Telling All Of What?

The headline on the newspaper serving Canada's capital read: PM's ex-aide tells all. There's a gloating, misleading headline if ever there was one. Another one of those advisers within the inner circle of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's executive office. Another one upon whom the spotlight of malfeasance has shone. Another one who appears to relish his insight and the huge anticipation of political detractors to hear from him from his once privileged perspective what had 'gone wrong' in the PMO.

The minor headline read: Carson book says Harper wanted to shuffle Flaherty in 2007 ... as though this is some startling new revelation. Newspaper readers with a decent memory can recall that at the time something of that nature had been revealed. Prime Ministers do, after all, shuffle their Cabinet responsibilities from time to time, in the hope of giving a new impetus, appearing to do something of substance in moving a Minister from one portfolio to another.

In the hope, doubtless, that a better match will be achieved, that the Minister assigned to a new responsibility will jell better there than he/she had in the old one, distinguishing themselves, and in the process providing an improved performance, advancing the interests of the government and the country. Suddenly this is startling new news; profound enough in its implications to have been plucked out of a newly-published tell-all, to give it front-page prominence.

Somewhat like the cherry picking that was done with the publication of former Conservative organizer and confidant to Stephen Harper, academic Tom Flanagan. Whose own (temporary) fall from grace within conservative circles resulted from his having stated a personal position incongruent in its exculpation of viewers of child pornography with fundamental decency.

Bristling with resentment at the distancing of the Prime Minister with the publication of Mr. Flanagan's first unauthorized exploration of the politics and personality of Stephen Harper, this was Mr. Flanagan's obvious opportunity to strike back. And he did just that, to the best of his puerile ability. The Prime Minister of Canada has an authoritarian streak, and goodness gracious that is quite intolerable.

What he does not do, as the hugely respected (within Canada) American President Barack Obama states constantly is to remind the electorate during sober pronouncements, is that he is the Commander-in-Chief, and the President of the United States of America. Mr. Harper assumes that Canadians know who he is and what he represents; their best interests.

Now happens to be the turn of a formerly trusted adviser within the Prime Minister's inner circle. Yet another individual whom the Prime Minister trusted, former senior aide Bruce Carson. Mr. Harper does not abide being close to people whose actions betray justice and decency, and Mr. Carson qualified for the distancing that arrived when it was divulged that he had engaged in extracurricular corruption to benefit a mistress.

His revelation from his close personal recollection would have no relevance whatever had it not been for the recent death of former Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty. The esteem with which Mr. Flaherty was held by those of his colleagues who knew him well, and in particular by the Prime Minister belies any hint of malice on the part of Mr. Harper, but does point out his administrative concerns for the portfolios that are of such importance to the country.