By William Markiewicz
Of course it's easy to judge after the fact but I am not looking for credit for my predictions. I just try to get as close to the truth as possible.
In his speeches, Dion sharply criticized Harper. Doing this, he focused attention first on Harper and put himself in the shadow like a critic who shines through the object of his criticism. He outlined that Harper lies, remains indifferent to the economy, to the environment, to poverty. Harper engaged Canada in the Central Asia conflict where Canada had nothing to win, only to lose – and he had to maneuver to justify, without conviction, that engagement. Harper won the election with no very significant losses. Why? Because people identify with Harper. They voted for somebody like themselves. Harper lacks empathy? So do most of them. Indifferent to the planet? "Whatever happens it won't be in my lifetime." Central Asia cost blood and money? "I am still alive and don't suffer too much financially." It could be better? "Why take a risk?" Suma sumarum, people voted for themselves and the status quo. When he wanted to break the ice, Dion should have talked more about himself. He could have found a convincing argument on how things have to be changed for the better and – oh – quickly and easily. He should have been less talkative and less flamboyant -- like Harper was. Harper has his faults? We all have them. Let's say something new. As the French say, "Talk, talk, buddy, we see you coming." The only candidate that promised certitude was Harper and people choose certitude; he was a known element and they assume that nothing worse can come. It has not been too bad up to now and the prudent voter chooses certitude.Back to the index of the Vagabond