LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

So, I've been sitting here all day banging away at my keyboard, trying and failing to get my blood up enough to deconstruct what it is about Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer that I find to be on the one hand so wretched, but on the other so uninspiring.

And after plenty of writing, and plenty of deleting what I've just written, I think I've come around to the idea that the reason I can't get mad about Scheer is because there is so little to him.

He's like a beige wall.  There's nothing there to like, but how do you get viscerally upset about a beige wall?

Andrew Scheer does not thrill, he drones.  He's not the sort of guy that draws people to him through animal magnetism or even pleasant charm, he just exists.  He's like the nitrogen in the air we breathe.  He's there.

It's perhaps his greatest weakness, but at the same time something of a strength.

It's this empty quality of his that allows him to hammer away in question period on multiple occasions about the horrible dangers to Canadian sovereignty by agreeing to a UN compact on immigration, with little to no longterm damage.

Throughout the text of the compact it is clear to explicitly say it is both non-binding and does not interfere with a nation's sovereignty, it even clearly says that countries can define "regular" and "irregular" migrants however they see fit.

Scheer and the Conservative Party would have you believe otherwise:

"Andrew Scheer opposes signing on to this international agreement, because Canada must be in control of our borders and have full autonomy over who enters our country — not some foreign entity that cannot be held accountable by the Canadian people."

That's not some off-hand comment, that's from a part of the party's website where they're looking to get email signups to attract more donations.

It's the type of message that attracts the very worst elements of modern conservative politics.  The elements which are now becoming the very core of conservatism.

Maybe it's because he believes in this stuff, maybe it's because he's too much of a coward to oppose it.

It's this emptiness that allowed his campaign manager to provide IT support for, and sat on the board of the miserable hell site The Rebel, and somehow not carry the stain of that collection of far-right trash merchants.  Sure, the guy helped get the site off the ground, but Scheer says he won't do interviews with them anymore, so what's the harm?

Even when he's trying to show some kind of backbone and make himself out to be some kind of tough, there's something flat about it.  Just three hours after Jody Wilson-Raybould finished her first round of testimony in front of the justice committee, detailing the misdeeds of the Prime Minister's Office, Scheer was looking to put Justin Trudeau's head on a pike.

His demand for Trudeau's immediate resignation fell flat.  Trudeau is still prime minister, and after expelling some troublesome members, his caucus has closed ranks around him.

And yet, Scheer persists in our politics.  His party polls at levels of popularity similar to Trudeau's Liberals.

His most vivid policy is his opposition to carbon taxes, but that's not a policy it's a declaration of opposition.  Scheer has said he's got a climate plan coming soon, but he's been saying that for months now with nothing to show for it.  The easy conclusion is he hasn't released a plan, because he doesn't plan to do anything.

If you ask him, he'll tell you he believes in climate change, and he believes it's the fault of human activity.  But it's clear he's going though the motions.  What conservatives have learned through the years is rather than try and dodge the question of whether you believe in climate change, answer in the affirmative and then do whatever you want.

Look to Ontario where Doug Ford promised no one would be fired and no services would be cut because he could get things under control through "efficiencies."  He had to say it to win, but now that he's won it doesn't matter what he's promised.  Teachers are being fired, the axe is falling all over the provincial budget, and Ford blusters onward.

You can expect similar results in Alberta, where Jason Kenney has just won a campaign with a core of fairy tale promises about unilateral constitutional change with no hope of success.  He carried a number of candidates with vile views across the finish line.  His leadership campaign was being investigated for possible voter fraud and it's been alleged he was doing everything he could to kneecap his leadership opponent by letting a stalking horse do all his dirty work.

The consequences to both leaders has been limited.  That may change with time, but while the clock spins Ford and Kenney have power.

And this is the ultimate lesson for a beige wall like Scheer.  You can bullshit your way through a campaign.  You can make absurd promises.  You can indulge the worst wings of your party, and you can even get into some dirty tricks.

As long as people are angry enough, you can channel that anger to your advantage.  Fortunately, no one has ever been burned playing with fire.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


I recently learned of a rumour that an up-and-comer in federal politics, who happens to be an acquaintance, has resorted to some underhanded tactics to eliminate a political rival.  According to my informant, they apparently tricked their nemesis into making less-than-savoury comments during what they believed to be a private conversation, which they later shared with people who had the power to end this person's nascent career.  Of course, this probably wouldn't have happened if my friend didn't know said nemesis to hold these views already.  But when bozos won't erupt in public, you gotta do what you gotta do, right?

I can't say how true any of this is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.  If you get involved in politics, you'll meet people like this every now and then: people who will gladly destroy the reputations of others if it makes their own path to power a little smoother.  They might remind you of a certain TV anti-hero who has done much worse.  They might even consider him an inspiration, even if their version of his approach is somewhat Disneyfied.

This comparison occurred to me after I heard two-time presidential loser Hillary Clinton compare her own life in politics to a different program, after Democratic consultant Paul Begala asked her to compare it to one of two other programs during an event last week.  Over the next few days, this and the story of Canada's under-Underwood crystallized into a unified theory of political behaviour: Everyone involved thinks they're in a TV show, and the show they think they're in perfectly summarizes their attitude toward their profession.  Observe:

If the rumour about my acquaintance is true, that puts them squarely in the realistic/optimistic quadrant, or the House of Cards quadrant.  People in this corner have what they believe to be a clear-eyed view of what it takes to get ahead in politics (realistic), and are confident that they will reap the rewards of it if they do it well (optimistic).  Typically, they highly overestimate their skills as practitioners of the political dark arts and end up humiliating themselves sooner or later, as one does after leaving enough fingerprints.  This being Canada in the 2010s, however, it's doubtful that any of them will come to the fate of Francis Urquhart in the original British House of Cards.  (I cite that version because Frank Underwood's fate doesn't really count.)

The diametric opposite of the above perspective is where Clinton has placed herself: the idealistic/pessimistic quadrant, or the Game of Thrones quadrant.  Having been burned by one Democratic primary, one philandering spouse, and probably countless former surrogates, she had every reason in the world to be pessimistic by 2016.  It may seem bizarre to describe one of the coldly calculating Clintons as an idealist, but she was, at the time, about precisely one thing: that Americans cared about qualifications and psychological stability and would reward her for having both, if not for forces operating against her.  Most Starks and two Baratheons can tell you how that tends to work out.

The more cheerful version of this can be found in the idealistic/optimistic quadrant, or the West Wing quadrant.  This is where many political newcomers begin, and where an unfortunate number stay.  They believe that they are working in the service of just causes (idealistic), and that they will convince the electorate to rally behind it in turn (optimistic) with the right combination of messaging and statecraft.  Often, it is impossible for them to see bad actors and actions on their own side for who and what they are, leading to the blind loyalty that characterizes a significant portion of the Liberal Party.  If their side should suffer for their mistakes, the solution is always to double down, preferably after some stirring music and a Canadian Screen Award-worthy monologue.

And then there are the deep cynics in the realistic/pessimistic quadrant, or the Veep quadrant (or the Thick of It quadrant, for my fellow Britophiles).  They know the price of ambition perfectly well (realistic), but after witnessing enough incompetence on top of corruption on top of spite as far as the eye can see, you won't catch them dead paying it (pessimistic).  They expect the worst of both opponents and colleagues, and they usually get it.  People they know elsewhere on the spectrum will either join them here eventually or be crushed under the weight of their own stupidity.  Having given up on any previous lofty career goals, they remain in politics out of inertia and just try their best to get through the workday with minimal nonsense.  Or they run to the private sector while they still have their dignity and their mental health.

Rarely, you'll meet one of the true neutrals in the Office convergence.  For these people, usually nonpartisan civil servants, politics is just a day-to-day job, nothing more and nothing less.  They are the strangest of all.

If you are an elected official or you work for one, you may find yourself moving around this spectrum throughout your career.  Just remember this: there are far more heroes and badasses in fiction than in reality.  If you think you're one of them, you're not.

Written by Jess Morgan

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.