Personality Cult

Take a gander at a Canadian Press story about the personality cult surrounding the Premier and you’ll notice some rather curious things.

Of course there are the cultists themselves who display the characteristic worship of the Premier, the propagation of the usual myths and the patronising and paternalistic way these people look at politics.  To wit:

“Blair”:…The one thing I can say for certain is that he has accomplised  [sic]the most possible for this province, and I see no leader that could possibly shake my belief in him and his ability to run our great Province.

…

“C”:…I can finally say that there is a premier that I am proud of.  I can honestly say that when I am represented by MY premier I'm not cringing in anticipation of his comments like so many in the past.

…

“Seriously”:…Danny Williams is successful because he doesn't need the office. He can make decisions that have better long term outcomes because he doesn't need the office.

…

By far the best example of the personality cultist view came from someone who signed with a pseudonym “Joe Blow”:

But Danny already has everything he wants when it comes to money. Now what he wants is a better future for his people, and he is succeeding in this.

[Lorraine] Michael wonders how long the Cult of Danny can endure?

Here is your answer.

Death will be the only thing that stops this man from ensuring that our province thrives.

“Now what he wants is a better future for his people, and he is succeeding in this.”  There can be no clearer statement of that view which reduces individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador to the status of children fit for nothing better than to be looked after.

Such is the essence of personality cults.

It’s also worth noting this comment:

"If anybody thinks democracy is healthy in this province just look at the voter turnout the other day," said Michael Temelini, a political scientist at Memorial University.

…

"As popular as (Williams) may be, we should be paying as much attention to the House of Assembly and its important role in upholding our democratic system. People should stop paying so much attention to the executive branch. But that's what happens when you get one party in power.

"What's going on in Newfoundland is people are just going to wait until Danny Williams retires. Now that's a problem."

There is nothing evident today that was not also evident five or six years ago but that’s really another issue.  The thing to note is that Temelini – once a very public Dan-o-phile – is now a solid critic of where the province is under Williams’ leadership.

Temelini isn’t alone in this.  There are a number of public commentators who have gone from praising the Premier to be concerned for the state of public life in the province.  Then there are the comments coming from all corners of the province that express some frustration with things in Newfoundland and Labrador after seven years of Danny.  Increasingly the grumbling is coming from within the Tory party, especially among the old townie establishment part of the Blue Machine.  it’s all still very much quiet grumbling of the sort where people are a bit self-conscious that word might spread back to Hisself and Hisself’s hangers-on. But five years ago, no one would have dreamed of even thinking of being disgruntled let alone expressing it.

Moods are shifting.

Still, some people quoted in the article seem to recognise  - albeit vaguely – that there is an issue even if they quite obviously don’t know what to do about it.

"Why do people put so much hope in one person?" wonders Lorraine Michael, the sole New Democrat in a Gang of Five opposition that includes four Liberals.

"We do have a personality cult mentality here in Newfoundland and Labrador and a lot of it is based on his personality."

That last bit is by no means clear.  The worship of an individual in the fashion seen in this province over the past few years speaks to a much deeper cultural issue  - a cultural disorder – rather than something as simple as “he is a sweet guy” or “he is a bully” or “he is very charismatic.” take your pick:  those are all descriptions of a personality but they don’t explain the bootlicking toadying of so many out there.

Nor does it explain the unwillingness of Michael and the four Liberal opposition members to resist being steamrolled by Mr. Popularity.  Just because someone is popular, even if he or she is actually that popular, doe snot make them correct in decisions. Rolling over on something like the expropriation bill, for example, simply shouldn’t happen in a healthy democracy.

Still, recognising there is a problem is the first step in finding a solution.

-srbp-

Cult of Personality, federal version

Margaret Atwood in the Thursday Globe:

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

Of course, it's far easier and far more effective to just toss a few bucks at the local "culture" club right before an election to get them to sing your praises.

And you can still have what Atwood calls a cult of personality.

-srbp-

Oh yeah, Pam's fried...just like a whole raft more

Telegram editor Pam Frampton has been writing about the Memorial University thing for some time now.

Her column on Sunday is not for the faint of heart.

She's fried.

Pissed would be a better term.

And she's got good reason, since she's discovered that sometimes people in government like to dance on the extremely fine meaning of words. They'll answer the question you asked - literally - but not even think about giving the answer to the question they know you were really driving at.

In the media relations business that sort of thing is something you do rarely. It's the kind of stuff you save for when they ask you about invasions from Mars and you are sitting on the body of a Venusian. No sez you, no Martians. The only justifiable motive for that kind of semantic dancing, in other words, is something of supreme national importance.

Even then a simple response like "we don't discuss national security issues" is way better than what amounts to a lie by omission:

In June, long before the Globe and Mail published its speculative piece about what was going on behind the scenes of the stalled presidential search process, I asked Joan Burke straight out: "Has MUN's board of regents, acting on the recommendation of the presidential search committee, brought any names forward for cabinet's/the premier's consideration?"

Her response: "We have had no correspondence from the board of regents and the presidential committee."

Really? So how did Minister Burke know there were two shortlisted candidates winnowed out from a longer list by the search committee?

According to Burke's public relations specialist, Nora Daly, "The minister became aware of the short (list) last winter/spring through routine contact with the chair of the board of regents."

Well, golly, I'm no education minister, but to me "routine contact" certainly falls under the definition of correspondence.

The problem with this sort of too-cute-by-half stuff is that it doesn't erode credibility, it smashes it with a battle axe.

Pam Frampton just won't trust Joan Burke and her colleagues ever again on anything. Sure there have been plenty of examples of other people being jerked off over the past few years, but until it happens to you, there's always the temptation to think it isn't really as bad as others portray it.

Then it happens to you.

And you wind up being done browner than a wedgie left in the deep fryer too long.

No amount of malt vinegar and ketchup will make that taste disappear.

And it won't disappear.

Part of what the public have been seeing over the past six to eight months in Newfoundland and Labrador has been the dismantling of the very comfortable situation between the news media and the government. Some would say it's lasted too long anyway, but basically, it stayed extremely positive for government civilized as long as reporters didn't feel they were being frigged with too much.

In some respects the change in reporting mirrors the considerable volume of critical public comment coming in the online spaces. Some of it might be planted, but with the opposition parties in the state they are in, they'd be organizational miracle workers if they could sustain the variety and intensity of the stuff turning up so far in 2008. People aren't shy to voice their disquiet as they might have been before 2007. The cause is irrelevant; it's just notable that there's is such a change.

None of this means that the government will collapse tomorrow. it just means the news media and the public have changed. Government will have to shift itself and start responding differently to the new environment than they have been.

Otherwise we are witnessing that start of something which could get quite ugly. It's not like we haven't seen that happen before. Reporters who haven't been able to get the Premier on the phone even though they know he's in town might ask their gray-haired colleagues about the days when they couldn't get Peckford at all even the Premier's press secretary didn't answer his phone messages.

Much depends on the man behind the curtain and whether he really plans to pack it in next year, as he suggested in 2006. Danny Williams might just tough the whole thing out for a few months and leave everything to his cabinet to cope with, if they wanted to. That would possibly meet his needs but, frankly, the long term prospects for his party would just get dimmer with each unanswered e-mail.

All of that just remains to be seen.

All we can say today is that Pam is fried. And if Pam is fried, things are not good for government and its relations with news media.

-srbp-

High Priestess of the Cult

Personality Cult, that is.

Pam Frampton, Telegram story editor.

Her column could scarcely be more wrong factually, it could have easily been written for the recent Tory campaign.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the news media is the New Opposition.

The Danny-approved, new style opposition.

No opposition at all.

Just breathless support.

-srbp-

The Cult of the Individual, Dannyland version

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.

...

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:

When it comes to premiers and prime ministers, I just don’t know who’s right at this point.

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 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.

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-