by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
June 25, 2004
Last Wednesday, the Globe and Mail in an editorial came out in favour of the Liberal Party. The paper’s support for the governing party is not in itself surprising. although some people think that the Globe is right wing because of its heavy coverage of business and its respect in the corporate world, the Globe and Mail is both small "l" and big "L" liberal in its editorial policy. What is striking about this particular editorial are the reasons that are given as to why Canadians should keep the Liberals in power.
The headline read, The safe choice is to do no harm. While it is difficult to argue with the proposition that harm should not be done, should this be the philosophy of the voters?
The editorial sets out the accomplishments of the Liberals since they took office in 1993. Paul Martin is given credit for improving the economy, cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. But then the Globe sets out Martin’s negatives, which they fairly portray as exceeding the positives. The current government is criticized for "failing to produce a serious effort at health-care reform," failing to confront the problems with aboriginal policies and failing to come up with a modern foreign policy. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Natural Governing Party.
The editorial then goes on to criticize Martin’s performance during the campaign, accusing him quite properly of being on both sides of the issues with the "intent of winning every vote in the country". The paper accuses the Prime Minister of being incomprehensible on Iraq and Kyoto and of swinging both ways on same sex marriage.
Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper is described as "adept at building bridges" for the role that he played merging the Progressive Conservative Party with the Canadian alliance. The Globe and Mail also describes Harper as intelligent, a word that is hardly attributable to Paul Martin, and one that is almost never used.
The reasons for rejecting Harper as the next prime minister is that he, along with the Bloc, would weaken the federal government and that a Harper government "might" lead the country back into a deficit. The Globe does not even fall for or mention the Liberal spin that the Conservatives have some secret agenda that will doom Canada to become an honorary if not real 51st state in George W. Bush country. The reasons that the paper gives hardly seem like good reasons to reject the Conservatives in favour of the corrupt Liberals with all the faults that the Globe found that they have.
The paper sums up their views in the editorial’s final paragraph:
"Therefore, we urge a Liberal vote Monday--not because they’ve earned the right to re-election but because, at the very least, we can count on them to do little harm and, at best, the near-death experience might help the old Paul Martin find himself and lead Canada more confidently into the future."
The Globe and Mail’s position illustrates not so much what is wrong with them but what is wrong with this country. The Globe, like many of the country’s liberals, strives for mediocrity. Reject the intelligent bridge builder because he "might" go into deficit, re-elect the bumbling leader of a thoroughly corrupt party and hope to hell he gets better.
It’s hard to imagine that a political party could get a weaker endorsement than Paul Martin and his Liberals got from the Globe and Mail.