It's time, Andrew Coyne writes, for the Conservatives to get rid of the clowns:
For much of the past decade, voters across the democratic world have indulged in the fantasy that they could elect, in essence, a bunch of clowns to lead them: demagogues, dilettantes, billionaire brick-throwers, people with no experience of or fitness for office but only a talent for distraction. Politics was not about electing serious people to make serious decisions in a dangerous world. It was about sending a message, or making a point, or sticking it to the people we don’t like. Or else it was about entertainment. It was only the government, after all. What was the worst that could happen?
We might not want to admit it. But we are at war:
Those may not be our soldiers fighting in Ukraine, but they are our weapons, and it is our fight. Vladimir Putin, it can no longer be denied, represents a singular threat to the democratic world. A leader who invades a neighbour for the sole purpose of extinguishing a nascent democracy, who levels whole cities in this pursuit, and who threatens any country that intervenes to stop the carnage with nuclear annihilation – and who can do all this entirely at his own, not-necessarily-rational discretion – is a creature out of our worst nightmares.
Therefore, all of our leaders must be serious. Unfortunately, the ghost of Stephen Harper still hovers over the Conservatives:
Too many Conservatives make the same mistake as their most blinkered opponents – of confusing being conservative with being a jerk. Stephen Harper was certainly blessed with the ability to irritate Liberals, but in 10 years in government left precious little in the way of a lasting conservative legacy.
What he did leave was a party that was all too prone to picking needless fights and peddling conspiracy theories – the party, or rather that section of it that is attracted to this sort of thing, that thinks the World Economic Forum is a threat to our freedom, but cheered on the lawless mob that occupied Ottawa. To subscribe to such idiocies does not prove you are a principled conservative. It merely marks you as unfit to govern.
Leadership in the mold of Stephen Harper is precisely what we don't need.
Image: The Toronto Star
26 comments:
Coyne tries desperately to come up with some kind of relevant narrative about the CON leadership.
Yawn.
He and, his even-worse pundit-twin, Paul Wells, are two peas in a pod stuck hopelessly somewhere in the 1990s.
He buried this nugget:
"Vladimir Putin, it can no longer be denied, represents a singular threat to the democratic world."
Is this the same guy who can't seem to find his way to Kyiv?
Exactly my sentiments. They have become little net picking flicking ditching sycophants. They will do anything to Get their own way. Why is that? A lot of it is the kind of Religion they practice and the belief in free Capitalism. Why is that??? Anyong
I'm not sure why, Anyong. But I'm sure it has something to do with grievance.
The fact that he's not as competent as advertised doesn't mean that he's not dangerous, PoV.
Poor Andrew! a died in the wool anti-moderate scribe who has always worn his Con beliefs on his lapel. Now that the s h i t e has really hit the Cons, he is trying to rationalize how he can save their political skins.
Unfortunately, the old Progressive Cons allowed King Steve to invade their party so that he could impose his belief system on the rest of us. How many times did he prorogue to get his butt out of trouble as well as adding 30 more useless MP positions to thee throng already sitting in Ottawa in order to achieve his one majority? That is when voters finally got a look at what they purchased and I don't think a lot of us were impressed.
As long as the Reform/Evangelicals are running the current edition of the Con brand, they are not likely to achieve the wished for majority.
Yawn, is right. Be careful with Coyne. Still majorly in denial about conservatism is general. Examples, first paragraph reads as if every party, left or right, has gone nuts with incompetent leaders.
Also, "ame mistake as theirmost blinker opponents." This is a guy who believes the conservative movement has fallen DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE LEFT.
He's dangerous. Don't quote him, please, progressives.
"dangerous" OK, anyone with the control of nukes is dangerous
"a singular threat to the democratic world."
Nonsense. This is the kind of incendiary language that motivates our side to launch a pre-emptive war.
I expect NPoV has overlooked Putin's nuclear warfare threat. Implicit in that is "first use," something Putin's pal, Trump, also entertained. It's when the campaign isn't going as well as expected or, worse, is failing that the danger of a nuclear exchange deepens.
Tactical nuclear weapons that Putin might use are a last-ditch, Hail Mary option. Best case scenario. They can decide an issue and peace ensues. Worst case. They lead to escalation, eventually to strategic nuclear warfare that can quickly draw in the entire nuclear club: US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, perhaps even Israel and North Korea. Not exactly a confidence-builder, is it?
There's a lot of talk about Putin's mental stability. That brings to mind Kissinger's gambit when he told the North Vietnamese that they had to settle with the US because Nixon was borderline mad. Is Putin mad? Hard to tell but he has been in power an awfully long time and Russia is a kleptocracy which is very hard to sustain in the long term.
It wasn't Reagan's Star Wars initiative that brought down the Soviet Union. It was a sudden collapse in world oil and gas prices that choked off the flow of foreign currency. I doubt that's lost on Putin. Russia, like the USSR, has a fragile economy. The ruble has collapsed, trading at well under a cent today. Inflation has set in and the central bank has nearly doubled interest rates. The public can no longer access foreign currencies as an alternative to rubles. The oligarchs are getting beaten up globally, their assets frozen. Who knows what's going on on the cyber front.
It's economic warfare of the type historically imposed through naval blockades. Biden knows time is not on Russia's side. That said, Ukraine's problems are immediate, short term. Sanctions don't work as quickly as tanks and artillery.
I'm not posting on Ukraine because this war could go in so many directions that you can't make sense of it. Perhaps a power struggle in the Kremlin will see Putin ousted and peace restored. I sure hope so.
Sorry, Owen, forgot to ask a question of you. When I was a kid growing up, there was a signature on our $1 bill, I think it was JC Coyne. I wonder now if that is someone Andrew is related to as he always came across as having a certain amount of arrogance that seems to come with pedigree and old money. Just asking....
It's pretty clear that the Conservatives are not where most of the country is, Lulymay. And it appears that they don't want to be where most of the country is.
Coyne has admitted that he has voted for the Liberals as well as the Conservatives, Brian. It appears that he's not happy with those choices.
Fascism from whatever end of the political spectrum is dangerous, PoV.
It wouldn't be the first time, Mound, that there's been a power struggle within the walls of the Kremlin.
I understand that Andrew is James Coyne's son. Lulymay. the elder Coyne was the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Coynes are well connected.
My last comment was off-topic. Who, save for Charest, has the depth of experience to lead the Tories and yet he'll be slammed as "yesterday's man."
I've heard the same lament from both Liberal and Conservative friends in Ottawa - the A-list talent is no longer drawn to politics. They can't even be coerced. Politics is no longer much of a prize.
Politics is a turbulent sea of looming problems, each capable of capsizing the ship of state, economic, environmental, geopolitical. If you're after a pension, sure, but a party can't be all backbench material. Without talent the cranks take over. That's where we are today.
Strange how we have quite a few lifers as politicians these days, Mound. But that time in the trenches has not led them to shine.
How many people are homeless in Canada? 220,000 or more? That does not seem correct. Would anyone one here, think it is important for Canadians to know exactly the number? Does anyone commenting on this blog think that homelessness is one of the most important issues facing Canadians today? Does anyone here feel that the gouging happening within the rental community is greed when rents go from $700.00 a month to $1200.00 - $1500.00 a month? Does anyone here believe that people who rent are low life’s? Do any of you think this a severe problem within Canadian society and one that urgently needs addressing by Canadian Governments? Anyong.
And do these problems concern Canada's Conservatives, Anyong?
when rents go from $700.00 a month to $1200.00 - $1500.00 a month?
Never have I seen so many street people.
This whilst local assessments of homes peg them at one million $$ plus.
Thus the rental units , available, go for a minimum of $1800 per month; try that on minimum wage or E I.
No wonder these un housed turn to drugs and crime.
We are becoming Americanised in thought and deed.
Time to turn off US media and back our own identity.
From right wing Conservatives to the truckers we have been silently invaded.
TB
Anyong: yes, yes, yes, yes, no, and yes.
Yes indeed it does. I have yet to hear it mentioned very much by conservatives. It would be a good thing if it were discussed by those who consider themselves Conservatives. Perhaps this issue would be a good place to drop the division within the party and concentrate upon a dire problem that affects all Canadians due to the problems associated with homelessness for a change. Anyong
Fortunately for the majority of Canadians, the clowns aren't going anywhere and the Cons will wear that albatross around their neck into the leadership race and the next Federal election. I think it's all but assured that PP is the next chosen one. The biggest risk is that he is a little more savvy than the last two hapless stooges who tried to convince Canadians that they deserved to govern. Harper is very much alive and well in the background and he will ultimately be the one who decides who leads the party- in that realm any of the PC wing doesn't stand a chance. BC Waterboy
And our own Northern Republicans will seek to accelerate that invasion, TB.
The biggest albatross around the neck of the Conservatives is Stephen Harper, waterboy.
Trailblazer, back in the 1980s, the Vancouver Sun ran a series of articles on homelessness. Expo 86 made the problem worse. One of the people who had been forced to live on the street said, "if you aren't crazy when you hit the streets, you'll be crazy within a year".
There is no reason for there to be so much homelessness in this country. In B.C. lots in new subdivisions can go for over a million, on the Lower mainland. On Vancouver Island, new homes, on 32 ft. wide lots go for over a million. Just how are people going to afford that.
Rooms in a house start at $700 a month, if it has its own bathroom, its $800 a month. One in five homes bought here are bought by investors and most of them are local. Aging baby boomers are using their primary homes to finance their investment homes. The rents they charge are to cover their million dollar mortgages. We also have an inordinate amount of money being laundered through our economy and there is no better place to put it than in houses and apartment buildings. Wages have not gone up as fast as the cost of accomodation and that is going to turn into a huge problem shortly, yes even bigger than the one we have now. With one bedroom apartments going for $1600 a month you will see whole families living in that space.
In Calgary you can purchase a town house for $400K and change. Similar one in B.C.'s lower mainland, just under a million.
That's insane, e.a.f.
Post a Comment