Home run: PM didn't fawn, Bush didn't get ugly

The Globe and Mail ^ | 1/15/04 | Lawrence Martin

[TastyManatees]

Home run: PM didn't fawn, Bush didn't get ugly
By LAWRENCE MARTIN

Never in Canada-U.S. history have a Liberal prime minister and a Republican president hit it off. Among the various reasons was a basic one: ideological differences.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Teddy Roosevelt set the trend a century ago. In a dispute over the Alaska boundary, intemperate Teddy announced, "I am going to be ugly." He proceeded to act accordingly, and the prime minister responded in kind.

Mackenzie King had distant relations with Calvin Coolidge, who, while hailing from the border state of Vermont, amazed Mr. King's coterie by asking if Toronto was near a lake. Louis St. Laurent and Dwight Eisenhower were rather remote as well, the prime minister almost dozing off in a meeting with Ike in 1956. As for Pierre Trudeau, he was hardly at ease with Richard Nixon or with Ronald Reagan, whose intellectual thinness was sometimes too much for Mr. Trudeau to bear.

Through it all, the Canada-U.S. relationship grew nicely, integrational tendencies proceeding apace no matter how much the men at the top differed.

In Monterrey, on Tuesday, Liberals and Republicans met again when Paul Martin sat down with George W. Bush. This President had no designs on being ugly. Remarkably, he had more the look of the supplicant. Prime Minister Martin walked away with two or three concessions while ceding nothing to Mr. Bush in return.

Though the deals were hardly major, one was enough to crack the CNN headlines: The network reported a Bush flip-flop in his allowing Canada to bid on Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

It's hard to recall another first meeting between a president and PM wherein the Canadian came out so clearly on top. In 1936, Mackenzie King left his initial get-together with Franklin Roosevelt with a trade package that Mr. King considered one of his big achievements. FDR thought he had outfoxed the prime minister.

First meetings, it should be said, are traditionally happy get-acquainted sessions, and should not be viewed as harbingers of any ensuing rapport. John Diefenbaker professed to being an admirer of John F. Kennedy after their first talks in Washington in 1961. The amicability lasted only until they got to know one another better.

Jean Chrétien and Mr. Bush got along well enough at their first encounter three years ago. But it was not long before the clash over the war prompted the President to go so far as to cancel a scheduled visit to Ottawa last spring. By bilateral standards, that was serious business.

But in Monterrey, it was a different Mr. Bush. The snooty arrogance was gone. He was complimentary about the government's — he could only mean the Chrétien government's — contribution in Afghanistan and postwar assistance in Iraq.

What caused the turnaround? Was this a chastened President?

Not likely. But some things seem clear. One is that on the issue that triggered the war, the alleged weapons of mass destruction, Canadian doubts proved correct while Mr. Bush's cocksuredness about their existence proved wrong. That may have given the President some pause. Another factor was that the President, pleased to be rid of the nettlesome Mr. Chrétien, wanted to show it by giving the new guy a break or two. A third consideration was timing. This is a U.S. election year. Criticized heavily for alienating so many allies with his unilateralist thrusts, Mr. Bush may wish to show Americans he can bring old allies, neighbours like Canada, back into the fold.

For Mr. Martin, it was critical not to have to put on any show of fawning to get the deal on Iraqi reconstruction and on safeguards against deporting Canadians. The new Prime Minister could have done without the "vibes were very good" headlines but he walked away from Monterrey without looking sycophantic.

That will continue to be critical in this relationship. Any obsequiousness with the President would solidify Mr. Martin's image as a right-wing Liberal, an image he does not wish to nurture.

An initial stretch of harmony is good, but it is unlikely that Mr. Martin wants to become the first Liberal prime minister to be buddies with a Republican president. Not only are there broad ideological differences with President Bush, this is not a President and Prime Minister who will find it easy to build a personal rapport. Their styles and tastes diverge. While Paul Martin is a reader of books, a man who likes to sit around and talk policy and ideas, the more monosyllabic Mr. Bush likes to talk baseball.

The new Prime Minister doesn't care much for that sport, though in his first meeting with the President Bush, it was he who hit the home run.

[headsonpikes]

Lawrence Martin is Paul Martin's Monica Lewinsky.

Lawrence Martin - Journalist-Fellator.

But it's okay - he gets paid to do it.

[Billthedrill]

Hey, don't worry about it - we had Clinton for eight years and the scars aren't faded yet. I'm a Canadaphile myself...except when the Jays are in town. ;-)

[headsonpikes]

All metaphorically, of course.

Which is morally worse, imo.

[headsonpikes]

All metaphorically, of course.

Which is morally worse, imo.

Well, the money's not metaphorical.

[baseballmom]

except when the Jays are in town. ;-)

OMG, you don't want to take me there, I'm STILL not over '93. LOL

[hershey]

This guy's got a hugh inferiority complex, and no wonder. It must be hard to live right next door to the US.

[albertabound]

It would be naive to assume that Central Canada and their liberal lapdog media will change their spots overnight but at least the pendulum is starting to swing back in the right direction. Alberta is leading the way and our influence is starting to be felt economically and politically across the country. Canada ia an extremely difficult country to manage with the population spread in a thin line along a three thousand mile border interupted by a clannish group of disaffected Francophones who will always take the opposite side of any populist issue. Many of us are looking to America to replace the Britain as the "mother Country" and this is the root cause of liberal anti-American sentiment among the faint of heart.

[Snowyman]

Many of us are looking to America to replace the Britain as the "mother Country" and this is the root cause of liberal anti-American sentiment among the faint of heart.

I know it's damn cold outside. Just what are you drinking?

[jagrmeister]

LOL. This is so simple-minded and pompous, I can't help but laugh. Paul Martin came hat in hand and Bush tossed him a nickel. Let's see if Martin behaves. If not, he'll be an another irrelevant world figure unable to engage the world's sole superpower.

[albertabound]

Nice and warm here and I am a quite sober. Neither Alberta nor Canada will survive another 10 years of Trudeau style socialism. The futile attempt by Ottawa and the Liberals to create a " Canadian" cultural identity based on United Nations guidelines has been devisive.Face the facts,Canada consists of five distinct regions, all competing for Ottawa's benevolence, all going in different directions and all dependent on trade with Uncle Sam in order to survive.Unless someone pulls this rats nest together soon, the outcome is very predictable.

[SolutionsOnly]

I tend to agree. We've already had out civil war. I sometimes think that Canada's is yet to come. You came close with the Quebec Secession vote a couple years ago.
That's a problem that's not going away. Then there's the left/right ideology divide. All things considered, it's sometimes a wonder that Canada has held it all together for this long.

I said before on this forum "I'd rather hang out with Canadian conservatives than American liberals". But that there are so few Canadian conservatives is a problem. Good luck winning hearts and minds!

[wayoverontheright]

Bush's concession to Martin was only partially about Canada, it was also a message to the people of France and Germany that if you replace those fools you are now saddled with, then something good may well happen to you.

[Sunsong]

I'm not impressed with Martin. When you elect a decent government, I will sure acknowledge it. Until then, Canada deserves to have truth be told about Her. Canada is an irrelevant, arrogant, socialist, European wannabe pain is the @ss country. It is dishonest, imo, to compare our 20% of the pop far left with your majority population far left.

I have to wonder why so many Canadians have so much time to spend on this American site instead of working to change their own smug and complacent country?

[albertabound]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/portal.ph
Check this site out and enlighten yourself.Canadian Conservatives have recieved much help,constructive criticism, support and advice from the good freepers on this website, that is why we come here.

[albertabound]

http://www.freedominion.ca/recent.php

Sorry about the bad link, try this one.

[NZerFromHK]

In Australia Paul Martin will be considered a member of the Australian Labor Party Left. (The ALP has plenty of MPs more conservative than him and yet the party as a whole isn't conservative enough for mainstream Australia). Sorry Paul, but you aren't good enough for Australia (and Canada for that matter as well).

[Sunsong]

Your link didn't work, but I was already aware of Free Dominion. Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but wouldn't you get more done toward changing your country by posting there than by posting here?

So many of the Canadian posters that I see here do not seem to be here to promote conservatism in America. They seem to be here to defend Canada or sometimes even to defend the socialist or anti-American policies of Canada.

[hawkaw]

Give me a friggin break. This site is one of the best to sit back and pick up the news where I don't get it from anywhere else. And I get the added flavour of some good discussion on the topics.

I have been here since ... gee... I think 1998 ... and now someone like you decides to slam me because I find this site very good at what it has to offer and tells me what I think I need to do?

Yeah .....

[Sunsong]

You said that you didn't like people here putting down Canada and Canadians. I'm saying that as long as Canada stabs us in the back and calls themselves "morally superior" to us and our President a moron -- that you should be joining us in putting down Canada instead of complaining about it.

As long as your country sucks -- we're going to say so. And if you were honest about it, you would admit it yourself. I don't have a problem with Canadians on this site who tell the truth about Canada and are here to promote conservatism in America. I have a problem with Canadians who are here to defend a (currently) indefensible country.

[hawkaw]

Thanks for the useless strawman arguements and thanks for not bothering to read what I originally wrote about where I stand on Bush 43.