Right Side Up

February 19th, 2009 at 11:21 pm David Frum | No Comments |

| Print

Finished late last night Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper’s New Conservatism by Paul Wells. Wells is one of Canada’s shrewdest – and certainly its wittiest – observer of electoral politics. His book on the past two years of Canadian political maneuverings lives up to his high standards. Wells’ personal sympathies are pretty strongly engaged on behalf of Canadian Liberalism, but he can do justice to all sides.

Here he is for example praising Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff’s seemingly (or anyway currently) firm support of Canada’s Afghanistan mission: “On any other issue, this would be the point in the conversation at which Ignatieff would begin to equivocate.” (p. 171)

Here by contrast is his description of the Conservative party war room in the winning election of 2006:

In the Tory war room, meanwhile, a sign hung in plain sight of all the staffers who had to deal with reporters on the telephone. It reminded them of their obligation to proper phone etiquette. The four questions they should never stop asking themselves were:

1) What are we accomplishing with this? (That is, were they accomplishing political goals when they said something, or must making themselves feel better?)

2) Are we debating on our ground or theirs? (Were they talking about what they wanted to talk about, or what Liberals wanted to talk about?)

3) Are we taking their bait? (The second rule restated for emphasis.)

4) Is our tone neutral? … [A]ngry people don’t win debates.

Entertaining. Recommended to those interested in closely detailed narratives of Canadian electoral politics – which alas may be something less than the overwhelming majority of NRO readers ….

Latest Book Reviews



4 Comments so far ↓

  • Johnnnymac66

    I’ve lived all of my 51 years in Chicago. I learned world politics by reading Gigi Geyer, Evans & Novak, George Will, and many, many others. I learned Chicago politics by reading Mike Royko, Studs Terkel, and many others.
    For me, the tipping point with Evans came when he “outted” Valerie Plame, a crime I believe was treasonous. I wrote him and told him exactly that, and was not surprised when I received no response.
    From that point on, I’d glance at his columns, but never again believed anything in them.
    When Hunter Thompson would inject himself into the stories he was writing, it was funny. Outting an undercover CIA operative because of a personal grudge wasn’t at all funny.
    I still believe Robert Evans committed treason against the United States.

  • WaStateUrbanGOPer

    Novak comes off as a sort of American, Jewish-cum-Catholic verson of Evelyn Waugh: nasty, vindictive and palpably self loathing. But he wasn’t unpatriotic. Moreover, he was correct about the War on Terror and Iraq. Compare his foreign policy views to David Frum’s, and then tell me: who comes out looking better on the geopolitics of the past decade?

  • WaStateUrbanGOPer

    Oh, and by the way Frum, you’d fail your mother-in-law’s course, too: it’s ABC 20/20, not “NBC 20/20.”

  • lolapowers

    Mr Frum, I so wholeheartedly agree with you, Novak was indeed a dark soul !

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.