Cameron:
At risk of being unfair, I think I'd like to suggest that Chris Alexander might very well be the first bona fide neoconservative in Canadian history. This post is pretty much just a placeholder to that effect, in case the future would like to either a)hoist me on my petard or b)admire my prognostications.
My evidence is fairly thin: a Canadian of fairly mainstream politics who decides to go conservative out of a principle-based stance on foreign policy that stresses the primacy of democracy and human rights. I don't think we've ever seen one before, but here we are now.
Why principle-based, you ask? Well, it isn't out of policy differences, as the Liberals and Conservatives have basically formed a Wellsian "Grand Coalition" in regards to Afghanistan, and in fact Alexander is on record that we should stay in combat operations beyond 2011. That decision can't be based on a realist or social constructivist judgement, as, frankly, everyone agrees that Afghanistan is a real morass that no longer enjoys deep public support. And it isn't like Liberals don't like international democracy too, anyways, as Michael Ignatieff was a liberal internationalist 15 years prior to being a Liberal MP. It's just that the Liberals have, so to speak, started to waver because they think it's a lost cause.
You could say; sure, but Alexander is really just a PC kid from a PC family, which is true.
But why is he in politics? Is it for the economy? For social values? To fight against crime? No - it's because he is a bigshot in foreign affairs, and he would like to be foreign minister (sorry, Mr. Cannon, but you are only a seatwarmer.) Both parties sought his support, and he chose to support the Tories, presumably (and it is a big assumption, albeit the only assumption that takes everyone at face value) because he appreciated their muscular and principled approach to foreign policy (right? After all, a third party would have to agree that Harper and Ignatieff are both bona fide liberals - any differences are largely symbolic and based on Harperian "friends and enemies" distinctions that are the ethical core of neoconservatism.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On a tangent of sorts, it is sort of funny that only in Canadian Foreign Policy would we see people selected as "stars" and "experts" precisely because they presided over our biggest disasters. I mean, this guy's career is effectively one of either serial mendacity or tragic incompetance, and we seriously think he's the better for it.
Or: "all idealism is mendacity in the face of necessity" - Nietzsche. Ecce Homo, (II, 10)
Tuesday, September 29
A Canadian NeoConservative? It's Sort Of Like Seeing A Sasquatch, Really.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What's your evidence that we think he's the better for it? And who's "we"? That may pre-program your answer...
He's not being seen as an expert because he presided over our biggest disaster. He's (optimistically, and if he is) being seen as an expert because he has experience in the region (not that I don't think you realize that).
It's so easy to pass the buck, that for any particular mis-step, he'd be able to say it wasn't him (blame Bush, NATO, "the unknowable", Canadian government for not listening to him). Which I think leaves us at; if you think Afghanistan is a work in progress (agree with Alexander and Harper), then of course he's your guy. If you think it's an unmitigated disaster, he's obviously not.
(the below will seem hostile, but it isn't intended to be; rather, it's general frustration with the situation.)
Well, he's a young guy, and his great claim to fame is his leadership position in Afghanistan, and now he's considered our big expert on Afghanistan and a star candidate (and foreign minister heir apparent). So presumably people think his impressive resume has lots to do with the time in Afghanistan. Otherwise, what is there? Lots of people have been to great universities.
I know people think he's an expert because he has experience in the region, and that is indeed worth something, but I have to ask at what point all of his words have to be accounted for. If he's an expert, why have all of his prescriptions (and some of them are specifically his) turned out to be total disasters?
The schools he said were being built never got built. The towns being secured never got secured. The roads being cleared never got cleared. The democratic reform never happened. The governance stayed horrific and unrepentantly so. And now the Pashtuns hate us, and our generals, as of this week, seemingly hate them. He has been wrong for years in the face of all the evidence. He's been, and continues to be, a cheerleader.
It isn't really that easy to pass the buck unless we let him. And we'll let him because we all passed the buck and agreed to put our heads in the sand. I say "we" as a Canadian. I'm on record that we should have pulled out around the time of the Manley report, which was shamefully incomplete and was irresponsibly based on the assumption that it'll all somehow work out. It turns out I was 4 or 5 odd years too late in my thinking, but frankly I identified then what I charge Alexander with now: it won't all magically work out. There's no overarching plan. We still don't have a coherent supreme envoy with real power over Karzai. And the coalition has never devoted even a quarter of the necessary troops.
So, all in all, Canada's betrayed itself. Don't get me wrong - I can't stand the Taliban. Seriously, if Canada's policy was to take off but relentlessly destabilize the Taliban regime through air strikes, I'd be fine with that. But that isn't what we signed up for; we can't save Afghanistan, and wishing it were so isn't going to make it happen. Foreign policy is for grown-ups, and we Canadians haven't acted like it - we've wanted it all to be ok, and we've wanted to believe people like Chris Alexander.
So you're right - Chris Alexander will be given a pass, because there is still nobody credible on foreign affairs in this country that will dare say what all the independent analysts have been screaming.
Post a Comment