Steve's mixed results

Editorial

A recent SES Research poll suggests that 57 per cent of Canadians believe the new Conservative government of Stephen Harper has either met or exceeded their expectations.

There is the temptation for a joke here. Harper, unlike his predecessor Paul Martin, benefited from one of politics' most invaluable assets: low expectations. Martin, whose own PR promised the moon and did nothing to diminish Canadians' expectations, could not possibly have lived up to his billing. Harper, who won in part because he was not Martin, bore little burden of expectation when he came to office – and he has surpassed expectations brilliantly.

The poll, which reinforces other recent opinion studies, suggests Harper is in range of a majority government if he plays his cards right.

The areas of concern for Harper, raised by this latest poll, are the environment and foreign policy.

The environmental policies of the new government are a discredit to our country. It has opted out of Kyoto, choosing to ignore the imminent disaster posed by global warming and environmental degradation. The Conservatives have also gutted most of the small programs that encourage Canadians to exercise environmental sensitivity in their homes.

But the foreign policy matter is a more curious condemnation. The ambivalence Canadians are expressing for Harper's foreign policy, judging by letters to editors and anecdotal indicators, is probably founded more on a distaste for what is seen as "Steve" Harper's palling around with George W. Bush than they are based on sound reasoning.

Canadians want independence and, since we cannot reasonably expect economic independence from the United States, we seek it in our foreign policy. In a way, the Conservatives' lockstep with Washington is a touchstone for national sovereignty. We may not be so opposed to military actions in Afghanistan or Iraq as we are opposed to appearing too close to the United States.

The issue of Canada's support for Israel in the recent war against Hezbollah is a slightly different affair. Canadians are fairly evenly split on the matter: a portion of otherwise unaffiliated Canadians were forced from the fence by the reality that Israel has a right and an obligation to defend itself. It bears noting that vocal support among ordinary Canadians for Israel's right to exist was probably more explicit during this war than during six years of almost constant assault in the current intifada. At the same time, the usual suspects purveyed their anti-Israel diatribes, counting the dead and, just as the jihadists knew they would, declaring the imbalance proof of Israel's culpability.

Jewish Canadians – and others who understand the nuance of Middle East affairs – have been stunned and elated by the principled, unapologetic stand of Canada's government in defending the right of a democracy to defend its citizens against religious zealots bent on genocide. Those who subscribe to a simplistic David-versus-Goliath interpretation of events are less impressed.

Still, the fact that roughly half of Canadians disagree with the Conservatives' foreign policy is a glass-half-empty interpretation of events. The war against Hezbollah has forced a large proportion of erstwhile quiet Canadians to stand up for what we know is correct. In a four-party Parliament, even a 60 per cent negative rating is no indication of imminent political disaster.

At the same time, the Conservatives should be commended not only for doing the right thing, but for doing as good a job as could be expected, in the current political environment, to sell their position to the public. In the last several weeks, Canadians have seen their government offer the most eloquent, non-dithering statement of morality on international relations we have heard in years.

Canadian Jews, other Zionists and reasonable people need to ramp up our own public statements of support for Israel in order to do justice to our government's courage on foreign affairs. We should, at the same time, remind our leaders that all good things will be for nought if we do not have a planet capable of sustaining life.

^TOP