This week’s column: no value

— 09.13.2016 12:00 AM

What’s a value?

Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch has been talking a lot about “values.” She sent out a questionnaire to Conservative partisans about it. Here’s what it said: “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

Leitch’s question enraged the Left side of the spectrum – and her party’s acting leader, and several Conservative caucus members, and a leadership rival. (Newspaper columnists and editorial boards, too.) They were all super outraged.

That’s what Leitch wanted, of course: attention. Your average Canadian voter couldn’t pick her out of a two-person police line-up. So she and her smart circle of advisors did something to get noticed, and to get pointy-headed progressive intellectuals – who the conservative base deeply detest – to commence the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. It worked, big time. 

While everyone was running around being outraged, however, no one bothered to ask any practical questions. Here’s one: how would Prime Minister Leitch’s policy actually work, in the real world? At some future border crossing, would a courteous CBSA lean across the counter and say: “Welcome to Canada. Are your values Canadian, or Islamic State-ish? Planning on blowing anything up? Got an tobacco or alcohol to declare? No? Well, have a good day and welcome!”

Leitch’s stunt was just that: a stunt. She’s a doctor, and she’s not particularly stupid. She knows that CBSA – and CSIS, and the RCMP, and (as we have recently learned, after the confrontation with that ISIS fanboy in London) the FBI and Homeland Security in the U.S. – already screen potential immigrants and refugees to Canada for their affinity for terror and extremism. So, knowing that, what was Kellie Leitch – she of the mid-election barbaric practices hotline stunt – hoping to achieve with her latest stunt, about “values?” 

To get noticed, as noted. And to appeal, naturally, to the Conservative Party’s still-formidable red-necked, knuckle-dragging moth-breather demographic.  

Richard Nixon pioneered that sort of strategy, many years ago. He used to say that Republican presidential aspirants should run to the Right to get the nomination – and then, once they get it, start running back to the Centre. (Somebody should tell Donald Trump, who is still jogging toward the outer reaches of the far Right.)

So that’s what Leitch is doing, as she scrambles to get noticed and win her party’s leadership. It’s cynical, it’s dishonest, and it may just work.

But we digress. When Leitch talks about “values,” what does she mean? Does anyone know what a “value” is? Kellie Leitch doesn’t define what she means by “values” – and, when you think about it, neither does any other politician, ever. 

Values are the stuff of life. They are indefinable. They are hopes and dreams and fears and the things found deep within the guts of every person. Values are about emotion, not reason – which is why the Right is so good at them. They know the Left get tongue-tied when trying to talking about passion and emotion and stuff like that. And – almost always – whomever controls the “values” debate tends to win elections.

I wrote an entire book about the subject, Fight the Right, available still at fine bookstores near you. Therein, I noted that, after every electoral loss, progressives always confuse “values” with “messaging.” But they’re not the same thing. The challenges facing progressives extend to more than mere linguistics and wordplay. Values are the ineffable, keenly felt issues that hit folks at a primordial level. Not the stuff we think about – the stuff we feel. The stuff that attracts the attention of hearts, not heads.  

Pollsters, pundits and political scientists prattle on endlessly about values, but none of them ever seems to be able to offer a working definition of same. A value is known, it’s felt, as noted, but a value isn’t easily described. 

Leitch, and her fellow travelers on the Right are better at values – because they have a willingness to talk about emotional issues, and a willingness to manipulate cultural prejudices. 

Conservatives delight in values-related debate, because they know that surveys consistently show that voters believe that conservatives have values, and liberals don’t. Also problematic: we progressive types fuss over minutiae. We are too often the proponents of Nanny Statism and social engineering, whether we realize it or not We’re policy fuss-budgets. Conservatives, meanwhile, are more concerned with what Garance Franke-Ruta, the online politics editor of The Atlantic, calls “the fundamental stuff of life.”  

They’re all big picture, the conservatives. Progressives, meanwhile, are all about the little things: laundry lists of picayune political promises; minor tactical tweaks; everything that is vertical, in policy terms, but little that is horizontal. Voters know it. Or, more accurately, they feel it.

One of the experts I interviewed for Fight the Right summed it up best: “The Right has always been very good at playing to resentments, and particularly class resentments of the white working class.”

And that’s why Rob Ford won, and why Donald Trump is gaining on Hillary Clinton, and why Kellie Leitch – dishonestly, despicably – is going on and on about “values.” Because the values war is the war that conservatives will always win. And that’s the phony war that Kellie Leitch is fighting right now.  

And we’re all falling for it.

 


Comments (33)

Hillary’s health: a campaign secret, revealed 

— 09.11.2016 05:23 PM

When every politico heard today’s diagnosis, they all nodded and went: “Oh yeah. Been there. Got that.”

It comes from working your ass off, day after day. Starts with a cold (pressing the flesh, being in confined spaces with many people, etc.), leads to bronchitis (ignored, because everyone else is working so hard, etc.), and culminates in pneumonia. Happens a lot. 

One time, I got it so bad I coughed hard enough to crack a rib – and I ruptured the conjunctiva in one of my eyes. That was a treat. 

She needs to cool it, for sure. Campaign-induced pneumonia is not to be taken lightly. But one thing is for sure: today’s news tells everyone who is the hard worker – and who is the sausage-fingered, sphincter-mouthed combover whose idea of “hard work” is ordering around the Mexican labourers he says he will deport. 



Comments (31)

A brother speaks about a brother

— 09.09.2016 07:33 AM

I found this kind of noteworthy, not because it’s one Trudeau boy speaking about another Trudeau boy, but because it so closely aligns with how brothers relate.

You know when brothers are making mistakes, even big ones, but you say nothing and wait for the inevitable fall, to help them get up again.  Because you love them, even though you won’t often say it out loud.  And they pick you up when you fall, too.

Sacha on Justin, “the prince,” but it could be any brother speaking about a brother:

“To a certain extent, I was ashamed of being a prince, and he’s embraced it, used it,” Trudeau says…“I’m not sure I agree with this turn in politics, but it certainly is the mainstay one—the movie-star politician is a formidable force in this kind of world. Maybe a dangerous one, in the long run,” he says.

Asked if he freely opines to his brother about this, he laughs: “I tease him about it, maybe.”


Comments (18)

On its 50th anniversary, how much did we love Star Trek? Bonus: Hot Nasties news!

— 09.09.2016 07:03 AM

Enough to write a song about it, that is now covered by the likes of the Palma Violets – Invasion of the Tribbles.  Here’s one old Hot Nasties guy with them in L.A., three Summers back.  Happy 50th, Enterprise.

 

In related Hot Nasties news, get this: two previously-unheard Nasty tracks – recorded live in studio, but not on a cassette recorder in Rockin ‘ Al’s basement – are coming out soon! Video, too! More than three decades later, the Hot Nasties ride again! Get your Nasties stuff here, on iTunes!


Comments (1)