Spend any time publicly criticising the current administration and its policies and at some point, you are bound to hear from the Premier's personal supporters.Your humble e-scribbler gets them once in a while.
They are predictable. There's no discussion of the facts at hand, rather there is puzzlement at why there is any criticism of Danny.
In the radio call-in version there are direct personal attacks on the critic's integrity and motives and continued suggestions that so-and-so is in the pay of one of Dannyland's foreign demons.
Lately, correspondents have taken to suggesting that perhaps you should run office since you've apparently got it all figured out.
Maybe some of us will. Maybe some of us won't. Some of us have alternatives. Some of us are just not so quick to join the nearest parade condemning the supposed foreign oppressor of the moment.
That's the marvelous thing about democracy.
It's called free speech.
While some politicians and their supporters may find it uncomfortable, it's what helps to keep powerful interests in check. It's what helps to promote peaceful change as opposed to the sort of political instability, abuse of public freedoms, and in some cases political violence that is found all to often in many of the countries high on the current administration's list of oil jurisdictions to emulate.
Telegram managing editor Russell Wangersky is on the receiving end of a letter in this Saturday's edition of the province's largest circulation daily. It follows a fairly typical approach:
It makes you want to laugh at those critics. Passiveness in politics will get you nowhere. Williams is taking a much-needed strong stand, simply put. Those who are complaining, for the most part, seem to be those who want Williams to shut up and go away, accept the deal offered after the contract. Complain as they may, I doubt it will faze him one bit.Wangersky responds in his own column in words that speak eloquently for themselves:
...
It makes you want to laugh at those critics. Passiveness in politics will get you nowhere. Williams is taking a much-needed strong stand, simply put. Those who are complaining, for the most part, seem to be those who want Williams to shut up and go away, accept the deal offered after the contract. Complain as they may, I doubt it will faze him one bit.
When it comes to premiers and prime ministers, I just don’t know who’s right at this point.The Telegram's editorial this week praises economist Wade Locke for putting some factual information in the public view. More information is always good when looking at complex issues. More, accurate information promotes discussion which usually leads to a sensible decision.
I honestly don’t know what’s right, and I’m pretty much sure that my grasp of the issue isn’t that much different from the 90 per cent of the people who have already made up their minds.
Now, I’m leery of bandwagons, especially the patriotic kind. Patriotism sells T-shirts and suppresses free thought.
I like to make up my own mind, and I don’t like the mindset that believes I should have my ideological windows smashed out for daring to not toe the provincial line.
So, what do I think?
I suspect, at this point, that Premier Williams may well have the clearest case — that he’s right in maintaining that a promise was broken.
At the same time, you have to ask yourself if it isn’t a mug’s game to believe the promise could be kept in the first place.
There is, more than anything else, the real politik [sic]of the situation.
This is a complicated little tangle: could a promise like the one Harper made ever, ever make its way through a minority government, tucked into a minority budget? Only the Bloc Quebecois supported the Conservative budget — would a promise made, and a government defeated, have served us any better than an equalization scheme that will apparently still give us more money than the restructured Atlantic Accord was going to?
Those are interesting questions, and ones that it is hard to find answers for — it’s easy enough if you just want to decide to back one side in the argument, but there has to be more to picking a side than just wearing your heart on your sleeve. That’s akin to voting for a particular party in an election because your father always voted for that party.
The jingoism favoured by far too many in this province currently is, of course not a new approach at all. The revanchist undertones to arguments about the federal government may be a new flavour, but the jingoism is - by now - old hat.
The Churchill Falls deal was unanimously endorsed by the legislature at the time. That's the deal, you will recall, which brought a tremendous immediate benefit from construction jobs but which was built - ultimately - around the idea of deferred revenues. It was only later that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador heard about the details of the deal and just how long the benefits were to be deferred.
That Premier at that time, of course, liked it better when everybody just fell in line behind him. He, too, disliked criticism and his supporters made his displeasure clear in a variety of ways. The Premier at that time made it plain too, how much he hated his critics, telling a media scrum that the Telegram had been taken over by a gang of illiterates.That Premier, like supporters of the current one, claimed that he wasn't fazed by the criticism, that he would carry on undaunted in his crusade to build the New Jerusalem.
How odd then, that the Premier and certainly his supporters spend so much time dealing with the critic. They never deal with the criticism.
-30-
