The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Bravo, Canada!
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL--I normally do not take pleasure in the suffering of others, but I have to admit to making an exception to this rule when it comes to CNN International, which is basically the only English-language news I can get in my Sao Paulo hotel; for as it has become increasingly clear that the Canadians were going to throw their morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt Liberal party--who have been a tremendous thorn in the side in the United States' War on Terror--out on their collective derrieres, the doom and gloom settling over the CNN correspondents has become truly palpaple. And I have to admit, this brings me no shortage of joy to see. I guess it has just gotten to the point with me that if CNN is against something, it must be a GOOD thing.
Also, knowing that Mark Steyn is a resident of Canada, I went searching for his take on the Conservatives' victory there; and when I found this Mark Steyn commentary in The Australian, I was not disappointed. In the meantime, to the people of Canada, congratulations on making a sound decision in your future and our collective futures--we have a natural affinity for Canadians and share a common heritage. Hopefully we now also can cooperate to a much greater extent in the War against Radical Islamism:
A SAD day for Michael Moore. In the event of a terrible tragedy, the corpulent anti-corporate crusader is wont, like the Queen and Kofi Annan, to issue a formal statement to the world. And his "Michael Moore Statement On Canadian Election" made distressing reading: "Oh, Canada - you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?"
Well, no. In a very Canadian kind of revolution, we rose up yesterday and threw the bums out but gave them a soft, fluffy landing, nevertheless installing in office a minority government that somehow managed to get itself elected despite having the word "Conservative" in its name.
For Tories, it was a good night, if not a great night. But, given that the party was reduced to two seats in the 1993 debacle, after 12 years in the wilderness most Canadian conservatives will take a strong minority government as a spectacular landslide. We'd be dipping our voting fingers in maple syrup and triumphantly waving them at the UN observers if they hadn't all fallen asleep 20 minutes into the thrilling election-night coverage.
For the past century, Canada's ruling Liberals have been the democratic world's most consistently successful political party. This time round, mired in a series of scandals that were turning Canada into the G7's first Third World kleptocracy, the flailing Trudeaupians adopted an even more ferocious version of their usual strategy: scare the voters back to Nanny. As the Liberals warned Canadians - or, rather, shrieked at them - Stephen Harper will take away "a woman's right to choose"! The unwanted boys you'll be forced to have will grow up to be Bush cannon fodder in Iraq, and the unwanted girls will be sold as white slaves for Halliburton corporate cocktail parties round the pool at Dick Cheney's ranch.
Well, that's certainly why I voted Conservative, but it's hard to believe many of my fellow Canadians (and even my fellow Quebecers) felt the same way. South of the border, Michael Moore wasn't the only one shocked by Liberal attack ads painting Scary Stephen as a Bush-loving neocon warmonger who'll slash and gut Canada's lavish social programs. For the past two weeks, American radio hosts have been asking me, with drooling anticipation: "Wow! Tell us about this great guy, Stephen Harper!"
And then I'd take a deep breath and try to explain that, no, he's not Canada's Thatcher or Reagan. But, with a bit of luck, he might be Canada's John Howard. Not in the sense that he's a blunt, no-nonsense, plain speaker: that seems to have been bred out of our political DNA, alas. Howard is an ordinary bloke, but he's not bland. By comparison, Harper is not just unexciting, he's unexciting even by Canadian standards! As he told a meeting in Ontario the other day, "Bland sells."
Apparently it does. Even "the politics of personal destruction" (in Bill Clinton's phrase) depends on a certain basic plausibility. Canada's Liberal Party produced at one point an unintentionally hilarious attack ad intended to suggest that Scary Stephen's unexceptional proposal for some modest reorganisation of the military was a covert plan to introduce martial law.
It began with an ominous drumbeat and then, in urgent staccato typewriter script over a close-up of the Tory leader: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. [Drumbeat] Soldiers with guns. In our cities. [Drumbeat] In Canada. We did not make this up. [Drumbeat] Choose your Canada." Rimshot! You might conceivably make this pitch work super-imposed over a close-up of certain hatchet-faced politicians. But it's hard to get away with "Aaaaieee! Here comes the right-wing death-beast!" and then show a picture of a fellow who looks like one of the more avuncular back-up singers on The Andy Williams Christmas Show. By the end of the campaign the Liberals were sounding more than a little unhinged - but, to an extent, it worked, at least in the sense that it terrified enough of the base back into the polling booths to prevent a meltdown.
Obviously I wish he really were as scary a right-wing death-beast as the Liberals say he is, but there's no point pretending that's what the Canadian electorate wants. John O'Sullivan, a former editor of National Review and Thatcher's long-time adviser, observed that post-war Canadian history is summed up by the old Monty Python song, "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK", which begins as a robust paean to the manly virtues of a rugged life in the north woods but ends with the lumberjack having gradually morphed into some transvestite pick-up singing that he likes to "wear high heels, suspenders and a bra" and "dress in women's clothing and hang around in bars".
I'm not saying Canadian men are literally cross-dressers - certainly no more than 35, 40 per cent of us are - but nonetheless a nation that in 1945 had the fourth-largest armed forces in the world has undergone such a total makeover that it's now a country that prioritises the secondary impulses of society - government health care, government day care, rights and entitlements from cradle to grave - over all the primary ones.
As I said, Scary Stephen's no Ron or Maggie. But as a young man in the '80s he was spurred into politics by his clear understanding - unlike most so-called Canadian "conservatives" - that his country had missed out on Thatcher-Reagan economic liberalisation. Essentially, he's a political economist with a libertarian streak: he thinks that if you leave taxpayers with more of their money they're more likely to spend it in ways that do more social good than letting the government disburse it.
And here's where I think Harper could prove Howardesque. He shares two of the Australian Prime Minister's great qualities: he's very secure in his sense of himself, and he has a very shrewd sense of what's politically possible. If he plays those cards right - and I'd bet he will - he could be, as Howard has been, one of those unflamboyantly transformative leaders who leaves the political landscape significantly altered.
I can't claim to know Stephen Harper well. But a couple of years ago, at some international confab, I introduced him to a British cabinet minister as "leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition", neglecting to specify the realm. From the momentarily startled look on his face, the Blairite bigwig seemed to think I was introducing him to that week's UK Tory leader. British Conservatives should be so lucky. A month before all those American radio hosts started badgering me about Stephen Harper, they were badgering me about this new guy in Britain - I forget his name, but he's very cool and glamorous, full of charisma. Ginger Spice, I think. No, hang on, Austin Powers.
Well, anyway, whatever the Brit guy's name is, the UK Tories have done what a lot of parties do: pick a great personality and then see if they can order him up a political philosophy from room service. John Howard in Australia proves that's the wrong way round to do it, and so I think will Stephen Harper.
And, if over the next few years Canada upgrades its presence on the international scene from "All But Invisible" to a functioning member of the Anglosphere, that will be all to the good, too.
Also, knowing that Mark Steyn is a resident of Canada, I went searching for his take on the Conservatives' victory there; and when I found this Mark Steyn commentary in The Australian, I was not disappointed. In the meantime, to the people of Canada, congratulations on making a sound decision in your future and our collective futures--we have a natural affinity for Canadians and share a common heritage. Hopefully we now also can cooperate to a much greater extent in the War against Radical Islamism:
A SAD day for Michael Moore. In the event of a terrible tragedy, the corpulent anti-corporate crusader is wont, like the Queen and Kofi Annan, to issue a formal statement to the world. And his "Michael Moore Statement On Canadian Election" made distressing reading: "Oh, Canada - you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?"
Well, no. In a very Canadian kind of revolution, we rose up yesterday and threw the bums out but gave them a soft, fluffy landing, nevertheless installing in office a minority government that somehow managed to get itself elected despite having the word "Conservative" in its name.
For Tories, it was a good night, if not a great night. But, given that the party was reduced to two seats in the 1993 debacle, after 12 years in the wilderness most Canadian conservatives will take a strong minority government as a spectacular landslide. We'd be dipping our voting fingers in maple syrup and triumphantly waving them at the UN observers if they hadn't all fallen asleep 20 minutes into the thrilling election-night coverage.
For the past century, Canada's ruling Liberals have been the democratic world's most consistently successful political party. This time round, mired in a series of scandals that were turning Canada into the G7's first Third World kleptocracy, the flailing Trudeaupians adopted an even more ferocious version of their usual strategy: scare the voters back to Nanny. As the Liberals warned Canadians - or, rather, shrieked at them - Stephen Harper will take away "a woman's right to choose"! The unwanted boys you'll be forced to have will grow up to be Bush cannon fodder in Iraq, and the unwanted girls will be sold as white slaves for Halliburton corporate cocktail parties round the pool at Dick Cheney's ranch.
Well, that's certainly why I voted Conservative, but it's hard to believe many of my fellow Canadians (and even my fellow Quebecers) felt the same way. South of the border, Michael Moore wasn't the only one shocked by Liberal attack ads painting Scary Stephen as a Bush-loving neocon warmonger who'll slash and gut Canada's lavish social programs. For the past two weeks, American radio hosts have been asking me, with drooling anticipation: "Wow! Tell us about this great guy, Stephen Harper!"
And then I'd take a deep breath and try to explain that, no, he's not Canada's Thatcher or Reagan. But, with a bit of luck, he might be Canada's John Howard. Not in the sense that he's a blunt, no-nonsense, plain speaker: that seems to have been bred out of our political DNA, alas. Howard is an ordinary bloke, but he's not bland. By comparison, Harper is not just unexciting, he's unexciting even by Canadian standards! As he told a meeting in Ontario the other day, "Bland sells."
Apparently it does. Even "the politics of personal destruction" (in Bill Clinton's phrase) depends on a certain basic plausibility. Canada's Liberal Party produced at one point an unintentionally hilarious attack ad intended to suggest that Scary Stephen's unexceptional proposal for some modest reorganisation of the military was a covert plan to introduce martial law.
It began with an ominous drumbeat and then, in urgent staccato typewriter script over a close-up of the Tory leader: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. [Drumbeat] Soldiers with guns. In our cities. [Drumbeat] In Canada. We did not make this up. [Drumbeat] Choose your Canada." Rimshot! You might conceivably make this pitch work super-imposed over a close-up of certain hatchet-faced politicians. But it's hard to get away with "Aaaaieee! Here comes the right-wing death-beast!" and then show a picture of a fellow who looks like one of the more avuncular back-up singers on The Andy Williams Christmas Show. By the end of the campaign the Liberals were sounding more than a little unhinged - but, to an extent, it worked, at least in the sense that it terrified enough of the base back into the polling booths to prevent a meltdown.
Obviously I wish he really were as scary a right-wing death-beast as the Liberals say he is, but there's no point pretending that's what the Canadian electorate wants. John O'Sullivan, a former editor of National Review and Thatcher's long-time adviser, observed that post-war Canadian history is summed up by the old Monty Python song, "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK", which begins as a robust paean to the manly virtues of a rugged life in the north woods but ends with the lumberjack having gradually morphed into some transvestite pick-up singing that he likes to "wear high heels, suspenders and a bra" and "dress in women's clothing and hang around in bars".
I'm not saying Canadian men are literally cross-dressers - certainly no more than 35, 40 per cent of us are - but nonetheless a nation that in 1945 had the fourth-largest armed forces in the world has undergone such a total makeover that it's now a country that prioritises the secondary impulses of society - government health care, government day care, rights and entitlements from cradle to grave - over all the primary ones.
As I said, Scary Stephen's no Ron or Maggie. But as a young man in the '80s he was spurred into politics by his clear understanding - unlike most so-called Canadian "conservatives" - that his country had missed out on Thatcher-Reagan economic liberalisation. Essentially, he's a political economist with a libertarian streak: he thinks that if you leave taxpayers with more of their money they're more likely to spend it in ways that do more social good than letting the government disburse it.
And here's where I think Harper could prove Howardesque. He shares two of the Australian Prime Minister's great qualities: he's very secure in his sense of himself, and he has a very shrewd sense of what's politically possible. If he plays those cards right - and I'd bet he will - he could be, as Howard has been, one of those unflamboyantly transformative leaders who leaves the political landscape significantly altered.
I can't claim to know Stephen Harper well. But a couple of years ago, at some international confab, I introduced him to a British cabinet minister as "leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition", neglecting to specify the realm. From the momentarily startled look on his face, the Blairite bigwig seemed to think I was introducing him to that week's UK Tory leader. British Conservatives should be so lucky. A month before all those American radio hosts started badgering me about Stephen Harper, they were badgering me about this new guy in Britain - I forget his name, but he's very cool and glamorous, full of charisma. Ginger Spice, I think. No, hang on, Austin Powers.
Well, anyway, whatever the Brit guy's name is, the UK Tories have done what a lot of parties do: pick a great personality and then see if they can order him up a political philosophy from room service. John Howard in Australia proves that's the wrong way round to do it, and so I think will Stephen Harper.
And, if over the next few years Canada upgrades its presence on the international scene from "All But Invisible" to a functioning member of the Anglosphere, that will be all to the good, too.
