blevkog

Two words:

Unitary Executive.

Bush loves the idea, so does Harper. That is probably the scariest part of this whole ordeal.

Conservatives love Freedom of Speech, right?

Unitary Executive...
I would have expected something that would more easily convert to a chant while wearing robes and such, but...
Good point, and great item on the topic on your end!

Sorry, I meant to refer to both of you - the way I wrote it (and didn't proofread it) didn't make that clear.
Both very good posts.

Hail to the chief!

I've worked for people who want that level of control in the past and it's never been a good thing. There's always a strong element of fearbehind their need for absolute control I haven't decided yet if it's because Harper's trying to keep a tight leash on the prominent bat-shit crazy element of the party or if it's because he's scared of what a lack of that control will do to him. After all, he already has to watch his step because of the minority.

Harper's roots.

The key to Harper's micro-management of his ministers might lie in his core political beliefs.

Perhaps this applies? In From Riel to Reform: Understanding Western Canada, October 26, 1999, Professor Tom Flanagan writes:

"Historians and political scientists have identified three major features of western politics that seem to perpetuate themselves across the generations in the various new parties as they arise. I would describe these three characteristics as suspicion of external control, rejection of Canada’s federal parliamentary system, and a thirst for fundamental solutions."

Harper's rigid control of "the message" shown by his latest directive, is consistent with his roots – if Flanagan is right, it probably springs from his rejection of the parliamentary system, and his thirst, as a political revolutionary of messianic bent, for fundamental solutions.

Messiahs seldom tolerated dissent with their teachings, even while they encouraged revolution against and dissent from the prevailing order.

Welcome to Che Harper.

I dunno, cat, that seems to be pretty inconsistent with the "grassroots" origins of the current Conservative / Alliance / Reform party.

Okay, I couldn't carry the sarcasm any longer - you're absolutely right to bring up Flanagan in this context. The "grassroots" mantra is a great way to cover an authoritarian message in roses - just ask the Republicans.

Sometimes I wonder how those Republican Senators and Congressmen can stand the smell of the little people long enough for the mandatory turnout at church and NASCAR.

Something else that occured to me is that Harper, being reasonably intelligent, knows he's only got a limited amount of time on this mandate. Being rigid about everyone staying on-message may be one way to ensure he accomplishs at least some of what he wants to. I think I just said that the PM, for good or ill,actually has a vision for the country. How long has it been since that happened?

You know, looking at the 'five year plan - oops, I mean five points - it occurs to me that these are all national in scale and don't really allow Ministers to address local issues, so anyone who voted Tory in the hopes that they would speak for their district just got hosed. Now, correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't that Unprincipled Bastard's whole raison d'etre for crossing over - that he could best speak for his constituency in the Cabinet? Guess Vancouver-Kingsway got doubly hosed.