A few weeks ago I predicted that Harper would suffer little lasting damage from the prorogation debacle. Many challenged this conclusion, pointing to the drop in Conservative support in the immediate aftermath.

I was not claiming that there would be no short term damage. It was a dumb move that caused many soft voters to doubt whether Harper’s apparent re-make over the last year or so is authentic. A number shifted to the Liberals or to undecided in their immediate party preference.

However, it still seems to me unlikely that there will be any permanent gain for the Liberals under current circumstances. Indeed I expect that we will see the Conservatives creep up to around 35 % support and the Liberals drop below 30% among decided voters as we move into the spring and summer. There is a fairly stable equilibrium at around these levels, with some chance of a further slight improvement for the Conservatives rather than for the Liberals.

The reason can be found in the public’s assessment of the Party leaders contained within the recent Ekos poll. One number says it all. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has the approval of only 15% of Canadians. This is hard to believe. It is below that which George Bush Jr. and Richard Nixon had during their very worst days as Presidents. It boggles the mind to try to comprehend how an opposition leader can be held in such low regard. And it is almost impossible to imagine any scenario that could see the Liberals make any real long term gains in support under these circumstances. Indeed the risk is that the longer Ignatieff stays on, the more his numbers will pull down Liberal support generally. It is this continuing eroding of part loyalty because of the disappointment in the Liberal leader that is most likely to turn the tide enough to let Harper prevail again in the next election.

The Liberals appear to be paralyzed. Having so mishandled the choice of leader three times in six years, no one knows what is to be done. A faint hope that Ignatieff can redeem himself is the straw that party insiders offer to loyal supporters. Most are too smart to buy that, but they are powerless. Deep down, most just wish that Ignatieff would do the right thing, sooner rather than later.

Ideologues have their place. Mostly it is in irrelevant and out of the way places like think tanks and obscure academic departments. There they are largely harmless as they spin us with their imaginary worlds and irrelevant schemes. However, they can become a problem if they are able to occupy important places of public power and influence.

One of the interesting aspects of the last quarter of century is that a certain kind of ideologue has been successful in getting into select positions where they have a tremendous impact. The primary homes of note are departments of finance in central governments, central banks, and the media. Not surprisingly in these locations they are isolated and insulated from public accountability, and thus free to work away in splendid isolation as they create their castles in the sky free of the scepticism and checks on excesses that good scientists both accept and embrace.

The ministry financial gurus and central bankers do suffer from one vulnerability. While generally their errors are legitimized by compliant academics and experts, and economies are generally resilient enough to withstand such errors without their affects generating popular discontent, they do have at their disposal the most powerful tools known in human history if their errors truly threaten the system. Thus, when the economy hit the skids in 2008, their evident fear verging on panic drove them to accept that their orthodoxy is wrong and that common sense solutions by government are essential. Giving the dramatic magnitude of the crisis, the cost to taxpayers and society were immense. But they were necessary, and as time has shown, required. The fact that they were totally at odds with their long cherished ideological beliefs in the end became irrelevant.

In the media, there is no such reality check that forces a correction. A careful monitoring of the mainstream media show that it has remained largely immune to the pressures to accept the failure of the old ways of thinking. The Vancouver Sun continues to employ a neo-conservative adherent of the Fraser Institute as its editor in control of opinions that can find expression in the paper. Certain contrary views are allowed on the pages provided they fit the non-threatening stereotype of ‘progressive critics’, but the bulk of serious analysis and opinion remains committed to the orthodoxy. The Globe and Mail steadfastly refuses to acknowledge, in a serious way, the importance of government in correcting what when wrong, and continues to promote opinions that question whether the correctives that were essential to the rescue were really a good thing. None of the major media have devoted serious attention to investigating and explaining what really caused the crisis.

One of the best examples of this kind of continued blindness is contained in the January 4, edition of the Globe and Mail. There regular columnist Gwyn Morgan claims that the rescue effort will cause a repeat of the “stagflation” of the 1970’s, even though that was caused by entirely different factors. He argues that the measures undertaken this time will result in necessary cuts in social programs, higher interest rates for business and another contraction. He attacks medicare, whatever that has to do with the monumental failures of private markets. He predictably goes on to demonize unions, and political “inertia”.

He in fact falls back on a reliance the same old ideologically driven views that got us to where we are. He wants government to be the gift that keeps on giving to the private sector, while acknowledging nothing about the failures of that sector. Social spending apparently caused recent problems, a suggestion so preposterous as to make it laughable if it wasn’t so often repeated in the mainstream media. Of course according to this view of the world, social spending will cause the next set of problems as well. Not a word is offered about the correctives needed to avoid a repeat of the real problems that got us into this mess. Government must be ever ready to coddle a severely failing market system, while striking hard against the very measures that have worked to make our world a livable place. But of course the latter don’t fit the ideological world view of Morgan, the Globe and Mail, and the Canadian mainstream media generally. So whatever the problems, they must be blamed.

Before completely trashing ideology, let me recognize that it does have one positive role in certain situations. Ideologues have been important in keeping alive a necessary social conscience, and to remind of us of our duty to protect and assist the powerless and the marginalized. However, when it does so to protect and support the powerful and the privileged, it is sad bordering on the pathetic.

There is something puzzlingly about some of the more extreme reactions to the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Harper. Not surprisingly, those who have a stake in the political dogfights in Ottawa have been highly critical. The leaders of the opposition parties have understandably objected to the removal of the Parliamentary stage, upon which they mount some of their best performances before the public eye. They have correctly claimed that this reduces their ability to obtain press attention and to use committees to pursue matters potentially embarrassing to the government. If they had their way, they would preserve their opportunity to do these things by keeping Parliament sitting as long and as often as possible. It is a well known adage of politics that only the opposition benefits politically during Parliamentary sessions. The government is on the defensive and media attention tends to report on matters that involve controversy.

However the claims made by many of the critics of Harper go far beyond this. Many suggest that the opposition parties have a right to continuous sittings of Parliament, irrespective of the decisions made by the Government respecting the management of the Parliamentary calendar. Others claim that prorogation undermines the very principles of democracy. And some suggest that the Prime Minister exceeded his constitutional powers by asking the Governor General to prorogue, and go on to claim that the Governor General should have refused the request.

All of these latter claims are preposterous. The really surprising thing is how many respectable commentators have nevertheless bought into them.

Peter Russell, the supposed objective commentator from the University of Toronto stated: “What this is is a continuation of a very authoritarian approach to government by the current prime minister … this particular prime minister does not want to govern in an accountable democratic manner. It is extremely dangerous”.

Heather Mallick late of the CBC goes even further in the UK Guardian, stating “Canada will not have a House of Commons until March 3. Instantly, we are a part-time democracy, a shabby diminished place packed with angry voiceless citizens whose votes have been rendered meaningless. Harper, that strange vengeful man you will see in February clapping awkwardly as Olympians leap off mountains and shoot past in the luge, has been on a mission since his youth to turn Canada into a pale, watery version of the United States of America…….Harper, frustrated by his repeated failure to achieve more than minority rule, nurses a venom not before seen in Canadian politics.”

And on and on it goes. There is no end to the venom and outrage on editorial pages, blogs and columns by Canada’s self proclaimed elites. Academics who should know better have piled on. Harper, one would think, has mounted a coup in our perfect little democracy.

The reality is much more prosaic and a lot less exciting. Prorogation after a period of Parliamentary sittings is exclusively the right of the Prime Minister to decide upon. Our Parliament is structured to facilitate the execution of government business in accordance with government preferences. This has always been the case. The Governor General is compelled to accept the wishes of the Prime Minister on such matters. That is a fundamental principle. Prorogation now means that there will be a few short weeks delay in the date Parliament will meet. That is hardly the end of democracy or the beginning of a dictatorship. The work of committees will be delayed by a bit, but nothing stops the committees from picking up where they left off on such things as the look into Afghani detainees. Meanwhile MP’s will continue to be free to make their claims and advance their criticism. Yes, the delay in that committee’s work may provide the government with some short term relief, but it is hard to see it as an escape from accountability. And yes, the government will be able to restructure the committees of the Senate consistent with the change in party balance arising from new Senate appointments, but that is what should happen. It would be silly to continue Senate committees that fail to reflect the balance of party membership in the Senate.

All in all, the whole matter is a tempest in a teapot. If the Prime Minister wants to prorogue, he can. He may or may not make that work to his advantage, but to try is just part of the normal game played out in politics. The exaggerated claims and criticisms have done nothing to advance public understanding, and have undermined the credibility of the so-called experts who have made so many of them. Let the system work. Sometimes it will work marginally to the advantage of government and it is hard to fault a government for trying to attain that. But it is not a fundamental breach of democracy, it is not unconstitutional, and it is not that unusual. The really surprising thing is that so many experts seem to find it so upsetting. One wonders whether their objectivity and balance is as sound as one might expect given their positions.