Earlier today, the Globe and Mail’s editorial board chose to endorse the Conservatives. Although the Globe has a long history of endorsing Conservatives, the backlash to this decision was remarkable. As I write, there are 3154 overwhelmingly negative comments on the editorial.

It also prompted a discussion about whether endorsements affect votes. On the Ottawa Citizen’s editorial board blog, Kate Heartfield said that, if nothing else, the Globe’s editorial challenged those who disagree with it to at least lay out their own response, and think about why some intelligent, informed observers might choose to vote for Harper’s party.

So here goes:

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate.

The passive voice here is telling.

By my count, only one party has been affected by petty scandals — and many of them were more than petty. The release of the AG’s report and any further investigation into this Montreal port story will tell us more.

Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system.

As Stephen Gordon has shown, the Conservatives’ decision to cut the GST is largely responsible for any “ballooning public debts” that aren’t related to economic stimulus.

The line about a “volatile economy” makes no sense — what volatility, exactly, are we expecting? At worst, we’re facing a predictably slow recovery.

The only increased volatility that I’m worried about are the extreme weather events accompanying climate change. No mention of that here as one of those pressing and sort-of-important issues that we should be talking about.

The challenges facing our next federal government do not end there, of course. The next House of Commons must find new ways to protect Parliament, the heart of our democracy.

… This sort of speaks for itself. A minority government found in contempt of Parliament, that distributes handbooks to its committee chairs on how to disrupt the functioning of Parliament, is the answer to this challenge?

It needs to reform its troubled equalization program without straining national unity.

This seems sort of irrelevant given that no party is addressing this issue. Maybe it disqualifies the Bloc.

Relations with the U.S. are at a critical juncture. Any thickening of the border threatens to punish all Canadians, while negotiations over perimeter security have implications for national sovereignty and economic security.

Again: who? What? And how is the situation now different from, oh, I don’t know, 10 years ago (nine and a half to be specific)?

Wars in Libya and Afghanistan, climate change, Canada’s role in the world, the rapid and exciting change of the country’s ethnic and cultural makeup – the list is great, as is the need for strong leadership in Ottawa.

It seems to me that all of the issues listed here (with the plausible-if-I’m-feeling-generous exception of immigration — boat people are all criminals, right?) are issues where the Conservatives have shown the least leadership, preferring vacillation and obstruction to taking a clear stand.

Take, for example, Harper’s many and varied positions on an extension of the Afghan mission. I actually doubt that his own opinion changed much over time: he just found it convenient not to argue the point or attempt to actually build a consensus among Canadians. Or take the total absence of any plan for confronting climate change. Or the way in which our obstruction on climate change has weakened our international standing.

I won’t even bring up the security council seat. Er, well… now that I have… that too.

Whom should Canadians turn to?

The Liberal Party’s Michael Ignatieff has been an honourable opposition leader; he has risen above the personal attacks launched by the Conservatives, he has stood up for Parliament, and he has fought hard in this election. But his campaign failed to show how the Conservative government has failed, and why he and the Liberals are a preferred alternative.

I don’t expect the Globe to endorse Ignatieff. Leave that aside.

What they seem to say here is that he’s a pretty good guy on the issues they’ve said are important. Just not quite good enough. But given that the Conservatives — per the above — are totally absent on those same points, it seems odd to score this for the defense.

That said, do I wish that the last clause in the last sentence didn’t ring true? Absolutely.

Jack Layton has energized the New Democrats and the electorate … . He has succeeded in putting a benign gloss on his party’s free-spending policies, but those policies remain unrealistic and unaffordable … . He has shown that a federalist party can make serious inroads in Quebec … at the cost of an unwelcome promise to impose provisions of Quebec’s language law in federal workplaces.

I don’t disagree with any of this; it’s the most reasonable part of the whole piece.

That said, the structural deficit created by the GST cut is a bit galling if you’re going to slam other parties for inflating the deficit. And the “magic Flaherty pixie dust” that’s purportedly going to return the budget to surplus faster than expected the previous week, that can’t and won’t be explained by anyone involved, bears mentioning too.

Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let’s call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs.

What’s notable about this paragraph is the complete absence of any concrete examples, perhaps related to the issues identified earlier, to demonstrate any of these traits.

A reasoned, evidence-based argument could be made for the bullheadedness, at the very least. But this isn’t it.

He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, …

… if we ignore that, as someone pointed out today, the NDP is now the only party with at least 20% support in every region.

I’m actually willing to concede this point anyway, and merely observe that it has very little to do with actually running the country as opposed to running candidates in it.

… and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform.

Again: specifics?

On strength of character, Harper has (as the following paragraph goes on to mention) shown a willingness, even an eagerness, to indulge in low blows at every opportunity, against both his political opponents and members of his own caucus like Helena Guergis.

And for the life of me I can’t remember when he’s shown a more positive side. I don’t actually doubt that he is, in many ways, a remarkable man with a clear determination to accomplish his particular ends. But his methods speak more to a lack of personal strength, an unwillingness to trust others or to lay out his ends clearly for the Canadian public.

I also frankly don’t understand the “desire to reform” comment. What has this government reformed, really? What has it actually set out to change, with a positive vision, rather than to destroy?

Canadians take Mr. Harper’s successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise.

First, the “Economic Action Plan” that is this (previous) government’s singular contribution to economic stability was forced on Harper and his out-of-touch finance minister by the opposition parties. Second, the policies that laid the foundation for Canadian economic stability were put in place by the previous Liberal governments. Third, as most economists would tell you, the actions of any particular government have very little impact on the overall economy.

But last and most importantly, unemployment in many regions is still high. The impact of the recession was hardly negligible and we are nowhere near full recovery. And we now face a serious structural deficit that is only likely to get worse as Harper’s new tax policies, like the TFSA, take full effect.

I’m sure they could have done worse. But this reminds me of a Warren Buffett quote, to the effect that he only likes to invest in companies that could be led by a ham sandwich. I still don’t think we should aspire to vote for the ham sandwich.

He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.

… and incompetent. Witness the debacle of the TFSA introduction, with its odd and obscure rules, resulting in thousands of Canadians being hit with unexpected penalties. Or that victim support agency that never actually did anything.

I also suspect that the operative definition of “moderate and pragmatic” here is “willing to buy off votes as needed.”

Finally, how do we reconcile showing bullheadedness and a desire to reform with moderation and pragmatism?

Mr. Harper could achieve a great deal more if he would relax his grip on Parliament, its independent officers and the flow of information, and instead bring his disciplined approach to bear on the great challenges at hand. That is the great strike against the Conservatives …

As Paul Wells observed, hope springs eternal: the Globe wrote something almost identical in its 2008 editorial endorsing the Conservatives. They also wrote something rather stronger in 2009, following prorogation.

Since then, the party’s behaviour and Mr Harper’s have only gotten worse, not better. It would have been more honest to say that their continuing disdain for Parliament is unfortunate but can be overlooked than to pretend that things might get better.

Later in the day, constitutional expert Peter Russell released this important and saddening video emphasizing how frightened he is that a party that has shown such disdain for the institutions he loves might be rewarded by the electorate. So I just don’t see how you overlook that.

Those who disdain the Harper approach should consider his overall record, which is good.

The “which is good” really almost convinced me there, but hang on…

The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have demonstrated principled judgment on the economic file.

Oh, wait, until we get to the end of this paragraph, when we find an example of an unprincipled decision.

They are not doctrinaire; with the support of other parties they adopted stimulus spending after the financial crash of 2008, when it was right to do so.

So, we should reward them because they took on someone else’s good idea? Why not vote for someone else instead?

They have assiduously pursued a whole range of trade negotiations.

The Liberals did too. I just don’t see the relevance. Also, the Conservatives have held power during an unprecedented slowdown in the pace of free trade implementation around the world. And I don’t remember any of their many foreign ministers take a strong stand on restarting the Doha round.

They have facilitated the extension of the GST/HST to Ontario and British Columbia, and have persisted in their plan for a national securities regulator.

Ah, persisting! Great! But again, the Liberals (as far as I can tell) don’t oppose the HST. And what about the GST cut?

The Conservatives have greater respect, too, for the free market, and for freedom of international investment, in spite of their apparent yielding to political pressure in the proposed takeover of Potash Corp.

Greater respect than who? The party that didn’t block foreign takeovers?

Even more determination will be needed to confront the sustainability of publicly funded health care in an aging society. … In spite of some unwise commitments he has made on subsidy increases to the provinces, Mr. Harper has the toughness and reformist instincts to push the provinces toward greater experimentation (in private delivery, for instance) and change.

Translation: “So far he’s been a real disappointment and hasn’t actually said anything to imply that he’ll change, but we still really think he might do better. Too bad about those longterm commitments he’s already made that undermine the whole point of this paragraph!”

Shorter translation: “I am high as a kite.”

The campaign of 2011 – so vicious and often vapid – should not be remembered fondly. But that will soon be behind us.

… Except for the fact that the Conservatives spent almost every month effectively campaigning: releasing attack ads, spending more money than any previous government on advertising, etc. etc. So for that, we’ll reward them?

If the result is a confident new Parliament, it could help propel Canada into a fresh period of innovation, government reform and global ambition. …

A “confident new Parliament” that’s been shown conclusively that its powers of oversight are irrelevant to voters? Government reform — does that mean packing the Senate with more or fewer partisan hacks? Global ambition — does that mean blocking more or less foreign investment? Appointing more or fewer than five foreign ministers? Participating more or less obstructively in international negotiation?

What infuriated me about this editorial is not so much its conclusion — which the editorial board members are surely entitled to — as its utter disconnect from the facts and issues that the Globe and other media outlets have assiduously reported on. A more honest case could surely have been made for their decision.

I’d rather not struggle to make that case. I’ll be voting for the Liberals. Tomorrow, I’ll try to justify my decision.

(Update: For what it’s worth, I don’t think that the National Post made that case either. Their argument seems to boil down to “better Harper than Layton” — a fair enough point, but if that’s all you have to say, are you really endorsing anyone? I pretty much tuned out when they dismissed the contempt finding as a partisan stunt.)