Economy Over Ideology?

So Mr Harper has set aside his ideology. He’s filed away the manifesto (in his drawer, between the files “Latest cyborg processor updates” and “Plans for the 51st State”), and tossed away his modus operandi so he can better deal with the global financial crisis. Funny that his finance minister didn’t seem to get the memo. Tory plans to “review the corporate assets, the capital assets of the government of Canada to see whether they still perform a useful function for the Canadian people” as outlined my Jim Flaherty seem to, in fact, bear all the hallmarks of traditional conservatism. Maybe Flaherty is a little more concerned with upholding the election promise of avoiding a deficit than Harper. After all, Harper is not new to the idea of broken promises (The Accountability Act, backward changes to the Information Act, hoarding of power to the PMO). I think, however, that this is not just a matter of miscommunication within Harper’s Cabinet. As I have said many times, Harper views Canadians in a pretty derogatory manner, and this is another example of it. At the Conservative Party convention happening in Winnipeg right now, Harper is “urging party members to set aside ideology” and focus on getting Canada through tough economic times. And yet, the policy he announces amounts to a polar opposite. But, I am sure that if called out on this, Harper will point to his speech in Winnipeg as concrete proof that he’s dedicated to solving our economic problems, and not to his cherished ideology. Does Harper really believe he can pull off this two-faced, slight of hand trick and fool us, saying one thing and doing another? Unfortunately, he has every reason to think he can get away with it; he’s done it all before.
As to the matter of this particular policy, let’s look a bit closer. What do we stand to gain from this proposed slimming down of federal assets? Well, just as a drug addict benefits from pawning their mother’s wedding band; we will get an immediate increase in the government’s coffers. But is it worth it? The drug addict will be able to afford their next high, and so avoid the unpleasantness of withdrawal for the immediate future, but when that high wears off, they’ll be right back where they were and minus a precious belonging. Yes, if we sell off federal assets, we might avoid a deficit in this year and possibly next year as well (probably just in time for the next federal election). But when the money gained from the fire-sale runs out, we’ll be right back where we are now, but also missing some very precious parts of our country. As Flaherty is so fond of saying, Canada is not an island. We are in for tough economic times no matter what we do. Selling off parts of our country might artificially delay those tough times a bit, but it won’t provide a solution. The fact that we could be looking at coming out the other side of this recession to be met by a Canada where our most prised possessions are now in the hands of the corporate private sector that is largely responsible for our current mess in the first place makes me gag. The conservative party plan to sell off things like Atomic Energy Canada is the first step on a slippery slope that could end with the sale of things as intrinsically Canadian as the CBC (something held up as a symbol of journalistic integrity around the world and proof that government owned industry actually is good for the country’s health). That thought has been bandied about by the Tories far too much for it not be on their radar now, as they look around frantically for things to hawk. This reeks of the same kind of Chicago-Boys style, free market capitalism that put us waste deep in this financial shit-pile in the first place. Hacking off pieces of our country for short term financial gains is irresponsible, un-Canadian and EXACTLY in line with right-wing, conservative ideology. Wake up and smell the circuitry burning Canada, we’re being lead down the wrong road and the proof of where it leads is sitting just across the 49th parallel.