| Author | Topic Options |
|---|---|
Robin Mathews
 Posts: 0  Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:46 am <strong>Written By:</strong> Robin Mathews
<strong>Date:</strong> 2005-03-15 10:46:58 <a href="/article/104658960-brian-mulroney-stevie-cameron-greed-ambition-and-canadian-fate-part-one">Article Link</a> If Mulroney didn’t create, he helped the political environment in Canada that gave it the Reform Party loonies, the growing Toxic Right monopoly press, and a culture of boastful corporate sleaze. If he could have fawned more intensely upon Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and then George Bush, one would have to think hard to figure out how he could have done so. Having lost the 1993 election in which the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to two MPs in Parliament, (barely escaping into private life before the vote) Mulroney continued his George Bush family love-in, not only having George Bush to his daughter’s wedding, but – according to reports – advising the U.S. government on its responses to policies and actions of the Jean Chretien government. Indiscreet, imprudent, ingenuous are the gentlest words one can use to describe a former Canadian prime minister who would do such a thing. The less gentle words may not be uttered by decent people. Discretion, prudence, and political sophistication are not words that come to mind with the name Brian Mulroney. William Kaplan reminds us Mulroney “was named a Companion of the Order of Canada, the highest and the greatest honour the country can bestow.” (p. 9) He was also given Quebec’s highest award. But Canadian prime ministers don’t normally seek awards, letting their reputations stand as the highest and longest-lasting awards they can attain. That’s just the problem for Brian Mulroney. Canadians in very large numbers have come to dislike him openly and unflaggingly and to allow him little reputation. That - one might suspect - is why he went seeking public honours. If the small settlement of Spuzzum in B.C. were to issue an award for Outstanding Public Probity, not much time would elapse – one might guess – before Brian Mulroney would be named as a recipient. Shortly after leaving Parliament, Mulroney re-met the colourful German Canadian, Karlheinz Schreiber, in (apparently) three separate meetings, at each of which Schreiber is believed to have handed him an envelope containing one hundred thousand dollars in cash. That is not a set of events in which one would expect a former Canadian prime minister to be engaged. Especially as little time elapsed before the German government charged Schreiber with serious offenses, asked for his extradition from Canada, and is still engaged in a court marathon to pry him out of this country. As I have written, political prudence is not Brian Mulroney’s strong point. That rather obvious fact appears to be one of the reasons William Kaplan changed his mind after having published the 1998 powerful defense of Mulroney called Presumed Guilty, Brian Mulroney, the Airbus Affair, and the Government of Canada. In 2004, Kaplan published A SECRET TRIAL with a different view of the former prime minister. Another major reason Kaplan turned to the writing of the latest book is the “outing” of Stevie Cameron, investigative reporter extraordinaire, as a protected RCMP informer. In both books, Kaplan attributes a good part of the public’s distaste for Mulroney to the work of Stevie Cameron. Perhaps. But Kaplan counts as Mulroney’s legislative “successes” achievements which Canadians, by and large, would not call successes. Free Trade, for instance, was not overwhelmingly approved, and the important heartland Ontario vote was swung with unprecedented corporate advertising money from the corporations. Kaplan touches, moreover, very lightly or not at all on Mulroney policies and events that anyone would have trouble calling successes. Mulroney was architect enough, all by himself, of the reputation he has in Canada. Indeed, I remember – even before the run-away Stevie Cameron (1994) best-seller, On The Take, was published – hearing an interview of Dalton Camp by Peter Gzowski on CBC radio. Gzowski asked Camp what happened to the fresh-faced, eager, attractive student Mulroney whom Gzowski had met years before and remembered with pleasure. Dalton Camp began to ramble about Mulroney’s virtues and to tell how people would approach Mulroney on Parliament Hill and he would do things for them (which suggests bad judgement on Mulroney\'s part, if not more). That is how I read what Camp was saying. Gzowski, too, read Camp’s remarks that way, I believe, for he quickly pushed Camp away – very obviously to me – from the subject. Having met and liked and conversed with Dalton Camp in the past, I wrote him a letter about the interview. I said that he might burble pleasantly about Mulroney, but Canadians wouldn’t join him. I said more was going to break about Mulroney regime scandals, that we were not through the woods yet. Camp wrote me back, reiterated that Mulroney was honest, told me there were things he knew that I didn’t (people who tell me that never impress me much), and ended with the rather strange remark that, anyway, when he – Dalton Camp – left his place in the Privy Council Office, there was no shit on his boots. That was the expression he used. William Kaplan in 2004 implies that we still aren’t through the woods, registering deep concern that millions of dollars appear to have gone to Canadians to swing the Airbus deal, without any success having been achieved in finding out more. Kaplan is clearly unhappy about the envelopes of cash received by Mulroney from Karlheinz Schreiber. He is unhappy about the offshore money (that even Dalton Camp complained of) that helped significantly to finance Mulroney’s rise to power. He is unhappy, too, that Mulroney appears to have been less than fully frank with him, author of the book in Mulroney’s defense. Finally, he is very disturbed about the story of Stevie Cameron’s “outing” as a protected RCMP informer and what it means for (a) police integrity, (b) political witch-hunting, (c) journalistic integrity, and, as the subtitle of his book states (d) the public trust. All that and some more will be discussed in Part Two of Brian Mulroney, Stevie Cameron, Greed, Ambition, and the Fate of Canada. [Proofreader\'s note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 16, 2005] | |
|
Calumny
Forum Elite Posts: 1032 Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:55 pm At this point in time, I'm not so interested in whether Mulroney, Chretion, etc., etc., etc., can be proven to be what most of us term 'crooks', as I am in knowing what goes through these people's minds.
I mean, do the Mulroneys of the world actually believe in their heart of hearts that what they've done is right and they left the country better than they found it? What I'm really curious about is the answer to the question of 'what happened to the fresh-faced, eager, attractive student Mulroney'. This interests me because the answer might clarify whether corruption is in fact integral to the system or whether the corruption was present in the individual before they entered the system. If the latter, why does our system allow some of these individuals to rise so high? This to me is the most important question, as without an answer we're guaranteed to see more 'Mulroneys' as time goes on. I tend towards the former belief, as politics seems to me pretty much like a luge ride in which the participant hasn't seen the course before they start. They may have some idea of charting their own course while at the top of the hill however, it eventually comes down to the choice of staying with the course as designed or crashing and burning. It takes a very strong person to enter corruption, whether it be at a police station, corporation or politics and remain apart or above it, particularly as one doesn't tend to become corrupted overnight. It's generally a slow ongoing process which traps someone without their always being aware or even fully understanding that they are not the same person they once were or hoped to be. Of course, it could also be that the 'Mulroneys' of the world are living in an entirely different reality than most Canadians and see their 'service to the nation' in different terms than we do or the 'nation' through different eyes than most of our own. If this is the case, why are we so easily gulled? Or, it could be that many who seek power are often insecure individuals seeking mostly affirmation, and as such are easily manipulated by those who feed that need for affirmation. And how do these guys unremarkable kids always seem to end up with such good jobs (okay, I'm being ingenuous here). --- "When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith). http://directdemocracycanada.ca "When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith). |
|
Calumny
Forum Elite Posts: 1032 Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:57 pm I think (know) politicians are people, like us, and like us they have strengths and weaknesses.
I think the Tommy Douglas types know who they are and what they want to do and are not seeking approval from their 'betters' to do it. I think the Mulroney types regardless of what position they achieve are always seeking approval and affirmation from those who they subconsciously perceive as being their betters. I think that Mulroney may have essentially sold out Canada for reasons that he convinced himself were both rational and right, but which probably had more to do with gaining approval from those he perceived as his 'betters' than anything else and for the privilege to join them on the playground. But, I don't know the guy and can't claim to understand the workings of his mind. However, assuming both are honest, the former type of person will be able to resist corruption better than the latter type because they understand who they are and aren't seeking approval from anyone. I think that the higher standard of conduct that society once quite rightfully demanded from those who hold privileged positions in society, be they politicians, doctors, lawyers, CAs, etc., has deteriorated substantially the past thirty years or so, Mr. Clinton being a prime example. I think it is very easy in some positions to become corrupt if oversight isn't there, whether its the cop who figures he's due more than his 60 grand for the service he provides and turns his head for a hundred bucks because nobody is being hurt anyway or the politician who justifies that a bit extra is due them for the 'good' they've done for their constituents, and it doesn't hurt anybody anyway. With no reference to Mulroney, I think we also need to realize that not all sociopaths run around killing people. Some enter the business world, some enter politics. I mean, if you look at the profile of many criminal sociopaths, you often find the 'seemed like the nicest guy in the world', 'got along with everyone', 'good neighbour' type comment. One of the basic sociopathic traits is the inability to see others as anything but objects which exist for them to utilize as they see fit. Many, not all, sociopaths are extremely adept at mimicking normal human behaviour and presenting a mask people want to see, in essence appearing as a better 'person' than most. The one common trait to all is no conscience, no remorse. Off the topic, do the 'individuals' we term corporations have consciences or feelings of remorse? In terms of the Alliance matter you mention and Orchard debate, yeah you really have to wonder. But then, you have to wonder why people kill each other at soccer games over matches between teams they neither belong to or profit from. People seem to form allegiances to entities for no reason that actually has anything to do with their own reality. I think Trudeau was another person who was, for various reasons, essentially incorruptible but, he ended up doing a lot of damage as well. When all is said and done, and regardless of whether it's proven in a court of law, I think most Canadians will always question Mulroney's integrity. As I mentioned before, it serves no purpose to damn Mulroney for being corrupt, the important thing, to my mind at least, is to understand is why, and why if he was not, so many are so willing to believe he was. --- "When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith). http://directdemocracycanada.ca "When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith). |
 
|
Page 1 of 3 |
[ 44 posts ] | 1 2 3 Next |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests |