The free world has lost its leader. In the absence of a vigorous
American foreign policy, Canada's Stephen Harper supplied his own. For
the better part of a decade, he energetically championed Western
interests. He was serious about fighting terrorism, keen on free trade
and prepared to deploy proportionate force in defense of freedom.
His defeat in last week's Canadian general election will be felt far
beyond that sparse, chilly country. When other Western leaders fretted
about Israel's 2006 Lebanon war, he gave his full backing to the Jewish
state. When others dithered over Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he led
international condemnation. Obliged to meet Vladimir Putin at a summit
meeting, he was admirably curt: "I guess I'll shake your hand, but I
have only one thing to say to you: Get out of Ukraine."
Canada, like most countries, partly defines itself with reference to
what it isn't; but Harper was uncomplicatedly pro-American and
pro-British. In his first overseas speech as prime minister, he told a
London audience how glad he was that his was a common-law, Anglosphere
nation. As a matter of historical fact, this might not seem especially
radical; but, my goodness, what a refreshing break from the line taken
by previous Canadian leaders, namely that their country was a happy
multiculti fusion of First Peoples and Acadians and Vietnamese boat
people.
Why did Harper lose so badly? The Canadian Right got its
second-lowest share of the vote since 1968, and can't console itself
with the thought that it was beaten by opponents whom it had dragged
onto its own ground. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair had to meet their
Right-wing rivals half way on many policy issues. But Justin Trudeau,
the new Canadian PM, is like a depilated Occupy protester: pro-tax,
anti-business, pro-pot, anti-America.
From an outsider's perspective, it seems mystifying. Canada was the
best-performing major economy in the world, the only G7 state to come
through the downturn without a downturn. It's true that the recent drop
in commodity prices caused a slowdown, but the big picture remained
positive. Taxes were falling more rapidly than at any time in the
nation's history. Crime rates were at a record low. Illegal immigration
had been curtailed, with the result that legal immigrants were
grateful, patriotic and - unusually - happy to vote for the Right.
It won't do to argue that Canada is a naturally liberal country.
Conrad Black used to speak of his countrymen as "English-speaking
Scandinavians." In fact, both Scandinavia and Canada went through a
teenage socialist phase from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, and then
snapped out of it.
Until Pierre Trudeau, the new PM's father, Canadian immigration
policy was based on keeping combined provincial and federal taxes below
the U.S. equivalent, so as to compensate for the rougher climate.
Before the goody-two-shoes, pantywaist, demilitarized Canada of the
1970s, Canadians were a famously tough people. Eisenhower used to
remark (in private, obviously) that, man for man, they were the finest
soldiers under his command. Harper believed, with justice, that he was
returning his countrymen to their traditions.
What, then, was the problem? Put simply, Canadians had tired of their
leader. Leftists, naturally, called him a hater, a Tea Partier, an
Islamophobe, yada yada. But, more significantly, Tory pundits would
remark on his "coldness" and "remoteness." A typical column in the
right-of-center National Post - the newspaper founded by Conrad Black -
blamed the defeat on "the nastiness of Tory politics under Harper, the
mindless partisanship, the throttling of backbench MPs."
I'm not sure this is fair. In my scant dealings with Stephen Harper, I
found him courteous but shy - a common Canadian combination. But it
was widely believed. Not for the first time, a great leader, with
immense achievements, stayed on for one election too many. It happened
to Australia's John Howard, even to Britain's Margaret Thatcher.
Prolonged executive power is more than most politicians can take.
Even the best and wisest leaders - and they don't come better or wiser
than the two I've just mentioned - eventually lose touch. The pressures
of modern government, the sleeplessness, the security cordons, the
constant international summits make it hard to remain grounded.
Perhaps George Washington's single greatest act, in a lifetime of
great acts, was to impose a term limit on himself, and thus to set the
standard for all his successors (except the narcissistic FDR). Term
limits are the surest way to stop your leaders from becoming
power-crazed.
Sadly, term limits are no defense against the emergence of political
dynasties - a nasty habit that has now spread from the United States to
its northern neighbor. That, though, is another story.
Daniel Hannan is a British writer and journalist, and has been
Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and
Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the EU is making its
constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free. He is the
winner of the Bastiat Award for online journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment