Rahim Jaffer, shiny object

Share

I've had all sorts of debates over the past week about whether it's fair game for the federal Liberals to be taking shots at Rahim Jaffer in Question Period. But setting aside fairness, there's an equally relevant question of whether it's smart to be going after him.

On that subject, Andrew Steele made a very valid point about opposition politics in a post last Wednesday:

"There are two approaches to opposition politics.

"In one, you methodically build cogent critiques of the government, based on research, hard work and insight. You jealously guard credibility, because crying wolf on silly stuff will make it harder to be taken seriously on the important issues. Cases are built, brick by brick, on a solid foundation of fact.

"The other is the X-files approach. Smog day in March? Find some thin pretext and blame the government. Canada lost the gold in mixed doubles tennis? Find some thin pretext and blame the government. Rahim Jaffer gets a light sentence as a first-time offender? Find some thin pretext and blame the government."

Andrew's criticism was directed at the NDP. But I think it applies just as equally to the Liberals, who are very much prone to favouring the second approach over the first.

It's not so much conspiracy-mongering that's the problem. It's an utter reliance on whatever happens to be in the news that day.

I get the short-term appeal of the Jaffer story, which has obviously struck a nerve. But it doesn't fit into any broader case the Liberals have been trying to make - or should be trying to make against the government.

Of all the concerns that Canadians may have about the Conservatives, questionable personal lives or reckless disregard for the law aren't even on the list. This was a non-issue before Jaffer and his wife Helena Guergis popped into the news the past couple of weeks, and it'll equally be a non-issue in the next campaign.

Going after Guergis, at least, may help frame a case against the government's maturity and competence - particularly if she winds up losing her job this summer, which seems a good bet. But other than causing some grumbling among the Conservative base - which ain't going anywhere in the next campaign - the Jaffer issue has zero long-term value for the opposition.

If anything, the Liberals' zeal for this story may actually be detracting from their sporadic attempts to paint the Conservatives as a bunch of hyper-partisan bullies. To make that argument, the Liberals need to strike a contrast - and their reaction to Jaffer getting off lightly would have been a perfect opportunity to take the high road. Instead, they've plunged right into the muck. (They did seem to aim for the high road during Monday's committee appearance by Guergis, but it might have been a little late for that.)

The root of the problem seems to be that, after more than four years with Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, the Liberals still haven't settled on a clear storyline about why he shouldn't be in that job. Is it because he's too wedded to his right-wing roots? Too unprincipled? Too diabolical? Too incompetent? You'll get a different answer depending on the day, because it mostly seems to depend on what's in the news.

And no, this isn't the first time I've made this point. But whatever else the Liberals are doing better than they were a few months ago, it doesn't appear they've addressed the most fundamental problem with their approach to opposition.