When deciding to vote for Harper, I often see that people come up with weird reasons to do so. However, rarely this is because they really like the guy or like what he’s doing. It is as if they vote for him because they don’t know what else to do. They then come up with the following reasons:
- It’s the devil you know. Yes, sometimes, this is a sound approach. Stop complaining about what you have because the alternative could be worse. But honestly, we’ve had 10 years to pass a judgement on Harper. We know he could very well be the devil (especially since 2011 where he got a majority). This is troubling in a sense. People are saying let’s vote for Harper, even though he is very mean, because the other guys will be mean as well. Do you honestly believe this? Do you honestly think the other guys will be worse? In another post, I’m talking about the intention of the candidates. What you need to do is to ask yourself what are the intentions of the candidates. We all know what Harper wants to do: nothing. He just wants to stay the course on low taxes, no stimulation of the economy and just hope things will get better. The other guys at least want to try something. They are truly concerned for the middle income families and want to see their situation improve. I don’t know about you but I’m willing to take my chances with the other guys. I don’t think Harper will improve in a next mandate (especially if he wins a majority). If all, it’s probably going to be his last mandate and he will not be shy to impose some of his views because he will have no interest for the next mandate. I think if we get him back, we’re going to see the true colors of this devil and I’m prepared to bet that many Harper supporters won’t like it.
- He’s not perfect but he’s done some good things. Yes, I agree, he is not perfect and no one should be asked to be perfect. If at all, he is honest and he does what he sais he’s going to do. Balancing the books and a tight management of the government is not bad either. Those are the strong points of the guy and I’ll admit it, they are important. I could not treat anyone considering voting for Harper because of those qualities an idiot. However, consider this: the good things he’s done, who benefited from it? Who has the most to gain for corporate tax cuts? Who wins with income splitting? Who wins with TFSA? It’s unfortunately a minority of Canadians, those who have money. For the rest of us, we didn’t see the benefits of Harper’s measures, quite the opposite. The maritimes had a hard hit with the employment insurance, so did some other parts of the country. This was totally unnecessary as there were no funding problems there. He has deteriorated services Canadians enjoy (Canada Post, public service cuts, veteran affairs, long waiting lists to get access to services from the government) all of which don’t affect the rich but rather people who would need the assistance of those services. I mean, I’ll give you an example. If you have money, you won’t have any problem paying someone to pick up your mail at a community box for you. However, if you have mobility problems and are living on a tight budget, picking up your mail could become a challenge on it’s own. You see the pattern, he’s always cutting on the back of those who are already struggling to make ends meet. Therefore, yes, Harper did good things but over all, the good things he’s done don’t benefit the vast majority of Canadians. Perhaps you will think or have the illusion those measures apply to you. However, look at how much money he’s saved you. If you’re like the majority of Canadians, he’s saved you very little money and he’s made sure you have to work harder for your money.
- He is the best person for security. Yes and no. Yes, in a sense that he’s willing to put in place tighter security and be harder on crime. No because if we need increased security, I sincerely believe it’s a good part his fault in the first place. By adopting a tough line on terrorism and hitting the population of other countries, he is just creating more terrorism aimed at us directly. Don’t get me wrong, terrorism should never be tolerated and each country should say that it won’t tolerate it. However, is waging war on countries, often creating innocent victims, the best solution? Terrorism is born from the result of a war. War don’t solve terrorism at all. What solves terrorism is to have open communications, be opened to other point of views (without adopting them necessarily) and let the other countries live the way they intend to. If people are oppressed in other countries, it’s always possible to either provide humanitarian assistance, provide programs that help them settle somewhere else or even have some of them join us over here in Canada. It’s also possible to adopt economic sanctions on those countries. Dropping bombs on someone will rarely convince them that they should not come over here to engage in terrorists acts. You have to let them live the way they intend to and protect populations that might decide to flee or to make a stand. But you stop there. Another troubling element for his stand on security is how much he is willing to let go of basic individual freedoms to justify his tough line. For example, some manifestations could become under his definition illegal acts. There is a nuance to be made here. People have the basic right to express themselves and point out elements that they think don’t work in a society. A gathering of people is not something that should be declared illegal. If you start with this, then where will you stop afterwards? It’s a slippery slope that he’s drawn us into and we have to be very careful.
- He is the champion for the economy. Again, yes and no. To say he is all bad is an overstatement. However, to declare him champion of the economy is an overstatement as well. Cutting taxes and trying to put back money in the pockets of people was a good idea in the first place. However, in his implementation, he’s made critical mistakes. With him, it’s not what he does but it’s in the way he does things. You see, cutting corporate taxes was perhaps a good idea. However, why not make this tax cut conditional on some investment back from those corporations? Right now, corporations took the tax cut and ran away with it. He gained nothing. The cut to the GST was another place where we saw almost no difference. Whatever he cut, the provinces decided to get back from us. Granted this move helped the province get funding that they would have otherwise never got if the GST would have stayed at the same level. However, we didn’t see this money in our pockets. In his implementation, he has also failed to diversify the economy. He’s relying too much on the good will of the private sector. You see, the private sector’s main objective is to make money. The more money they make, the happier they are. I would too. However, they are not preoccupied with the well being of their employees. They have little gain with this, even if an happy employee is a more productive employee. They prefer to burn out people, throw them away and get someone else. Who cares, they have 5 persons willing to come to replace each employee. He also made one critical mistake: he’s put all is eggs in one basket, oil. Canada is too dependent on natural resources right now. It used to be good for a while but now we need to diversify the economy. It’s perhaps even too late as we speak and this is perhaps his most critical mistake, one that I just can’t forgive him. On that side of things, he was really bad for the economy. You see, although he is claiming to be a good manager, he has made critical mistakes, guided by ideology only, that we will all suffer from.
- He has a tough line on immigration. On that aspect, I’ll agree with him. People who want to come and live here must accept how we live or go somewhere else. He is completely right to adopt the position he is adopting. Perhaps, this is one point where I have nothing to say against the guy. And yes, I think it’s an important point to look at. People who come live here must not come to destroy our way of life. We have basic values which we want respected, period. This is perhaps a point that ties all Canadians in a common cause. Are the other guys worse? Well let’s just be faire and say that they don’t do as well as he does right now. They should perhaps listen to the message Canadians are sending and perhaps change their position on the subject.
Therefore, whatever the reason you decide to vote for Harper, consider the character in all is strong and weak points. Make sure you vote for him for the right reason. Perhaps you should take each candidate and assign a score to each point (based on 20) on see who gets the better score. For example, let me give you my scores:
- Devil you know (Harper 14, Mulcair 13, Trudeau 13)
- Did good things (Harper 12, Mulcair 14, Trudeau 15) I think Trudeau’s team has the best plan right now
- Best Security (Harper 13, Mulcair 12, Trudeau 14)
- Champion Economy (Harper 10, Mulcair 11, Trudeau 15) I think Trudeau’s team has the best plan right now
- Tough immigration (Harper 16, Mulcair 12, Trudeau 12).
Total : Harper 65, Mulcair 62, Trudeau 69
As you can see, this is a tight race. But if you wage in the general intention of the candidate towards helping out people, then Harper looses a lot of points. Therefore, you may agree or disagree with my analysis but when you go voting, ask yourself who have the better intentions towards you.