A Khaki Election
The conventional wisdom holds that, in order to improve the chances of his government being re-elected, Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to accept the demands of the opposition that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan not be extended beyond February of 2009 and that he also must, in the meantime, seek to sell the mission to the Canadian public as being consistent with our cherished “peacekeeping” tradition.
The problem with this, as with all such advice, is that it is born of a mindset lacking in both imagination and courage.
I believe that the correct course of action for the Prime Minister – and for the country – would be to announce that Canada will remain committed to combat against the Islamists for as long as is necessary to bring victory. Furthermore, I believe that the opposition has provided the Prime Minister with a golden opportunity. When Parliament returns this fall, he should seek from it a commitment to extend the mission in Afghanistan for the duration. When that vote fails to carry he should call a general election on the issue.
It is my belief that not only would the ensuing campaign lead to the re-election of the government – but that it would be returned with a majority. Unthinkable? Perhaps. But such thoughts remain so only for so long as we steadfastly refuse to think them.
Allow me to offer a brief lesson in the political geography of Canada. Yes, it is true that – for a variety of reasons – the right is weaker in Canada than in America and elsewhere. However, it is also true that the Canadian right has less of a challenge to meet because there are no less than four major left-wing parties in Canada: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party. There is now only a single major party of the right: the Conservative Party of Canada.
This unique landscape can greatly advantage the Conservative Party, if we know how to use it. Basically, it means that for the Conservatives to form a government they need barely a third of all voters. To form a majority, they need somewhere between 37%-40%. Indeed, if just two in five Canadians voted for the right and 60% voted for the left, the result – thanks to the geography of the situation – would be an overwhelming Conservative majority.
Terrain can dictate the course of battle. Imagine Canada’s right as the Spartans at Thermopylae. If we can retain control of a series of narrow passes, we can hold off the enemy – numbers be damned. If we have Generals who possess a vision of the land, we can array our forces in such a way that the strength of the enemy will be wasted and shattered in a pointless frontal assault against fixed defenses of great strength. If we can man and hold such a position, we could only be defeated either by treachery or some alteration of the features of the land.
The goal should not be to adopt policies and offer proposals which will shallowly appeal to 60% of the population, perhaps half of whom might be motivated to vote Conservative for such causes. The goal should be to adopt policies which reflect strongly-held minority positions, that the minority which holds those positions may prove steadfast and create a majority in the House of Commons. Remember this – for it is the key to victory: if we have 40% with us, the other 60% can go straight to hell.
Why, you may ask, has this approach not been adopted if it is so self-evident and likely to be successful? I might well suggest that it is because many of our leaders are lacking in the necessary vision – but that would be both self-serving and unfair. I would suggest, as an alternative, that it is because such a narrow approach runs counter to decades of social conditioning which suggest majority assent and approval as the politician’s ideal. The goal of many – too many, in my private opinion – who enter politics is to serve all of the people and to make all of the people like them. Indeed – there is a reason why we so often hear the phrase “the majority rules” rather than “the carefully-selected plurality rules.” It is, to return to an aforementioned phrase, “unthinkable” because it runs counter to our education and nature.
I will not linger upon the morality of this conception of politics, save to say that it is wholly inconsistent with any that assigns equal value to the opinions and thoughts of each and every individual. If one believes that the form of modern mobocracy which has brought us to our present state is the ideal form of government, then one will naturally disagree with that and, more than likely, everything else that I write and say.
If, however, one believes that governments and societies are founded upon the natural laws of politics, economics, and human relations – and that experiments with alternative forms of law based upon an idealized conception of human nature (including not only our own, but various other lamentable examples as revolutionary French republicanism and the states of the disciples of Marx and Lenin) are ahistorical and doomed from the start, then you are likely to see much sense in my sayings.
Let us return, then, to the proposed election and the matter of the 40%. For, after all, it is well and good to say that we can win a permanent majority with 40% of the vote but, truth be told, the Conservatives have yet to get that in any poll, let alone on Election Day. Despite all of the corruption and stupidity of the Liberal Party – despite all that the left had brought upon this country – there remains something almost vaguely disreputable about being a Conservative in Canada. To get that 40% of the population which largely supports right-wing position on the issues to actually show up and reliably vote for the Conservatives at the polls requires some greater effort – and a fundamentally different effort – than merely tinkering with the Tory platform in order to make it marginally more attractive to moderate voters.
Why, through it all, do the Liberals retain such a residual degree of public affection? Simply put, I propose it is because – in the minds of so many people – the Liberals are the country. Whether consciously or not, beginning in the Pearson years and continuing through the present day the Liberal Party has deliberately merged its brand with that of the country. To teach someone a textbook definition of “what it means to be Canadian” – to be peaceful, to support Medicare, to be ‘caring’, and so forth – is to teach someone what it means to be a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Thus it is that, in the minds of the general public, to be a Canadian is to be a Liberal and, therefore, there is something fundamentally un-Canadian about conservatism, seeing as conservatism stands (at least in theory) in opposition to the central components of the Liberal/Canadian brand. This belief is lamentably reinforced by the tame acceptance of this myth by most conservatives – who rush to establish their own Canadian identity through piously mouthing the same weak and soft left-wing clichés. When the Conservatives attempt to sell themselves to the public as simply being better managers of the limp-wristed liberal welfare state, they implicitly endorse the Liberal conception of Canada’s nature and identity.
To secure that 40% of the electorate that holds generally-conservative views, the Prime Minister and his party must not only articulate a right-wing set of positions on the issues: they must offer up an alternative Canadian identity. Remember: in a democracy, emotions trump issues. Many of those people who agree with right-wing positions are tied to the Liberals or other parties by the melancholy strings of emotion. To win, we must not only appeal to their minds – but to their hearts as well.
There are two Canadian nations today. There is Canada the weak and Canada the strong. Canada the weak is the nation of Pearson’s flag, of left-wing judges letting criminals run free, of hand-outs to the undeserving, of unquestioned adherence to political correctness. Canada the weak defines Canada’s international image and dominates its institutions.
However, though Canada may be seen as (and may indeed be) a weak country, Canadians, upon the whole, are far from a weak people. A nation that loves hockey as much as Canada does – hockey being, surely, the most violent major sport in the world today – can hardly be considered one of wimps and lisping losers. Canadian soldiers made an unquestioned contribution to victory in two World Wars – fighting both from beginning to end – and carried on that proud tradition through the Cold War and to the present day in Afghanistan.
The voice of strong Canada, however, goes unheard still – because there are few who dare speak for them in the face of weak Canada’s overwhelming control of the nation’s institutions. Thus, Canadians of individual strength – while mainly conservative-leaning – lack any overall direction or leadership from the top. Without a single leader or force to unite them behind a cause, they are forced to acquiesce to a culture and society that they despise for the sake of getting along. They are forced to do this because they have never been given a choice.
Well, if conducted in the right way, an election now could give them that choice and, in so doing, it could build a solid plurality, which could hold its position against the massed forces of the left for years and years.
It is not enough to move into such an election simply arguing for the deployment in technical terms – as part of our NATO commitment, etc. Instead, the Prime Minister must articulate a vision that explains that Canada is in Afghanistan for the sake of Canadians. He must connect it to a larger program for the transformation of Canada from a weak country into a strong one – one which will be respected in the world, not pitied and ignored. One which will have a seat at the table for reasons other than mere sentiment.
Not only should Canada commit to continuing the Afghan mission – but the Prime Minister should announce that a new government will immediately begin both a larger-scale expansion of the Armed Forces and a more urgent and immediate expansion and improvement of our forces in Afghanistan. He should promise to develop the armed forces to secure the north, for Canada’s own benefit – and articulate those potential benefits in a concrete way and offer Canadians a vision of a country that counts for something in the world. Imagine – and it is possible – a Canada which could be counted among the top five powers in the world – and, to boot – in possession with rather a great deal of the world’s unused land and resources? A leader of the right strength and resolve could make Canada a nation which punches several times its own weight – more powerful than any nation of Europe, Africa, and South America. Perhaps behind only the United States, China, Japan, and India. A strong and independent player not only in rhetoric, but in fact as well.
An increase of, say, $15 Billion a year to the military could buy Aircraft Carriers, modern Submarines, more C-17’s, and an extra pair of infantry divisions which, taken together, would give Canada the ability to take independent action. In proposing this, the Prime Minister ought not to be afraid to tap into anti-Americanism himself, for it could well be turned to his advantage. Such a force, he should explain, could be a force for good where the Americans will not act on their own. Such a force might intervene in Darfur, or have stopped the Rwandan genocide. The Liberal notion of Canada as a peacekeeper might even be properly appropriated and perverted: such a program might well make Canada into a missionary Great Power, unafraid of confronting evil on its own and always ready to defend its own interests when challenged.
The key here is to reconnect with an older form of patriotism than that which is expressed by the Liberal Party. To call forth the deeds of the Greatest Generation against the watered-down socialized patriotism which is the stock-in-trade of the Liberals. Propose an emphasis on real Canadian history (that is to say, the battles fought by Canada in the World Wars and the like) in schools. Haul out the Red Ensign for some campaign events, and accuse the Liberals of insulting Canadian veterans when they complain.
It is very much worth remembering, in this context, how much we will be assisted by the present leadership of the Liberal Party. In a normal election, I believe that a weak leader with the disadvantages possessed by Mme. Dion would be worth a dozen seats to us. What do you think it would avail us in an election where the Prime Minister made the strength of Canada and Canadian patriotism the main issue? How well do you think that voters in Sarnia and Prince George are going to take to being lectured on Canada and Canadianism by an effeminate, narrow-shouldered Frenchman who can barely speak English?
An election now – on this issue and against this opponent – offers the opportunity for a re-aligning moment in Canadian life. It is a chance to forge a new coalition, based on a new worldview, which will have a chance to permanently change the destiny of this nation.
The problem with this, as with all such advice, is that it is born of a mindset lacking in both imagination and courage.
I believe that the correct course of action for the Prime Minister – and for the country – would be to announce that Canada will remain committed to combat against the Islamists for as long as is necessary to bring victory. Furthermore, I believe that the opposition has provided the Prime Minister with a golden opportunity. When Parliament returns this fall, he should seek from it a commitment to extend the mission in Afghanistan for the duration. When that vote fails to carry he should call a general election on the issue.
It is my belief that not only would the ensuing campaign lead to the re-election of the government – but that it would be returned with a majority. Unthinkable? Perhaps. But such thoughts remain so only for so long as we steadfastly refuse to think them.
Allow me to offer a brief lesson in the political geography of Canada. Yes, it is true that – for a variety of reasons – the right is weaker in Canada than in America and elsewhere. However, it is also true that the Canadian right has less of a challenge to meet because there are no less than four major left-wing parties in Canada: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party. There is now only a single major party of the right: the Conservative Party of Canada.
This unique landscape can greatly advantage the Conservative Party, if we know how to use it. Basically, it means that for the Conservatives to form a government they need barely a third of all voters. To form a majority, they need somewhere between 37%-40%. Indeed, if just two in five Canadians voted for the right and 60% voted for the left, the result – thanks to the geography of the situation – would be an overwhelming Conservative majority.
Terrain can dictate the course of battle. Imagine Canada’s right as the Spartans at Thermopylae. If we can retain control of a series of narrow passes, we can hold off the enemy – numbers be damned. If we have Generals who possess a vision of the land, we can array our forces in such a way that the strength of the enemy will be wasted and shattered in a pointless frontal assault against fixed defenses of great strength. If we can man and hold such a position, we could only be defeated either by treachery or some alteration of the features of the land.
The goal should not be to adopt policies and offer proposals which will shallowly appeal to 60% of the population, perhaps half of whom might be motivated to vote Conservative for such causes. The goal should be to adopt policies which reflect strongly-held minority positions, that the minority which holds those positions may prove steadfast and create a majority in the House of Commons. Remember this – for it is the key to victory: if we have 40% with us, the other 60% can go straight to hell.
Why, you may ask, has this approach not been adopted if it is so self-evident and likely to be successful? I might well suggest that it is because many of our leaders are lacking in the necessary vision – but that would be both self-serving and unfair. I would suggest, as an alternative, that it is because such a narrow approach runs counter to decades of social conditioning which suggest majority assent and approval as the politician’s ideal. The goal of many – too many, in my private opinion – who enter politics is to serve all of the people and to make all of the people like them. Indeed – there is a reason why we so often hear the phrase “the majority rules” rather than “the carefully-selected plurality rules.” It is, to return to an aforementioned phrase, “unthinkable” because it runs counter to our education and nature.
I will not linger upon the morality of this conception of politics, save to say that it is wholly inconsistent with any that assigns equal value to the opinions and thoughts of each and every individual. If one believes that the form of modern mobocracy which has brought us to our present state is the ideal form of government, then one will naturally disagree with that and, more than likely, everything else that I write and say.
If, however, one believes that governments and societies are founded upon the natural laws of politics, economics, and human relations – and that experiments with alternative forms of law based upon an idealized conception of human nature (including not only our own, but various other lamentable examples as revolutionary French republicanism and the states of the disciples of Marx and Lenin) are ahistorical and doomed from the start, then you are likely to see much sense in my sayings.
Let us return, then, to the proposed election and the matter of the 40%. For, after all, it is well and good to say that we can win a permanent majority with 40% of the vote but, truth be told, the Conservatives have yet to get that in any poll, let alone on Election Day. Despite all of the corruption and stupidity of the Liberal Party – despite all that the left had brought upon this country – there remains something almost vaguely disreputable about being a Conservative in Canada. To get that 40% of the population which largely supports right-wing position on the issues to actually show up and reliably vote for the Conservatives at the polls requires some greater effort – and a fundamentally different effort – than merely tinkering with the Tory platform in order to make it marginally more attractive to moderate voters.
Why, through it all, do the Liberals retain such a residual degree of public affection? Simply put, I propose it is because – in the minds of so many people – the Liberals are the country. Whether consciously or not, beginning in the Pearson years and continuing through the present day the Liberal Party has deliberately merged its brand with that of the country. To teach someone a textbook definition of “what it means to be Canadian” – to be peaceful, to support Medicare, to be ‘caring’, and so forth – is to teach someone what it means to be a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Thus it is that, in the minds of the general public, to be a Canadian is to be a Liberal and, therefore, there is something fundamentally un-Canadian about conservatism, seeing as conservatism stands (at least in theory) in opposition to the central components of the Liberal/Canadian brand. This belief is lamentably reinforced by the tame acceptance of this myth by most conservatives – who rush to establish their own Canadian identity through piously mouthing the same weak and soft left-wing clichés. When the Conservatives attempt to sell themselves to the public as simply being better managers of the limp-wristed liberal welfare state, they implicitly endorse the Liberal conception of Canada’s nature and identity.
To secure that 40% of the electorate that holds generally-conservative views, the Prime Minister and his party must not only articulate a right-wing set of positions on the issues: they must offer up an alternative Canadian identity. Remember: in a democracy, emotions trump issues. Many of those people who agree with right-wing positions are tied to the Liberals or other parties by the melancholy strings of emotion. To win, we must not only appeal to their minds – but to their hearts as well.
There are two Canadian nations today. There is Canada the weak and Canada the strong. Canada the weak is the nation of Pearson’s flag, of left-wing judges letting criminals run free, of hand-outs to the undeserving, of unquestioned adherence to political correctness. Canada the weak defines Canada’s international image and dominates its institutions.
However, though Canada may be seen as (and may indeed be) a weak country, Canadians, upon the whole, are far from a weak people. A nation that loves hockey as much as Canada does – hockey being, surely, the most violent major sport in the world today – can hardly be considered one of wimps and lisping losers. Canadian soldiers made an unquestioned contribution to victory in two World Wars – fighting both from beginning to end – and carried on that proud tradition through the Cold War and to the present day in Afghanistan.
The voice of strong Canada, however, goes unheard still – because there are few who dare speak for them in the face of weak Canada’s overwhelming control of the nation’s institutions. Thus, Canadians of individual strength – while mainly conservative-leaning – lack any overall direction or leadership from the top. Without a single leader or force to unite them behind a cause, they are forced to acquiesce to a culture and society that they despise for the sake of getting along. They are forced to do this because they have never been given a choice.
Well, if conducted in the right way, an election now could give them that choice and, in so doing, it could build a solid plurality, which could hold its position against the massed forces of the left for years and years.
It is not enough to move into such an election simply arguing for the deployment in technical terms – as part of our NATO commitment, etc. Instead, the Prime Minister must articulate a vision that explains that Canada is in Afghanistan for the sake of Canadians. He must connect it to a larger program for the transformation of Canada from a weak country into a strong one – one which will be respected in the world, not pitied and ignored. One which will have a seat at the table for reasons other than mere sentiment.
Not only should Canada commit to continuing the Afghan mission – but the Prime Minister should announce that a new government will immediately begin both a larger-scale expansion of the Armed Forces and a more urgent and immediate expansion and improvement of our forces in Afghanistan. He should promise to develop the armed forces to secure the north, for Canada’s own benefit – and articulate those potential benefits in a concrete way and offer Canadians a vision of a country that counts for something in the world. Imagine – and it is possible – a Canada which could be counted among the top five powers in the world – and, to boot – in possession with rather a great deal of the world’s unused land and resources? A leader of the right strength and resolve could make Canada a nation which punches several times its own weight – more powerful than any nation of Europe, Africa, and South America. Perhaps behind only the United States, China, Japan, and India. A strong and independent player not only in rhetoric, but in fact as well.
An increase of, say, $15 Billion a year to the military could buy Aircraft Carriers, modern Submarines, more C-17’s, and an extra pair of infantry divisions which, taken together, would give Canada the ability to take independent action. In proposing this, the Prime Minister ought not to be afraid to tap into anti-Americanism himself, for it could well be turned to his advantage. Such a force, he should explain, could be a force for good where the Americans will not act on their own. Such a force might intervene in Darfur, or have stopped the Rwandan genocide. The Liberal notion of Canada as a peacekeeper might even be properly appropriated and perverted: such a program might well make Canada into a missionary Great Power, unafraid of confronting evil on its own and always ready to defend its own interests when challenged.
The key here is to reconnect with an older form of patriotism than that which is expressed by the Liberal Party. To call forth the deeds of the Greatest Generation against the watered-down socialized patriotism which is the stock-in-trade of the Liberals. Propose an emphasis on real Canadian history (that is to say, the battles fought by Canada in the World Wars and the like) in schools. Haul out the Red Ensign for some campaign events, and accuse the Liberals of insulting Canadian veterans when they complain.
It is very much worth remembering, in this context, how much we will be assisted by the present leadership of the Liberal Party. In a normal election, I believe that a weak leader with the disadvantages possessed by Mme. Dion would be worth a dozen seats to us. What do you think it would avail us in an election where the Prime Minister made the strength of Canada and Canadian patriotism the main issue? How well do you think that voters in Sarnia and Prince George are going to take to being lectured on Canada and Canadianism by an effeminate, narrow-shouldered Frenchman who can barely speak English?
An election now – on this issue and against this opponent – offers the opportunity for a re-aligning moment in Canadian life. It is a chance to forge a new coalition, based on a new worldview, which will have a chance to permanently change the destiny of this nation.
posted by Adam Yoshida at
4:23 PM
2 Comments:
Well said my friend, one can only hope the Prime Minister is listening.
While I agree with the substance of your analysis, Adam, I disagree with the notion that Canada has some sort of fundamentally stronger, more respectable, conservative past that should be evoked and utilized by Harper.
Canada of the past was just as wimpy as Canada of today, the difference is that in the past Canada was a colony that had a fawning and subservient relationship with a great and powerful Empire, and that Empire happened to provide its colonies with good leadership in times of war. Canadians have never been able to draw strength from their own independence or maturity, which I believe is the very basic criteria for any sort of growth or greatness. In the past we were only a nation of sychophants trying to take credit for a culture and society we were fortunate enough to be colonized by, but contributed nothing of note to. And now, even as a sovereign nation, we define our worth as a country by how well we can be a subservient “team player” of that mythical “international community.” We sign all the stupid treaties and rise to the top of UN lists, but again, really accomplish nothing of note or substance in the process.
The true challenge for Harper, and indeed all Canadian conservatives, is to build a new and respectable sense of nationalism in this country. Not a nationalism based on touchy-feely Liberalism, but also not a nationalism based on the empty and ridiculous baubles of our colonial past. It should not be forgotten that Harper's own Reform party arose in direct opposition to the corpulent Tory establishment that felt “conservatism” consisted of nothing more than toasting Queen Elizabeth and going to dinner parties with rich Toronto businessmen.
The Liberals made their nationalism, and it's time for Harper to create his counter vision, once that keeps in mind the values of populism, anti-elitism, individualism, morality, and confidence that characterized the Reform movement of old. We should, as you said, be a country that actually DOES things, and aspires to ACHIEVING greatness. Until now, we've just been coasting.
Post a Comment
<< Home