In need of abolition

There's been plenty of talk about the yesterday's showdown between NDP MP Peter Stoffer and Con Senator Mike Duffy over Senate expenses. But while many people have noticed the contrast between Stoffer's calm demeanour and Duffy's sputtering rage, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out what looks to me to be the most glaring problem with Duffy's attacks on Stoffer.

While Duffy did indeed get angrier and angrier over the course of the appearance, there's little indication that his attacks on Stoffer were a matter of going too far personally in a single outburst. Duffy first went to the "fakers" line at a point when nobody else was speaking in a way that could even be argued to have set him off - and repeated it several times intertwined with other Con talking points thoroughout the interview. Which suggests to me that the problem isn't Duffy going off message, but that he's being given more and more inflammatory messages to deliver.

Now, there's some obvious logic as to why the Cons might want to set up a strategy where their unelected, unaccountable, unfireable Senate hacks are the ones sent out to deliver the most personal attacks they can. Anytime an MP or candidate who faces the voters is the one to be associated with such a message or to show unbridled anger in public, they face the danger of a backlash at the polls.

But with Duffy and his ilk put in front of the cameras, there's no similar risk of direct consequences. Instead, the Cons can claim some degree of deniability if comments are construed as being offensive. And if any stunt isn't immediately met with public outcry, then their elected officials can move in and start repeating and reinforcing it.

In effect, then, the Cons seem to have turned Duffy into a Canadian version of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck: somebody responsible for pushing the boundaries of acceptable debate, road-testing extreme and personal messages with no electoral repercussions. And the only obvious differences are ones where the Cons' version looks even worse: while Limbaugh and Beck are at least nominally in control of their own message and financially affected by their choices, Duffy is proud to take orders directly from Stephen Harper and money from the Canadian public.

In other words, yesterday's appearance is probably best seen less as a problem with Duffy alone, and more as yet another turning point where the Cons have abused public institutions for their partisan ends. And the fact that the Senate is ripe for such misuse offers up an even more compelling argument for abolition than the waste and patronage that Duffy was so eager to deflect from in the first place.

Update: For those who haven't seen it yet, Glen Pearson's take is worth a read.