On serious issues

Just as Brian Topp's series of blog posts about the progressive coalition last year became one of the main focal points of Canadian political discussion, his soon-to-be-released book appears likely to do the same. But while I fully expect there to be plenty about the book that I'll agree with, I'll sound a note of criticism about how it's being presented.

I've mentioned before my concern with the degree to which politics are treated as a sport, with "teams" divided up by colour rather than rather than any principled basis competing only to win the next contest rather than to improve societal outcomes. And Topp seems to have an unfortunate habit of falling into that type of shorthand. But the marketing of his book looks to go a few steps further in portraying serious issues in surprisingly light terms.

Of all the ways one can describe the coalition showdown in 2008, "whimsical" would seem to be near the far bottom of the list. (Indeed, even a thoroughly academic work about the time period has used the language of a "crisis" - albeit with a cartoon of its own on the cover for contrast.)

But whimsy seems to be the predominant concept of Topp's cover, featuring a slapstick cartoon drawing, a less-than-serious-looking font, and a review describing the "great bit of fun" contained within. And even the title, while speaking to the politics of the coalition, seems to make for more a bit of light joshing rather than an attempt to accurately portray what was at stake. (Was it really anybody's goal to simply "(give) the Tories the boot" rather than to replace them with a government better able to meet the needs of Canadians?)

Now in fairness to Topp, I can certainly see some arguments in favour of the tone and message actually chosen.

For starters, with the Cons spending a substantial part of their time demonizing the very idea of a coalition, it could be that a lighter tone might help to bring discussion about the concept out of the realm of Harperian hyperbole. Though with the Cons' track record, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see them follow up by attacking Topp precisely for failing to accept their melodrama.

In addition, it's easy enough to see some themes which Topp and the NDP may both want to reinforce. The "boot" narrative is one which the NDP has used as recently as the 2006 election, and the NDP may well want to bring back in the near future as associated with the Cons. And the combination of that message with a "we" extended to the other parties in Parliament may help to encourage discussion both about the importance of finishing the job, and the need for a strengthened NDP to help complete the task.

But it would seem possible to evoke similar themes without treating the subject quite as lightly as Topp's cover does. And while I'll certainly be hoping for the contents to help shape public discussion of future coalitions as Topp's blog posts have done already, I'd think we'd be better served treating them as the historical treasure trove that they figure to be, rather than as a rollicking farce of a story.