Spector Is Full Of Shit

Spector's latest post is completely misleading and for anyone inside QC, laughable. It can only have been written to mislead anglos outside QC. The QC media have been, until Pratte, universal in uncritical praise for his work at Copenhagen, even Lisée & Le Devoir, to Louise Beaudoin's mulish half-agreeing irritation. And the English Canadian media have been largely praising, with particular criticism & strongest praise from the usual suspects, Post in the first case, Star in the second. But taken as a whole, positive. Pratte wrote a typically smart nuanced editorial, and one can criticise Charest & his position in good faith, but to misrepresent Charest's coverage & political situation is really shitty, it's redolent of Antoine Robitaille's mesquinerie. If Spector wants to criticise Charest & his policy, fine, but to hide behind misrepresentations of Charest's coverage & situation so as to better diminish the man & his position among English Canadians is crap.

The title is "Why Jean Charest blew his (smoke) stack", subtitle "Faced with declining polls and worsening fiscal situation, Quebec's Premier is now also getting bad press for his Copenhagen performance". I was astonished by this subtitle and wondered what wave of Copenhagen criticism I'd missed, but then in the text it's "Across the country, for the first time in his career the man once known as Captain Canada is getting negative press thanks to his performance at Copenhagen." OK, "across the country" could just about be seen as negative spin based on anglo coverage, as mentioned, while mostly positive, there has been a fiercely critical current from the usual conservative suspects. Misleading spin, right at the edge being shitty, but not uncommon, unfortunately. But then he segues into Pratte's editorial as if this was typical of QC opinion on Charest's performance at Copenhagen, which is so untrue, written in such bad faith, as to be complete shit.

What makes Pratte's editorial so remarkable is precisely that, as so often is the case, he places events into a larger context and in doing so, speaks out against the large lazy consensual manichean view - QC pure & good, Others polluters & bad. Spector does Pratte a huge disservice by implying his editorial is representative of opinion - Pratte's whole value is that he thinks for himself and tries to put things in context, which often, as everywhere but maybe particularly in QC, means recontextualising that which has been de- or mis-contextualised. Pratte is remarkable because he is not a lemming. To imply otherwise is to diminish him.

The spin on "declining polls", "worsening fiscal situation", & in the article, implying corruption as a reason for refusing a public inquiry into construction industry, is crap. Each is true, in a limited way, on its own, but placed into context, ridiculous. "Declining polls" - given how high the PLQ were, and their situation as a 3rd term government, many a past Premier would have killed for Charest's polls at this point, esp. given the PLQ electoral machine & federalist ballot box bonus. "Worsening fiscal situation" - as everywhere, but since QC has coped with the recession better than any other Canadian province, in relative terms, and arguably the best in absolute, it's ridiculous. There's not a jurisdiction on earth one couldn't say is facing a "worsening fiscal situation" right now. And QC's better off than the vast majority. "Under broad-based attack for refusing to call an inquiry" - true enough, but as referenced above, re. polls, all things considered, it has not had the devastating effect among the public his critics would wish (I am not unaware of some unfortunate parallels, but Federally, constant 60+% pop. opposed & 4-5 party system gives as much hope as it restrains - the drip, drip is killer here, as more 2nd preference possibilities for disgusted 2008 Con voters).

I keep meaning to write some long pieces about Charest. He never seems to get a lot of praise, neither from federalists (inside or outside QC) nor, obviously, separatists. But like Bourassa, a bit, and Clinton, a lot, he smiles and wins, while others gnash away. Only Charest could do what he's doing with NB - PQ Govt would be politically impossible, as would a more overtly nationalist Govt, like Bourassa. He has won more for QC, from a QC nationalist view, from both LPC & CPC Govts, than maybe any premier ever (fiscal accords, Unesco, nation, every dossier). He's worked his relationships with the other Premiers & Council of Federation to QC advantage. The QC economy is in better shape than it has been in decades and he has mostly been able to quiet down the identity madness through different means and keep the social peace.

And to his enormous credit, he recently did what is almost unheard of and PLQ & PQ leaders should do more often and actually take on nationalist bigotry head-on, denouncing the PQ's recent "reflections" on language & identity, saying the PQ under Marois is becoming extremist, beyond any PQ precedent, and creating grave social dangers (text below). Given how intimidated by nationalist discourse politicians are in QC, this was truly remarkable, and underreported outside QC (maybe good for Charest, harder to do if anglos seen as cheering).

He is so Clinton-like in so many ways, though without the personal self-indulgence. Like Clinton, his many enemies are his unwitting political friends, as they just can't restrain themselves, and their excessive ad hominem attacks are in such contrast to his apparent sunny, smiling reasonableness. Clinton? More like Laurier! He is what he seems, a typical hockey-loving small-town lawyer with political ambition who has risen to the top. The swing voter hears the vitriol and then looks and listens at Charest, and since the vitriol doesn't fit, he plumps for Charest. He's been given two choices, and only one makes sense.

Now believe me, I disagree with a lot, but a lot, of what Charest has done and is doing. But I would never be so knavish as to misrepresent his abilities, accomplishments and position. Returning to how successful his government has been for QC, from nationalist, economic & social points of view, he is in many ways the truest inheritor of Henri Bourassa's vision of any Premier, using his pan-Canadian vision to greatly strengthen QC and, in his view, Canada (I would disagree, but my premises are different, ie., neither nationalist nor provincialist). I would argue QC's greatest Premier, and most underrated, massively so, was Adélard Godbout. Modern QC, its greatly increased welfare & freedoms, its whole model, started with him, and was continued years later. But if Godbout hadn't started it, would someone else? I don't believe in historical determinism. Maybe, even likely. But Godbout did, that we know. And in many ways, as Godbout himself was something of a Bourassa inheritor, one can describe Charest as being like Godbout, but twice reelected! (Godbout's enlightenment limited him to one-term).

Finally, I should mention just how shitty Spector is again. This sentence, "And, for Mr. Charest, that’s all that counts because this is about politics", is both deeply silly & maliciously wrong. First, as if anything any politician ever does isn't politically motivated to some extent, as if Charest's opponents & critics on the environment, like Harper, aren't pursuing some political ends? Laughable. But also wrong, as this is actually one of the rare issues on which Charest has form and does indeed care deeply. Named Federal environment minister in 1991, he was in Rio in 1992 and has always been a true believer. I'm sure Spector knows that.

Therein lies the clue to Spector's behaviour. It is in fact a great compliment to Charest that Spector & co. are so frantically distorting the record and attacking him. Here is perhaps Canada's best natural politician, hugely recognisable and credible, liked & admired across the country, Captain Canada indeed, and, with all he's won for QC, Colonel QC as well. He gets all the issues and can speak convincingly on the topic. Indeed, when Charest speaks on the environment, he swings the debate his way. It's precisely because the Con Climate Talk Killers dread his influence they are trying to take him out at the knees. He scares them and well he should. He'll smile that smile, grin that grin, and eat their hearts raw. With laughing eyes. But if any doubt me, allow me to propose that the Conservatives agree to a nationally televised debate on the issues, Charest against any politician of their choosing, federal or provincial. If they're so sure of themselves and Charest is such the loser Spector describes, they should relish the opportunity to knock him down a peg and demolish his arguments, shouldn't they? I can tell you Charest would relish the chance to have a national stage on the issue for his part. So Cons, anyone you'd like to propose? Hello? Excuse me, is anyone there? Hullo? Hmm, no-one, nada, zilch. Strange that, quoi?

Charest on Marois PQ bigotry:
Avec ses débats sur la langue, le Parti québécois « se radicalise » sous Pauline Marois, lance le premier ministre Jean Charest.

« Je constate la radicalisation de Pauline Marois qui pose aujourd’hui des gestes que ni René Lévesque, ni Lucien Bouchard, ni Bernard Landry ou Jacques Parizeau avaient osé poser, parce qu’eux s’étaient tenus loin des radicaux. »

« Mais là, Pauline Marois est endossée par un agitateur, qui s’appelle Patrick Bourgeois, et elle se radicalise et elle s’approche donc des éléments plus radicaux », a ajouté le premier ministre Charest, lundi.