Friday 23 December 2011

Hyper-Partisan Nature of Globe and Mail comments

Tonight before I went to bed I watched the much-anticipated (that was intended as slightly sarcastic) At Issue vs. The Insiders quiz on the National, which I had recorded. I found it entertaining...as I always find both segments of the National.  Apparently it was much-anticipated by someone! Then, with the remainder of the news playing in the background I scoped out the headlines at Bourqe Newswatch.  I came upon a headline that grabbed my attention for it's complete absurdity.  Assuredly a journalist, of all people, couldn't be comparing Stephen Harper to the recently deceased Kim Jong Il?! So I read the article "Is Stephen Harper the Dear Leader in Disguise?" by Margaret Wente.
While I am sure that I have read one of Margaret's articles before I could not recall having done so; it was not as if I was reading an article by David Akin, or John Ivision whose articles I am quite familiar with.  I have to admit that upon first clicking on the link from Bourque I was expecting to find some ridiculous rant by some extreme leftist.  As I read on, however, it quickly became apparent that this was satire.  It was satire so good, in fact, that at first Wente had me convinced she was an extreme lefty playing to the type of crowd that stayed at the Occupy Vancouver movement the entire time.  She used the comparison to point out the hyperbole and absurdity involved in comparing Stephen Harper to a dictator.  She pointed out in a satirical fashion that his government, and his policies, are by and far, popular amongst Canadians.  She aptly pointed out that many critics of the Harper government, rather than providing feasible, positive solutions simply resort to calling him dangerous.  In the end she concludes that while she may not agree with all of his government's actions that the critics are doing very little to persuade her that he his not doing better than they could.
I enjoyed the article quite a bit.  I enjoy satire by journalists.  With satire you often run the risk of missing the mark.  Something which, although I sometimes enjoy him, I find Ezra Levant can be guilty of on occasion.  The funniest, most interesting, part to me, however, was in the comments section.  Several of the commentators seemed to entirely miss the whole purpose of the article and jumped on the wagon of comparing Harper to right-wing extremists, dictators, and American Republicans.  All of which, to a fair even-minded person is silly.  The funniest thing of all was that those who most often made these comparisons, made remarks to the effect that the majority of people are stupid and educated people wouldn't fall for Stephen Harper's tricks.  It left a bad taste in my mouth similar to the one I get after experiencing any sort of self-righteousness.  And it lead me to wonder...can Liberals (the party that is) recover from the smug attitudes that got them into the place they're in now? Making statements to the effect that democracy does not work because people are not agreeing with you because they are too stupid, misinformed, or brain-washed does not go over well with a voting public.
 Of course, this was only the comment section of a Globe and Mail article.  However, I do think the Globe and Mail readership still represents a large segment of Liberal supporters.  If politicians do indeed get their attitudes and ideas from the ground-up (the grassroots as we like to say) this prospect may be troublesome for the Liberals in that their handicap (smugness) may be deeper routed than one would think.