Cameron:
Jesse just sent me a link to this interesting Andrew Sullivan post. It's worth thinking about, although in the end I think it can be a little potted - what we associate with "left" and "right" have moved from party to party, effectively switching sides, rather frequently. So while this strain of Toryism is important, it isn't the only strain of Toryism out there; it is just one that resonates today.
I have a shorter, blunter, point, though. It concerns me that at this point it appears that absolutely nobody understands the term "neo-con" (or neocon.) I've always known that in Canada the term was routinely massacred (neocon being "really conservative",) but here the misuse is just as bad (and in the US, no less, where they sometimes get this right.) Andrew Sullivan is an educated and brilliant writer, but what he is referring to here is not the neocon wing of the party. In any case, if Sullivan is getting this wrong it seems to me that the term must be in real trouble.
Really briefly, the term Neo-Con refers to new conservatives, or conservatives new to the American movement. They define themselves as conservatives because of principled foreign policy that they feel will result in a better world, while the Democratic party is seen as weak, relativistic, and indecisive. In this way, they can come close to liberal internationalists, in that they want to spread democracy and free markets, which are supposed to reduce strife long term and foster peace and prosperity. The darker side to the NeoCon mindset, though, is that in experience this movement has tended to place a greater priority on vanquishing enemies than fostering institution-building - Fascists bad, Communists bad, ethnic strife pretty bad, Muslim extremism bad. Some feel that this darker tendency shows that they are stifled by a dualistic worldview, while supporters simply feel that this is how you get things done - by relentlessly pressuring those who would deny you your way of life.
In terms of history, these people were until fairly recently Democrats. They loooooved JFK, who was actually more hawkish against the Communists than Eisenhower. Moreover, remember that many prominent Republicans had advocated for neutrality in WWII, while FDR manipulated the country like hell to get lend-lease and the convoy-protection approved prior to Pearl Harbour. The NeoCons felt that after Kennedy, however, the Democrats and Republicans switched sides on foreign policy, and that with Vietnam the centre-left split and turned inward-looking, while the Communist menace remained just as strong as before. Amongst other demographic changes, you can find here the moment that the Democrats ceded electoral supremacy to the Republicans - being the peace party when you lose a war is bad karma. Throw in Carter's weakness, and Reagan's belligerence looked really, really appealing to these former Democrats.
It's also worth mentioning that these NeoCons can get along with many centrist Democrats, despite their being "really conservative" according to Jack Layton. When Bill Clinton bombed Serbia over Kosovo, Bill Kristol's NeoConWeekly Standard ran a series of laudatory editorials. This infuriated the right, and cost him subscriptions, but it fit with the NeoCon priority on a principled approach to foreign policy. Similarly, you could tell during the 2008 election campaign that John McCain (who is more of an old-school realist shot through with NeoCon stripes) felt very comfortable with Hillary Clinton's approach to foreign policy, but couldn't stand Barack Obama's seeming weakness on security issues.
So this leads us to today, which is that when people use the term "neocon," how often do they refer to the above? Not very likely in the states, and almost never here in Canada.
It's interesting actually, in that I tried to find an instance of a Canadian neocon, and I can't really find one. The Harper Tories often talk in their vocabulary - of good and bad coming before national interest, but they frankly don't seem that committed to it. Yes, they are committed to Afghanistan, but it always seemed more about sucking up to the Americans than about true conviction about the international system. Moreover, the Tory-Israel stuff goes even further along this road , but it seems equal parts useless blather (nobody in the Middle East cares about Lawrence Cannon's opinions on Israel) and craven calculation to me. That's probably unfair, I know, but without a real sense that the Tories have thought this through (and given that they've never released a comprehensive FP platform,) I just don't know why they do the things they do beyond that they see certain things as right.
I guess my point is that the Canadian experience is one where Foreign Policy is irrelevant to domestic politics, so the NeoCon contingent doesn't per se exist. Instead, we use it to demonize groups, from Harrisites (golfers from North Bay who care about small government have nothing to do with former Trotkyite New York NeoCons), to Harper (but never about Foreign Policy, where it might mean something.) Sullivan is doing this too, and here he seems to be referring to the exact part of the GOP that isn't NeoCon in the least - the NeoCons are all about government, and they ask for sacrifice instead of self-interest all the time.
Friday, July 10
Uses of "Neo-Conservatism"
Wednesday, July 8
Wow. Or; You Know The Hurt Is Coming When You Kill Someone With A Sword In Front Of Kids
Monday, July 6
Ze Sigh...
Jesse:
I'm pretty tired right now, but I'm going to put forth the effort needed to express my ire. I've just seen my first "10 percenter"; Jay Hill (Conservative MP for Prince George-Peace River) sent my parents an ad attacking Michael Ignatieff's time spent out of the country.
This is such a clear abuse of the public trust and funds that it's not really worth explaining. However, I was asked for advice on how to "get this guy" by a really nice lady. So far, I'm suggesting:
1) Email Mr. Hill, tell him you're disgusted that he'd abuse taxpayer money for partisan purposes, and that you'll be making a donation to the Liberal Party of Canada in response
2) Contact the Speaker of the House to complain
3) ...
It doesn't look like this has anything to do with the Ethics Commissioner... and I don't think it's Elections Canada's purview either. I don't think suing for abuse of taxpayers funds ever gets anywhere (though it might get some attention). Anyone with any ideas should please let me know in the comments.
Oh, and I await Preston Manning's response. Maybe I should add him to the email list (seriously?)?
Saturday, July 4
House of Cards
Jesse:
Just read this article in the Star (from a while ago, I'm behind). The thesis is that our MPs have become useless, and that although others have done it Harper's much worse than before. The conclusion is that we need a PM who's willing to give away power (something I saw somewhere else recently). The examples of Martin and Harper, both of whom claimed they'd come in as reformers and then didn't, are usually given.
I accept the conclusion, except that I don't think it's the only way this happens. Specifically, I don't see why no one's standing up in the House and saying it. There is no reason why a (preferably influential) MP can't take a leadership role on something like this. Have a few private chats with others in your party to ensure there's some support, then go for it. It would help if this was a cabinet minister (not that there's anyone with any leadership potential anywhere in the current cabinet); dare your PM to throw you out of cabinet because you're pro-House, pro-Canadians, and pro-democracy.
To me, it seems more likely that a conscientious leader could arise in the House to take on these issues than that a PM will, once in office, have the moral fibre to give power away.
Friday, July 3
Completely Idle Speculation - Rick Nash for Dany Heatley?
Cameron:
It'll never happen, for some very good reasons, but if I was an owner of a money-losing Columbus franchise, trading Nash for an effectively 4$ million Heatley would not be the most terrible idea out there right now.
And if not Nash, then the same logic extends even moreso to Shane Doan and the Coyotes, as well as whoever the Panthers still have these days...
---------------------------------------------------------
Update of sorts - actually, I'm totally off base about Doan - he only gets paid 4.5 million per season. That's a pretty terrific value for him. With him at 4.5 and Ed Jovanovksi at 6, the Coyotes seem to be a really well run club from a salary perspective.
Wednesday, July 1
On Learning About Sports Investments From Nicolas Anelka
Cameron:
I'm watching the Dany Heatley saga unfold for Ottawa and Edmonton, and the only person I can think of is Nicolas Anelka.
Anelka, as you know, is the famously petulant striker that currently plays for Chelsea, one of the top clubs in the world. Anelka's resume actually reads really well: Paris St. Germain, Real Madrid, Arsenal, Liverpool, Fenerbahce, Man City, Bolton, then Chelsea, where he was one of the top scorers in the EPL last season. All of this by the time he's 30.
Now, you don't move from top team to top team unless they get pissed off at you. And they all got pissed off at him, except for Bolton, which was disarmingly thrilled to have him. When all those top coaches can't stand you, you know something's wrong.
But every year, something strange obviously happens, as another top team looks, and says, "Hey, where else can we find a proven 20 goal scorer?" They then shell out in order to land him, to the point that Anelka is now the "most expensive player ever" if you add up his transfer fees.
The flip side, of course, is that he's obviously also one of the best and most predictable sporting talents in the world. He's on the wrong side of 30, but when Chelsea gets pissed off at him (it's about time,) someone else will line up with 25 million bucks to get him for a year or two.
I think this is the same thing as with Dany Heatley. He's a poison, full stop. But he's not a bad investment, really. The Thrashers got Marian Hossa for him, the Senators could get Cogliano, Smid, and Penner for him, and the Oilers will get someone good for him in two years time when he moves on.
It's the circle of life, really, for Terrell Owens-like talents like Anelka and Heatley. It's just that they don't make many friends along the way.
Wednesday, June 24
Well we can't all be reading the classics, Professor Highbrow
Jesse:
New new editions for the fray: What's The Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank, Supreme Command: Soliders, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot A. Cohen, and Churchill: A Life by Sir Martin Gilbert.
I started drafting this post some time ago (in which time I read all of the Churchill book) which means that some of my thoughts about Kansas and Supreme Command have likely slipped my mind. I shall do my best.
What's The Matter With Kansas was interesting, and has certainly influenced the way I'll be looking at the right going forward (I've already mentioned it at least once). I thought the thesis was interesting. I thought the book was probably a little long. And I was somewhat disappointed with what I perceived as a certain amount of selectiveness on the part of Mr. Frank. Using bizarre Kansans as examples may have helped him further his thesis (and may have been entertaining), but, in my opinion, lacked a certain fairness. I should have liked to have seen a look at the other side of the debate (presumably there are non-crazy Republicans who he could have engaged).
Supreme Command was spectacular. Mr. Cohen appears in The Gamble, which I read earlier, and this book was specifically referenced. Supreme Command also led to my reading of the next book. Cohen examines (through exposition and four case studies) the relationship between political and military leaders in wartime. Cohen sets up what may or may not be somewhat of a straw man to oppose; the "normal theory" of war. In this theory, Cohen argues that the military, and some historians and analysts, believe that the only role politicians should play is that of "goal setter". They should see the military as a gun, point it, pull the trigger, and then allow the bullet to do it's job. Cohen rejects this thesis, and studies (somewhat briskly) the wartime efforts of Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, and Ben-Gurion. He draws the conclusion that each of these leaders, in their own way, exerted serious and important control over their militaries. Lincoln used a steady stream of firings of his generals as well as his inimitable ability to write to "box them in". Clemenceau led from the front. Churchill repeatedly and voraciously questioned his generals on the conduct of the war (as well as prodding them along). Ben-Gurion learnt everything there was to know about his military, then entirely restructured them. I highly recommend this book; I found it easy to read, a fascinating introduction to the wartime conduct of four extraordinary men, and an important thesis.
Finally, I have just completed Churchill: A Life. This was the best book I've read so far, hands down. I don't know that I have a lot to say. For 959 pages it reads like far less (not that it didn't take me a while). Churchill's life was incredible and inspirational, and Sir Martin is a fantastic historian and biographer; the story is very easy to read. The only oddity that kept jumping out at me (and now you, should you elect to read it, which you should) is that Gilbert painstakingly notes every time Churchill is almost in danger, both before and while PM (including several close calls where planes immediately before or after Churchill's crash). I'm not sure how the book would read without these, but I found the repeated emphasis of danger to be the only somewhat sour note. I also question whether or not Sir Martin is somewhat of an apologist for Churchill, as there are several points in the book where he goes into a subject to explain why Churchill was right for no apparent reason. Perhaps it would have been out of place in a biography of this nature (which was certainly already long enough), but I did find myself wondering what the current state of criticism is of Churchill's decisions in some of these areas. If anyone knows a good "summary" of the criticisms of his behaviour, let me know.
Coming up next? I've just purchased several books, and I'm not sure which I'll reach for... though I must say I'm sorely tempted by a book on Trudeau I just found for $5 at Indigo...
2009 Reading Competition
Kyle
1. Outliers | Malcolm Gladwell (299 pages) | Grade: C+
2. Boys Will Be Boys | Jeff Pearlman (365 pages) | B
3. Acme Novelty Library #19 | Chris Ware (80 pages*) | A
4. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao | Junot Diaz (340 pages) | A
5. Rome 1960 | David Maraniss (460 pages) | B+
6. The Reckoning | David Halberstam (733 pages) | A
7. Generation Kill | Evan Wright (370 pages) | B
8. Friday Night Lights | Buzz Bissinger (400 pages) | B+
9. Pictures at a Revolution | Mark Harris (496 pages) | A+
10. The Withdrawal Method | Pasha Malla (321 pages) | B+
11. Long Lost | Harlan Coben (374 pages) | D
12. Liar's Poker | Michael Lewis (249 pages) | B
Total: 4487
Jesse
1. America America | Ethan Canin (450 pages) | C+
2. Outliers | Malcolm Gladwell (299 pages) | B-
3. Lester B. Pearson | Andrew Coyne (174 pages) | B
4. All The King's Men | Robert Warren (609 pages) | A
5. The Gamble | Thomas E. Ricks (325 pages) | A-
6. What's The Matter With Kansas | Thomas Frank (251 pages) | B
7. Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime | Eliot A. Cohen (248 pages) | A
8. Churchill: A Life | Sir Martin Gilbert (959 pages) | A+
Total: 3315
Rob
1. The Inner Game of Tennis | Timothy Gallwey (134 pages) | A
2. The Last Shot | Darcy Frey (240 pages) | A+
3. The Road | Cormac McCarthy (287 pages) | A+
4. Outliers | Malcolm Gladwell (299 pages) | C+
5. The Last Season | Phil Jackson (304 pages) | B-
6. The Sunset Limited | Cormac McCarthy (160 pages)| B-
7. The Education of a Coach | David Halberstam (288 pages)| B+
8. Downtown Owl | Chuck Klosterman (288 pages)| B
9. Can I Keep My Jersey?| Paul Shirley (336 pages)|C-
10. Then We Came to The End| Joshua Ferris (416 pages)|B+
Total: 2752
Monday, June 22
Obama and Iran
Jesse:
I've been absolutely glued to Andrew Sullivan's coverage of the situation in Iran. So glued, in fact, that I fell behind on my Opinio Juris. So behind, that I missed this tidbit:
As for law, the United States has expressly promised to stay out of matters such as fraudulent Iranian elections. In one of the most unusual international law commitments I have ever read, the United States in the 1981 Algiers Accords has pledged “that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.” Failure to comply with this obligation could result in a claim filed by Iran against the United States before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.So... in all the "discussion" from the right wing crazies about how Obama should intervene in the election, no one's mentioned this yet? No one thought I should know that it would be an explicit treaty violation for the President to intervene here? Ze sigh.
Pot Pourri
Jesse:
I haven't done anything in a while, and I'm not feeling it today. But, I'll point you in some directions.
1) I'm beginning to lean towards pushing for IRV (instant run-off voting) as an improvement to our system. IRV would involve numbering candidates, rather than just selecting one, then eliminating the bottom choice until there's a winner. I recognize there's still the possibility for mathematically unlikely boondoggles, but I think they're far less than those in first-past-the-post. Read about how San Franciscan "elites" hate it here.
2) This (confusing to the eye) bit by Andrew Potter summed up perfectly by feelings on the Lisa Raitt apology; how long does it take to tell the truth? If you're super weepy and upset about what you said on tape on Tuesday, how is it possible that on Monday you stood up in the Commons and told everyone to go to hell?
3) I think Iggy stumbled a bit last week, but I think the overall effect (which I'm more and more convinced is all that matters, since it's all (if anything) that voters will take away) was good. He got PM Harper to offer some more accountability, he got the power to try to force an election early on in the fall session, and he got a commission which will hopefully help reform EI. Sure, for those of us who follow these things way too closely, he didn't get much more accountability, he has to rely on the Bloc and the NDP (the latter of which has been hinting at footsie with the Conservativies), and the Liberals have basically reversed themselves (360 hours and we need it right now! has become "let's chat about this until fall"), but I don't think that will resonate. Go talk to, say, your grandmother; did she know the Liberals were demanding a 360 hour standard (don't talk to mine, who probably does)? Does she care?
Tuesday, June 16
Mano-a-mano
Jesse:
My only thought (for now, maybe?) on this Ignatieff not-an-ultimatum is that I think it's kinda upsetting that no one thinks it might be principled. I'm not willing to say it is principled, but maybe it is.
Maybe he actually just thinks that in a minority situation Parliament has to be made to work, and that, therefore, he needs answers on four questions from the government before he can allow Parliament to continue.
I caught the At Issue panel on Mansbridge (for some reason), and Hebert, particularly, was basically just saying "I'm so confused as to why Ignatieff is acting scared, they're up in the polls". Which, to me, basically posits that he's an idiot. He decided to come up with a fake crisis, and didn't realize it might make him look bad or might have a result he doesn't want.
What if the Liberals are willing to go to the polls but actually just think it's not what Canadians want? But are willing to go against that if, in their (theoretically) informed-er opinion, the Conservative government is too opaque to support?
Again, not saying it's true, just saying I haven't heard it anywhere else.
