More Anti-Western Sneers from the Globe and Mail

Today’s lead editorial in the Globe and Mail is a textbook example of couched bigotry against the political interests of the West.

Here’s how the Ontario-firsters play the game: Anything that promotes the interests of the Imperial Center is described in positive, optimistic terms. Anything that isn’t Ontariocentric is cast in tones of suspicion and barely muted scorn. With these gentile bigots, it’s always in the tone and the implied meanings.

So for example, when she was a Conservative, everyone knew she was a lightweight. But now that Jezebelinda is a Liberal, she’s an over-achiever, bulging with brains and political skills. That’s the new opinion from the Globe and Mail:

She has clearly been a quick study. At yesterday’s press conference, she was a model of political control.

And what does it mean for Stephen Harper? It only shows again why he has rightly “drawn heat for looking perpetually angry.”

So what if she lies to her colleagues and plots behind their backs? What does the Globe and Mail conclude?

Mr. Harper is being disingenuous or self-deluding.

The Ontariocentric prejudice – the anti-Western bigotry of Ontario – works through what logicians call “special pleading.” When something works in your favour, play it up. When it doesn’t, sneer it down.

So in one breath, yesterday’s defection means everything: It proves that the Conservatives are social degenerates who will never be good enough for a nice Ontario girl:

Ms. Stronach’s decision implies that a moderate Tory can’t find a comfortable place among Mr. Harper’s Conservatives.

But wait, if Westerners become upset, the defection suddenly means nothing:

But to paint this as a slap at the West or, a more extreme possibility, as an argument for more western firewalls against Ottawa — Mr. Harper’s old rallying cry — would put too much weight on the defection of a single MP.

Meanwhile, what does the Globe’s fading ex-lead columnist make of this? According to Jeffrey Simpson,

In Western Canada, of course, Ms. Stronach was immediately pilloried as an Ontario MP whose switch diminished the likelihood of an early election that might have brought to office the region’s preferred party, the Conservatives. Her defection will be interpreted as another example of Ontario’s perfidy and self-interest by Western Canada’s political right.

But Simpson raises the truth only to dismiss it. Conservatives, he says, cant’ be trusted because they’re a bunch of backwater bible thumpers:

But the intellectual drift of the right – and not just in the West – is what also drove out Ms. Stronach…. The influence of social conservatives just helped split Belinda Stronach from the Conservatives.

See how it works? In one breath, it’s “not just in the West.” But the body of Simpson’s column is all about the rising influence of Western evangelicals. No Ontario candidate is mentioned. Simpson’s finger is clearly pointed only at the West.

Here’s the real message: When evangelicals enter politics, it only becomes a problem when they’re from the West.

That’s how it works with the Ontario-firsters:

Social conservatism is only a problem when its Western social conservatism.

Anger is only a problem when it’s Western anger.

Lightweight social climbers are only a problem when they join Westerners. When they come home, they’re brilliant and skillful.

Crimes by political parties are only a problem when – wait, the Westerners didn’t do it. So no problem! No reason not to vote Liberal, says Ontario.

See how it works?