Out-of-step Americans

Paul Martin today called a caucus meeting and warned his minions against making “incendiary” statements in the wake of the US election result. “I know this sucks, but let’s just make the best of it, OK?” Way to go Paul, except that Carolyn Parrish skipped the meeting and, a few moments after its conclusion, traipsed into the House to deliver a “Member’s Statement” on the US election results:

Parrish: U.S. voters ‘out of step’

Now, “Member’s Statements” is usually a joyous time in the House, where MPs can congratulate pee wee hockey tournament winners and outstanding contributions to cheese festivals and other wonderful happenings in their ridings. Sometimes an MP will rise to say something to the effect of, “members opposite are nothing short of corrupt bandits and home-wreckers,” or, “members opposite are nothing short of sexless religious fanatics,” etc. etc.. But they are generally party-poopers; partisanship is on tap for Question Period, which immediately follows the statements.

Not so for Ms. Parrish. For her, partisanship is a global endeavor, and a personal one. This is not the sort of orator, after all, who will spellbind the masses with her wit and sophistication - her rhetorical arsenal has in the past consisted of the terms “Damn Americans,” “bastards,” and “idiots.” And it could hardly be considered a high-brow compliment when she said of a female journalist: “I like that you’re tough and no-nonsense…As a straight-shooter, you write like a man [emphasis added]. You probably cuss, drive aggressively and are brutally honest.”

And so: Ms. Parrish revealed in her member’s statement that she was “dumbfounded” (which should surprise no one). She was struck by the extent to which Americans are “completely out of step with most of the free world.” And she generously offered this bit of freelance psychological assessment: “I guess it’s a reflection of the profound psychological damage of 9-11.”

Without descending to her level of debate, duh! Ms. Parrish must have missed the segment of the American election campaign (those last eight months) where foreign policy, and specifically a pre-occupation with anti-terrorism efforts, dominated the election campaign. Furthermore, to what extent is it fair-minded to refer to Americans’ reaction to 9/11 as “psychological damage?” Are American anti-terrorism efforts a result of an irrational pathology on the part of US citizens, presumably one that could be cured after a few sessions with a therapist? If Ms. Parrish truly believes this, then she must also have missed the events of 9/11.

Connie Woodcock was particularly perceptive in critiquing Parrish’s no-holds-barred, demagogic appraisals of Americans:

“Now the fact is, the U.S. missile defense plan is seen by many Canadians, not just Liberals, as stupid and/or dangerous and/or unnecessary, something we don’t want to get involved in.

As well, an awful lot of Canadians don’t like U.S. President George Bush and/or his policies. But that doesn’t mean we want to express loathing for all things American. And we certainly don’t want our MPs doing so whenever they’re looking for attention.”

Exactly.

And, as a grand finale, Parrish ascended her Liberal pulpit of sanctimony and informed President Bush of his priorities:

“Now, Parrish is urging Bush to dump his ballistic missile program, suggesting his immediate concern should be getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I would hope that he’d concentrate on getting the U.S. out of those two problems they’ve got,” she said.

“I think his immediate concern should be where he has soldiers dying.”"

How moving to see Ms. Parrish express such deep concern for those damn Americans, those bastards, those idiots, those anachronistic lunk-heads that are so out-of-step with the rest of civilization. Undoubtedly she would also tend to a dog with a broken leg or a bird with a broken wing. What else would you expect from a person possessed of such compassion for stupid animals?

To say that Ms. Parrish is an idiot, while perfectly accurate, would be to commend her manner of debate. But any effort to say something more would be to commend her unfortunate existence as a public figure. Suffice it to say that Mr. Parrish is a back-bencher with a rightfully non-existent chance of becoming a minister. That her public persona is tied exclusively to these sorts of extreme, tired statements is in itself sad, all the more so because Parrish seems not to realize this and persists in making such statements.

Demagogues always pass, and hopefully the voters of Mississauga will relieve us of this one in the next federal election, whenever it comes.