As we move further into 2020, attention among Conservatives
in Canada will turn to selecting the individual who will replace Andrew Scheer
as party leader.
Although it is early days for declarations, candidates are
starting to declare.
Without getting into the names and personalities of those
rumoured – or likely - to run, I have to confess that my own choice will be
driven chiefly by three factors. While nobody is perfect, my support will go to
the one who comes closest to the mark:
CANZUK, or Commonwealth Trade
I first wrote a book on this back
in 2005, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that a great deal of time
and attention in the intervening years has been spent on the topic.
From the 1500’s to 1759, we were a
colony of France. From then on until 1867, we were a colony of Britain. From
Confederation to the end of the second world war, we evolved into a senior
member of what can only be described as a British sphere of influence. After
1945, we became part of the American sphere. In other words, for all of our
modern history, we have been an adjunct of a larger power. While that may have
meant compromising what we might have chosen to do on certain occasions (or
joining military efforts), it also meant the security and protection that comes
with being allied with something greater than ourselves.
The western liberal international
order is now undergoing a transformation. Illiberal regimes such as Russia and
China are on the rise, while the US and Europe are becoming increasingly inward
looking – and this presents major challenges for Canada. To be blunt, what do
we do in a world where we cannot depend upon the kindness of others, and where
power is increasingly gravitating toward those who have fundamental
disagreements with our conception of democracy and human rights?
CANZUK is a modest insurance
policy among middle powers of a common orientation and can provide Canada some
protection in an uncertain world. Not perfect, but a damn sight better than the
non-existent alternatives currently on offer from the chattering classes.
The Conservative Party of Canada
endorsed CANZUK Free Trade and Freedom of Movement and included it in the 2019
Election Manifesto. I don’t expect any of the candidates to ditch the policy.
On the other hand, I would not support one who doesn’t fully commit to it.
2. China
Whether or not there is an appreciation of it, the actions of the
Communist regime in Beijing represent the single biggest challenge to the
post-World War II global consensus. From the abrogation of its treaty with
Britain over the treatment of Hong Kong, to the treatment of ethnic Uighur and
Tibetan minorities, to the bully boy
tactics toward Canada and other western nations, to its increasingly aggressive
stance on territorial waters, and general disrespect for any other authority in
the world save for itself, the next two decades (or more) will be defined by
what the regime does.
The
regime’s leadership has worrying traits and seems to be as disrespectful of the
international community as it is of their own people. Canadians are detained in
China on the flimsiest of pretenses. At the same time, a nation that
strenuously asserts its own right to sovereignty and to be free of foreign
interference uses its Consulates to organize demonstrations and protests on
Canadian soil. Moreover, a nation that jealously guards what it maintains to be
its own territory has now declared itself a ‘near Arctic power’ as a pretext
toward gaining influence in our northern frontier.
If a candidate is weak on China,
I will be weak on them.
And the biggest one…
3. Class mobility
If you go on YouTube, you can
find a clip of Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland talking about class
mobility. It was recorded when she was first running for office, and in the context
of her book “Plutocrats.” In the clip, she remarks that it is becoming
increasingly the case that the biggest determinant of what you will do for a
living is what your father (or mother) did. No one is naïve enough to believe
that some degree of nepotism and pedigree plays a role in who gets what, but
her point was that it was getting worse. The fact that she was sitting on a
stage with Justin Trudeau when she said that is deliciously ironic.
Far too often, when you look at the biography of some up-and-coming
politician, business scion, academic, or esteemed pundit, you learn that they
are the second or third generation to enjoy the status.
Class mobility has been one of the main defining features of our society
– the idea that through hard work, intelligence, talent and dedication you
could better your lot in life. Poor people could aspire to a more secure
middle-class existence, while those in the middle-class could break through
into the upper levels.
The increasing number of stories of hard-working people not being able to
break through combined with the all too familiar presence of underwhelming
leaders with a pedigree and little else makes me cynical – and downright angry.
High profile examples include the college admission scandal in the US, and the
infamous case of Elizabeth
Holmes, (whose father is a former Enron executive, and mother was a
Congressional staffer) who traded on family connections among America’s elite
to found Theranos – a company that destroyed $9 billion of wealth predicated
upon the adage to “fake it till you make it.”
I am among those who sincerely believe that an average and uninspired person
whose parents are among the elite has a significantly better chance at
advancement than the intelligent, hard-working and conscientious child of
regular working-class people. To an extent, it has always been the case, but the
phenomenon has gotten worse – not better. It is as though those who have gotten
to the top of the ladder have quickly shoved it out, lest they be forced to
compete for their continued sinecure.
This is what drives populism – the election of Trump, the passage of
Brexit, and what Tom Nichols bemoans as the “death
of expertise.” The choice will either be a radical leftist purge of the
moneyed class, or a rational conservative approach that allows for the
aspirational a legitimate shot at success. In the absence of a fair chance,
people turn to the 'politics of revenge' as a consolation prize.
Speaking from the experience of a modest background, the poor do not want
to destroy the rich – they simply want a piece of what the rich take for
granted and are willing to compete for it. Left-leaning politicians believe
that its handouts the poor want, because such programs are enthusiastically
received. What they fail to understand is that people in the midst of financial
desperation will always gratefully receive such support, much like a drowning
man would gratefully accept a rope or a life preserver. What poor people would
really prefer is to not be so desperate as to require a government cheque to
keep the wolves at bay.
The world has increasingly become a place where working poor and middle-class
parents could very easily take their children aside and tell them to take a
good look around them, because what they see is going to be their future for
the next 50 to 60 years – that their current situation is “as good as it’s ever
going to get.”
I
will vote for the candidate who understands that nepotism and cronyism are a
cancer on the body politic, and that we need to cultivate and encourage talent
from every demographic and socioeconomic grouping – and not skew the
competition more heavily in favour of those already at the top.
The three “C’s” – CANZUK, China, and Class mobility. Answer
these challenges to my satisfaction, and you will have a loyal supporter on June 27th
