John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“Trudeau rails against Conservatives in foreign policy speech

“’They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism,’ says PM of Tories”

 

‘They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism’

Well, for me, someone with an abiding interest in international affairs and who prides himself a little on his knowledge of them, those words of Trudeau’s pretty much top everything stomach-churning he’s ever said.

Please, who is the world’s premier example of contemporary “populism’?

Donald Trump, of course.

Now, can you name a single significant policy of Trump’s that our wonderful team of Trudeau-Freeland departs from?

Overthrowing an elected government in Venezuela? Freeland chairs the outfit created by CIA to help do it, the Lima Group.

Saudi Arabia’s many horrors from killing women and children in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia, in efforts against minority Shia, to record numbers of beheadings and to a grisly murder which implicates the very leader of the country?

Canada’s heroic response? Never say a word about the horrors of Yemen and never say a word against a man who is perhaps the world’s most horrific leader today (a man beloved by Trump and Netanyahu), and keep selling those light tanks to him, baby!

America’s absurd and truly dangerous attacks against China on a half dozen fronts? Hey, if you’ve heard Trump’s words on the subject, no need to listen to Freeland’s feeble hinterland echo.

Russophobia? A Freeland speciality. Unwarranted attacks on Iran? Boy, she’s made Ottawa an echo chamber for that.

And, of course, we’ve actually had the boy wonder fly down to Trump to plead for special help with China, help on a problem caused by Trudeau and Freeland themselves. Very impressive recent background for giving a speech on ugly populist leaders.

Trudeau’s speech is so disingenuous, so vacuous, I’d literally vote for anyone but him.

_______________________________

Well, there’s one thing we know for sure, Trudeau is not an “Isolationist,” a word from 1930s America which truly has no meaning anymore, but there’s still room for it in a Trudeau speech on foreign policy.

It applied to Americans who thought America should stay home and mind its own business. America hadn’t yet quite become a global empire. That came with the end of WWII.

They were mainly conservative types, but not exclusively.

But, just look at what the Right gives us today in America.

The likes of Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo, ready to tell everyone else on the planet what they should do and how they should do it, with the threat of serious economic consequences or military action against them, if they don’t.

That’s as far from Isolationism as it gets, and there is absolutely nothing good to say about it. It actually is behavior reminiscent of the ugly forces America struggled over going to war with in the 1930s, forces so ugly that opposing going to war with them gave Isolationism its enduring bad name.

I say we know Trudeau isn’t an Isolationist because he loyally and faithfully serves Trump in every significant part of foreign policy.

I really think Trudeau needs a new speechwriter. These are half-ridiculous words.

“Isolationism” doesn’t even exist anymore as a movement. The word is dated and almost meaningless. And Trudeau tries to apply it where it wouldn’t fit under any circumstances.

But if it did have a place today, it would actually be preferable to supporting the Trump-Bolton-Pompeo axis of violent interference in the affairs of others, something to which Trudeau makes no objection, and is, indeed, a willing helper.

A threadbare speech, full of clichés, plainly outmoded concepts, and earnest efforts to position himself as a “good guy.” A threadbare speech from a threadbare leader.

Sorry, Mr. Trudeau, you can’t be both, “one of the good guys” and a proved incompetent, a fighter against dark forces and a ready helper of Trump’s. The mix is just plainly ridiculous.

___________________________

Response to a comment saying, “Cee Bee Cee has forgotten how to act like a neutral observer and just report the news instead of having anti any party view which is not liberal”:

In case you hadn’t noticed, all news sources have editorial content as well as journalistic observations.

And all news sources, all, come with one form of bias or another.

On the whole, I think CBC Online does a pretty decent job, and its comment policy is generous compared to most, and I do a lot of reading of stuff from all over.

________________________

Response to a comment saying, “He has no standing with the international community”:

Although I’d hardly choose, as you do, an example like the brutal and not-very-open Bolsonaro avoiding a handshake with Trudeau to cite as evidence, that is very much the case, Trudeau has no standing.

But I must add that it is only a handful of Canadian Prime Ministers who enjoyed such status, men whose efforts and achievements in large part have been ignored by Trudeau and Freeland in their roles as Washington’s willing helpers from the North.

As a country, sadly, we don’t have a big international following anymore because we have no Lester Pearson or Pierre Trudeau or Paul Martin to earn it for us. And that was true for Stephen Harper. He was unpopular internationally even though not regarded as the lightweight Trudeau very much is.

Internationally, in general, I think we are viewed pretty much as what we’ve become, a kind of big resource-rich colony of the United States with a fairly timid international voice. Why would important international leaders need to listen to a weak echo of the noisy, in-your-face United States?

Trudeau’s stature isn’t, I think, all that much different than that of Ivanka Trump, someone who also likes to play at being a leader and is close to being laughed off the stage as she leaves events, although, of course, he is elected, not appointed by Daddy.

Harper wasn’t well regarded either, despite being seen as far more intelligent and driving. He was widely seen as fairly servile to other interests, especially those of Israel, as he very much was, and to an embarrassing degree.

And I’m sorry to say, we don’t have a great deal of promise in Andrew Scheer, although we’ll likely have to take what we get and hope for the best. Early statements on international affairs are distinctly unpromising, although on the home front, there are a few things encouraging.

Only our outstanding leaders gave Canada the ability to “punch above its weight class” in the world. This would have been the case, for example, with Jack Layton, but that quality of man is seen once in a generation.

_____________________

Response to a comment calling Trudeau lightweight and extremely arrogant:

The “lightweight” part of your comment is deadly accurate, the rest not so much so.

I see no “undisguised contempt” at all in Trudeau, although he does give off a kind of mild arrogance at times, but it’s the arrogance of a privileged young man who lives off a trust fund, had a world-famous father, and whose political party has lured him farther than he should have gone.

He often, in fact, gives off an almost cloying sense of a man who wants to be received as a “nice guy.” That ain’t arrogant, but it sure ain’t impressive either.

I see weakness and a complete lack of the kind of talents an effective leader requires.

________________________

Response to a comment saying Xi had no respect for Trudeau:

Well, I don’t know about that, but Xi clearly is exceptionally intelligent and hard-working, and he has given China some remarkable initiatives and projects.

He can’t have a lot of regard for a guy like Trudeau who comes off a bit like Ivanka Trump in world affairs.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Did readers catch the anecdote yesterday about Peter “peanut brain” MacKay meeting Arnold Schwarzenegger, out on a good will tour, in B.C.?

Peter’s public words included the praise for the fact that B.C. and California share a border.

Arnold is reported to have looked perplexed but said nothing, knowing that the states of Washington and Oregon separate California from B.C.

Pure George Bush or Sarah Palin.

God, what a thin bench of talent the Conservatives have.

This is the man we entrust to make multi-billion dollar decisions and to deal with a very smart cookie like Gates?
_______________________________

The F-35 is an expensive clunker for which Canada has no need.

From the Pentagon’s point of view, Canada and Australia and others are providing a subsidy to try improving the thing.

A strong country begins with a strong economy.

It truly is the height of folly to be making a gigantic and wasteful expenditure like this at this time.

People with genuine conservative instincts – those who pay their bills and believe in balanced budgets – will agree.

The trouble is Stephen Harper is an ideologue, an ideologue of American right-wing persuasion, and not a conservative at all.
_________________________________

“The bigger issue down the road is what are the aircraft choices down the road that will be competitive against the Russian T-50 PAK, the Chinese J-20, and the joint venture Russian/India 5th GEN fighters.”

That is only an issue for American Pentagon worshipers.

One thing is certain, we should not foolishly subsidize the anxieties of such people.

Even were the F-35 a good plane, which it decidedly is not, it is not needed by Canada.

We have no genuine use for it, and any modest number we could afford would be absolutely militarily ineffective.

It’s a bad idea from every point of view, unless you are a Harper who sits smiling dreamily at the base of a giant American Bald Eagle statue in his rec-room.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY TOM FLANAGAN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Davidovitch seems the perfect example of Tom Flanagan’s target market.

“Harper’s reasoning was, why should Canadians be forced to pay a party who’s [sic] sole existence is based on the fact that it wants to destroy Canada.”

That is just plainly an untrue statement.

The Bloc wants a form of quasi-independence, but it has never stated that Canada’s destruction is a goal. Perhaps Davidovitch cannot grasp the subtlety of the difference? But then Flanagan himself seems rather weak in understanding this.

More importantly, while I do not have any affection for separatism, as a critical observer, I do have to say that the Bloc has sometimes played a constructive and civil role in Ottawa.

It has supported some good legislation and has, at times, acted rather statesmanlike, more than anyone can say of Harper and his gang of Alberta frat boys.

Indeed, we have the irony that the Bloc has supported legislation of Harper’s it regarded as beneficial to Quebec, a fact which the politically inept Ignatieff seems incapable of turning on Harper and his advertising lies about the support of separatists.

“I like Flanagans [sic] idea. I don’t want another red cent of my hard-earned tax dollars going to the enemy, which is the Bloc. I want the Bloc to die, and the sooner the better.”

I am not surprised Davidovitch likes Flanagan’s ideas.

They are the ideas of a narrow-minded ideologue with a dark agenda which includes decreasing the political vitality of Canada and moving it into the kind of vicious, yet meaningless, partisan politics of the United States, his home.

Davidovitch has demonstrated on these pages many times his having a similar harshly ideologue viewpoints.

“If I want my money to go to a political organization then I should be able to decide which one I want to fund by checking off a box.”

That is exactly what they do in America, and do you know what? It is completely ineffective. The funding of America’s parties at the national level much resembles what we find in third-world country; votes and candidates are pretty much for sale to the highest bidder.

Many aspects of American policy – a good example being the almost insane support for Israel with its rude injection into daily national political life, something Harper has already tried to copy to the extent his limited mandate allows – reflect only special-interest funding.

The George Bushes, the Sarah Palins, the Newt Gingriches, and the Tom Delays – comprising a rogues’ gallery of nightmare politicians – are only made possible by America’s lamentable, twisted system of campaign funding.

The leader of the Bloc seems almost a cultured gentleman by comparison.

And I am actually rather proud to live in a country with the tolerance and civility to permit the Bloc in Parliament, despite its inconveniences. It will fade and perhaps alter over time, but that should reflect the desires of its supporters – Canadians all – and not the high-handed thug politics we find in the United States.

Making a big issue of this relatively small matter is just one more example of Harper’s ceaseless effort to use nasty wedge issues to move Canada in the direction of East Texas politics.

And Tom Flanagan plays, if you will, Igor, the lab assistant, to Harper’s Frankenstein creature in the effort.
___________________________

From another commenter: “...when the Conservative Party is able and willing to fund itself simply through personal donations…”

Sorry, that is a meaningless and uninformed comment.

The ability of very conservative parties to finance themselves has been the history of countries everywhere. Why? Because very wealthy people and business interests, and, in some cases, even foreign governments keep them flush with cash.

You cannot have a strong democracy that way. Indeed, the very claim for today’s Conservative Party in Canada has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Just examine the United States in any detail, and what you find under the outer trappings of democratic government is almost an 18th century aristocratic state.

The U.S., the inventor of marketing techniques, has worked its way through a long experiment, conclusively proving that it is possible to have the trappings of democracy without the substance.

Money controls who can get a nomination, money controls whose face will dominate the airwaves, and money pays for many special tools and helps from travel to dinners and expensive special assistants and technology.

In this sense, America has made almost no democratic progress since the time of its revolution. Despite the fact that slowly, gradually most people have gained the vote since those early days – only about one-percent of a place like early Virginia had the vote, it being by no measure a democratic state – the same small percent of wealthy men pretty much control the nation’s destiny nearly two and half centuries later.

We know marketing and advertising work: we all accept that fact today in everyday life. So it should be no surprise in that it works in politics?

The best funded candidate virtually always wins. Occasionally, in this or that individual case, that may prove untrue, but in the language of science – statistics – it is absolutely true.

On average, money prevails, no matter how poor the candidates, how empty the party platforms.

Just look at the line of silly clown figures in the United States whose voices remain in our ears despite their mediocrity and lack of anything meaningful to say.

Truly, a George Bush or Sarah Palin would not be competent to be promoted to department heads in a Wal-Mart super-store

Yet I believe most people, deep down, are disturbed by the idea that our leadership and policies should be determined in this way.

Many ordinary Americans just fatalistically accept the unpleasant political realities of their society, feeling utterly inadequate to change them, just as they do in so many matters of consequence from wars to oppressive legislation like the Patriot Act.

Let’s not have Canada follow that terrible pattern, which, when all is said and done, is precisely what the Tom Flanagans and Stephen Harpers want. They are truly secret embracers of privilege and an almost Nietzschean belief in the right of “supermen” to govern.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

I have heard Rick Hillier speak at some length recently on CBC Radio. Naturally, he is out promoting his book.I thought he largely came off as a whiner, rather naïve about the realities of war and politics.Hillier went into Afghanistan literally barking about doing some killing, arrogantly tossing aside Canada’s sense of itself as a peaceful and peacekeeping place.

His words rankled many people, and naturally a control-freak like Harper put limits on Hillier’s mouth.

I tend to agree with Chantal Hebert’s assessment that Hillier’s book, unintentionally on his part, will only contribute to Canada’s not continuing a military commitment in Afghanistan beyond its commitment.

The entire Afghanistan adventure is nothing more than a demonstration of America’s ability to behave much as it pleases in the world. In the aftermath of 9/11, it pulled out all the stops in finance and diplomacy to get UN and NATO recognition of what essentially was vengeance.

The invasion never made any sense, and after America’s superficial “victory,” it had no idea what to do, except to let its brutal special forces loose on villages all over Afghanistan. Its “victory” amounted to a pact with the devils of the Northern Alliance – monsters like the mass-murderer General Dostum being as bad or worse than the Taleban – and it achieved nothing but a great deal of killing and the dispersal of the Taleban.

No NATO country – especially powerful ones like France or Germany – has made a commitment of troops that is in keeping with America’s paranoid assessment of the world dangers of Afghanistan – that fact is telling beyond anything else.

Canadians should never forget that the only reason we sent troops to Afghanistan was a decision in Ottawa that “we owed one to the Pentagon” after having refused to participate in America’s missile shield and its even more disastrous and murderous adventure in Iraq.