Pragmatic Turn


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2009 October
2009 September
2009 April
2009 March
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Bookmark this site!

Pragmatic Turn
06.18.06 (3:20 am)   [edit]

I would love it if a Liberal candidate made a speech resembling the following. 

Peace keeping means what it says.   It involves keeping the peace between two identifiable warring factions who want peace and have invited third party in to keep it.  It really only has a hope of succeeding when those groups are separated from one another by geography.  As guerilla war supplants state on state violence as the dominant form of conflict, peacekeeping missions have become less and less useful.  In this sense Ignatieff is right and Rae, Volpe and Layton are dead wrong.  Peace keeping has had it day; it represents a proud chapter in Canada history, but that chapter has been written; let us move on.  The question is to what.
Ignatieff is the only candidate is to propose a replacement and for that he deserves credit.  Ignatieff, however, proposes that we adopt a Neo Conservative doctrine that works in theory, but is a miserable failure in practice.  So here we Liberals are, trapped between ideology and nostalgia.  
It is time we Liberals take a pragmatic turn.  This should be a simple enough, but alas I fear no.  For most Canadian politicians foreign policy is a subject they would prefer to forget much less discuss and is only made tolerable for us Liberals by a number refined and ready made platitudes.  Do not be fooled by Ignatieff’s muscular Victorian venire either, a puritanical adherence to altruism still has domain over all parties and one asks “how does this benefit Canada?”, “what are the risks?” or “how likely is such a mission to succeed?” at ones own peril.   Good intentions and moral obligation are still seen as magical guarantees of a mission’s success.  Ignatieff’s position is just more in keeping with Conservative axiom that when it comes to foreign policy all one need do is to puff out one’s chest and hope for the best and a different set of platitudes.   In keeping with such a testosterone driven attitude, Ignatieff followed Stephen Harper’s lead and claimed that anyone who opposed the extension of the Afghan mission does not “support the troops”.  Where Ignatieff differs from Harper is that he does not believe that our obligation to protect does not in theory depend upon American’s willingness to intervene even if it does in practice.     
As Liberals, we must not be tempted either of these two sets of platitudes.   We must be more worldly in outlook.  We must start asking questions that we had either repressed or were afraid to ask.  Only once we start asking the more mundane questions about how this or that policy benefits Canada, what are the chances of it succeeding, will we create a more realistic picture for the Canadian public.  As representatives of the people, we owe the public that much; we owe them the truth.       

For starters this means removing the fig leaf of Conservative procedural misconduct and having the very debate about Afghanistan we, rightly claim the Canadian people missed out on.  In doing so, pace Ignatieff, scared cows are not the only wild animal to be avoided.  We must also be wary of elephants and guerillas.   Let us not pretend, for example, that our Afghanistan policy will not have domestic consequences.   We have recently seen that it does.   We can not pretend, as Stephen Harper does, that sending troops to Afghan we not protect us from terrorists who have never set foot in that country but wish us ill will because we have sent troops there.  We must accept that in a democratic society, politicians have a duty to base their arguments on the truth and that they do not have the option of designing arguments to obscure it even if believe our hearts in the right place.    

 


posted by: Jim Johns (reply)
post date: 02.13.07 (7:51 am)

Google is the best search engine

Your Name:


Your Comment: