- Reaction score
- 5,727
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is a piece by Lawrence Martin – staying well within his land, this time - from today’s (14 Sep 06) Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060914.wmartin14/BNStory/National/home
I remain convince that Lawrence Martin is anti-Conservative and that he allows his bias to show but, in this column, he has a couple of sound points:
• George W. Bush IS the most unpopular US President in living memory – far more deeply and thoroughly detested that either Reagan or Johnson (sorry, Mr. Martin, Ronald Reagan was not popular in Canada. He was quite unpopular, especially with the left-Liberal glitterati.) No Canadian PM since St Laurent has ever made good, close relations with a US President (both Truman and Eisenhower in Uncle Louis’ case) into a political advantage. Some, Chrétien for example, have gained from their public disdain for the US President. There is a long, strong streak of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in the Canadian character and politicians do, as Martin says, need to pander to the electorate; and
• As Martin says, it is possible to be a strong supporter of America and American values while being distant, at best, from President Bush. Harper should consider that.
Rumour mongering a romance between Rice and Peter McKay is yellow journalism – but par for the course for the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060914.wmartin14/BNStory/National/home
An attraction that could prove politically fatal
Canadians are not enamoured of the Tories cozying up to the Bush administration
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
The trap door opens. The Prime Minister stumbles in. Like a blind man.
It's extraordinary to witness this. Stephen Harper is a brainy guy. He has a reputation as an acute political strategist.
So how can he let himself get caught inside the tent of a President who is widely considered one of the worst in history, and who is viewed in Canada like the plague.
To begin the summer, Mr. Harper was flying high. To end it, he is on a slide. The leading cause of the descent? Too tight with the Bush administration, say an SES Research poll and other soundings.
In his early months in office, Mr. Harper kept his distance from Washington and smartly avoided the trap. But lately, he has allowed himself to be cast as a Bush-styled hawk. The image is set. It's not an easy one to undo.
It can be difficult for a Canadian PM — as Brian Mulroney would surely testify — even if the president he gets too close to is highly popular, like Ronald Reagan. G.W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Free trade then. The undoing of free trade — by way of a controversial, if defensible, softwood lumber deal — now.
Our Prime Minister missed an opportunity to carve out his own turf this week. His address to the nation made it sound like he is wholly at one with the Bush administration's divisive post-9/11 strategy.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Peter MacKay continued his comely courting of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. All smiles. Like a disciple when Canadians don't want a disciple.
In the spring, at his first meeting with Ms. Rice at the White House, Mr. MacKay drew much criticism for a fawning and submissive performance. He clearly didn't take the heat to heart. This time, during a meeting in Nova Scotia, he is featured at closer quarters in photos that even made The New York Times — and that touched off racy (baseless) rumours to the effect that Condi is the new Belinda.
Sometimes you get the impression that Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay have forgotten the Bush record: The invasion on the basis of a lie and the ongoing deadly occupation of Iraq. The massive indebtedness of the American treasury. The widespread human-rights abuses including torture, illegal military tribunals, secret prisons. The post-Katrina debacle. The extensive spying on his own people without warrant or legal basis. The thumbing of his nose at the international treaty system and multilateralism. The worldwide decline in respect for the United States that Mr. Bush's polarizing policies have generated.
Do Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay really think Canadians are enamoured of this? Are they ever going to breathe a hint of dissatisfaction? For reasons of pride and self-respect, if not politics.
Iraq? Where do our leaders stand? We're in Afghanistan losing lives, largely because of Iraq. If Mr. Bush had not got disastrously sidetracked, moving his arsenal to Baghdad while leaving Afghanistan exposed, would there be any need for Canadians to be there in a warrior role?
On the weekend, NDP Leader Jack Layton, who in some ways has been prophetic on the Bush war party, came forward to harshly denounce its direction. He was pilloried by conservative critics, many of whom have had to eat their words on WMD and Mr. Bush. They were, one imagines, emboldened by their track record.
Mr. Layton's call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan is ill-advised in my view, given that our Parliament voted in a two-year extension. But maybe his idea of exploring other possible solutions — as opposed to the Bush-Harper approach of killing one another ad infinitum — has some merit. Several reports have suggested the Taliban, elements of which the West once supported against the Soviets, have almost as much support among Afghans — strange as it sounds — as the present government.
It is still possible for the Harper government to steer a course clear of Washington's on foreign policy, but don't bet on it. This is a stubborn, tough-minded Prime Minister who, weak on foreign policy background, is quite susceptible to seeing the world in black-and-white Dick-Cheney terms.
In coming to power, one of Mr. Harper's goals was to enhance the quality of the Canada-U.S. relationship. Given Canada's economic dependence on the United States, the idea — though our trade volumes tend to rise no matter who is in power — was understandable. He has catered well to the goal and has impressed the business community in so doing. But it is the people the Prime Minister has to win over and he won't do that by being in league with a U.S. government as dark and divisive as this one.
Mr. Harper can and should be a big supporter of core American values. But he must realize how the Bush administration has sullied those values. He must realize that, in this sense, it is Mr. Bush who is the anti-American, not those in Canada who challenge him. He must realize that to troll around in the shadows of this President's wreckage is tantamount to a political death wish.
lawrencemartin9@yahoo.ca
I remain convince that Lawrence Martin is anti-Conservative and that he allows his bias to show but, in this column, he has a couple of sound points:
• George W. Bush IS the most unpopular US President in living memory – far more deeply and thoroughly detested that either Reagan or Johnson (sorry, Mr. Martin, Ronald Reagan was not popular in Canada. He was quite unpopular, especially with the left-Liberal glitterati.) No Canadian PM since St Laurent has ever made good, close relations with a US President (both Truman and Eisenhower in Uncle Louis’ case) into a political advantage. Some, Chrétien for example, have gained from their public disdain for the US President. There is a long, strong streak of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in the Canadian character and politicians do, as Martin says, need to pander to the electorate; and
• As Martin says, it is possible to be a strong supporter of America and American values while being distant, at best, from President Bush. Harper should consider that.
Rumour mongering a romance between Rice and Peter McKay is yellow journalism – but par for the course for the Parliamentary Press Gallery.