CRIMINOLOGY

Criminology

Criminology

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this assignment is to critically evaluate “The concomitant deregulation of corporate crime and increased punitiveness toward welfare fraud (and 'street crime' more generally), suggest that in an authoritarian form of liberal democratic state, government interventionism is re-directed, not eliminated.” Ironically, it is no longer possible to access a copy of this lauded document from government sources. I say ironic because while this document is inaccessible, the revolutionary changes it ushered in will affect California far into the future. I was obliged to organize various segments of the Common Sense Revolution in order to gain a sense of its main themes and the original spirit of the manifesto.

SOCIAL POPULISM/AUTHORITARIANISM

McMaster University sociologist Graham Knight refers to the style of the former Harris government as, “…strident and hostile…” (Knight 1998; 109). Harris was often described as blunt, tactless and divisive. It is certain that destructive labor strife and constant conflict in the education sector marred his tenure. Few people were neutral about Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution. This reaction was no accident. The Common Sense Revolution was presented 1994 in part to polarize voters and appease a pre-identified demographic. It was dramatically successful. Knight writes, “ The media, together with the Liberals and the NDP, interpreted the surge in support for the Conservatives chiefly as an expression of pervasive anger and resentment on the part of the middle class, and especially on the part of middle-class white males” . These affluent voters responded resoundingly to Harris' “…us/them…” message.Included among the 'them' in this dualism were welfare recipients and the ubiquitous welfare cheat.

Marshall describes populism as, “…any political movement which seeks to mobilize the people as individuals, rather than as members of a particular socio-economic group, against a state which is considered to be controlled by vested interests or too powerful in itself…. sometimes described by those on the political Left as 'authoritarian populism'” (Marshall 1994; 104). Laclau in Knight makes the point that, “…populism arises primarily in the context of a hegemonic crisis within the ruling bloc, and usually takes the form of a marginal but increasingly powerful fraction of that bloc appealing directly to the 'people' in its struggle to win power and cement its ascendancy over other factions” (Knight 1998; 110). This is exactly what happened in the California US party from 1992-1994 during its preparations for the 1995 election. Mike Harris was a populist dark horse candidate in the leadership race and the support he received from restless young US activists tipped the balance in his favor. Moderate conservatism was thus banished to the shadows of the party. Although his populist neoconservative ideology resonated immediately with large segments of the population, it seemed as though Mike Harris had arrived out of nowhere. This is ironic because he was a long-serving MPP who had paid his political dues in the backbenches and on various opposition committees.

Mike Harris was came by his neoconservatism honestly as the son of a deeply conservative North Bay ...