Fascism, Trump and Mulcair

I’m sorry, but Tom Mulcair is kind of pathetic.  He is.

Mulcair has tweeted that Donald Trump is a “fascist,” quote unquote.  He says he wants that “to be on  the record.”

Gotcha.

To me and not a few other people, fascism is the ideology of murder.  Its characteristics are total state control of the economy, uniformed paramilitary forces, and – as noted – organized murder on a massive scale.  You will know you are dealing with a real fascist when they want to kill you. For an opinion, or your religion, or the way you look or the way you are.

Donald Trump is an asshole, to be sure. He says things that are outrageous and racist and offensive and crazy. Yes.

But he isn’t yet openly advocating the forced sterilization of “sub-normal” people – like this other politician did, back in the Thirties.  He hasn’t started calling disabled people “morons” and “prostitutes” who are a burden to the taxpayer – like this fan of Third Reich medicine did, way back when.

Tom Mulcair knows all that, anyway.  Just as we know that he is revealing himself to be a desperate, pathetic man, frantically trying to depict himself as “left wing” to preserve his job.

Save your money writing reports about why you lost the election so badly, Team Orange.  You lost because of the execrable judgment of Tom Mulcair.


The question I ask about politicians, and politicos, in next week’s column

To wit: why bother?

A snippet, below.  Your speculation is welcome, as always.

Children, someone once observed, are the only known form of immortality.

That rarely deters the makers of monuments, the curers of disease, the inventors and discoverers, the authors of books and songs and art: all valiantly attempt, in some small measure, to defy death. But we cannot ever hold mortality’s strong hand (per The Bard). The “undiscover’d country” awaits us all.

Politicians, and political folk, remain mulishly undeterred. They do not ever embrace politics to achieve riches: unless one is a crook, and also very lucky, there really aren’t any riches to be had. They do not do so to be loved: for many, all that lies ahead is hate mail, and the insults of strangers at baggage carousels. They don’t do it for their health, either: plenty of them start drinking too much, exercising too little, and – in a small minority of cases – even smoking crack.

Finally, they don’t succumb to the political life because it will bring them closer to their family. For a disproportionately-large number, politics routinely ends in divorce, and alienated offspring. It is, indeed, an unspeakably lonely life (per Kim Campbell).

So why does any sensible person do it?


Jean Lapierre

…was on a plane that just crashed in Îles-de-la-Madeleine, on the way to a family funeral.  Jean and I worked closely together on the Hill in 1984, and I can’t say enough about how much he knows about politics.  Hope he and his family are okay.

 

 


Open letter to media

To summarize:

Here’s a suggestion: stop covering him.  Stop chronicling every bit of idiocy that issues from his sphincter-like mouth.  Deny him the very air he needs to breathe.

Do that, and this thing will get a bit more fair.  Until then, however, you are as much a part of his campaign as his campaign manager – you know, the one they just charged with assaulting a reporter.

 

 


On fundraising, and politics: the definition of hypocrisy

A columnist at the Toronto Star is in high dudgeon, this morning, swinging his metaphorical sword about the supposedly grimy, grubby business of political fundraising.  You can read it here, if you like.

My response is in the form of a question and answer.

Q: Mr. Columnist, who is the principal beneficiary of all the fundraising that political parties are forced to do?

A: Um, the media, of course.

Yes, the media. That’s where the vast majority of funds raised goes.  Sometimes as much as 80 per cent of it.

To put a fine point on it, in case you are having difficulty believing it: the guy who is complaining is the same guy who is benefitting.  Bit rich, that, eh?

Democratic ad buy guru Tobe Berkovitz confirmed this reality, in my book The War Room: “[Ad buy] is where most of your campaign’s money is going. If you do it efficiently, then it’s going to be good. But if you’re not doing it efficiently, then you’re going to end up wasting a fair amount of money.”

No doubt: Wynne had great messaging last time, Tim Hudak didn’t, and voters responded accordingly.  But, equally, there is no doubt that the Star’s columnist is not being entirely honest with his readers, this morning: to wit, the Number One Beneficiary of all that grimy, grubby fundraising is him.

Premier Kathleen Wynne, I heard, put it best in a scrum she had about the issue this morning.

“Running campaigns, interacting in terms of advertising with the public, signs, all of it costs, costs money – and, most people can’t fund that process themselves.  Nor would we, I think, want a system where only people wealthy enough to fund their own campaign could take part.  So, that funding needs to come from somewhere…We made a decision as a society, a long time ago, that we wouldn’t fund political activity solely through tax dollars.”

Wynne went on to say that she is bringing forward some pretty comprehensive changes to Ontario’s political fundraising rules in the Fall.  That’s good.

But, in the meantime, make no mistake: the reason why political parties – not just Wynne’s, all of them – spend so much time fundraising is because the media don’t give us air time, or space on the page, for free.  They charge us plenty, and they almost always jack up their rates during election periods.

The fact that they are now complaining about that? Well…a bit hypocritical, isn’t it?