Canadian English Language Debate, 2008: Invoking the “Bush”
October 3, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
One thing I simply cannot get over is how often, both in the French and English language debates of the 2008 Federal Election, the opposition parties mentioned George W. Bush. It was truly ridiculous. The name has taken on mythical proportions for evil that are beyond anything I have seen since… Hitler.
Funny that, since left-wing moonbats love to compare favourably the two leaders (case in point, the “Bushitler” moniker).
Based on this chronicler’s liveblogging of the English language leadership debate, there were at least 9 references to Bush, involving every single opposition party leader. This blogger counted 13 or more. Did they all get handed a playbook before the evening started?
In order to stave off electoral mind-implosion and perhaps get our leaders to actually talk about policy instead of simply invoking bugbears, I propose the recognition of Edwards’ Law (named for me, naturally, as the proposer of the law). It is a modification of the famed Godwin’s Law, which is used traditionally,
“in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison [of anyone to Hitler or the Nazi's - Ed] is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”
I postulate that whenever a Canadian politician is compared to George W. Bush, the person (reporter, fellow politician, lobbyist) is automatically considered to have lost the debate or argument in which the comparison is made.
Note: this law only applies in Canada (for now) as it seems that only here (and in maybe Iran) is American, and more specifically, Bush-hatred so inculcated into our government and media that the name Bush can be directly related to the directors and implementors of the Holocaust. It doesn’t apply in Iran as there is not enough freedom to oppose such thought.
Come to think of it, is there even enough freedom left in Canada to oppose such received widsom?
I think Godwin’s law is more commonly known as “the longer any internet forums debate goes on, the closer the odds of Hitler or Nazis being mentioned approaches 0.”
Obviously that’s in my own words, but that’s the general idea that I’m used to.
Although, it’s nice to see you reverting to your old posting style.
In wiki, it mentions the traditional usage as my working definition, as well as its original usage.
I aggree that there has been crazy comparisons on all sides of the political spectrum. But I find myself not feeling to bad for Mr. Harper. He has done everything that he could to alliegn himself with the far right leaders through out the world, and some would say esspecially Goerge W Bush for the better part of a decade. Now that it’s not so politacaly convienient, he just like his republican counterparts in the U.S. are doing everything they can to distant themselfs from that faild leader. So I do think in this election that comparison can be and should be made. All the other parties have to suffer from past failier, ask any NDP leader.
Patrick, I am going to say something to you that isn’t meant to be personal, so please don’t take it as such.
But every single time I am talking politics with an NDP or person of the left wing of the political spectrum, when I make a point that they can’t rebut about the classlessness of the party or members they support, the immediate defence is always, “oh yeah, well they all do it.”
Every time.
Sorry, that is inexcusable. There was a piece in the Ottawa Sun the other day, by no friend of Stephen Harper, that completely debunks any comparisons of his ideologies or positions with George W. Bush’s. They are not anywhere near each other. Any thinking person who has ever looked deeper than parroting this rote “Harper=Bush” meme knows it to be completely false. In fact, if you look at a best fit scenario between American parties and Canadians, the Democrats are the closest fit to the Canadian Conservative Party.
As for your statements about Harper “doing everything he could” to align himself with far right leaders, I’d like to see some documentation on that. The facts speak for themselves: Harper has done more in the last 2 years to give Canada a distinct voice on the world stage. He has in point of fact, stood up to Bush more than once, but without alienating the White House like the Liberals were wont to do at every turn.
So please, I beg you, quit listening to the mindless chirping of baseless accusations and look into his record for yourself. And do not excuse the fearmongering and smear tactics that your party engages in. I do not accept such behaviours from my leaders - check out my post history and you can see very strong words written about when I see Harper and the leadership of the Conservatives getting off-base. I don’t write off classless behaviour just because “everyone else does it”.
Shane, I have to agree with you for the most part. Harper is not Bush. Those of us who have a hate-on for both Bush and Harper tend to conflate the two, but the truth is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really share much in common with the opinions of Canada’s left. The Democrats are only ‘less bad’ than the Republicans, to a left-leaning Canadian.
However, there are some similarities in style, if not substance. Never have we seen this level of inaccessibility to Government, or the level of character assassination ads that the CPC has used. Partisanship has reached new highs under Harper, and for me, the complaints of obstructionism from the right are beginning to resemble the accusations of anti-patriotism and ‘with-us-or-against-us’ attitudes from the American right.
I disagree. It was the Liberal election machine during 2006 that tried to compare a Harper government to a police state. It was the Liberal election machine that tried to terrify the electorate into voting against Harper for what - three elections now? What the Conservative Party has done with Dion is nothing compared to what the left has attempted to do to the Conservatives. Dion’s shortcomings as an overly cerebral academic and whiny public statements have simply been highlighted by paid ads against a backdrop of a media that refuses to admit he even has shortcomings. Other than that, I can’t even think of any “with us or against us” type statements you seem to think have been made. What I see is the continuing pattern of “Harper=Bush” therefore Harper must have made such statements. These are the things that every politician in those debates was hoping for. If you equate them enough, people start assuming that Harper really must be doing what Bush did, or talking like Bush talked, etc. Joe Canadian won’t be able to remember a single instance of it, but they “must have” happened or people wouldn’t be saying it…
We could go back and forth all day on attack ads and negative campaigning - the truth is that these were probably invented the day after democracy. You mention a 2006 ‘police state’, and I’ll raise you a 1993 Kim Campbell.
The Dion attack ads started long before any election was called. The CPC has been attacking him since he was selected as the Liberal leader. You yourself have pointed out their childish home page, always deriding Dion’s character, and rarely ever on-point.
The inaccessibility to members of the Government by citizens or the media is undeniable. Nobody talks without explicit say-so from the PMO.
As for the ‘with or or against us’ comments, I haven’t heard those words, but the attitude is prevalent. Harper’s complaints of a dysfunctional Parliament are hypocritical, because much of any ‘dysfunction’ was due to the actions of the Cons MPs. The fact that an Opposition in a minority Parliament dared actually question them or stop them did not sit well with Harper.
The antics of the CPC with regards to the election financing investigations by Parliamentary Committeses alone should be enough to understand what I mean, but many of those on the right are sure to rationalize their behaviours in some way, I’m sure.