The Revolution of ’10 and Onwards

My first thought on seeing Scott Brown elected to the United States Senate - to fill a seat that was last held by a Republican during the Truman Administration - was of Churchill’s reported reaction to Pearl Harbor. “So,” he thought, “we had won after all.”

The decisive blow to the Democratic agenda, coming one day short of a year from when Barack Obama took office, also brought to mind Churchill on the balcony of the Ministry of Health in May 1945. “This is your victory,” he told the crowd. And so it is today. To everyone who never gave up on the American spirit, to those who never surrendered, to those who were undaunted by the odds and the ceaseless and merciless attacks of the enemy: this is your victory. It is the victory of the American people and of all of the people, wherever they might be, who must have freedom and know the price that must be paid that it may be preserved.

But, having quoted certain words of Churchill, some others seem appropriate. “This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Hubris, that age-old enemy of the victorious, led the Democrats into error. They advanced on too broad a front, without a plan for victory. They thought that we were defeated and that many of us would be passive and weak. They thought wrong. Our line held. But the war is not finished yet.

At Marathon, the Athenians, fighting against incredible odds, stopped the Persian army cold. However, as soon as the battle was concluded the exhausted Greek soldiers had to rush back to Athens to thwart a Persian attempt to take the city by sea. Likewise, we must be increasingly on the alert for the inevitable Democratic effort to use their remaining forces to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

The real danger is not that the Democrats will now force the Senate bill through the House. Nor is it that they will delay the seating of Senator Brown. Personally, I would welcome either development as they would likely fail in either and, in any case, they would be politically suicidal to attempt. No, the danger is that President Obama will take this as an opportunity to pivot politically, put some distance between himself and the Democrats in Congress and perhaps even support those elements among both Democratic caucuses who would like to see new Congressional leadership. Remember: President Clinton was re-elected two years after the Republicans took control of the Congress. Victory now emphatically does not guarantee victory later.

In 1950, General MacArthur nearly won the Korean War by forcing a landing behind enemy lines at Inchon. The North Koreans were routed and their army was almost-totally destroyed in the battles that followed as the UN forces broke out from the Pusan perimeter. However, as they approached the Yalu River, half a million Red Chinese soldiers joined the fight and suddenly the Allies were faced with what MacArthur described as, “an entirely new war.”

What we learned last night was simple enough: Obama cannot and will not be re-elected if he runs on the issues that he’s highlighted and pushed over the last year. He can be - and he will be - however if he now pivots and draws Republicans into a series of the same sort of overreaches and punches into the air as Clinton did in 1995-1996 and, for that matter, has has happened to the Democrats over the last year.

We must internalize the lessons of the last few elections - and act upon them.

First, the American people are looking for change. They’ve repeatedly voted for it and they haven’t gotten it yet.

Second, the change that they are looking for is non-ideological, at least in the sense that the people who are swinging these elections are not voting based on ideology but rather on what they think might work.

Third, there is a widespread feeling of general disgust for the political class as a whole that is rather unlike anything that we’ve seen in our lifetimes - at least in America.

Fourth, Americans are willing to sacrifice if the reasons for those sacrifices - and the rewards that may come from them - are explained clearly and honestly.

I, for one, suggest that Republicans look abroad for inspiration. Specifically, I would suggest that they study the course of three Provincial Governments in my native Canada: Alberta in 1993, Ontario in 1995, and British Columbia in 2001.

Each of those provinces elected a new government (or re-elected an old one with a new leader, in the case of Alberta) that came into office promising a fairly radical reduction in the size of government. Each, with varying degrees of success, came to office and slashed government services, cut taxes, and cut spending. Each of them was re-elected. In Canada.

This was because voters, like I believe American voters do now, recognized that their governments were too large and too expensive. It wasn’t, for many voters (who, in two cases, had just previously voted to put admitted socialists into government a few years earlier) a debate about theory, it was a reality-based discussion. It’s easy to get lost - and to lose the debate - when you’re arguing the theoretical merits of smaller versus bigger government, especially since the liberals have pretty much all of the emotional cards in the deck sitting in their hand. It’s easy to win the argument that, “we cannot afford it” when you have high taxes, a stagnant economy, and massive deficits to cite.

The moral case against big government is hard to sell to a lot of voters. The practical case practically sells itself.

Second, in each of these places, conservatives were able to win office by making a good-government argument. They argued that they would be better managers of those government programs that voters liked than their opponents would. This should be the core of a winning Republican message for 2010 and beyond: government should do fewer things overall but, those things that government should do, it should be the best in the world at.

Run against government itself, and Obama can take up the mantle of the defense of downtrodden, etc, etc - rally his base - and maybe be narrowly re-elected against an unappealing Republican opponent in 2012. Obama can pivot from his current position and launch counter-attacks against “uncaring” Republicans and so forth. You want to freeze him.

Attack his base. Part of all of the campaigns that I cited above was widespread disgust at the antics of public-sector workers. Forget attacks on “welfare queens” and the like - those are yesterday. The welfare Mom with the Cadillac no longer moves voters who don’t already belong to us. The mid-level public servant with a Cadillac and pensions and benefits to match, on the other hand, makes a very compelling public enemy.

Attack the “community organizers” - who Obama can’t abandon. People don’t get, except in the abstract, Trillions of dollars. Let’s comb through the Federal budget and attack every single “community organization” that’s collecting tax dollars and gives us an opening. Those people won’t vote for us anyways and they’re Obama’s base - he can’t abandon them, no matter how nuts and repellant they appear to the public as a whole.

The battle is begun, but now the hard part begins. Today is a great day, but there will be trying days ahead.

Conan O'Brien: Simpsons Showrunner?

NBC President Jeff Zucker is reportedly threatening that, if Conan O’Brien leaves NBC, he will enforce a non-compete clause in his contract that will keep Conan off the air for three to five years.

Now I, personally, have never been a particular fan of O’Brien’s late-night show. What I am a gigantic fan of, however, is his work as a writer-producer on The Simpsons. He has the writing credit for exactly two episodes - both of which were masterpieces.

The first, Marge versus the Monorail is the story of Springfield’s ill-fated adventure in mass transit and features the famous “Monorail Song.”

The second, Homer Goes to College, is a perfect example of why I’ve been watching The Simpsons for twenty years. As a kid, I loved it for it’s silly jokes about college pranks and Richard Nixon. These days I love it for it’s underlying premise that, in O’Brien’s words, Homer is too stupid to understand the difference between reality and “bad Animal House knock off movies.”

So, if NBC does keep O’Brien from hosting another late-night show, then I suggest that Fox step in and offer him the chance to be the showrunner on The Simpsons. (Well, a Google search reveals that Cracked beat me to the idea, but yeah) I like Al Jean but, really, he’s been at it for a long time and might even welcome a berth somewhere up the the line. If Fox will do this I, for one, promise that I’ll be sure to watch their shows live and not fast-forward through the commercials.

Perhaps regrettably, The Simpsons is probably America’s most recognizable modern cultural institution. One need not pause for long to discuss the sad decline in the quality of that show over the last decade or so. It’s tough to say what exactly went wrong - whether it was the subtle influence of Fox’s other, cruder shows, whether everything that can be done has been done, or whether people are just tired of the show. Whatever it is, pretty much everyone who isn’t actually employed by the series agrees that there’s something wrong.

It is mostly residual affection for the early days that keeps me watching (when I think about it closely, I can see some far-off day in the future where the Simpson family walks off into a sunset, the soft version of the theme playing, while I shed a tear). But Conan could make them relevant - and great - again.

Not only would, I am sure, Conan be able to contribute some truly great material, but his presence might well allow the show to both attract back the talent that has gone elsewhere (if you look at some of the other great material being done in animation, the odds are that the creative force behind it will have some connection to The Simpsons) but also to draw top-shelf creative talent from other shows. What comedy writer, anywhere in the world, whether a Simpsons veteran or not would not want a chance to write for Conan O’Brien’s Simpsons?

Why not, Conan? What greater work have you, sir? After all, you’ve been doing the late-night TV thing for the better part of two decades now - and you’ve hosted the show to host in that realm. NBC has sealed their fate anyways.

Besides, think of it this way, the way things are sliding if you wait out the five years somewhere else, by the time you get back on television you’ll probably be allowed to scream obscenities live on the air.

And why not, Fox? The move might do more than simply give you a chance to return the show to it’s former glory - it would also give you the chance to get O’Brien under contract with terms that would allow him, once whatever legal entanglements he’s sure to have with NBC get sorted out, to finally launch you into the waters of late-night entertainment. Indeed, even if his non-compete officially keeps him off the air for half a decade, the likely end result of the criss-crossing web of lawsuits that is likely to result from this mess is a settlement that releases him from his contract somehow.

And, if they have compelling reasons to get behind the concept, I put it to you that all of us have a better reason: the man can make us laugh, one way or another.

Obama Appointee, Coakley Aide, Shoves Reporter

The scene in Washington, DC last night was ugly for Democrats in every possible way. The Senate race in Massachusetts is one that, quite simply, there’s no way in hell should even be competitive, let alone seemingly winnable for the GOP. The Democrats have found themselves in a perfect storm of failure there: a terrible national political climate, a faltering economy, an incompetent and unexciting candidate, and a Republican with a genuinely exciting personal story and an ideological profile that might bring him victory in the Bay State. Plus, of course, I think that everyone recognizes that it would be cosmically ironic if it was the seat made vacant by Ted Kennedy’s death that sunk health care reform. So one can understand why the Democrats are under pressure.

In view of all of that, one can understand why a Democratic aide would want to shove a Weekly Standard reporter asking about Attorney General Martha Coakley’s “there are no terrorists in Afghanistan” gaffe to the ground.

Following a fundraiser in Washington, DC last night (an excellent example, for what it’s worth, of the ineptitude of the Democratic campaign. One assumes that it was scheduled some time ago, a week before what was to be her coronation as Senator and they didn’t see a way of backing out of it at this point without being seen as on the defensive, even though it meant losing a vital night of campaigning in the final week of a down-to-the-wire race), Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack approached to ask his question and was ignored by Coakley.

At this point, Michael Meehan, a Democratic staffer and Obama Appointee, approached McCormack and shoved him to the ground. McCormack’s suit pants were apparently a casualty of the incident.

The first couple of videos I saw of the incident weren’t terribly clear. Frankly, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of the whole thing. Then, this afternoon, I saw this longer view of the affair.

However, it passes so quickly, that I wasn’t quite able to see what exactly had transpired until I downloaded the video and watched it blown up and slowed down. I hope that the creator of the video won’t mind that I’ve done the same thing for everyone else.



To review what’s in the video, this is the sequence of events:

First, McCormack approaches Coakley to press his question about her latest gaffe.

Second, Meehan approaches McCormack and makes physical contact with him.

Third, McCormack goes to the ground.

At this point, Meehan states, he helped McCormack up. I will grant this - you can clearly see on the video that he does this. However, in so doing, he maneuvers himself into a position to stop McCormack from continuing to approach Coakley. The body language does not appear to be remotely friendly.

As to whether that’s appropriate behavior for a White House appointee and a senior Democratic aide - well, I’ll leave that up to you. I’ll simply state that, were I McCormack under these conditions, I would file a police report alleging that an assault had occurred.

Minority of Canadians Opposed to Prorogation: Poll

I love how ridiculously slanted this CBC story on polling numbers related to the prorogation of Parliament is.

First, we begin with the headline. They can't say "majority opposes prorogation of Parliament", since that's not supported by the facts in the story. So, they come at it from the opposite direction, noting that there's "little support" for the decision, which is relatively unremarkable since it's probably fair to say (indeed, quite fair to say) that something approaching a majority (and I would argue an actual majority) have no idea what's actually going on.

The poll obviously didn't give them the number they wanted - majority opposition the decision - so instead they use weasel math to give them numbers that sound impressive that aren't. Here are the two key numbers they use:

67% of voters are at least "somewhat aware" of the decision to prorogue Parliament.

Of that 67% who are at least "somewhat aware", 58% oppose the decision to to some degree.

In other words, of the polling sample as a whole 38.86% of Canadians oppose the decision. To dig even deeper into the internals of the poll, 40% of those in the 67% who are aware of the decision are "strongly opposed."

So, of Canadians as a whole, 26.8% are "strongly opposed" to the decision. That number, it should be noted, is pretty much an exact match for the percentage of Canadians who voted for the Liberals in the last election - and an awful lot lower than the 62.35% that voted for parties other than the Conservatives (a point I've made before and I'll make again, I am sure).

Not only does a majority of the electorate either support or not care about the prorogation, but the point cannot be made often enough that it's not necessary (or even, in my opinion, desirable) under the present conditions for the Conservatives to be making decisions that win the favour of a majority of the electorate - if the Tories govern in such a way as to win the approval of 40% of Canadians they can be in government pretty much indefinitely.

The Massachusetts Miracle

Rarely has history delivered to us an opportunity as sweet as the one that now lies before us. The election of Scott Brown to represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States Senate would represent the most comprehensive rejection imaginable of the abomination that the Democratic Party is attempting to force down the throats of the American people. Imagine: the only state that voted for McGovern could vote to send a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. Yes, we can.

Public Policy Polling, in a brand new poll out today, has Brown - presently one of the handful of Republicans in the Massachusetts State Senate - in the lead by a single point. Earlier this week, a poll from Rasmussen showed Brown trailing his Democratic opponent, State Attorney General Martha Coakley, by nine. Again - this is in Massachusetts.

A victory by Scott Brown next Tuesday would mark the end of the Democratic health care bill. Make no mistake about it - for all of the talk already swirling around Washington about last-ditch end runs to push through a bill in the event of a Republican victory - there is absolutely no way that you’ll find sixty votes in the Senate or two hundred and eighteen in the House for anything that even remotely resembles the present bill if Massachusetts sends a Republican to the Senate for the first time in thirty-eight years. A GOP victory there would be a political H-Bomb. (Indeed, as with a 1 Megaton warhead, a near-miss here might well be as good as a win).

Consider the practical politics. If we win, we win. And even if we do not, a narrow defeat by Brown might win us a dozen seats in the Congress by inspiring wavering Democratic Congressmen and Senators to call it a career.

The conditions are ripe for a Massachusetts miracle:

Republicans have the right candidate for this race in the form of Scott Brown - a moderate with a proven record of winning in deep blue areas but without, it would seem, a history of attempting to curry favour by blatant appeasement of the left. Brown, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard and an attorney, is attractive and has a sort of neighborly appeal that is excellently conveyed in ads that show him touring the state in his truck. He’s a family man with a daughter who was an American Idol semi-finalist.

There’s more to that. This man fights. It takes courage to run for office as a Republican in as fiercely liberal and partisan place as this. When faced with obscene attacks from socially liberal fascists who hurled obscenities at him (and his daughter) for not supporting gay marriage, Brown called out the attackers by name.

Conditions in the state are bleak. If you punch “Massachusetts” into Google the first two suggestions you’ll get, after the state’s motor vehicle branch, are “Massachusetts lottery” and “Massachusetts unemployment.” Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, elected with the help of Obama’s guru David Axelrod using a prototype version of the “hope and change” campaign, has an approval rating of 34%.

More than that, Democrats are saddled with, in the form of Coakley, about as unappealing a candidate as one can imagine. A careerist Democratic hack, her most notable accomplishment, prior to sweeping into the AG’s office on the Democrat ticket, was working to keep an obviously innocent man, convicted of nonsensical charges of “Satanic ritual abuse”, in prison. She’s run a lazy campaign, seemingly hoping to coast into the Senate.

Many Republicans are less-than-eager to engage in this campaign, for fear of being seen to try and fail in a hopeless state. “Why waste money,” they ask, “in a bluest-of-the-blue state where defeat seems certain?”

Well, I put it to you that the chance for a political Inchon is too enticing to pass up. With one deft move we may position ourselves behind the enemy’s lines and roll up their entire position. This may not be the only chance to defeat the Democratic effort to socialize and bankrupt America - but it sure is the cleanest. One shot, one kill and, if we do lose, it’s Massachusetts and no one ever expected that we would win anyways.

So long as brave Republicans - and there are Republicans in Massachusetts - are willing to fight, how can we abandon them? Our brethren are already in the field, why stand we here idle? Consider this: given the anticipated turnout for a Special Election, we could send Scott Brown to the Senate in a landslide if only half of the people in the state who voted for George Bush in 2004 were to turn up and vote.

More than two centuries ago it was a distant relation of mine, Captain John Parker, who commanded the militia at the Battle of Lexington. On his orders the men under his command stood their ground and fired on the British regulars. As America’s spirit of liberty was born in Massachusetts, let it be preserved there as well.

Now is time. Oliver Cromwell once advised, “You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still.” This is apt.

Those of spirit all across the land, all across the world, can assist in this endeavor. The task before us in this war of the secret warriors is to spread the word, as far and as wide as is possible, of what we are doing and what we may achieve. By Facebook, by Twitter, by e-mail, by phone - on the air and in the streets - one by one may we recruit to our banner those willing to stand their ground.

There are those in this world who say that the United States is finished as a world power - that it will be just another country - but together you may yet prove them wrong.

Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Obama’s Stalingrad

As we enter the second year of the Obama Presidency, with a castrated health care bill limping towards the finish line, we are left with a vexing question: how did this much-heralded savior, with a super-majority in the Congress, virtually the entire media on his side, overwhelming goodwill overseas, and stratospheric approval ratings fail so quickly and comprehensively?

The Health Care bill may well prove to be Obama’s Stalingrad. His forces having advanced against a disorganized and poorly-led opponent only to discover that the enemy possessed surprising strategic depth. Rather than adjusting to the situation they continue to fight on, wasting resources that might have proven to be the key to victory on other fronts.

That might be a unique way of putting it, but I think that it’s apt and that it goes to a central reason for the failure of the Obama Administration: none of its strategists seem to have the poetry of war in their hearts. By this I mean not merely dreams of military glory, but the deeper understanding of history that allows one to understand the subtle twists of fate that guide the destiny of men. Having brought so much of his campaign team into the White House - people who were politically born on third believing that they hit a triple - Obama appears to lack the valuable counsel in his inner circle of anyone who has truly thought deeply on the lessons of the past.

You might wish to point out to me that the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad and that the bill is likely to pass. Regarding the latter point - we’ll see. As to the former I would suggest to you that the passage of the neutered remnant of the original plan to remake the entire health care system - a plan that raises taxes now, offers no benefits to the middle class, and pays real benefits to a group of people who either don’t vote or mostly vote Democratic already years down the road - is no more a victory than the extraction of some troops from the pocket was one.

Before I return to that thought, we should consider whether it is a fair judgement to describe the Obama Administration, up until this point in time, as a failure? I believe that it is.

In a single year Obama’s approval ratings have fallen farther than those of any other new President. That might be an acceptable loss if he had accrued disapproval while making some sort of structural policy changes that offered the potential for long-term gain, but he has not. At the end of his first year in office the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still ongoing, Guantanamo Bay is still open, much of the ‘stimulus’ money has already been spent and the economy is still sputtering, GM is still failing, none of his diplomatic initiatives have had any positive effect whatsoever, no new financial regulation has been undertaken, and even his signature health care bill - already shredded by the Congress - has yet to become law. If that is not comprehensive failure, I don’t know what is.

Polls now not only give Obama an average approval rating of lower than 50%, but they also show that a race between him and George W. Bush would be a toss-up. They show him and the much-maligned Sarah Palin in a dead heat. That, given where we were a year ago, is the definition of failure.

Could Obama have wrung a victory out of the last year? Absolutely. If he and his advisors had grasped the opportunity that they had alluded to - a crisis truly being a terrible thing to waste - and had convinced and then executed a strategy for pushing through an agenda while waging war against the Republican Party they absolutely could have won.

First, if they were determined to go with health care as an issue (and, were I a Democrat, I would have), then they should have done it first and presented it as a core economic issue.

They should have begun the campaign for health care reform on or before January 20th.

They should have pitched the health care reform battle in economic terms - with the argument being made that the present health care system is sapping the ability of American companies to compete globally and driving jobs overseas while, at the same time, draining consumers of the money they need to reflate the economy. In a classic sleight-of-hand health care should have been presented as an economic issue.

All of the sob stories didn’t work because, first, most people who want to make public policy based on them are already Democrats and, second, tales of other people’s woes don’t sell when people are worried about themselves. Health care as a means to create jobs, to make business more competitive, and to put more money into your pocket - that’s a message that would have sold a lot better.

Second, they should have used the Obama brand (while it had value) to drive the plan, rather than outsourcing it to the Congress. Leaving the health care plan in the hands of the Democrats in Congress was, frankly, an incredibly stupid decision. Obama should have come out on the first day with a plan that consisted, at its core, of a half dozen simple and easy-to-understand points. Then they should have hammered at those points as the “Obama Plan.” Instead, they let health care turn into a Congressional sausage-making fest - a process that gained them absolutely nothing.

Third, in terms of what was in the plan, they should have swung for the fences. A single-payer plan, or something like it, would offer the most long-term political gain the Democrats because it would massively increase the number of public sector workers and the overall dependence of the population on the government. Also, unlike the present bill, it would be damned hard to undo.

Instead, the Obama people bumbled throughout the year - letting themselves be led rather than leading - finding themselves a year older and without most of their political capital holding the bag for a bill that no one believes is satisfactory. Instead, they found themselves getting drawn into bizarre struggles with Republican political figures that offered them absolutely practical gain. The better part of a year on, does anyone have any idea why the Obama people through it would be a good idea to go to war against Rush Limbaugh?

Does anyone have any good ideas as to the political reasoning that went into the gigantic “Stimulus” bill? They blew the better part of a Trillion dollars to give the economy a jolt that’s going to wear off before the mid-term elections and, in the process, probably ended up costing a number of the people who voted for it their seats.

A smarter approach would have been to break the bill up into a series of regional and sectoral stimulus bills - perhaps at a rate of one a month or so. Not only would this have provided more sustained aid to the economy, but it would also have created the all-important appearance of Obama moving from victory to victory while giving him and Congressional Democrats a chance to pander to various constituencies. At the same time, it would also probably have saved the Democrats some Congressional seats since this approach would allow some members of Congress to vote against all of the wasteful spending while simultaneously voting for those obviously non-wasteful projects that happen to help the people who voted for them.

Rather than move strategically in order to enact their agenda, the Obama people - because their egos were so inflated from their fluke win last November - tried to bluff and bully their way through the thing. They have failed miserably. Obama’s first year in office offered them a rare “unlocked wheel” moment in American politics where they might have shifted the centre of political life far to the left and forced their opponent to reposition or lose all relevance.

Indeed, while Obama’s reign may continue, the threat that he might fundamentally transform the nation is receding as the political calendar moves forward. His first year having passed, this one will be about the Congressional elections, then the next two about his re-election campaign and then, even if he does win in the end, come January 20th, 2013 he’ll be a lame duck.

Anti-Prorogationists and Birthers

The largely-irrational fury provoked by the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament brings to mind nothing so much as the fevered rantings of those opponents of President Obama who have concocted bizarre conspiracy theories about an alleged Kenyan birth. Don’t get me wrong, I despise the current President as much (and probably much more than) the average conservative, but those people are nuts. Equally so, most of the people on the internet who are responding to the Prime MInister’s decision to prorogue Parliament as though he had forced the Pope to crown him as Emperor Stephen I are, to the clear-eyed observer, on the verge of some strange collective mental breakdown.

Up to the present those rending their garments over it have already invoked the French Revolution and the English Civil War in the promotion of their holy cause. I find it hard to imagine how these people get by in everyday life: people seemingly so ready to launch an insurrection over so minor an issue must be difficult to deal with - prepared as they are to respond to slow service at Starbucks with a re-enactment of the Third Punic War (which, for those of you who happen to have the misfortune to be Liberals, I assure you is not nearly as sexual as it sounds).

Of course, one suppose that it is also possible that they fail to grasp the implications of what they speak. That is, of course, the most fundamental flaw of democracy - the damage that may be wrought by people with just a little bit of information. As I pointed out to someone the other day, the most stunning indictment of the whole practice I can think of is that you just know that, somewhere out there in the United States, someone voted for John Edwards in the belief that America would be aided by having someone capable of communicating with the dead as its leader.

One wonders what the motivating force behind this temper tantrum is. I hear a lot of ranting about how MP’s need to “get back to work” without any specific idea of what that work would be. Are there laws that Liberal MP’s are about to pass? Of course not. I would put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that legislators are one group of people that we don’t have to have doing work for the sake of work insofar as most legislation tends to restrict individual liberty. If the best reason you can think of to have the House in session is the Afghan detainee matter then I, for one, would rather keep the cash - I, along with the overwhelming majority of Canadians, don’t give a damn about what happened to terrorists at the hands of their own people.

Admittedly, some of it is genuine ignorance. One commentator at the Facebook group against prorogation proposed that MP’s should be paid per law they pass - legislative piece-work. That may be the stupidest idea that I’ve ever heard and I am an avid supporter of the Darwin Awards. The same holds true for the Birthers - some of them are just plain dumb. But most of them are smart enough to know better - and the same holds true in this country.

Part of it is clearly an internet effect. Isolated people who, previously, would have kept to themselves or been part of a small group can find eachother and cluster. That’s clearly a major part of the “Birther” thing and it’s equally-nutty partner the 9-11 Conspiracy theory. And that’s part of what’s going on here too - the most partisan Liberals and New Democrats can all cluster. However, another part that is very visibly in play here is what I would describe as the emotional amplification cycle. People who are already on edge gather together and then key eachother up. Thus Liberals and their allies, already in a state of perpetual outrage because they believe that they have been deprived of their God-given right to rule the rest of us, manage to turn what would otherwise be a bit of Parliamentary trivia into THE BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT EVER HAPPENED IN THE WORLD EVER(TM). It’s a self-reinforcing process. Person A is agitated and talks to Person B who makes them more agitated and so forth.

The other similarity here is that a lot of this is driven by re-directed anger. Let’s face it - a lot of the more fanatical “Birther” people really are just angry that one of “those people” is the President and are in search of a somewhat more socially acceptable way of expressing it. Similarly, many on the Canadian left harbour an inchoate and inexpressible rage against the Prime Minister because he is, in their minds, a usurper, since only Liberals are entitled to rule the country. Since most of these people have enough sense to know that publicly declaring that, “the idea of a Prime Minister who isn’t a Liberal is fundamentally un-Canadian” they have instead made a habit of proclaiming that everything he does is somehow a violation of some basic democratic principle, a reflex rooted in their unspoken belief that his mere incumbency in office is some vast disturbance in the force.