conservatively speaking

There seems to be a couple of things evident in the media strategy of the conservatives here in Canada.

The first thing that I noticed was that Harper and his gang are speaking with the same cadence as Bush and his gang.

You know how there are different standards for newscasters determining how the rhythm of their speech pattern is delivered?

There is a classic BBC and CBC style for newscasters that is generally recognizable. And all you have to do is suddenly have a news reader using the American style on a Canadian news program to see how different they really are.

It is likewise with the style that British, Canadian and American politicians use. There is some regional difference due to accents peculiar to some areas of the country, but largely the speaking patterns are homogenized to conform to standards for speech delivery and the delivery of press conferences.

Anyone who pays attention to this and analyzes it for themselves, by listening to the form, rather than the content, can identify the regular patterns in the speech.

Bush and his gang, in particular, have a very defined and homogenized elocutionary style (as they do with every communications aspect of their representation). And it is familiar enough to me that I hear it developing in the speech patterns of the Canadian conservatives.

It was first evident with Harper, whose complicity with the American conservative culture is apparent in any case. Then came Peter McKay, and now, just recently, Stockwell Day.

This proliferation of talking representatives of the Canadian conservatives is indicative of the other simulation of the American conservative gang, which is the presentation of a cast of characters.

Never before, at least not that I can remember, has there ever been such an extensive representation of the American administration. I am hard-pressed to remember from the previous administrations more than two, perhaps three, characters.

But in the conservative gang, currently, I could easily name Bush, Cheney, Scooter Libby, John Ascroft, Donald Rumsfield, Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Colin Powell, Paul O'Neill, Tom Delay and Michael Chertoff - not mention the many support members like Anne Coulter (who some consider to be a neo-fascist) and the Fox news gang (all in all, an intense, and some would say, nefarious bunch). They are like the cast of some political soap opera.

If this is public relations architecture then it's seems to be carefully planned, and if it is a soap opera, then it is very deliberately scripted according to perceived psychological affect.

The apparent precision in its planning is what might easily lead some to believe that it is not sincere, particularly in America where there is a lot of value placed on spontaneity and a lack of affectation. But the American conservative gang present themselves in a folksy genuine manner.

So, even though it may be entirely scripted and vetted for singularity of message, it still plays for some as sincere (if also, admittedly, hawkish, reactionary and strict, even by their supporters).

The complexity of the American psyche and its political needs, not to mention the function of the American socio-political machine in its communications devices, is beyond the scope of this present reflection, and I won't attempt to analyse it here. But it does seem sometimes contradictory and weird that the American public supports their conservative gang as much as they apparently do.

It seems even more odd, though, that the Canadian conservatives are emulating the American conservative strategy in a country where the traditions of conservatism are more liberal than American democrats, let alone republicans, are.

Even in Alberta, where I currently live, the entrenched conservatism that birthed Harper and his original gang, the reform party, is far more socially charitable, and fair-minded in its business practices (if otherwise lacking in a support for, or an understanding of, the value of culture), than any American administration (that I know of anyway).

So why, I don't know, and I fear to speculate given some of the options, which range from sycophantic passions to cultish membership interests, and finally, because I'm just not sure.

This slavish devotion to the Bush gang and their agenda is curious, coming from both Britain and Canada, countries with historically different social and political views and radically different international policies from any American gang.

The only obvious link is the respective leader's membership in a peculiar sect of Christianity.

Not all Christians are the same. I suppose that's obvious? But I'm not sure it is, given the general resistance to nuance and subtly in the predominant communications media. Perhaps there is a general miscomprehension that there is only the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

But the latter breaks off into many different sects with varying attitudes and views, not the least of which is with regard to their respective interpretations of the old and new testaments.

Some sects are more supportive of the idea of theocracy (religious rule, e.g. like Islamic Iran) than others.

Anyway, I reiterate, I don't know exactly what drives the emulation, but it is apparent.

The Canadian conservative gang is slowly bringing out its characters on stage. Harper is in the role of director of course, presenting himself as the calculating, precise, and controlling sort (no method acting will be allowed in this troupe). He is the Canadian Bush, but with this difference of being clearly the one who sets the course, and not just a figurehead. In this respect, he's like Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove all rolled into one (something of an unholy trinity, some might say).

Next let out was Peter McKay, in the corresponding role of Condoleezza Rice, complete with stated tributes to his inspiration.

And most recently, Stockwell Day, in what appears to be the corresponding position of Michael Chertoff.

Who will be next? Stay tuned to this reality program.

The whole situation in Canada is further odd because the current conservative gang is able to give their performances without the usual voice of opposition.

Will the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc take a note and counter with the complementary and contrary critics? Or will it be Canadian individuals versus a corporate one-voice gang?