Speaking of Blogging SupposiTories and cheerleaders, you catch a cartoon Montreal Simon did of Dr Jabba the Roy in a bodysuit? It’s hilarious! a tad traumatizing , but funny.

That’s why I considered the “totalitarian” characterization excessive.

Did you catch the slogan on that 2009 by election placard? “de l’action pas d’election’?” What would you call it?

Here are some definitions of totalitarianism: Tell me they don’t fit Steve:

First from Princeton University

S: (n) dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.))
S: (n) absolutism, totalitarianism, totalism (the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government)

From Wikipedia:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is generally characterised by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and private life).[3]
Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

From Merriam-Webster.com

Main Entry: to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1926
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

I could go on… but it will get redundant. Now tell me none of that fits Steve to a tee…hell, he’s even getting his own 24/7 infomercial channel.

Oh, and if Steve is showing himself to be only centrist, it’s because of his minority situation and, such as it is, an opposition of some kind.

Remember, he used to say that once he got through with Canada, we would no longer recognize the place. Gerry Ritz in 2008 said when they get their majority, “all bets were off”.

Here is a blogger who compiled all kinds of links with stuff Steve said in his Reform and NCC hay day.

Here is another:

Again, I’m sure I can find more. I use those two links because they have compiled other links…so one doesn’t have to go too far to look.

I always provide links to such things. If any of my readers don’t click them and see for themselves…well…

As for today’s cons, there is absolutely nothing redeemable for the most part about them.

Same thing when they screech about Marci MacDonald’s new book being lies and fraud. Me thinks they dost protest too much. These very hysterics are indicative of they know what she says is true, but they don’t want it being said out loud before next election, you understand. That’s the kind of rule they dream of having.

You might more accurately describe the Harper regime as a parliamentary regime with “bonapartist” aspirations, bonapartist in the ( Wikipedia) sense as “a broad centrist or center-right political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, based on popular support of a strongman or caudillo”, or per Merriam-Webster as “a political movement associated chiefly with authoritarian rule usually by a military leader ostensibly supported by a popular mandate”.

Few would argue with an “authoritarian” characterization, as opposed to “totalitarian”, with the notion of a “caudillo” who seeks to concentrate power and dispense with the established rules of parliamentary democracy or constitutional republic. This characterization encompasses not merely both Bonapartes, original and nephew, but figures such Franco, Salazar, de Gaulle and any number of South American strongmen – and it can, within reason, be attributed to aspirations of the current government. Of course, both fascism and stalinism – right and left wing bonapartism – fall within the purview of a broader definition of bonapartism, but that is the problem with broad generalizations. Both Hitler’s or Mussolini’s regime, as opposed to that of de Gaulle, may have fallen under the definition or characterization of right wing bonapartism, but the former were in no way similar or equivalent to the latter.