Know thyself - if you dare

A few days ago, on the drive home – back from the city grind to rolling pastureland and trees – your truly was greeted by the dulcive tones of a CBC radio reporter declaring that the Federal government has reintroduced the title “Royal” with reference to Canada’s naval and air services. To those unaware, this obstensibly completes the reversal of a policy decision in 1968 – that of “unification” of the nation’s armed services.

Under the direction of then Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Canadian Army were melded into a polyglot ‘Canadian Forces’ with the branches given such inspiring names as ‘Land Command’, ‘Air Command’, and ‘Maritime Command.’

All military personnel were issued new cap badges that were an amalgam of all three services emblems, and were outfitted in stylish dark green polyester jumpers.

Unlike most bad fashion choices of the late 1960’s and 1970’s, these lovely vestments continued until the years of Brian Mulroney, when Air Command and Maritime Command could once again dress like sailors and pilots.

Given the overwhelming support for the move within the military ranks, and the general support outside, it has always seemed like unfinished business – that one would roll back part of a clearly unpopular policy without even considering the possibility of finishing the task. While some can remark on the relative speed of the decision to take this step, it comes twenty years after a partial reversal of a forty year old decision.

While the proponents of the move, by any objective measure, outnumber its critics by a mammoth margin, there are those who still wish to take task with the decision to ‘restore the royal honour.’

Like any good sailor who senses that the winds are blowing in the opposite direction, they have changed tack and changed the terms of the debate. Their strategy now is to cast the whole debate in terms of the question of Canada’s status as a constitutional monarchy. Rather than restoring a proud tradition to our military, Canada is self-imposing some form of subservience to Britain – that we are, in essence, promoting ‘colonialism.’

Yours truly has read online posts from dyspeptic pundits and everyday citizens who exhort that “We are Canadian – Not British” and that “The Queen is a foreigner”, et cetera and ad infinitum.

This debate, to my mind, raises two fundamental issues. First, it calls into question the understanding that individual Canadians have of their own history, which appears to be woefully inadequate bordering on shameful. Just as important, albeit more esoteric, is the question of nationalism and national identity itself. That is, what makes us who we are, as opposed to any other people in the world.

What critics of this move seem to lack appreciation of is the role that the Crown has had in defining the existence and the purpose of this nation from the beginning. Despite the Hollywood glamour machine’s ability to disseminate and promote the idea that the American Revolution was universal in its appeal, and that British forces were as evil as Nazi stormtroopers, not everyone embraced their ‘liberty’.

The recent Canadian broadcast of the HBO miniseries “John Adams” is a good illustration. Based on the book by acclaimed historian David McCullough, the story begins with the title character (played very well by Paul Giamatti) taking on the defence of individuals involved in the Boston Massacre, where many near riotous citizens were shot by British troops – some being killed. Yet, the people that this future signer of the Declaration of Independence and President of the United States (and father of a future President) was defending were the British troops themselves. There is also the scene where the title character makes clear his disgust of the tarring and feathering of a local customs official by the mob assembled. Even during the scenes taking place at the introductory Continental Congress, where Adams has now become adamant about a break with Britain, there still remained delegates from New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina who argued for negotiating a better relationship within the Empire. One might speculate whether Dominion status, had it existed, would have been the popular option.

Not only was society split, but so too were families. My mother’s family, the Peters of Hebron, Connecticut, were staunch Loyalists and paid the price of that loyalty. One Peters daughter was the wife of Samuel Jarvis, who was deputy to Upper Canada’s first Governor-General John Graves Simcoe. That family had also produced one General in Washington’s Army, as well as a future Governor of Connecticut, and a Supreme Court Justice in that state.

The central point, of course, is that English-speaking Canada exists solely due to the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, and their sole reason for leaving the future United States was a loyalty to the very same Crown that some people believe we should shelve because it isn’t ‘Canadian’.

Another charge is that promotion of the Crown is an insult to Quebec. This, too, is predicated on a selective ignorance of history. While the fixation is on 1759 and the Plains of Abraham, people conveniently ignore what took place next. They ignore the Royal Proclamation and the Quebec Act where Quebecois were given protection by the British Crown to remain French and Catholic. They also ignore the fact that the fledgling United States was so hostile to this accommodation of les Quebecois, Thomas Jefferson took the time to use his pen to embed this displeasure in the Declaration of Independence. That is, the United States was willing to put in writing the idea that allowing Quebeckers the right to remain a ‘distinct society’ was a partial excuse for revolution and war. Support among French Canadians for the Crown in 1776 and 1812 might seem a mystery to their descendants, but it was abundantly clear in their minds.

But all of that is history –they argue. We cannot live in the past, they retort.

And yet, this attitude begs its own questions. First, exactly what is outdated and foreign about our system? First, when compared to the vagaries of American election campaigns, and the recent histrionics that were the debt-ceiling debate, do we honestly believe we would have fared better as a republic with a partisan head of state. Secondly, on the foreign point, we are not ruled by the Queen of England. She is the Queen of Canada. One could ask these learned critics as to whether we would automatically lose our head of state should Britain choose to be a republic? The answer, of course, is no – that her role here is distinct and separate. Just read the oath that she, and her successors, must take at their coronation for proof of this fact.

Nowhere in this lengthy post have I answered the real raison d’etre for this move – or at least the one that supercedes the addressing of a failed policy. I will not recount the various points I made in the essay on this blog entitled “A world without friends”, but if one wishes to understand the prescience of reminding Canadians of their justification for existing as a unique nation, I commend them to give it a cursory view.

The only coda I may add to that, and to the final question – the nature of nationalism – is that for the first time since the 1960’s, there is a tacit realization that nationalism is an organic thing. The era of prefabricated Canadian-ness, ushered in by Pierre Trudeau, was a failure. It held such contempt for people that it thought that long standing loyalties and affections could easily be replaced by invented customs and practices. It was the height of hubris that they assumed that Canadians would forsake the symbols and customs that brought them together and helped them endure war and privation in favour of some generic lowest common denominator sales pitch contrived by bureaucrats and advertising executives.

Those who have criticized the government’s restoration of the royal honour are severely vehement in their criticism not just because of their fundamental opposition – of which they have the right to express – but likely due to the shock from the realization that after four decades of spoonfeeding Canadians an artificial version of their country, we seem to prefer the real thing, and by a wide margin.

As I have said previously, the world is changing. In the next couple of decades, we shall exist in an international system that, on the surface, seems to favour those whose fundamental values and beliefs differ from our own. Our allies and friends, by contrast, will appear lethargic and weakened.

Just as in any time of change and upheaval – in the life of an individual, or a society - the only defence against the coming storm is to know oneself. This recent, seemingly symbolic, act is an acknowledgment of this truth, and a step along the road of rediscovering who we truly are.

Like the lake, the trees, and the landscape of this humble home, the eternal and true defy the machinations of mortal hands.

A world without friends?

Many Canadians have reveled in a feeling of schadenfreude when it comes to the recent debt ceiling debate in the United States. As a descendant of United Empire Loyalists writing within months of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, I understand the sentiment, even if it is somewhat unsightly and can easily venture into being undignified.

Much printer’s ink has been spilled over the economic – and political - fate of the US, with a smaller amount set aside for divining the impact on the loonie and our exports south. One can only venture that the prevailing attitude is some combination of fear for one’s self and the rather morbid curiosity of rubbernecking past the scene of a horrible car crash.

At present, the Congress has appeared to find enough of a lowest common denominator as to appease enough interests, and punch a breathing hole through the box they have placed themselves in. While many in the heartland are breathing a sigh of relief, wiser minds understand that this is not clemency, but a delay. When one has maxed out their credit card and cannot afford the monthly minimum payments, increasing their credit limit merely postpones the pain.

The prospects for Canada may be tenuous and challenging at first blush, but they foreshadow a debate that no-one has begun to initiate – one that will be as familiar to our children and grand-children as it is foreign to us.

From that moment in 1534 when Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspé and planted the French Royal Standard, Canada has always been connected, associated, or partnered with an empire or power. French seigneury ended in 1759, only to be replaced by British imperial rule. 1867 would bring a form of independence, but one that was still clearly within the confines of Empire. The Second World War destroyed fascism, but it also dealt a mortal blow to the British Empire. Almost seamlessly, however, Canada became part of a broader American led economic, political and military coalition of interests.

Canadian foreign policy has always reflected this reality, with initiatives designed either to buttress those relationships, or to assert some selective independence for national political expediency.

The shift in the global economy, and the recent financial turmoil spread through Europe, North America, and parts of Asia, reflect a change in power structures. In many respects, this is natural, and can be healthy. It is the result of more people entering the free market economy, and being lifted from relative levels of poverty.

It is also a shift into the unknown.

A major decline in US power would mean that for the first time in its history as a modern nation-state, Canada could find itself without a senior partner or discernable network of interests in the world. Economic, political, and demographic considerations will lead to both Europeans and Americans becoming more introverted, more concerned with domestic stability than international statecraft.
While predictions of the future are always problematic, it is fair to assume that American foreign policy will be far less interventionist, and may possibly be constrained by the need to maintain stability. A weaker United States combined with a stronger China would necessarily, for example, change the power relationship in South East Asia. The status of Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and China’s declared maritime ‘economic zone’ will garner more attention than it does today. Indeed, when one considers Beijing’s call to have observer status on the Arctic Council, and a ringside seat on matters relating to an area of the world where it has no territory, one can only surmise what the policy would be in areas closer to its borders.

It is important to appreciate that the rise of China relative to other nations is not a prima facie negative. Every nation has the right to work to improving the lives and conditions of its people. Also, it would be unfair to presume that China would be an aggressive and destabilizing force in the world. In addition, there is nothing inherent in the character of the Chinese people that would be anathema to the overall peace and security of the world.

Having said that, while governments to a one always purport to be a representation of the will of the people, they often follow paths that diverge. If, as former American politician Tip O’Neill once asserted, that “all politics is local,” then there is always an inherent bias of treating foreign policy as an extension of domestic prerogatives. If those prerogatives lend toward a heavy-handedness, and – arguably – a newfound haughtiness and conceit, then we can only presume that a nation of over 1 billion people, with a nuclear armed military that has more personnel than the population of North America, a thirst for more natural resources than it possesses, and a political system with a history of reprisals and retributions will have a particular style of dealing with others.

One can rightfully argue that power corrupts, and that the ‘unipolar moment’ for the United States has presented some regrettable excesses. Nevertheless, those excesses are mild compared to those of other nations who enjoyed an advantage over their peers. Replacing the primacy of Washington with that of Beijing only serves to trade one set of issues for another – and if those issues are connected to a nation that suppresses human rights and liberty at home, and is beginning to display a nascent amount in arrogance toward other states, we will not have improved our lot.

A weakened United States and a crippled Europe, combined with an ascending totalitarian regime is the future that we face. Canadians will enter this brave new world with the real possibility that no-one will have our backs.

A generation of Liberal politicians have knelt at the altar of multilateralism – chiefly through the United Nations. Regrettably, this has meant that policy by the lowest common denominator. When one considers that Iran can serve on a human rights committee, and North Korea can be entrusted to chair the group promoting disarmament, we can see that the protection that this type of policy offers is no protection at all.

While Canada should endeavor to be a good and trustworthy partner to all, we need to acknowledge that some nations work better together than others. With the possible decline of existing global relationships, we must be at the forefront of forming new alliances and new partnerships.

Canada should therefore commit itself to a retooling of its foreign policy.

First, we should place a clear bias toward those nations that embrace those values that we hold dear. That means working to develop deeper ties with countries that promote human rights and freedoms, free market economies, and respect for the rule of law.

Canada is an Anglophone nation, a Francophone nation, and a power in the Western Hemisphere. This means that our trade, human rights and development aid should be specifically targeted toward the nations of the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and the Organization of American States. Not only do these relationships tend to be the most successful and mutually-beneficial we have, but building on this approach – a “Three Sphere” strategy – we also fashion a system where we would serve as the nexus point between all three networks. Commonwealth nations wishing to tap into markets in la Francophonie and the Americas would use Canada as the trade and investment conduit, and so on.

The Prime Minister’s actions in this regard are encouraging, but may be too timid, given the rapidly changing complexion of the global economy and geopolitical structures. Stephen Harper is correct to pursue strategies to strengthen our military capabilities, develop our energy infrastructure, diversify our trade, and promote our values. What is needed, however, is the synthesis of a more holistic policy – one that specifically identifies what kind of international role Canada sees for itself, as well as the kind of international architecture it is keen to help develop.

The world is changing. In two decades, we will enter a world with multiple centres of power and influence, where no particular political philosophy is dominant, and where competition for resources and markets for a growing population will mark relations between states. Building deep and enduring alliances with the like-minded and similarly oriented is the only way that Canada will ensure its relevancy in the global community. More importantly, it is the only insurance policy for Canadians to live in a society influenced by its own values and prerogatives.

Tell them that Michael Ignatieff says "Bob Rae sleeps with the fishes"

Leadership conventions.

There have been many of them in our nation’s history. Each party has renewed itself through these events which are, in essence, a celebration of grassroots democracy. Many have provided some of the more dramatic moments in our nation’s political history. Party members drawn from every corner of the country, whether it be from downtown Toronto, fishing outposts in Newfoundland, or small towns on the prairies, decend upon a central location to meet and discuss the impending succession. Canadians from all walks of life, bound only by their party ties and commitment to democracy, put prospects to the test, and prepare themselves for yet another generation.

It never used to be this way. Parties, similar to the British model, would simply hole up their MP’s and Senators in a room, and pick one from among them to be their champion.
It was the Liberal Party of Canada that broke from this practice, and invited its rank-and-file members to be part of the process. In 1919, they elected Mackenzie King as their new leader, and, over time, every major political party in every province has adopted the same means of selection.

Some have delegated conventions, with a dozen or so people from each riding. Some have an open popular vote, while some apply some equal weighting to constituencies. The point is that for almost 90 years, the expectation of card-carrying members of Canadian political parties is that they personally, or a dozen of their friends and neighbours, will vote to select a person who could very well be Prime Minister, or Premier.

Now, ironically, the same party that first subjected national leadership to a grassroots vote, has decided that a conference call among some MP’s and Senators will suffice in the ratification of Pierre Trudeau…I mean, Michael Ignatieff, as Leader of the Liberal Party.

Sure, it wasn’t going to be much of a race with only one candidate in the running. Mind you, we had three eager beavers last week, and one of them, Bobby Rae, was talking tough as recently as the weekend. How do you go from criss-crossing the nation, doing the rubber chicken circuit and pressing the flesh, to saying “on second thought, no thanks.”?

Rae, ever the team player, isn’t saying much, but what he has been saying gives me the impression that the problem wasn’t one of desire or motivation.

I get the impression that the people on Iggy’s team are fans of the Godfather movie trilogy, because I see in Bobby Rae someone who was politely told that pushing things any further would result in the political equivalent of waking up with a horse head in your bed, or getting a shot like Moe Green when his rubdown was so rudely interrupted.

So, it appears that there is happiness in the land as the Grit-erati all line up to kiss the ring of Michael ‘Corleone’ Ignatieff, and declare and end to the truce between the three families…Oops, I mean, parties.

There are doubtless many in Liberal Land who are ready to uncork the sparkling cider and celebrate the beginning of their triumphant return to 24 Sussex. While such scenarios are not outside the statistical possibility, let’s be a bit more pragmatic.

First, your party is flat broke. Pledge drives for PBS stations bring in more cash, and what you do get is largely due to the stipends you receive from Elections Canada.

Second, you screwed up big time with the amateur hour putsch, and the PR damage will take more than a couple of months to repair.

Third, you burned your grassroots by making the leadership convention a moot point. You made your peace with Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, but I can’t imagine their supporters don’t feel like they just got screwed over.

Fourth, you have vacated the high ground, because you can’t wax philosophical about democracy when you rear-end your own rank-and-file to obtain power.

Fifth, you are twenty points back, and will probably have to contend with all of the above – less money, fewer foot soldiers, and diminished status – while at the same time answering why your leader, in his writings, identified himself as ‘American’, not Canadian. Of course, don’t get me started on his published views of Ukrainians (read ‘Blood and Belonging’) and how that will bump up the Grit vote in the West.

A new name on the doorplate, or a new logo, or an new PR stunt will not save the Liberal Party. An commitment to old ideas like democracy and accountability might, in the long run.

I see your Johnson, and raise you a Dickens...

The 3 Stooges, and their surrogates, throw out the oft-used quotation by the learned Samuel Johnson, that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

They argue that due to 26% plus 18% plus 10% plus 6% of Canadians who scattered their vote among the 4 platforms, the law allows them the right to conveniently gloss over the internal distinctions, and rule as a unified front.

Indeed, it does, and not withstanding the prorogation, they may still legally get their chance at the end of January.

To this end, might I offer another quote - this from the character Mr. Bumble from Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" :

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience."

We can only hope so much...

And the winner is...

Robert Fife of CTV News!

"Huh?", you ask?

Well, like many Canadians, the boob tube in Cole Lake was turned on to see the sales pitches from the various leaders over the current crisis.

Even if I am biased, Harper looked professional and poised. He even indicated that he was open to input from the opposition parties. I see Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail characterized it as mean-spirited. I guess unless Harper is willing to lay down on the centre line of Rideau Street and let all manner of traffic run over him, he's not showing enough contrition for them.

Anyhoo, great move by Dion - air a grainy YouTube styled video that looks like it was produced by a Grade 9 student in their parents basement (my apologies, they would have had better production values) and have it sent to the networks at least 10-15 minutes late - lots of time for the various anchors and reporters to ad-lib until somebody finally mentions that this doesn't look very good on Dion.

They all said that, and it was painfully obvious to anyone exposed to it.

The award goes to Robert Fife because he was the first journalist to point out the thing that made my wife and I laugh...The spine of a book on the shelf to the upper left of Dion's head that read in bold letters "HOT AIR".

I wondered who would mention it, and indicate that it wasn't very smart to have that sitting within the gaze of the cameras.

Hat's off to you Bob. You said it loud, and you said it first!

The Stephen Harper "Hidden Agenda" Challenge

Now that the dust has settled, we are left to contemplate the results of this recent federal election – the third in four years. Surely there will be a great deal of discussion on the fates of the respective leaders, as well as the wisdom of the strategies they employed for various effects. Some will speculate on the future direction of the government, and, by extension, the relative congeniality among the assorted parties during this mandate.

These are not questions I would dwell upon as they will be answered for us in the fullness of time – whether it be a year, or two or three.

As a partisan, I am more concerned about what, despite being a theme of the last three elections, remains stubbornly unanswered. That is, the ‘secret agenda’ of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

This ‘secret agenda’ is so secret that neither I, as a Tory constituency board member, nor any of my colleagues have ever been privy to it. Surprisingly, though, it is public enough that every Liberal and NDP candidate knows it intimately.

In frustration, I have attempted to ask these people for details of this sinister subtext, but am left with a string of anecdotes and observations united not by any coherent narrative, but simply by the sympathies of those who broadcast them.

As a rhetorical tactic, the allegation of a ‘secret’ or ‘hidden’ agenda is absolutely superb. Denying you have one is even more deadly that fessing up to it. Of course you would deny a ‘hidden agenda’ – after all, it’s hidden, silly. Denials are as much an admission of guilt as a confession.

In the Middle Ages, enterprising prosecutors had an ingenious device for identifying witches known as the dunking chair. You simply strapped the accused sorceror to the chair and submerged them in a pond for a period of time. If they survived, they were guilty, because how could you stay alive under water for so long without the benefit of the Dark Arts? On the other hand, if they hoisted your lifeless body from the depths, your next of kin could rest assured in the knowledge that you were innocent of the charge and your soul could pass through St. Peter’s pearly gates.

No one can accurately predict the future. I know not when the next election will be, or who will be leading the fight for what party. I don’t even know what defining issue will grab the imagination of the Canadian public. I am, however, pretty confident that the Conservative ‘hidden agenda’ will once again be resurrected to the light of day.

That is why I, for my own piece of mind, as much as for anyone else, would like to seek closure on this vexing issue. Just as rewards are offered for undisputable proof of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, I wish to offer $100 of my own money to the individual who offers clear and unassailable proof of the Tory ‘hidden agenda.’

My terms are simple. The evidence must be substantive, and well documented, and reach the same burden of proof that one would find in a court of law. Anyone wishing to make quick money by simply copying Liberal and New Democratic blogs and passing innuendo and suggestion for fact need not apply. Dates, times, references to individuals and actions must be both documented and support the broader narrative of a conspiracy for me to open my wallet.

So here it is, Canada. The challenge has been set, and the prize is there to be won.

If a winner is found, I will award the money in however public a fashion the recipient chooses.

If the challenge has not been met before the next election, however, I trust that the Tory ‘hidden agenda’ be filed with the Protocols of Zion and every other scurrilous conspiracy that serves only to slander without proof.