Mock Bloc Shock

I guess there's nothing really surprising about this op-ed piece by Tom Flanagan -- except perhaps for the measured tone and rational content of the opening paragraphs, given that Flanagan is Stephen Harper's ideologue-in-chief, a denialist moneylaunderer, and an all-purpose creep. But then -- wait for it -- we get this explanation of why the G-G should not consider asking the Coalition to form a government, normal constitutional practice notwithstanding:

The Bloc is not a party comme les autres. It rejects the Canadian constitutional order and is devoted to achieving the separation of Quebec from Canada.

...Because they cast votes in the House of Commons, other parties must at times make common cause with them on particular issues; otherwise, nothing would get done in a minority Parliament.

But it is another thing altogether to ink a long-term agreement that makes such a party a pivotal supporter of a coalition government. Any politician who says he cannot see the difference has just demonstrated why he should not become prime minister.

... it is preposterous to install a Bloc-based coalition in power without giving voters a chance to discuss it.

See, the problem here is that everybody now knows that the Conservatives themselves solicited the formal support of the Bloc in 2004, hoping to oust the Liberals in a similar minority situation -- and that the Alliance (the Alliance!) thought about doing the same thing in 2000:

The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government's line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc.

What's fascinating is Flanagan's response to this embarrassment, because -- because there isn't one. At all. No explanation of how those cases were different; no casuistry; no flimflam about extenuating circumstances, no distancing, no embarrassed softpedaling, nope nada nothing. Because for these guys, even when they're writing an op-ed for a wide circulation daily, the point isn't really to persuade anyone or argue or prove anything. It's to tell partisans what to think; and to see how many of the ignorant can be gulled. And trust that all the contrary evidence falls down the memory hole.

I always wonder how the reporters at the Globe -- or the NYT, or the WSJ -- feel about the editorial board preference for columns by people in whose alternate universe their work has been suppressed.