Trivia hunter alert: Next
year’s Canadian election will be fought on the 50th anniversary of
George Grant’s futile attack on Canadian Liberalism’s then-unbounded awe of
American power and technique.
In 1965, Lament for a Nation ridiculed the country’s solemn Liberal
leadership as philistines, with adolescent arms outstretched in love. Events
and opportunities such as Watergate, the Tea Party, and the Iraq wars, not
Grant’s scolding, however, put that love on ice.
Justin Trudeau’s father and
every Liberal leader since have taken care to appear to never give Washington
the benefit of the doubt. In addition, they conceived within their own
intellectual circles a new nationalism that emphasized Canada’s worldliness,
its multilateral associations, and not its North American alliance. They never
missed a chance to display proper distance from and concern for the vitality of
American governance.
Liberals, in fact, designed
highly effective election campaigns against Conservatives who could be
suspected of being too influenced by Ronald Reagan’s charm, too optimistic
about America’s future, or brainwashed by every wave of American rightwing
extremism.
Last weekend’s Liberal policy
convention and Justin Trudeau’s formal policy address, however, signaled an
empathic return to their earlier passion: a heartfelt concern for America’s
respect for us and a less-than-pure-hearted confidence that Harper’s problems
with Obama can be exploited electorally.
Less noteworthy was their
unselfconscious recruitment of American political and intellectual stars.
Lawrence Summers is as appealing to Canadian conservatives as he is to liberal
audiences, and Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, didn’t
offer ideas on campaign tactics that winning US consultants aren’t already
being paid to sell to audiences in other foreign democracies.
The most striking display of
their reawakened American infatuation was the utterance of and audience response
to two Ottawa-Gothic assertions by Trudeau:
“It
is a fundamental economic responsibility for the Prime Minister of Canada to
help get our resources to global markets. More and more, the way to do that is
with a robust environmental policy that gives assurances to our trading
partners that those resources are being developed responsibly.”
Analyst and author
Paul Wells singularly noted that these statements received an exceptionally
enthusiastic standing ovation.
Audiences of Canada’s "natural governing" party, of course, admire qualified sentences and are easily
excited by expressions of concern for the good regard of governors elsewhere.
Still, Trudeau and his audience last Saturday weren’t thinking about polluters
in Beijing or inconsequential bureaucrats in shrinking European resource
markets.
They’re convinced that as prime minister, Justin Trudeau would better impress Barack Obama and his administration
than Stephen Harper. Also, they’re likely sure that the rejection of the
Keystone XL pipeline would grievously hurt Harper, especially in the growing
affluent West that he absolutely must sweep to get re-elected.
(This issue, for Liberals,
unfortunately, has nothing to do with political integration; it’s strictly
about sophisticated head-off government relations — the chemistry of two
capitals, not the common qualities of their citizens.)
These new Liberal calculations
may turn to dust if, eventually, Obama decides to go with the pro-pipeline
majorities in Washington’s Republican and Democratic caucuses. Nevertheless,
what’s historically interesting is the now-palpable eagerness of Liberals to
attack Harper for not being cool in Obama’s bunker in Washington.
They seem sure that “standing
up for Canada” with this President is counterproductive, unsophisticated, and
embarrassing.
Is it inconceivable that
Harper could turn and do to Justin Trudeau what Jean Chrétien did to Progressive
Conservatives in the '90s?
Could, 50 years later, the
least red Tory conservative since Lament
for a Nation suffer at the fate of Grant’s doomed hero: John G. Diefenbaker?
Can those Trudeau Liberals just keep rewriting the rules?
No comments:
Post a Comment