
So far the Canadian journalistic profession has been taking a decidedly unjournalistic approach to Ms Stronach. Reporters covering her campaign have been reluctant to press her about policy, something she doesn't seem to be particularly well supplied with. So it's left to commentators such as the National Pest's Don Martin, way back in the opinion pages where the average reader never treads, to point out that if the prime minister were as inarticulate about policy as Ms Stronach has been he'd be pilloried.
However, instead of getting Ms Stronach to articulate any policy, reporters have preferred to write about Belindamania, a phenomenon which seems to exist entirely in their imaginations – in other words, a phenomenon of the type (like Al Gore's supposed claim to have invented the internet or Jean Chrétien's supposed pledge to scrap the Goods and Services Tax or George Bush the Elder's supposed lack of familiarity with supermarket checkouts) which journalists prefer to write about these days.
But in this Information Age the voter who wishes to be informed has alternative sources of information. So I took myself off to Ms Stronach's website. For some reason Ms Stronach chose a website name which is similar to that of a reputed porn site, so I compared her site to that one just in case she had a reason for doing that. We do not shirk our journalistic duties here at NEW IMPROVED HEAD, unfashionable as journalistic duty is among the mainstream journalistic profession.
First things first. The site with which Ms Stronach's site has been confused is not a porn site. It is an erotica site. I know that because the few photographs are in grainy black and white. That lends them your high class tone. Ms Stronach's photo gallery is much more effective, effectively presenting her as a person in the thick of public life.
The other Belinda also offers us poetry, which Ms Stronach, with our grateful appreciation, does not. Could you vote for someone who wrote "and i know, soon, very soon/i shall touch the edge of heaven"?
So Ms Stronach comes off pretty well against her American counterpart, an achievement which is important to us Canadians. But what does she have to say for herself?
Ms Stronach's site features a page where she speaks out on the issues. She addresses the issues from five perspectives, as a mother, as a business person and Conservative, as someone committed to public service, as a leader, and as "a proud Canadian". Zzzzzzz.
Oh, sorry, I was just resting my eyes. Anyway, as a mother Ms Stronach wants children to have "opportunities for leading happy, productive lives", neatly distinguishing herself from all those other politicians who want children to lead miserable unproductive ones.
As a business person and Conservative, she wants Canada to have a strong economy and high standard of living, neatly distinguishing herself etc.
As someone committed to public service she wants Canadians to be more politically engaged and to participate more in public service, neatly etc.
"As a leader" (aren't we being a bit premature here?) Ms Stronach wants to "promote a more constructive approach to political debate – one that is more reliant upon the exchange of ideas, the development of solutions and collaboration".
Well, collaborators are so admired, aren't they? That's not a cheap shot, either. What Ms Stronach is proposing here is the antithesis of democracy. Of course, democracy involves the exchange of ideas and the development of solutions, but it is not a collaborative exercise. The development of policies through debate and conflict is a fundamental – and highly effective – component of British government. Conducting political discussion genteelly and respectfully just leads us to gloss over important aspects of issues which might be embarrassing to our opponents. Bashing the hell out of each other insures that all issues get a full airing.
Ms Stronach seems to prefer, as many in the Reform/Alliance camp have preferred, the decorous procedures of boards of directors to the hurly burly of democracy. The Reform Party was founded by a management consultant who used to speak earnestly about importing management techniques into politics. But as Stephen Gross, CEO of La Senza, observed recently on CBC, the chief talent of the modern manager is an ability to give an enthusiastic reading of the phrase "Yes! Let's do it!"
The modern corporation is a feudal organization. Managers run their fiefdoms at the pleasure of their superiors and may be immediately deprived of their fiefdom if they displease those superiors (a condition considerably harsher, by the way, than those which predominated in the original feudal system throughout most of its history). In business, discussion is more decorous and collaborative than it is in politics because in the corporation people are afraid. Corporate discussion is a dialogue of unequals while democratic discussion is a dialogue of equals, and I'm willing to bet that the dialogue Ms Stronach envisions is more like the corporate one. Perhaps I'm judging too harshly, but until she bothers to clarify just what she's talking about I think that's a good bet. If that is the type of political process she envisions, then it is likely to be less effective than our current one instead of better.
Finally, as a proud Canadian Ms Stronach wants "to see our country respected internationally for not only its own economic and social success at home but [also for] its leadership and engagement in global issues." To that we can only reply – Belinda, give your head a shake.
Canada is a middle power. People do not look to it for leadership, for a number of very good reasons (for one thing, most non-Canadians don't know a damn thing about Canada). Even if Canada tried to establish itself as a leader it would probably be unsuccessful, since more powerful nations have more important interests to protect and are unlikely to sacrifice them for the sake of what Canada wants.
What Canada needs, and what it has largely had, are leaders who understand that Canada is a middle power and has to act like one if it is to obtain the greatest success possible. I am sure an important reason that most Canadians supported Mr. Chrétien's position on the invasion of Iraq is that they realized that as a middle power Canada has too much to lose by subverting the United Nations. That does not preclude Canada from accomplishing great things. This country's contribution to the Allied war effort during the Second World War is nothing to sniff at, but obviously Canada was not looked to for leadership in the war effort and had to overcome obstacles put in its way by its more powerful allies in order to achieve what it did.
But maybe Ms Stronach is right about all these issues and I am wrong – that's a possibility that must always be addressed in a democracy. So what is she going to do to achieve all these aims?
Well, you tell her! "As a leader", she wants the grassroots to develop the policies, "through an open, inclusive, consultative approach", through a "dialogue" (see above re dialogue). Doesn't this sound much like the old Reform line? Everyone talking about doing what the grassroots wants until they actually get a tiny taste of power and immediately throw the grassroots in the trash can – taking those pensions they said they'd never take, moving into the Stornoway they said they'd never move into.
If I were a suspicious person, I'd think Ms Stronach is just looking for a few issues she can run on to get elected, after which she'll all of a sudden make up her own mind about what she's going to do. Am I being unfair? Not until Ms Stronach tells us just what she wants to do and pledges to do it. Until she condescends to do that she is selling a pig in a poke, and I don't think it's a good idea to buy it.
Furthermore, Ms Stronach must dispel the idea that she is a Stepford candidate, running at her father's behest to further his tax-cutting agenda. She hasn't given much indication of what she would do in office, but she made very sure right at the start to announce that she would cut taxes (without specifying just how she'd make the cuts possible).
But perhaps the Stepford label is unfair. The Stepford Wives at least appeared natural. Ms Stronach's demeanour for the last few weeks has tended to be that of a deer caught in the headlights. She is clearly uncomfortable. She is not demonstrating the enthusiasm that one would expect of a forceful, charismatic business leader who has decided she can lead the country better than anyone else. Does no one remember Brian Mulroney's infectious enthusiasm when he was in the same position?
Of course you don't. You're trying to repress the memory, aren't you? But his enthusiasm was certainly infectious (unfortunately, it took way too long to find the antidote). Mr. Mulroney had ideas and he was not afraid to discuss them at length.
So far Ms Stronach has not just failed to impress us with her carefully thought out positions on the issues, she has failed to leave the impression that she's interested in having any carefully thought out positions at all. Until such time as she does demonstrate any of the characteristics one expects of a party leader, her candidacy should be given the shrift it deserves, namely the short variety.
For Ms Stronach, though, the press seems to have shrift to burn. It has more time for her than for Stephen Harper and Tony Clement, two men who have the characteristics Canadians always claim they want in politicians.
Why is B. S. getting a free ride? Good question. Has influence been brought to bear? Or are journalists just suckers for glamour and power? Or are their IQs about the same as a cherrystone clam's? All these and many other explanations are plausible, but at the moment there is no firm evidence one way or the other. What we do know, though, is that we are not living in one of the golden periods either of Canadian journalism or of Canadian politics.
And as long as we keep paying the rent, they're going to keep on letting us live there.
Belinda Who? © Coolth, 2004
Posted on January 29, 2004
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Commentary | Home