On privileged classes

There's been plenty written about Helena Guergis' airport meltdown. But only a couple of commentators have even hinted at what looks to me to be the most important part of the story in assessing the source of Guergis' behaviour - and what it says about the Harper government in general.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the starting point for Guergis' behaviour is that she was already being treated as a VIP, with she and her aide being allowed to board her flight at a time when any member of the general public would have been told that it was too late. So Guergis was already being granted indulgences not available to ordinary Canadians at the start of the incident.

But that level of special treatment was apparently nowhere near enough for Guergis. Instead, she threw tantrums over having to comply with any of the rules which apply to every single air traveller - while also showing thorough disrespect for her aide in demanding that she pick up Guergis' boots.

Moreover, the mere mention of some of the privilege which had been applied to Guergis sent her into a rage about her "working (her) ass off for you people". Which looks like rather irrefutable evidence of a belief in Guergis' mind that there's a radical difference in kind between the likes of herself, and the mere "you people" who should presumably consider themselves fortunate to occupy the same country.

Now, there are certainly issues worth raising as to whether the incident justifies considering Guergis as petulant or mean. But the greater issue is Guergis' apparent sense of self-superiority - which has seemingly reached levels where even damning words like "entitlement" fall far short as descriptors. (Though additions like "rude" and "imperial" do come closer to the mark.)

In effect, Guergis' tirade reads like a lost Leona Helmsley anecdote, where a violent outburst is merely a particularly dramatic manifestation of the speaker's complete contempt for anybody who doesn't occupy the same social circles. And Guergis' after-the-fact half-apology focuses completely on the former issue (responding "emotionally" and behaving inappropriately as matters of one-time concern) rather than the latter.

Which isn't to say that I disagree with Devin's view that the Libs' calls for Guergis' resignation are rather pointless. But I reach the same conclusion from an entirely different starting point.

Sure, Guergis' outburst may make for a particularly visible example of the Cons' detachment from and distaste for mere common folk. But there's little indication that most of the Harper cabinet sees its place any differently - and indeed plenty of reason to think that from Harper on down, the Cons have been conditioned to adopt the attitude of a royal court marked by bottom-up fealty and top-down patronization.

So the proper response isn't to pretend that replacing Guergis with another Harper sycophant will have any positive effect. Instead, the core problem is a government which firmly believes that "you people" - defined as mere Canadians in general outside their circle of power - fall into a lower class of citizen who should be overwhelmed with gratitude at the chance to be ruled by their betters. And the only way to change that attitude in government will be to remove the Cons from power as a party.