Exit strategy
Monday, 13 June 2005
Mark Steyn
The Liberal Party of Canada” isn’t the catchiest name for a Quebec biker gang. On the other hand, it’s no more clunkily uncool than, say, the Rock Machine or any of the province’s other biker gangs. The Liberal party is certainly a machine and it’s proving harder to crack than most rocks, and it’s essentially engaged in the same activities as the other biker gangs: the Grits launder money; they enforce a ruthless code of omerta when fainthearted minions threaten to squeal; they threaten to whack their enemies; they keep enough cash on hand in small bills of non-sequential serial numbers to be able to deliver suitcases with a couple hundred grand hither and yon; and they sluice just enough of the folding stuff around law enforcement agencies to be assured of co-operation. The Mounties’ Musical Ride received $3 million from the Adscam funds, but, alas, the RCMP paperwork relating to this generous subsidy has been, in keeping with time-honoured Liberal book-keeping practices, “inadvertently lost.”
Meanwhile, Daniel Dezainde, former director-general of the federal Liberals in Quebec, testified under oath that his life was threated by Alfonso Gagliano’s sidekick, Joe Morselli. Mr. Morselli was the guy in charge of the dough at Liberal HQ in Montreal. By happy coincidence, his catering company also has the contract for RCMP HQ in the province, and for Quebec’s federal tax HQ in Shawinigan. Yes, folks, in Shawinigan it’s not all scenic attractions like federally funded dancing fountains; they’ve also got a big tax office in town--which makes sense: since so much of it’s spent there, you might as well mail it there direct.
If we could go back to 1867 and start all over again, I don’t suppose even Canadians would settle for rule by biker gang, especially one as crass as the Chrétien–Martin Crock Machine. But, if you do it incrementally, eventually it’s just part of the background hum of our lives. During the Clinton era, there were disaffected types in Arkansas muttering that Slick Willie and his gang had had certain inconvenient persons removed from the scene; one recalls that, following Kathleen Willey’s 60 Minutes interview detailing the president’s attempt to “comfort” her, her cat mysteriously disappeared. But, even at the height of the Starr investigation, there weren’t prominent political figures testifying under oath that they’d been threatened with a cement overcoat by Clinton aides.
Oh, well. “Everybody does it.” When this all got going, I said in this space that the indifference of Canadians in general and Ontarians in particular was the real issue, and it gives me no pleasure to have been proved so right so quickly. I flew back to Montreal from overseas the other day and the trolley dolly offered me a Globe and Mail. I made the mistake of accepting it. On the letters page, every Gomery-related missive was brimming with indignation . . . against Stephen Harper. Good grief, I wondered. What’s he been up to? Laundering money? Diverting public funds into party coffers? Whacking his enemies?
But no. Insofar as I could tell, he’d given a speech. But every Globester was hopping mad. “The politics of hate begets hate,” warned Frank White of Windsor (Ont.). “When the election comes, Paul Martin and his Liberals will have my support for having had the courage to call the Gomery inquiry.”
“There is little doubt who’s wasting our money right now,” declared Stephen Beaumont of Toronto (also Ont.). “Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe. One wonders just how much their childish strategy of shutting down parliamentary business will wind up costing you and me.”
“What is he going to accomplish by having this manic election of his?” sighed Graham Norcutt of Castleton (Ont. yet again). “How many millions of dollars are going to be wasted that could have been put into health care or education?”
And, as for this business of a no-confidence vote, Globe readers, while stopping short of claiming that Stephen Harper gives you cancer, were united in their conviction that, if you’ve got it, he’ll certainly make it worse. “All of us and our families who deal with a diagnosis of cancer say, ‘Shame on him!’” wrote Pamela Keeley Nolan of Pitt Meadows.
Which is in B.C. rather than Ont. Nonetheless, you’d be hard put after reading The Globe to detect any signs of a swing to the Tories in 416/905 land. Across the page in the editorial column, the great thinkers of Front St. were taking refuge under that flimsiest of umbrellas and sloughing off a bit of lofty plague-on-both-their-houses boilerplate. “There are more than enough stunts to go round,” deplored The Globe’s editorialists. “By their actions, the Conservatives and Liberals have catered to the cynicism many Canadians share about politics.”
Oh, put a sock in it, you droning Globot. Equivalence is usually false, and that goes whether it’s Harold Pinter insisting during the Cold War that the Soviets and the Yanks are no different from each other, or Canuck media grandees insisting that a ruling party which wields most of the levers of power and which has corrupted significantly the few it doesn’t directly control and some neophyte leader who’s never held government office are equally at fault. That’s “everybody does it” nonsense of the worst kind. Even if it were true that “everybody does it,” it would still make sense to switch every couple of years and give some other folks the chance to do it. Ever since 9/11, I’ve argued that stability is an irrational fetish and that my bottom line in the Middle East is that even rotating dictatorships would be an improvement over the same stagnant, fetid, decade-in-decade-out dictatorship. As Baghdad and Riyadh and Damascus and Cairo go, so goes Ottawa. Even if “everybody does it,” the Chrétien-Martin Crock Machine have been doing it too long.
The big flaw at the heart of the Westminster system is that in order to function as intended--by codes and conventions--it depends on a certain modesty and circumspection from the political class. When Winston Churchill used to refer to himself as “the King’s first minister,” he wasn’t just observing the niceties. Rather, he was acknowledging that in our system of government even the most powerful politician is a subordinate of the constitutional order. Canada has historically shown signs of impatience with that necessary modesty and circumspection: we were the first Commonwealth country to put prime ministers on our banknotes. Personally, I’d rather have Her Majesty on the full set but, if that’s not to be, then better Billy Bishop or Lucy Maud Montgomery than letting the Queen’s first ministers dominate our money. It’s not just that, in the great sweep of our national story, Sir Robert Borden doesn’t seem like that big a deal, but that even putting Macdonald on there over-inflates the office--and over-inflation of the prime minister’s office is the worst legacy of the Trudeaupian cult.
This month, the prime ministerial state notched up another landmark victory against constitutional government: after a week of daily procedural defeats, it was clear that the Martin biker gang did not command the support of a majority of the House of Commons. So what did the Liberals do? They covered their ears and said, “Can’t hear you.” And don’t look to Adrienne Clarkson to stand up for the constitutional order and do as Sir John Kerr did down under 30 years ago: fire the government and call an election. Rick Salutin, a leftie I’m rather fond of, declared that he was relaxed about the scandal, the waste, the obstructionism and the contempt for Parliament because, whatever their motives, the Martin-Layton deal “provides childcare, housing, urban relief, and a balanced budget--exactly what voters say they want!” Speaking for myself, I don’t want at least three-quarters of that list, and, even if I did, I wouldn’t want to get them this way. But it seems oddly appropriate that government “child care” should be ushered in through a shameless constitutional abuse that pre-supposes that we’re all children, too distracted to care.
It’s not about child care or housing or “urban relief.” It’s not about wasting millions on an election when we could be wasting them in the vast maw of “education.” It’s about whether we still have the capacity for self-government: free men don’t remain so if they cease to value their freedom.
On my Air Canada flight, I eventually wearied of The Globe and Mail, with its editorial equivalists and a readership unanimously convinced there’s nothing wrong with Canadian politics except for the strident rhetoric of Stephen Harper. So I switched on my “personal audio/video system” and the screen flared into life with one of those quintessentially Air Canada formulations: “To begin, press EXIT.”
That’s what it’s all about: we cannot guarantee that a Conservative government will be perfect or squeaky-clean or super-competent. But we should all know that declining to punish the Liberal party for its serial abuses will guarantee more years of remorseless corrosion of our democracy. There is not even the possibility of restoring our institutions unless Messrs. White, Beaumont and Norcutt’s fellow Ontarians are prepared to return the Liberals to opposition. Like Air Canada’s video monitor says: To begin, press EXIT.
Monday, 13 June 2005
Mark Steyn
The Liberal Party of Canada” isn’t the catchiest name for a Quebec biker gang. On the other hand, it’s no more clunkily uncool than, say, the Rock Machine or any of the province’s other biker gangs. The Liberal party is certainly a machine and it’s proving harder to crack than most rocks, and it’s essentially engaged in the same activities as the other biker gangs: the Grits launder money; they enforce a ruthless code of omerta when fainthearted minions threaten to squeal; they threaten to whack their enemies; they keep enough cash on hand in small bills of non-sequential serial numbers to be able to deliver suitcases with a couple hundred grand hither and yon; and they sluice just enough of the folding stuff around law enforcement agencies to be assured of co-operation. The Mounties’ Musical Ride received $3 million from the Adscam funds, but, alas, the RCMP paperwork relating to this generous subsidy has been, in keeping with time-honoured Liberal book-keeping practices, “inadvertently lost.”
Meanwhile, Daniel Dezainde, former director-general of the federal Liberals in Quebec, testified under oath that his life was threated by Alfonso Gagliano’s sidekick, Joe Morselli. Mr. Morselli was the guy in charge of the dough at Liberal HQ in Montreal. By happy coincidence, his catering company also has the contract for RCMP HQ in the province, and for Quebec’s federal tax HQ in Shawinigan. Yes, folks, in Shawinigan it’s not all scenic attractions like federally funded dancing fountains; they’ve also got a big tax office in town--which makes sense: since so much of it’s spent there, you might as well mail it there direct.
If we could go back to 1867 and start all over again, I don’t suppose even Canadians would settle for rule by biker gang, especially one as crass as the Chrétien–Martin Crock Machine. But, if you do it incrementally, eventually it’s just part of the background hum of our lives. During the Clinton era, there were disaffected types in Arkansas muttering that Slick Willie and his gang had had certain inconvenient persons removed from the scene; one recalls that, following Kathleen Willey’s 60 Minutes interview detailing the president’s attempt to “comfort” her, her cat mysteriously disappeared. But, even at the height of the Starr investigation, there weren’t prominent political figures testifying under oath that they’d been threatened with a cement overcoat by Clinton aides.
Oh, well. “Everybody does it.” When this all got going, I said in this space that the indifference of Canadians in general and Ontarians in particular was the real issue, and it gives me no pleasure to have been proved so right so quickly. I flew back to Montreal from overseas the other day and the trolley dolly offered me a Globe and Mail. I made the mistake of accepting it. On the letters page, every Gomery-related missive was brimming with indignation . . . against Stephen Harper. Good grief, I wondered. What’s he been up to? Laundering money? Diverting public funds into party coffers? Whacking his enemies?
But no. Insofar as I could tell, he’d given a speech. But every Globester was hopping mad. “The politics of hate begets hate,” warned Frank White of Windsor (Ont.). “When the election comes, Paul Martin and his Liberals will have my support for having had the courage to call the Gomery inquiry.”
“There is little doubt who’s wasting our money right now,” declared Stephen Beaumont of Toronto (also Ont.). “Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe. One wonders just how much their childish strategy of shutting down parliamentary business will wind up costing you and me.”
“What is he going to accomplish by having this manic election of his?” sighed Graham Norcutt of Castleton (Ont. yet again). “How many millions of dollars are going to be wasted that could have been put into health care or education?”
And, as for this business of a no-confidence vote, Globe readers, while stopping short of claiming that Stephen Harper gives you cancer, were united in their conviction that, if you’ve got it, he’ll certainly make it worse. “All of us and our families who deal with a diagnosis of cancer say, ‘Shame on him!’” wrote Pamela Keeley Nolan of Pitt Meadows.
Which is in B.C. rather than Ont. Nonetheless, you’d be hard put after reading The Globe to detect any signs of a swing to the Tories in 416/905 land. Across the page in the editorial column, the great thinkers of Front St. were taking refuge under that flimsiest of umbrellas and sloughing off a bit of lofty plague-on-both-their-houses boilerplate. “There are more than enough stunts to go round,” deplored The Globe’s editorialists. “By their actions, the Conservatives and Liberals have catered to the cynicism many Canadians share about politics.”
Oh, put a sock in it, you droning Globot. Equivalence is usually false, and that goes whether it’s Harold Pinter insisting during the Cold War that the Soviets and the Yanks are no different from each other, or Canuck media grandees insisting that a ruling party which wields most of the levers of power and which has corrupted significantly the few it doesn’t directly control and some neophyte leader who’s never held government office are equally at fault. That’s “everybody does it” nonsense of the worst kind. Even if it were true that “everybody does it,” it would still make sense to switch every couple of years and give some other folks the chance to do it. Ever since 9/11, I’ve argued that stability is an irrational fetish and that my bottom line in the Middle East is that even rotating dictatorships would be an improvement over the same stagnant, fetid, decade-in-decade-out dictatorship. As Baghdad and Riyadh and Damascus and Cairo go, so goes Ottawa. Even if “everybody does it,” the Chrétien-Martin Crock Machine have been doing it too long.
The big flaw at the heart of the Westminster system is that in order to function as intended--by codes and conventions--it depends on a certain modesty and circumspection from the political class. When Winston Churchill used to refer to himself as “the King’s first minister,” he wasn’t just observing the niceties. Rather, he was acknowledging that in our system of government even the most powerful politician is a subordinate of the constitutional order. Canada has historically shown signs of impatience with that necessary modesty and circumspection: we were the first Commonwealth country to put prime ministers on our banknotes. Personally, I’d rather have Her Majesty on the full set but, if that’s not to be, then better Billy Bishop or Lucy Maud Montgomery than letting the Queen’s first ministers dominate our money. It’s not just that, in the great sweep of our national story, Sir Robert Borden doesn’t seem like that big a deal, but that even putting Macdonald on there over-inflates the office--and over-inflation of the prime minister’s office is the worst legacy of the Trudeaupian cult.
This month, the prime ministerial state notched up another landmark victory against constitutional government: after a week of daily procedural defeats, it was clear that the Martin biker gang did not command the support of a majority of the House of Commons. So what did the Liberals do? They covered their ears and said, “Can’t hear you.” And don’t look to Adrienne Clarkson to stand up for the constitutional order and do as Sir John Kerr did down under 30 years ago: fire the government and call an election. Rick Salutin, a leftie I’m rather fond of, declared that he was relaxed about the scandal, the waste, the obstructionism and the contempt for Parliament because, whatever their motives, the Martin-Layton deal “provides childcare, housing, urban relief, and a balanced budget--exactly what voters say they want!” Speaking for myself, I don’t want at least three-quarters of that list, and, even if I did, I wouldn’t want to get them this way. But it seems oddly appropriate that government “child care” should be ushered in through a shameless constitutional abuse that pre-supposes that we’re all children, too distracted to care.
It’s not about child care or housing or “urban relief.” It’s not about wasting millions on an election when we could be wasting them in the vast maw of “education.” It’s about whether we still have the capacity for self-government: free men don’t remain so if they cease to value their freedom.
On my Air Canada flight, I eventually wearied of The Globe and Mail, with its editorial equivalists and a readership unanimously convinced there’s nothing wrong with Canadian politics except for the strident rhetoric of Stephen Harper. So I switched on my “personal audio/video system” and the screen flared into life with one of those quintessentially Air Canada formulations: “To begin, press EXIT.”
That’s what it’s all about: we cannot guarantee that a Conservative government will be perfect or squeaky-clean or super-competent. But we should all know that declining to punish the Liberal party for its serial abuses will guarantee more years of remorseless corrosion of our democracy. There is not even the possibility of restoring our institutions unless Messrs. White, Beaumont and Norcutt’s fellow Ontarians are prepared to return the Liberals to opposition. Like Air Canada’s video monitor says: To begin, press EXIT.