If journalism is the first draft of history, we may be seeing some history being made this week. With the fishery protest entering its fourth day, my sense is that we are in the midst of some sort of change.
It's too early to tell whether this change will be temporary or long-lasting, but it appears that Danny Williams' political teflon has been breached. This story seems to have broken through the teflon barrier, and it has the potential traction to do political damage.
The Telegram's editorial this morning gutted the story with a straightforward question: Why are thousands of fishermen receiving far less government attention than 130 paper mill workers? http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=265838&sc=80
It then split the story open by observing that Williams is in Europe on a foreign policy junket and Hedderson is in Texas of all places, leaving Dunderdale to tell the protestors to leave the building. (By the way, wasn't it curious that Williams chose to be out of the province on Memorial Day and Canada Day, and thereby miss the plaque unveiling ceremony?).
It's unclear whether ignoring the fishermen will hurt Williams' poll numbers when CRA does its thing again. If the venomous comments on the CBC and Telly sites are any indication, beating up on fishermen plays well with biased, uninformed, and bigoted people. It's interesting to note that no one ever calls civil servants pampered, overpaid, or lazy; but fishermen get called worse every time a story is posted online.
The larger question here is not about the management of the fishery per se but rather the management of government itself. Earlier in the week, VOCM was sticking fairly closely to the Tory party line, but today's story carries the FFAW's three most important talking points:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=174
1) Williams has refused to meet with McCurdy.
2) Williams needs to spend the same time on the fishery as on oil deals and ABC politics.
3) Williams' government needs to be more respectful towards the fishery.
Point number 2 is similar to the point that Randy Simms was trying to make before Williams' now-infamous meltdown on VOCM, so it will be interesting to see which Danny Williams lands at St. John's airport. Will we see the return of the angry patriarch eager to smite all those who doubt his will? Or will we see Williams quickly dispatch his ministers to throw money at this problem to make it go away as quietly as possible? (One wonders whether Hedderson himself knows the answer to that question).
What we do know at this juncture is this: the fishery protest is not a discrete, stand-alone story. It has hooked into the larger story about how Premier Williams treats people who challenge him. It has become a question of not only the government's fishery policy, but also its judgement, its attitude, and its competence. It relates directly to the political issue I've raised this week: the Tories are out of touch.
For four days now, the government's response has been to attack by throwing all the blame back onto the fishing industry. As a sign of the 8th Floor's irritation, they threw an angry press release at the problem. But still the protest continues.
Here is a question for you: if Williams lost his senses over just one session of Randy Simms' call-in show, how is he going to react to four days of protest?
For the press release and analysis, see:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0630n07.htm
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/06/record-breaking.html
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/07/fishing-for-sympathy-without-any-bait.html
Showing posts with label Teflon Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teflon Government. Show all posts
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Collective Bipolar Disorder
I got back late last night from a trip to the US, which is always interesting. It helped to put the don't-leave-home love campaign into context. As the late Erich Honecker knew all too well, it's never a good idea to allow too much exposure to other polities.
Reading and talking about politics outside NL forces any sentient being to confront two basic, undeniable facts: Danny Williams is odd; and the fact that he continues to be popular is even odder.
I am the last person to put much faith in the CRAPolls, but it would be silly to deny the fact that most people at least passively support the Williams regime: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Newsroom/SupportforConservativesinNLisUnchangedandRemainsHi.aspx
On the eve of the NS election, it's worth reflecting on some fundamental differences between NS and NL politics. There is plenty of venality and pettiness in NS politics, but there is also a marked absence of grandiosity. The parties are doing what most parties do in most western democracies: they are using a variety of rhetorical tools to convince voters that they are best equipped to lead the province. To do this, they are doing everything from slinging mud, to pandering to voters' fears, and to offering some constructive policies: in other words, it's a mixture of high- and low-brow politics. Whatever it may be, it's about choices and options in the real world of political calculus: no one is seriously promising (and no one is seriously expecting) that the election of one party will somehow magically cure NS of its problems and transport Nova Scotians to a promised land. No one is saying that NS is the centre of the universe, that Nova Scotians are the most optimistic people in the western world, or that health bureaucrats should be shot. The rhetoric may be petty, silly, or naive; but it is most clearly not megalomaniacal.
Which brings me back to grandiosity. As I commented in an earlier post, there are some interesting similarities between Williams and Nicolas Sarkozy, who shares Williams' mania and vanity: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/french-connection.html
But there is an important difference between the political experiences of Williams and Sarkozy. Unlike Williams, Sarkozy has faced severe, sustained public criticism from not only rival parties, but also the press, the universities, and the cultural elites. This criticism has focused as much on Sarkozy's style of government as his actual policies, and one critic has described France under Mr Sarkozy as an “egocracy." http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13745814
Not surprisingly, the Economist defends Sarkozy's policies, but it also points out that the strong reaction against Sarkozy is undermined by the fact that voters lack a clear alternative. In other words, it's not so much a question of Sarkozy's strength as the opposition parties' weaknesses -- a point of obvious comparison with NL.
Despite the similaries, there is a clear difference between anti-Sarkozysm and anti-Dannyism. In NL, the only steady source of relentless criticism of Williams has come from political blogs. Columnists, reporters, editorialists, and even some call-in hosts have offered sharp criticism on specific topics; but they have not provided a sustained rejection of Dannyism. NL has no equivalent to Ray Guy's critique of late Smallwoodism.
Equally important, whereas anti-Dannyism has failed to sway the public, anti-Sarkozysm has made itself felt where it counts: poll numbers. According to the Economist, "Two years into Mr Sarkozy’s term in office, intense and obsessive dislike of the president—anti-sarkozysme—is fast becoming the defining feature of French opposition politics. This goes beyond the president’s poor popularity rating, which fell another four points to 32% in May, according to TNS Sofres. In the election for the European Parliament, due on June 7th, the subject is not so much the future of Europe as Mr Sarkozy himself." It is important to keep in mind that Sarkozy's low poll numbers come at a time when the opposition parties are in disarray, so the excuse in NL that it's all the Liberals' fault doesn't wash.
Two factors help to explain why Sarkozy has much lower poll numbers than Williams. First, the public critique of Williams remains episodic and often fragmentary. The province's cultural establishment (which in NL usually means the self-appointed Arts Community, along with MUN) has failed to offer a congent public critique of Dannyism. While writers never hesitate to lay the boots to dead politicians, they are remarkably reluctant to criticize living ones. And while professors howled over the failed presidential search (can we please get over the martyrdom of Saint Eddy?), their political engagement has been remarkably limited. Fueled by a smug mixture of radical chic and cynicism, the intellectual elite cannot be bothered to get its hands dirty, leaving the blogosphere to semi-professional consultants, current and former Liberals, and anonymous outsiders like me. For every editorial that the Telegram gets right (and there are plenty of them) and for every columnist and reporter who nails a story (and, if anything, political reporting has been getting better over the past year), there are also many silences when Williams gets a pass. The problem with balanced reporting is that it assumes a balanced polity. When a government descends into a form of political mania, a balanced approach no longer works.
Second, we have to face the fact that Dannyism is relatively popular. However much I would like the public to recoil from the spectacle, the thuggery, the vulgarity, and the manipulation, it doesn't. It would be comforting to believe a conspiracy theory that explains how Williams has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. It would be comforting to believe that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders reject the propaganda and the bombast. It would be comforting to believe that Newfoundlanders see through the miasma of unrealistic expectations, witch-hunts, and political recklessness.
But such comfort would be a lie. The truth is at once much more disturbing and more banal. As I noted in an earlier post, it is important to keep in mind Occam's Razor, which is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
If Williams has consistently high polls numbers, then the simplest explanation is that he is relatively popular. Most Newfoundlanders are, at the very least, comfortable with the style and content of his leadership. While much of this support constitutes little more than tacit consent, it is still, as John Locke argued, a form of consent.
How do we explain this fact? I think we need to return again to grandiosity, which is more than political style. Grandiosity is a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder. The fact that it has become such an accepted part of NL's political culture is evidence of a collective bipolar disorder in which the lines between fantasy and reality, between what's inappropriate and what's appropriate, have become severely blurred.
Reading and talking about politics outside NL forces any sentient being to confront two basic, undeniable facts: Danny Williams is odd; and the fact that he continues to be popular is even odder.
I am the last person to put much faith in the CRAPolls, but it would be silly to deny the fact that most people at least passively support the Williams regime: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Newsroom/SupportforConservativesinNLisUnchangedandRemainsHi.aspx
On the eve of the NS election, it's worth reflecting on some fundamental differences between NS and NL politics. There is plenty of venality and pettiness in NS politics, but there is also a marked absence of grandiosity. The parties are doing what most parties do in most western democracies: they are using a variety of rhetorical tools to convince voters that they are best equipped to lead the province. To do this, they are doing everything from slinging mud, to pandering to voters' fears, and to offering some constructive policies: in other words, it's a mixture of high- and low-brow politics. Whatever it may be, it's about choices and options in the real world of political calculus: no one is seriously promising (and no one is seriously expecting) that the election of one party will somehow magically cure NS of its problems and transport Nova Scotians to a promised land. No one is saying that NS is the centre of the universe, that Nova Scotians are the most optimistic people in the western world, or that health bureaucrats should be shot. The rhetoric may be petty, silly, or naive; but it is most clearly not megalomaniacal.
Which brings me back to grandiosity. As I commented in an earlier post, there are some interesting similarities between Williams and Nicolas Sarkozy, who shares Williams' mania and vanity: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/french-connection.html
But there is an important difference between the political experiences of Williams and Sarkozy. Unlike Williams, Sarkozy has faced severe, sustained public criticism from not only rival parties, but also the press, the universities, and the cultural elites. This criticism has focused as much on Sarkozy's style of government as his actual policies, and one critic has described France under Mr Sarkozy as an “egocracy." http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13745814
Not surprisingly, the Economist defends Sarkozy's policies, but it also points out that the strong reaction against Sarkozy is undermined by the fact that voters lack a clear alternative. In other words, it's not so much a question of Sarkozy's strength as the opposition parties' weaknesses -- a point of obvious comparison with NL.
Despite the similaries, there is a clear difference between anti-Sarkozysm and anti-Dannyism. In NL, the only steady source of relentless criticism of Williams has come from political blogs. Columnists, reporters, editorialists, and even some call-in hosts have offered sharp criticism on specific topics; but they have not provided a sustained rejection of Dannyism. NL has no equivalent to Ray Guy's critique of late Smallwoodism.
Equally important, whereas anti-Dannyism has failed to sway the public, anti-Sarkozysm has made itself felt where it counts: poll numbers. According to the Economist, "Two years into Mr Sarkozy’s term in office, intense and obsessive dislike of the president—anti-sarkozysme—is fast becoming the defining feature of French opposition politics. This goes beyond the president’s poor popularity rating, which fell another four points to 32% in May, according to TNS Sofres. In the election for the European Parliament, due on June 7th, the subject is not so much the future of Europe as Mr Sarkozy himself." It is important to keep in mind that Sarkozy's low poll numbers come at a time when the opposition parties are in disarray, so the excuse in NL that it's all the Liberals' fault doesn't wash.
Two factors help to explain why Sarkozy has much lower poll numbers than Williams. First, the public critique of Williams remains episodic and often fragmentary. The province's cultural establishment (which in NL usually means the self-appointed Arts Community, along with MUN) has failed to offer a congent public critique of Dannyism. While writers never hesitate to lay the boots to dead politicians, they are remarkably reluctant to criticize living ones. And while professors howled over the failed presidential search (can we please get over the martyrdom of Saint Eddy?), their political engagement has been remarkably limited. Fueled by a smug mixture of radical chic and cynicism, the intellectual elite cannot be bothered to get its hands dirty, leaving the blogosphere to semi-professional consultants, current and former Liberals, and anonymous outsiders like me. For every editorial that the Telegram gets right (and there are plenty of them) and for every columnist and reporter who nails a story (and, if anything, political reporting has been getting better over the past year), there are also many silences when Williams gets a pass. The problem with balanced reporting is that it assumes a balanced polity. When a government descends into a form of political mania, a balanced approach no longer works.
Second, we have to face the fact that Dannyism is relatively popular. However much I would like the public to recoil from the spectacle, the thuggery, the vulgarity, and the manipulation, it doesn't. It would be comforting to believe a conspiracy theory that explains how Williams has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. It would be comforting to believe that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders reject the propaganda and the bombast. It would be comforting to believe that Newfoundlanders see through the miasma of unrealistic expectations, witch-hunts, and political recklessness.
But such comfort would be a lie. The truth is at once much more disturbing and more banal. As I noted in an earlier post, it is important to keep in mind Occam's Razor, which is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
If Williams has consistently high polls numbers, then the simplest explanation is that he is relatively popular. Most Newfoundlanders are, at the very least, comfortable with the style and content of his leadership. While much of this support constitutes little more than tacit consent, it is still, as John Locke argued, a form of consent.
How do we explain this fact? I think we need to return again to grandiosity, which is more than political style. Grandiosity is a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder. The fact that it has become such an accepted part of NL's political culture is evidence of a collective bipolar disorder in which the lines between fantasy and reality, between what's inappropriate and what's appropriate, have become severely blurred.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The French Connection
It turns out that an international leader is emulating DW. But it's not Obama, despite what the Globe reported last year.
It turns out that DW's doppelgänger is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also relentlessly bold, aggressively optimistic, and incredibly ambitious: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wcosarko07/BNStory/specialComment/home
The problem is that Sarkozy hasn't listened hard enough to DW. According to David Rieff, after less than three years in power, "Many in Mr. Sarkozy's governing Union for a Popular Movement have become increasingly public in expressing their unhappiness. In effect, rather than according serious room for decision-making to Prime Minister François Fillon or his cabinet, Mr. Sarkozy has arrogated almost every lever of power to himself and advisers."
For a cabinet revolt to happen in NL, there would have to be an actual cabinet, rather than the current simulacrum.
That's not all. Rieff continues, "But Mr. Sarkozy has not governed effectively, as polling and his party's disenchantment make abundantly clear. His manic character - initiative spilling into initiative, each being the transformative solution to the problem at hand, and all opposition denounced as lies or cowardice - has worn thin."
Sure sounds like DW: manic character, manic initiatives, manic insults. Denounce anyone who disagrees with you. But Sarkozy did not have DW's secret weapon: CRAPolls.
Insulated by CRAPolls, a simulation cabinet, and deep coatings of Teflon, DW will surely outlast the President of France.
In the last paragraph of his essay, Rieff compares Obama and Sarkozy: "At a recent press conference, U.S. President Barack Obama said he was loath to comment immediately on matters of great public importance before being certain he knew the subject in question. Many French wish such self-discipline could rub off on Mr. Sarkozy. Given his temperament, however, that hardly seems likely. As a result, an administration in which many had placed high hopes is lapsing into demagoguery and ineffectiveness."
Message to Nicolas -- Don't worry, just contact these guys and soon you'll be soaring high above the maddening crowd: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Locations/default.aspx
It turns out that DW's doppelgänger is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also relentlessly bold, aggressively optimistic, and incredibly ambitious: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wcosarko07/BNStory/specialComment/home
The problem is that Sarkozy hasn't listened hard enough to DW. According to David Rieff, after less than three years in power, "Many in Mr. Sarkozy's governing Union for a Popular Movement have become increasingly public in expressing their unhappiness. In effect, rather than according serious room for decision-making to Prime Minister François Fillon or his cabinet, Mr. Sarkozy has arrogated almost every lever of power to himself and advisers."
For a cabinet revolt to happen in NL, there would have to be an actual cabinet, rather than the current simulacrum.
That's not all. Rieff continues, "But Mr. Sarkozy has not governed effectively, as polling and his party's disenchantment make abundantly clear. His manic character - initiative spilling into initiative, each being the transformative solution to the problem at hand, and all opposition denounced as lies or cowardice - has worn thin."
Sure sounds like DW: manic character, manic initiatives, manic insults. Denounce anyone who disagrees with you. But Sarkozy did not have DW's secret weapon: CRAPolls.
Insulated by CRAPolls, a simulation cabinet, and deep coatings of Teflon, DW will surely outlast the President of France.
In the last paragraph of his essay, Rieff compares Obama and Sarkozy: "At a recent press conference, U.S. President Barack Obama said he was loath to comment immediately on matters of great public importance before being certain he knew the subject in question. Many French wish such self-discipline could rub off on Mr. Sarkozy. Given his temperament, however, that hardly seems likely. As a result, an administration in which many had placed high hopes is lapsing into demagoguery and ineffectiveness."
Message to Nicolas -- Don't worry, just contact these guys and soon you'll be soaring high above the maddening crowd: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Locations/default.aspx
Monday, April 6, 2009
Political Teflon
Not much that one can add to the latest Danburst. Not even an Orwellian blogger could dream that DW would say in public: "They should be shot over there." I guess doing the separatists' work for them wasn't enough; now he wants to assist Orwellian News, too.
However, Orwellian News still wants to know: How does DW get away with it? DW is, among many things, the premier of NL. As he and his legions of fans never hesitate to shout and yell, he is in charge. He is The Leader. As such, DW is ultimately responsible for the running of government, which includes health care as one of its most important mandates.
Orwellian News can now report the answer: political Teflon. According to an anonymous source in Sector 7-G (West Block), DW and his entire cabinet get secret Teflon applications each day. The Teflon spray prevents any bad news from sticking to them. It enables them, with a straight face, to take credit for anything that goes right (including the price of oil) and to disclaim responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
How does this work? It sounds complicated, but it's actually quite simple. The Teflon contains a semantic cream that alters the way in which the English language is transmitted and received. Specifically, it enables DW and members of cabinet to switch from "we" to "they" (and back again), according to a portable Blamemeter leased from Globex Corporation. Once the Blamemeter reaches a certain level, the speaker simply swaps "we" and "they," depending on which option maximizes political gain and minimizes actual responsibility.
You can see the results in today's interview. In the CBC story, DW is quoted as saying, "They should be shot over there," and "They've learned absolutely nothing."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/06/cancer-count-eastern.html
By contrast, when DW speaks about NALCO -- an analogous agency -- he always uses we. It's not NALCO but "we" who are looking forward to working with Emera. It's not they but "we" who have concluded a sale agreement. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0402n06.htm
Dupont, the maker of Teflon, denies that there are any health risks associated with long-term exposure to political Teflon. Studies examining the link between use of non-stick coating and the election of George W. Bush proved inconclusive.
In one scientific experiment at Harvard University, subjects who faced long-term exposure to political Teflon reported poor memory and persistent verbal tics, such as a compulsion to say the words, "master," "you know," "go forward," and "traitor." But before the experiment could be finished, the participants began fighting with each other and ran outside to take down the university's flag.
Nonetheless, the New York Times has continued to investigate the health affects of political Teflon. As the headline to one story put is, "Teflon Is Great for Politicians, but Is It Safe for Regular People?" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/business/14shortcuts.html
However, Orwellian News still wants to know: How does DW get away with it? DW is, among many things, the premier of NL. As he and his legions of fans never hesitate to shout and yell, he is in charge. He is The Leader. As such, DW is ultimately responsible for the running of government, which includes health care as one of its most important mandates.
Orwellian News can now report the answer: political Teflon. According to an anonymous source in Sector 7-G (West Block), DW and his entire cabinet get secret Teflon applications each day. The Teflon spray prevents any bad news from sticking to them. It enables them, with a straight face, to take credit for anything that goes right (including the price of oil) and to disclaim responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
How does this work? It sounds complicated, but it's actually quite simple. The Teflon contains a semantic cream that alters the way in which the English language is transmitted and received. Specifically, it enables DW and members of cabinet to switch from "we" to "they" (and back again), according to a portable Blamemeter leased from Globex Corporation. Once the Blamemeter reaches a certain level, the speaker simply swaps "we" and "they," depending on which option maximizes political gain and minimizes actual responsibility.
You can see the results in today's interview. In the CBC story, DW is quoted as saying, "They should be shot over there," and "They've learned absolutely nothing."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/06/cancer-count-eastern.html
By contrast, when DW speaks about NALCO -- an analogous agency -- he always uses we. It's not NALCO but "we" who are looking forward to working with Emera. It's not they but "we" who have concluded a sale agreement. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0402n06.htm
Dupont, the maker of Teflon, denies that there are any health risks associated with long-term exposure to political Teflon. Studies examining the link between use of non-stick coating and the election of George W. Bush proved inconclusive.
In one scientific experiment at Harvard University, subjects who faced long-term exposure to political Teflon reported poor memory and persistent verbal tics, such as a compulsion to say the words, "master," "you know," "go forward," and "traitor." But before the experiment could be finished, the participants began fighting with each other and ran outside to take down the university's flag.
Nonetheless, the New York Times has continued to investigate the health affects of political Teflon. As the headline to one story put is, "Teflon Is Great for Politicians, but Is It Safe for Regular People?" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/business/14shortcuts.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
