http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007884
An Act of Hygiene
Democracy fells yet another anti-American government.
BY MARK STEYN
Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
QUEBEC--Remember the conventional wisdom of 2004? Back then, you'll recall,
it was the many members of George Bush's "unilateral" coalition who were
supposed to be in trouble, not least the three doughty warriors of the
Anglosphere--the president, Tony Blair and John Howard--who would all be
paying a terrible electoral price for lying their way into war in Iraq. The
Democrats' position was that Mr. Bush's rinky-dink nickel-and-dime allies
didn't count: The president has "alienated almost everyone," said Jimmy
Carter, "and now we have just a handful of little tiny countries supposedly
helping us in Iraq." (That would be Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan . . .)
Instead of those nobodies, John Kerry pledged that, under his leadership,
"America will rejoin the community of nations"--by which he meant Jacques
Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, the Belgian guy . . .
Two years on, Messrs. Bush, Blair, Howard and Koizumi are all re-elected,
while Mr. Chirac is the lamest of lame ducks, and his ingrate citizenry has
tossed out his big legacy, the European Constitution; Mr. Schroeder's
government was defeated and he's now shilling for Russia's state-owned
Gazprom ("It's all about Gaz!"); and the latest member of the coalition of
the unwilling to hit the skids is Canada's Liberal Party, which fell from
office on Monday. John Kerry may have wanted to "rejoin the community of
nations." Instead, "the community of nations" has joined John Kerry,
windsurfing off Nantucket in electric-yellow buttock-hugging Lycra, or
whatever he's doing these days.
It would be a stretch to argue that Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder and now Paul
Martin in Ottawa ran into trouble because of their anti-Americanism. Au
contraire, cheap demonization of the Great Satan is almost as popular in the
streets of Toronto as in the streets of Islamabad. But these days
anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and it's usually a
reliable indicator that you're not up to the challenges of the modern world
or of your own country. In the final two weeks of the Canadian election, Mr.
Martin's Liberals unleashed a barrage of anti-Conservative attack ads whose
ferocity was matched only by their stupidity: They warned that Stephen
Harper, the Conservatives' leader, would be "George Bush's new best friend"!
They dug up damaging quotes from a shocking 1997 speech in which he'd
praised America as "a light and inspiration"! Another week and they'd have
had pictures from that summer in the late '80s he spent as Dick Cheney's
pool boy.
Mr. Harper, the incoming prime minister, will not be "George Bush's new best
friend"--that's a more competitive field than John Kerry and Jimmy Carter
think. But at the very least a Harper government won't rely on reflexive
anti-Americanism as the defining element of Canadian identity. No cheery
right-wingers south of the border should exaggerate what happened on Monday.
It was an act of political hygiene: The Liberal Party was mired in a swamp
of scandals, the most surreal of which was a racket to shore up the
antiseparatist cause in Quebec by handing out millions of free Canadian
flags, a project which so overburdened the domestic flag industry the
project had to be outsourced to overseas companies, who at a cost of $45
each sent back a gazillion flags that can't fly. That's to say, they had no
eyelets, no sleeve, no halyard line for your rope and toggle and whatnot.
You have to lean a ladder up against the pole and nail it into position,
which on a January morning at Lac St-Jean hardly seems likely to endear
nationalist Quebecers to the virtues of the Canadian state. Millions of
dollars were transferred to "advertising agencies" and "consultancies" run
by the party's pals and in return they came up with a quintessentially
Liberal wheeze: Even if you wanted to salute it, you can't run it up the
flagpole. As a forlorn emblem of Trudeaupian nationalism, that's hard to
beat.
And yet and yet . . . in throwing the bums out, Canadian voters declined to
subject them to full-scale humiliation. Even with viable alternatives for
all tastes--conservative, socialist and Quebec separatist--it seems one can
never underestimate the appeal of a party of floundering discredited
kleptocrat incompetents led by a vindictive empty suit who fought one of the
most inept campaigns in modern political history. They clung on to over 100
seats and the votes of Canada's three biggest cities. Truly, the Liberals
are one of the most amazingly resilient parties this side of Kim Jong-Il's.
Stephen Harper has to live with that political reality, but, as he's done
with his party, he'll move the country incrementally. On the environment,
his views are compatible with Mr. Bush, John Howard and now Tony Blair:
That's to say, if "climate change" is a problem, Kyoto's not the answer to
it. On missile defense, the Conservatives will string along with Washington
because it's the easy option and we'll be covered by it anyway: Even
Canadians aren't prepared to argue that if there's something headed toward
Winnipeg or Montreal, we'd rather the Americans minded their own bloody
business and didn't tell us about it. But it's a good gauge of the
deterioration in U.S.-Canadian relations that a quintessential piece of
postmodern, humbug multilateralism--an issue that required Canada to be
minimally supportive without being helpful, at no political cost and in
return for some lucrative contracts for northern defense contractors--was
whooped up by the Liberals into a big scare about Washington's plans for the
"weaponization of space." On missile defense, Mr. Harper will be more down
to earth in every sense.
But will there be Canadian troops in Iraq or wherever's next? No, not in any
meaningful sense. The sad fact is, even if we'd wanted to liberate Baghdad,
we have an emaciated military worn to the bone. But it goes beyond the lack
of equipment and lack of transport that now afflict what was, 60 years ago,
the world's fourth largest military. In April 2002, the Pentagon wished to
confer the Bronze Star on five snipers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian
Light Infantry in Afghanistan for their service in . . . killing the enemy.
Ottawa put the request on hold, relenting grudgingly only after the matter
was made public. It seems the Canadian government's main objection was a
reluctance to let it be known that our military still, er, shoots people,
and extremely accurately. The backs of our five-dollar bills celebrate the
armed forces, but they're all unarmed--peacekeepers, elderly veterans, etc.
Like much of the European Union, we're so heavily invested in the idea that
we've found a kinder, gentler way we can scarcely bear to contemplate the
reality. At the Washington state/British Columbia border last week, two guys
on the lam were hightailing it through Blaine heading for the 49th parallel
with the cops in hot pursuit. Alerted to what was coming their way, Canada's
(unarmed) border guards walked off the job. For a country whose national
anthem lyrics are mostly endless reprises of the line "we stand on guard for
thee," we could at least stand on guard. A few years back, I was chatting
with a border guard at the Derby Line, Vt./Rock Island, Quebec, crossing. A
beat-up sedan came hurtling northward and we jumped out of the way. She
sounded a klaxon. By then the driver was halfway up the Trans-Quebecoise
autoroute and, if he ever heard her stern warning, he declined to brake and
reverse back to the post to show his papers. "Oh, well," she said to me,
"it's probably nothing."
Canadians have been reluctant in the last four years to accept that we no
longer live in an "it's probably nothing" world. Many Continentals feel the
same way. Unlike his hollow predecessor, Stephen Harper is a thoughtful man
who understands the gulf between self-mythologizing and the harder
realities. You can't change a free country unless you persuade free people
to change their minds, and he will at least start that tough job. He doesn't
have to be George Bush's best friend, and he may even be more effective at
opposing him on trade and agriculture disputes. But he could try being Tony
Blair's and John Howard's best friend and reconnecting us with other
traditional pals from whom Canada's become increasingly estranged. He could
honor our small but brave contribution to Afghanistan by flying out and
meeting them on the ground.
But even if he does nothing else, he'll bring to an end a decade of
self-defeating sneering. The ayatollahs at least flatter America as a
seducer--the Great Satan--which is a more accurate and sophisticated
construct than deriding her as the Great Moron. The difference between
sniping at the Taliban and sniping at Washington is that in the latter case
we're firing blanks.
-----
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
