PM gambles on voters’ avarice

Dear Editor

Regarding the forthcoming federal election, Stephen Harper seems to be gambling on the proposition that Canadian voters really care only for a little more money in their own pockets than for anything else. That gamble will pay off if  he can convince voters that there will really be a few extra dollars in their own pockets if Conservatives are re-elected, and if Harper's evident belief in the shallowness and gullibility of the Canadian voter is true.

Modern state governments came into being, in large measure, as a way of restraining predatory small overlords from total domination of the lives of their peasants while constantly warring with each other for more personal power. Some people might say that big government then served an important function. Gradually, the modern state came about — little by little — as the idea that the state should exist to make life a bit more meaningful and fulfilling for all, a government for the people.

However, this Conservative appeal to the perceived avarice of voters seems to bank on the theory that most people have bought in on the main plank in their ideology: that governments should do (i.e. “spend”) as little as possible, while depending on individuals' greed alone to keep the economy going. But, as in the words of a popular song, “Is that all there is?” (OK, that song came out more than a few years ago), I'm very skeptical.

The main problem with Stephen Harper's far right political ideology is that, while there may be a grain of truth in the importance of individual responsibility, that can't be the total answer to the good life for all, not any more than the theory government should be in charge of everything it can. Somewhere along the line, there should be a belief in the idea of loving our neighbours too, along with the belief in being reasonable.

Russell Lahti

Battleford