Reply #63: pure right-wing talking points

[iverglas]

a succession of politicians, starting with Trudeau, who wanted to buy our votes but didn't want to face the consequences of the resulting tax hikes.

If you're old enough to claim to be a member of the extinct Rhinoceros Party, you may be old enough to remember ... oh ... wage and price controls? I wonder who might have been responsible for them. As I recall, it was Pierre Trudeau.

Buying votes -- whether by playing to Quebec's grievances/aspirations or more directly -- was one thing that Trudeau wasn't actually known for. Any disregard for the military on his part simply was not driven by electoral politics.

The rather free spending of the early Trudeau years, the late 60s/early 70s, was largely a function of the prosperity of the times, not his own political or economic philosophy; Trudeau wasn't much known for having an economic philosophy. Uncle Bill Davis, the Tory Premier of Ontario who would look positively scarlet on today's political spectrum, followed similar policies: liberal financial assistance for post-secondary students and govt-sponsored student/youth employment projects were features of both levels of govt, for instance.


The trade-off of that choice, though, is that we are now incapable of mounting a foreign policy that is either credible or independent- as long as we rely entirely on Uncle Sam for our defence our only choices are to follow or stay out of the way.

There actually is a little more to foreign policy than military strategy. Even "liberals" acknowledge this.

You seem a knowledgeable chap. Perhaps you are aware of Canada's activities in many forums on the international scene, and in bilateral relationships, in areas like democratic development, particularly in relation to institution-building and the rule of law. Even Paul Martin seems to be committed to maintaining this role -- whether as a result of even a minimal genuine philosophical commitment (which I do grudgingly concede in the case of Jean Chrétien) or as a result of expediency, it's hard to say. The Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States -- the work done there may go on in relative obscurity in terms of public/media notice, but it does go on and it does have effect, and it is recognized.

Our foreign policy is both credible and independent; in fact, those are hallmarks of our foreign policy. It is indeed unfortunate that more details of it are not as well known to the general public in Canada as they are in other places. But even if most Canadians are inadequately informed about these things, there is little doubt about our overall support for the philosophy behind them. Our vision of ourselves as peace-keepers may be a little self-serving at times, but it does reflect a very real sense of national identity and values and purpose.


Many terorist groups use Canada as a staging ground for their schemes (such as the plan to blow up LAX in '99) and a source of funding (the Tamil Tigers even managed to get a cabinet minister to speak at one of their fundraisers).

In the present day, it would actually be rather odd if Canada were exempt from these phenomena. There is a world out there, and we are part of it. Our chosen orientation is engagement with the world, not isolation from it (let alone attempts to dominate it), and there will be consequences from that choice. It is difficult to see how they could be worse than the consequences of the alternative, paranoid isolationism / messianism, the effects of which are rather evident on the global stage these days.

.