Politics of Popularity

It's another sign of the times that the Opposition feels that its most effective tool (perhaps its only effective tool) against the Williams regime is poll numbers. In the current political culture, any form of low polling is seen as kryptonite.

This past week we witnessed a political scientist trotting out the tautology that Williams faces no threat because he is popular, and he is popular because he faces no threat. In other words, Williams is popular because he is powerful and powerful because he is popular. As I've before, it's funny 'cause it's true. It is therefore unsurprising that when the Liberals finally manage to get some positive media coverage, they place all their political eggs in the popularity basket. To invoke a different metaphor, polls have become the water in which our political fish swim.

Of course, there are numerous problems with this culture of poll et impera. There are not only the issues of poll goosing and media manipulation, but also the question of popularity versus actual support. Williams' popularity may be a mile wide, but how deep is it outside the Tubble, i.e., the Townie Bubble? (And, to take the Teletubbies analogy a bit further, both rely on an inane optimism replete with creepy sun-king).

I'm sure that the Tories' internal polling shows that their support is alarmingly shallow in some areas off the Avalon, and I suspect that they are worried about the byelection. The problem for Williams is not only that he must win but that he must win big-time. For Williams, mere victory is never enough; it must be über-victory, a crushing demonstration of total supremacy.

Even a relatively close victory could deflate the popularity bubble, if only a bit, and Williams knows that his power rests on the image of pop-omnipotence. He must be seen as not just popular, but heroically popular. Thus it was important for Dunn to insist that Williams occupies a popularity summit unknown to mere mortal premiers like Clyde Wells.

Sustaining this popularity feedback-loop requires as much time and energy as actual governing, which is why we've seen such an explosion of PR advisers, media handlers, communication hacks, and call-in teletubbies. And whatever you want to say about the Williams government, it has been remarkably candid about its belief that it can govern by polling fiat.

For Williams, the beauty of popularity politics is that it's self-reinforcing. People tell pollsters that they support Williams in part (perhaps in large part, in some areas outside the Tubble) because there is no viable alternative. So he is popular because the Liberals are not. And vice versa. Getting out of this Teletubbie loop is easier said than done, but trotting out poll numbers won't do the trick. As they demonstrated during the showdown with the nurses' union, the Williams government knows when to make a tactical retreat, which has just been announced. Jerome Kennedy has become for the Tories what Roger Grimes was for the Liberals, and he will do what needs to be done (Kennedy better watch out that he might get what he wishes for). And to take the analogy further, we should point out that it took a party civil war and a bitter leadership convention before the Liberals began their final decline -- and even then Grimes had two years in power.

In a post on Nottawa, I speculated about who, if anyone, would play the role of Leo Barry in the Williams regime. I was referring to the question of whether anyone would dare cross the floor. Because the way things are going, it will take a floor-crossing or two before things begin to change. While we have entered the period of Late Williamsism, we need to keep in mind that this period could last as long as the Liberals remain in disarray. As I said before, in NL governing parties tend to rot from within before they fall, but they still have to be pushed.

This just in (updated)

Health and Community Services
September 23, 2009

Cabinet to Make Sacrifices to Help Health Care

The Department of Health and Community Services announced today that Cabinet will make sacrifices to assist the sustainability of the province's health care system. Honourable Paul Oram, Minister of Health and Community Services, said that the entire Cabinet has unanimously agreed to a 25% pay cut and an immediate freeze on all unnecessary travel and expenses.

“Our government works to balance quality with long-term sustainability. And, sometimes this means that politicians need to make sacrifices to find this balance,” said Minister Oram. “Our government faces a difficult decision to make regarding the types of services we can offer in the long-term, how much we can continue to pay politicians, and identifying how we can improve the quality in our programs and services across the province.”

The Provincial Government spends more per capita on Cabinet Ministers than any other province. “While our investments are significant and important to the quality and accessibility of care, this rate of spending is not sustainable over the long term,” said Minister Oram. “Our government is working to ensure rural healthcare services are sustainable so we never go back to the previous ways of unsustainability. It is important for us to make the right decisions today to ensure a strong future for our healthcare system."

"During a week when the Provincial Government announced subsidies for Rolls-Royce, Wally Andersen pleaded guilty and VOCM is reporting a grassroots movement against MHA's salaries, it is important to take stock of our priorities. We have to face the reality that our bloated political system of pay, perks, and pork is simply unsustainable," Minister Oram said.

- 30 -

2009 09 23 9:30 a.m.


This just in again (you cannot make this stuff up version):

The provincial government is defending the indefensible salary raise given to MHA's (never mind the perks and expense accounts) by claiming that it's justified because others got a raise, too. For the full version of this me-tooism, see the hot-off-the-presses TASS communiqué.

The learned Minister not only throws in the ignoratio elenchi of pension costs as a go forward justfication of the salary piece, but he offers this little gem that veers into tu quoque: "To fully index the Public Service Pension Plan and the Teachers’ Pension Plan on a go forward basis [could it be indexed on a go backward basis?] would increase the plan obligations by almost $2 billion. Even an ad hoc increase of four per cent would increase plan liabilities by $160 million. Many, many seniors in this province do not have any pensions at all and the Provincial Government has a responsibility to all senior citizens."

Question for Ms. Burke

If Ms. Burke is too busy for briefing notes, binders, and all that stuff... http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260869&sc=88

Then how will the learned Minister know when the province has "the best system it possibly can in Canada, and worldwide for that matter?" http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=37089

What CRA Buys

Watch and listen carefully to Kennedy's news conference (it's not long):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090326.wvnfldbudget0326/VideoStory/politics/home?pid=RTGAM.20090326.wPOLnewf0326

Did you catch it?

"I don't think we have to convince the public that what we're doing is right."

In between awkward pauses, he then refers to the "still very good figures out there in terms of the way the public looks at what we're doing," i.e., CRA poll numbers.

Somehow, it always comes down to the poll numbers, doesn't it?

Score high in the CRA poll and you no longer even have to convince the public that what you're doing is right. Great deal for Dangovt. I leave it to you to decide what kind of deal it is for democracy in NL.

A Breach in Patriotic Protocol?

Another day, another story about Newfoundland separatism. To paraphrase another Winston, never before in the history of journalism have so many written so much about so little. I have to admit that I really didn't think we would still be reading about the Curious Circus, which should have folded its tent a couple of news cycles ago.

With important reports now submitted on crises in Health and at MUN, and the terrible tragedy that is gripping Newfoundlanders, you would think that there would be plenty of other things to write about.

So the sight of yet another story -- this one by the Canwest News Service -- on the fallout from Curious George's antics was rather hard to stomach:
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1392266

Foot's story has all the hackneyed ingredients, including the obligatory opening about unresolved passions from 1949 and a separatist quotation from Ryan Cleary. I was just about to click onto something else, but then this interesting passage caught my eye:

"Bruce Templeton, chairman of the St. John's Board of Trade, say the grievances may be legitimate, but Newfoundlanders need to get over them and focus on a future within Confederation.
"These deals are done, you can't cry about them now," he says.
He says the province should focus its energies on a series of huge economic projects waiting on the horizon -- including the new Hebron oil development, and the Lower Churchill hydro dam -- and work with Canadian investors and with Ottawa to get them done right.
"There's no appetite among the business community for separation," says Mr. Templeton. "Instead there's this tremendous feeling of quiet confidence. We'd like to be a positive contributor to Confederation."

Reading this passage brought to mind David Cochrane's 2007 speech on "Patriotic Correctness" in the local business community, which is worth quoting from:

"There exists in Newfoundland and Labrador a phenomenon I like to call “Patriotic Correctness.” Like political correctness, it makes certain words or expressions unacceptable.

But most significantly, it has fostered an environment where informed dissent is seen as nothing short of treason. Where the simple questioning or criticism of the government or the premier is viewed as an unpatriotic assault upon the very fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Patriotic correctness manifests itself in times of conflict. Usually it pits the premier and the government against an outside force such as the federal government, a nickel company, Big Oil, or a fish company that happens to be run by a Nova Scotian. It creates an incredibly lop-sided public debate, one where all good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must rally to the side of the government.

What matters most is a public display of loyalty; of being on side with the stated goal of getting the best deal, best return and most benefits for the province."

Cochrane's speech is worth a full reading and, thankfully, Geoff Meeker has posted it online:
http://meekermedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/david-cochranes-speech-on-patriotic.html

...Now to the VODW Question of the Day: are Templeton's remarks a breach of patriotic protocol?

Saying that NL needs to get over grievances and work with Ottawa certainly doesn't sound like Danspeak. Today's editorial in the Tely quotes the latest Danspeak, and it doesn't sound like DW is interested in getting over anything:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=232136&sc=80

"That's how things have worked for us over the years, and we've got shafted as a result of it.... So, when it comes to getting the short end of the stick, Newfoundland and Labrador has generally got it in Canadian international negotiations. From my perspective, that time is over. I'm not prepared to stand back and let that happen. And, more importantly, I'm not going to stand back and let somebody who obviously has a vicious dislike for Newfoundland and Labrador like Stephen Harper to go over and negotiate on our behalf."

It looks to me that we may be seeing a wee bit of disconnect between Dangovt and Dantrade.

Polled

VODW reports how NL got polled:

Williams Government Still Riding High

March 11, 2009

The Presidente of Corporate Research Associates says the level of go forward enjoyed by Williams is a very, very determined testament to the leadership of the polls. Don Mills says Danny Williams' personal satisfaction is at levels of over 80 per cent and is the envy of any leader of the free world. Mills says Williams draws support from all polls in the province, regardless of the party voters may think in their worst dreams about ever voting for if they know what's good for them. Dr. Alex Marland of Memorial's Pollyanna Department says the strength in support of Williams also reflects the weakness of the polling, since Williams is still under 100% and so someone must have lied to CRA. Marland says any headway made by the Liberals or the NDP is tempered by this province's history of one party polls.

For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=34772



Technology Update

There are unconfirmed reports that DW plans to use a cutting-edge American technology to build The Dunnel, the underground link between Labrador and Newfoundland, which will rival its Ango-French counterpart.

Here is a news link to a story on this new technology, which will propel DW's stimulus plan far ahead of anything being done in old-economy Canada:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/experts_agree_giant_razor_clawed?utm_source=a-section

The Long View

Since I've spent a few posts looking at the (humourous) short-term, I thought it would be useful to pause and consider the long-term.

The most frequent argument made in favour of DW is his poll numbers. Day after day, week after week, the polling claim is trotted out to justify just about anything. As one email correspondent put it to me earlier today, DW has poll numbers like Obama's. I tried to point out that this isn't really true, but let's leave the twisted game of poll-goosing and media manipulation to one side for now. Instead, let's place Dangovt in its larger context.

The longue durée of modern liberal democray in NL began in 1949. We can argue about the franchise and all sorts of constitutional minutiae, but the fact remains that the current incarnation of Newfoundland democracy began with Joey Smallwood, and it has developed through four discrete periods:
1) Liberals, 1949-1972
2) Tories, 1972-1989
3) Liberals, 1989-2003
4) Tories, 2003-present

What are the patterns? The most obvious is that power in NL has alternated between the two dominant parties, which, until DW, have held power for extended periods. After the fall of Joey, the Tories and Liberals were in office for 17 and 14 years, respectively.

Part of the explanation for this pattern is the relative weakness of third parties and the cyclical trend towards bandwagon movements that emerge in response to the perceived corruption/atrophy of the ruling regime. The watershed votes in 1972, 1989, and 2003 were not so much about the strength of the opposition as the weakness of the governing regime. The bandwagon trend in NL politics means that during the heyday of each Party's reign (such as the one DW is currently enjoying), the perceived popularity of the ruling government was due in large measure to the inability of the other party to attract strong candidates, generate positive media attention, or raise funds for election campaigns. As a result, the pattern has been for ruling parties to rot from within before they are finally defeated at the polls.

In each case, accusations of tyranny, corruption, and incompetence snowballed into a larger movement which, fueled by a vigorous newspaper press, formed a coalition of interests that demanded change at all costs. Despite claims that Newfoundland nationalism is a new, DW-inspired phenomenon, nationalism (which is different from separatism, despite the popular conflation) has played a role in NL politics since 1949.

After Joey's fall, a series of premiers placed themselves at the centre of national/provincial struggles that dominated their tenure: Peckford (Offshore oil war), Wells (Meech Lake war), Tobin (Turbot war), Grimes (aborted Terms of Union war), and Williams (Equalization war). Despite DW's claims that 2003 is Year One, it is a phase in a much longer history of political conflict that has, invariably, involved battles with Ottawa, nationalist rhetoric, and (in the late stages of each party's reign) intense media focus on scandals.

Nonetheless, Dangovt has brought changes that have broken with NL's political past. No other regime has so effectively manipulated the media and public opinion. This is partly due to changes in local media (one wonders how DW would fare if he, like Peckford, had to face the Sunday Express each week!), and partly due to the unprecedented resources that Dangovt has poured into PR.

No other premier since Joey has had such a weak cabinet. As a result, to an extent not seen since the 1960s, NL is experiencing rule via personal fiat. No other premier, Joey included, has been as reckless as DW. No other premier, Peckford included, has inflated expectations so high or blurred the province's economic and demographic realities so much. No one since Joey has attempted to re-make the political culture so radically or to brand an entire province in his own image. (Grimes's flirtation with nationalist rhetoric was not part of a sustained policy but rather a symptom of his weak position in the aftermath of the Liberal civil war that followed his convention victory.)

By hauling down the Canadian flag, DW signaled a new era in NL political history. By attacking the very symbol of the country, he served notice that his battle was with Canada, not the federal government. There were countless alternative options that DW could have employed during his negotiations with Paul Martin -- there were numerous ways he could have protested against the federal Liberal Party -- but rather than focusing on the Liberal Party or even Martin himself, DW targetted a nonpartisan symbol: the Canadian flag. It is hard to imagine a greater hypocrisy than taking down your country's flag and then calling your critics traitors.

DW has been very lucky. He had the luck to inherit not only Voisey's Bay and Hibernia but, more importantly, a coincidental rise in oil prices. He had the luck to inherit an opposition party in total disarray. He had the luck to face Harper, a highly polarizing prime minister. And he had the luck to face a media tamed by cutbacks and the decline of the traditional newspapers industry.

So the prediction? The end of Dangovt is not yet in sight. DW's luck has been slipping lately in the face of a series of problems: the debacle at MUN; the severe health care crisis; the lack of a Churchill Falls deal; the crisis in the pulp & paper industry, et cetera. DW faces a fiscal crisis of his own making and an absolutely dysfunctional relationship with Ottawa. But he faces no fatal threat to his rule in the short- or even medium-term.

However, although it remains a relatively minor problem for DW right now, at some point in the future the failures of democratic governance will come back to haunt him: the political witch-hunts, the vendettas, the smear campaigns against "traitors," blocking freedom of information requests, blocking opposition party funding, the absence of ministerial accountability, the lack of respect for the House of Assembly. At some point the miasma will begin to lift. You could feel some of the air seep out of the governing balloon at the beginning of last week, as public anger grew over the fact that Wiseman remained in office, despite the Cameron Report. The eruption of Baker's Curious Circus provided a highly convenient diversion but, before too long, questions of democratic governance will return.

Like his predecessors, DW's fall will not be sudden. Nor will it occur as a result of federal-provincial battles. As I have said before, the ABC games and their successors serve the interests of DW, not NL, and one of the principal interests they serve is to keep Newfoundlanders distracted from the shortcomings of Dangovt. Nonetheless, Peter Whittle got one thing right when he wrote, "You can only kick a dog around so much before it bites you!" He just seems to be unaware of who is actually kicking whom: http://www.polemicandparadox.com/2009/03/baker-tells-it-like-it-is.html

The demise of Dangovt will happen when the Liberals finally manage to re-group. It will happen when they build a larger movement to rally around grievances concerning education, the fishery, health care, and fiscal mismanagement, et cetera. It will happen when the public gets exhausted of the endless wars and crises, the bombast and the bullying.

But in the final analysis, the end of Dangovt will come only when the truth is told. DW is not endowed with superhero powers. He does not represent the hearts and souls of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And his interests are not necessarily our interests, despite his claims to the contrary: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/03/rex-should-check-his-video-archives.html

It will happen when people start to say 2+2=4.



Supplemental Reading Update:
In addition to Bond Papers, Geoff Meeker, and other online sources that have taken a critical look at polling, there have been studies of using polls to manufacture consent:

http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/1786/1909

Democracy in the Republic of Newfoundland

With so much careless blather about an independent Newfoundland, it might be worthwhile to stop, for just a second, to consider what liberal democracy would be like in this much-hyped Utopia.

Rather than speculate idly, why don't we consider the actual words of one of the members of Newfoundland's most powerful family?

Here is an extract from Brian Dobbin's last editorial in the now-defunct Independent:
http://www.theindependent.ca/article.asp?id=1334

"So since I have paid for the most expensive pulpit in the province for some time, I have one last sermon to deliver.

For Christ’s sake, while we are raking in the money from the oil wave this generation is suddenly enjoying, let’s invest in our futures. To do this we need government support financially for those dreamers who will create the industry that will give our children rewarding lives here when the oil runs out … and if we try to do it with our current government structure we will be pissing it down the drain.

Ministers should be professionals like in Taiwan or the U.S. cabinet. Elected lawmakers sit in the House and control the government, but don’t try to run billion-dollar enterprises with no experience. The results are predictably disastrous and the bureaucrats end up making policy and decisions, people whom by the very nature of the bureaucracy are resistant to change or risk.

Elect the premier separately, he’s the CEO. Let him or her recruit and hire the professionals needed to minister the delivery of our services and the stimulation of our economy. Leave them there for five years, and pay them a good salary along with the pride in serving their country (oops, I meant province).

OK, that’s it … I know it sounds a little out there and non-related, but I believe in my heart and after much thought that every major problem I faced in 12 years of starting new industry here would have been made significantly easier by this structural change to the way we do things.

Give it some thought."

Yes, you should....



Points of Interest Update:

In response to queries, let me point out two facts:

1. Yes, the U.S. cabinet comprises Secretaries appointed by the President rather than elected by the people. The American doctrine of separation of powers was designed to militate against the domination of one single party (it actually does a fairly good job on that score), but it's notorious for fostering legislative gridlock. To take one example, the American hybrid system of health care costs far more in terms of GDP than our largely public system. And as for the question of professionals versus politicians, while many U.S. Secretaries are professionals, such Timothy Geithner (who isn't exactly doing a bang-up job), many others are career politicians, such as Hillary Clinton.

2. As for citing Taiwan as a model for democracy, Martial Law was only lifted there in 1987. "But," according to the BBC, "even after the law was lifted, tight restrictions on freedom of assembly, speech and the press remained in place, having been written into a National Security Law, which had been passed a few days before. "
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6294902.stm

ABC Redux

The news that DW's ABC jihad cost at least 80k has sparked an ABC Redux that raises the type of questions with which Orwell struggled. Does it matter if words get twisted beyond all logical meaning, if people get called traitors just for opposing a government, or if people make assertions for which there is not a shred of evidence?

I hope it matters, though some days I'm left baffled by the sheer unthinking spectacle of politics in Danland. I made the perhaps unwise decision to post a comment to challenge a polemically paradoxical commentator to explain why ABC was such a success. You can read the sad results for yourself: http://www.polemicandparadox.com/2009/03/81000-was-good-investment.html

So here's my 2 cents on ABC Redux:
Like many people across this country, I despise Harper -- so if ABC had actually succeeded in preventing him from forming a government, then things would be entirely different. But ABC failed to keep Harper from forming a government. Not only that, but it's highly doubtful whether it contributed significantly to preventing the federal Tories from winning a majority in the House of Commons.

I'm still trying to understand Whittle's statement, "thats not a bad thing considering what he attempted to do in December." I assume that he's referring to the Shaft, which Williams also called the Sledgehammer.

Two facts to consider. First, the shaft wasn't attempted, it succeeded. Despite symbolic votes by NL MP's, Iggy's Liberals supported the budget; the rest was smoke and bile. Second, Williams is on record as claiming that the Shaft was payback for ABC. Thus, if one follows Williams's logic, ABC was a necessary cause in the chain of events that eventually shafted NL.

In terms of actual policy, the one thing ABC accomplished was precisely what it was supposed to prevent: worse treatment for NL. However, I recognize that policy often matters little in politics. In term of provincial politics, ABC did accomplish much. It gave the public a sense of payback and provided a way to vent populist anger towards Harper.

Most significantly, ABC gave Williams the opportunity to accomplish three things important to him: personal revenge; a platform for national media attention; and a diversion from local problems, such as the ongoing health care crisis, the ongoing MUN crisis, and the ongoing decline in oil prices, et cetera. My objection to calling ABC a success and to touting its accomplishments is based on the fact that it served the interests of Danny Williams rather than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The CBC web site -- which now has a rather unfortunate Coliseum-style thumbs up/down feature -- is bursting into flames again, as wingnuts and wingees poke each other's eyes out:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/03/abc-costs.html

The sad fact, as I tried to point out on Geoff Meeker's interesting forum, is that not only are such debates largely devoid of facts, but the ad hominem fixation has veered dangerously into democratic authoritarianism. Even sadder is the fact that Whittle still sees nothing wrong with calling Manning a traitor. When one of the commentators on Meeker's forum threatened a lawsuit, it was hard to know whether to laugh or wretch:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226680&sc=88

In judging whether Williams's latest outburst is acceptable, it is important to distinguish between quotidian trash-talk, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, defamatory accusations that violate the constitutional conventions of a liberal democracy. The problem with Williams's outburst is not only that it's politically intemperate and morally repellent, but also that it's constitutionally dangerous and legally reckless.

As Geoff Meeker pointed out last fall, Williams is on public record as equating betrayal with treason. Here's what he said in The Telegram in June 2007: “I can't control traitors. People who betray their province, I have no control over that."

Unless I'm mistaken, treason is still a criminal offence under section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Here's a thought experiment: imagine what would happen to such traitors if Williams were president of an independent republic rather than a provincial premier constrained by federal law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When wingnut, of all words, gets people threatening lawsuits, you know that we're in an ugly and unfortunate place. Not that such a lawsuit would have a snowball's chance in hades.

However, in the spirit of semantics, let's look at the word itself:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Wing nut) Jump to: navigation, search Wingnut may refer to:

1) A wingnut or wing nut, a nut (hardware), with a pair of wings to enable it to be turned without tools.

2) Wingnut (plant) (Pterocarya), a genus of trees bearing winged nuts.

3) Wingnut (politics), a derogatory American slang term for a person who holds strongly right-wing political beliefs, shortened from right wing nut.

4) Wingnut (slang) an term originating in East London in the early 1980s amongst 'alternatives' students, artists and bohemians to refer to uneducated violent working class young men - esp skinheads.

I leave it to readers to decide which definition fits (my vote is for the plant). But for those who want to read the Wiki-entry themselves, it's interesting to note that some conspiracy theorists in the US have proudly embraced their wingnut status.

The descent into ad hominem trash-talk on Meeker's online forum is regrettable but not unexpected in the current political climate. For those of you who still have an open mind, ask yourself what role the Williams administration has played in this coarsening of public discourse.

And, though it's hardly worth responding to, I'd like to point out that it matters not a whit whether some of the commentators to this forum may have voted Liberal. So what? Some of them may have voted Green. Some of them may be left-handed, too.

It's the power and persuasiveness of an argument that matters in a liberal polity, not the identity of its proponent. In On Liberty, J. S. Mill's central concern -- the driving force behind his passionate advocacy of free speech -- was the protection of minority rights. He warned gravely against what he saw as the tyranny of the majority. The last time I checked, we're still free, if we so choose, to disagree with Danny Williams, to engage in free speech, and to take spirited exception when a sitting premier publicly accuses his critics of treason.

A word for all you wingnuts out there: just because you say it does not make it so: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

And for those interested in re-reading Mill:
http://www.bartleby.com/130/

War Mentalities

Interesting piece in the Globe this morning about how the war mentality towards terrorism erodes human rights.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20090225.TERROR25/TPStory/National/

The same can be said, I think, about the effects of DW's war mentality.

The effects of DW's thuggery -- whether it's his constant invocation of war, hockey fighting, treason, or betrayal -- go much further than simply name-calling.

As Steven Pinker argues in The Stuff of Thought, "There is nothing mere about semantics!" http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/stuff/index.html

With DW's latest personal attack (this time it's against a citizen who dared to speak out on the expropriation of AbitibiBowater’s hydro assets), the descent of discourse in NL has taken yet another step.

Nottawa has an excellent post on this topic:
http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/02/speaking-of-dictators.html

Perhaps Geoff Meeker will revisit this issue, since things have deteriorated significantly since he blogged about it last fall:
http://thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=179161&sc=88


Fortuitous Update:

To Meeker's credit, he has revisted the issue, and the results are quite illuminating:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226680&sc=88

Special Effects, II

Speaking of Special Effects, Dangovt will need all its expertise in psy-ops and propaganda to mitigate the political effects of falling oil prices. Those prices will likely bounce back within 24 months, but DW will likely need to orchestrate new crises before then, or he may end up getting lumped in with the petrocrats:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090212.wcogee13/BNStory/specialComment/home

It's a good thing for DW that no one has told Marcus Gee about Freedom From Information or the other aspects of Danland's version of Managed Democracry, which according to an article sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "controls society while providing the appearance of democracy."

"Its main characteristics are as follows:

1. A strong presidency [Premier] and weak institutions [House of Assembly]

2. State control of the media [VODW and its affiliates]

3. Control over elections allows elites to legitimize their decisions [ABC and its affiliates]

4. Visible short-term effectiveness and long-term inefficiency [petro-dollar Danwar]

The result is an “unstable stability” based on the president’s personality. He is actually a hostage of the system. This system is highly dysfunctional, with poor information flows. Everything beneath the president is vertically integrated, but there are no horizontal connections."
See http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=819

I'm not sure about the hostage part, but I leave it to you to draw your own comparisons with the other criteria.