Andrew Coyne and Friends

I've pulled this post from my Macleans for Dummies archive. It should be of interest to those following the CPC convention. Click on the links to read some enjoyable talk-back from Maclean's.


Updated: Ken Boosenkook is working for Christy Clark now! It's a crazy world...

When Andrew Coyne writes that the Conservative Party practices a 'know-nothing' strain of conservatism he really knows what he's talking about! After all he sat through this little speech by Ken Boessenkool:

We have our British Conservative Party friends here who spoke about this at length. Andrew, who's a great friend, and many other conservatives who are criticizing us right now come from the economic side of our coalition but let's look at the broader coalition and let's start talking about a couple of areas where the principals that this conservative government have put forward and defended and moved have been REVOLUTIONARY.

FOREIGN POLICY: Canada is consistently the first country in the world to defend Israel, our ally in the Middle East, our democratic ally. This is a huge thing that they've done. They've stood on principal on that and they've been consistent right through the piece.

DEFENSE: We are rebuilding our Armed Forces. We are putting billions of dollars into our Armed Forces and we are rebuilding our National Defense in a principaled, important and lasting way.

ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY: We are defending and building national symbols which Conservatives can be identified around. The symbolism of The North, the arctic stuff that Harper is doing, we're defining our northern part of our country as a conservative national symbol. Look at our government's website. "True North Strong and Free". The National Anthem becoming more of a conservative symbol.

FEDERALISM: We have a government now... and I was at a Institute of American Family conference and someone - Mr. Ian Duncan Smith - said his think tank was not a think tank but a do tank. And I went to the mike and said it's very good to have a do tank but I think what Conservatives need is an undo tank because there's all kind of bad policy we need to undo. And on federalism this government has for almost the most part if not the main part this government has stayed out of provincial jurisdictions in the area of social policy. That's an undo. It's an important undo.

On Justice we have brought forward many bills to toughen up our criminal justice system. A very conservative set of policies. A very consistent set of policies that we have pushed forward, advanced and moved forward.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: We no longer...there is no longer any credibility in this country for the Kelowna Accord, for the Kyoto Accord or for court challenges programs. These were politically correct institutions that this government has systematically - in their converstation and in their policy - undone and moved forward and changed the debate.

Let me conclude with THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THIS GOVERNMENT HAS DONE in my estimation (and I'll admit a bias because I've been writing about this for many years and I have four children). This government stopped cold a national, government-run, unionized child-care system and instead re-directed billions of dollars so parents can make their own choices about their families.

THAT'S CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPALS.

And with a little gasp and an effeminate pat of his breast he fell quiet...

Truth or Lair?

James Baxter's first column has betrayed a particular activism born of his work advocating for press freedom. It situates him among the shrill anti-government policy voices that will fill the opinion pages of http://www.ipolitics.ca/.  Writing about Tom Flanagan's boneheaded remarks on Power and Politics, not only does Baxter fail to note the obvious -- that Assange would be dead today had he pulled the same stunt against a totalitarian state -- but he fails to write the truth about consequences.  Who can dispute that Wikileaks endangers the lives of many?  Baxter writes that this is a "theoretical assertion" but hopefully after reading the news today from Canada's Ambassador in Kabul he will recant that idea.  How many will die in Afghanistan if Canada's diplomacy fails?

But really what Wikileaks threatens is the monopoly on information – and hence power – by governments.What is so stunning and objectionable about Flanagan’s comments is that he’s not suggesting Assange be killed for spreading lies. He wants him dead for unveiling the truth … inconvenient truths … possibly embarrassing truths … but truths in their rawest form.

I certainly wouldn't characterize the vast body of diplomatic missives that is Wikileaks as "truth in their rawest form".   Assange's exposé of what was said in confidence to help shape diplomatic negotiations doesn't represent truth but rather lies.  There is a difference.  The truth is how our politicians acted upon the information they received.  The lies are what the public may have been told that wasn't the whole truth.  The distraction from pressing problems in the world that this Wikileak's revisionist exercise entails is an unprecedented historical event that is quite unrelated to "raw truth".  Further it is unrelated to 'monopolies' on information.  By no means do Governments maintain a monopoly on politically sensitive information  - read about Shell's grip on the Nigerian State if you doubt.  Is it Baxter's provincial activist frame that targets Governments as keepers of the tree of knowledge we are forbidden to eat, or perhaps http://www.ipolitics.ca/ is another Thomson family project and Baxter seeks to limit our inquiry accordingly? I vote the former, mostly because of this:

Wikileaks must be terribly destabilizing and worrisome for people in powerful positions.

Does Baxter understand that when power is threatened people suffer?  While the power brokers both within government and without adjust to the loss of control they will impose more burdens on the public.  We already feel the anxiousness in our North American group: increased prison spending, invasions of privacy at airports, increased police brutality, the G8 police roundups.  And we worry about this destabilization.  Yes they can pull the plug on the Internet.  Yet for my part I will continue to be that 'maverick journalist' that I think Assange is not.  A private citizen logging their political opinion openly in a chosen format that can be easily interpreted. This writing is in my own domain.  It's not trolling a board or dominating threads.  It's pause and reflection that has, in the past, been labelled criminal by a well-noted Candian political journalist. Private citizens risk when they tell their own truths.  In this political climate we're all criminals.

Note: I've republished this writing here from my iPOLITICS, eh? blog archives.