With six days left to voting across Canada, it appears obvious that Stephen Harper’s so-called Conservative Party will be returned to office, with either a minority or a majority. I can’t see what difference this will make. I would not expect Harper to change his style with a majority. He is a risk-averse politician, who has already publicly declared that he’ll have nothing to do with any of the “social conservative” issues that I, and the many partisans for “western civ,” care a great deal about.
He has glibly avoided the crucial issue of the suppression of free speech and press by “human rights” kangaroo courts and the like.
His gutlessness extends to Afghanistan, where he has allowed the understaffing and underfunding of our military to determine an exit date that leaves our best soldiers to endure a couple more years in harm’s way, without prospect of victory.
Stephen Harper, all parties, and all mainstream media agree, that this was a fait accompli. It was nothing of the kind. The alternative was to mount a crash program to expand our military capabilities, not only to meet our solemn commitments in Afghanistan, but to make us ready for any other role we might be called upon to play in this volatile world.
Each of these issues is a potential vote-loser, if tossed out on its own. Each is a potential vote-winner, in the hands of a politician with real dignity and force, capable of explaining to us what the consequences may be of not acting. We need politicians with the starch to tell us that the “easiest way out” is the time-honoured path to disaster; that most if not all of the intractable public problems we face today were created by past politicians who took the easy way out, putting their own immediate political standing ahead of the permanent interests of our country.
Still, in a democracy, it is our job as “the people” to punish politicians for doing this—for playing cheaply to the gallery, for throwing our own money in the air. Instead we squall for our share of handouts. In the deeper sense, we have failed our politicians.
Mr. Harper wins by avoiding controversy: by abjectly and cravenly betraying each genuine conservative cause, while skirting the hard arguments. I shouldn’t be surprised if that’s what costs him a majority, for there are several million electors of genuine conservative tendency, who feel disenfranchised, and hesitate to vote for him even when the alternatives look worse. His best pitch to us would be: “Better vote Conservative, for we will do little or nothing to advance the social-engineering agenda of the anti-Christian Left. Vote any other way, and you are pushing that activist agenda.”
But even that would require a candour of which Mr Harper is professionally incapable.
His stage presentation, in debates and at campaign appearances, is calculated boring. He promises, both explicitly and implicitly, a “steady hand at the tiller,” and therefore appeals to people sick with worry about the international banking crisis, and the Depression that could follow from it. For after the U.S. bailout, and the even messier arrangements in Europe, markets everywhere remain crazy, and the TSX index like every other has been whiplashing down, up, down. As we should be more than vaguely aware, the Canadian economy, which heavily depends on good commodity prices, is ripe for the dunking.
People may not yet appreciate that a steady hand at the tiller is quite useless, once the rudder has broken off; that a sufficiently powerful hurricane swamps all boats.
The same prime minister who pretends to be powerless, on issues he could in fact do something about, is actually powerless in the face of the gathering storm.
Good luck, sailor.
Canadians who congratulate themselves for the comparative “niceness” of our election campaign, after glimpsing the nastiness of the presidential race to the south, are peculiarly out of touch with current realities. As Americans better realize—because they have no choice but to take their election seriously—this is no time for “nice.” There is far too much at stake.
With neither the McCain/Palin nor the Obama/Biden ticket, can Americans opt for “more of the same.” Touching everything from tax-and-spending, to core moral values, they have real issues before them. They know it; whereas, up here, what is there to know?
Alas, in the United States as here, the advance of “political correctness” has made a number of key issues undiscussable, except by the brave. But after years of prelude, the battle of the brave has now begun. It is a trial by ordeal for the candidates, but the job they are seeking requires it, and there is no question that should not be asked of the candidate for such a job.
I will be prouder of my country when our own elections get much nastier.
- Robin Hoodism is on the rise - Sunday January 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
- Taking on the Reformation - Wednesday December 29, 2010 at 8:53 am
- The miserly Canadian - Wednesday December 22, 2010 at 5:23 am
