Posted on 01/15/2004 10:52:43 AM PST by 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.
His people have had contact with Bush's people for some time before the change in leadership here. He's already making moves to undo some of the damage wrought on our military by Chretien's fools and is dropping the rediculous "Canada as a moral leader" BS that was so prominent with the Chretien era. Also recall that while he lived in Quebec (not unrealistic for the business he was in) he hails originally from Windsor, Ontario (across the border from Detroit) so he doesn't share the smug arrogance common to native French Quebecers.
There's absolutely nothing in his political or personal makeup that would suggest that he won't actively try to repair the damage in relations Chretien seemed so proud of.
All this being said, he's still a Liberal and I hardly can see myself voting for him, but until the (new) Conservative Party gets it's feet on the ground we're probably stuck with him. Frankly, if we have to be stuck with a Lib gov't I'd rather have him heading it than any of the alternatives. At least he lives in the real world and knows what it's like to make a payroll. Chretien sat in the House of Commons for 40 years and was driven by nothing more than raw political ambition.
Interestingly, Martin kiboshed all of Chretien's pet projects immediately upon taking office. In a further (and pleasant) surprise he immediately announced an accelerated agenda to replace our military's aging and decrepid Sea King helicopters, a program Chretien famously cancelled immediately upon gaining office. This was a hard slap in the face to Chretien. These two men never liked each other. Should be interesting to watch.
Yes. He's doing exactly this, with the most visible example currently being Sheila Copps from Hamilton. The NDP (hard left socialists...imagine a party full of Jesse Jacksons) are starting to approach them. They can have them.
That Canada is a more statist country than the U.S. should be no secret to anyone here, but that being said there is a distict divide within the Liberal Party as to how that manifests itself vis a vis how they approach the rest of the world. I'll try and illustrate...
Canadians by and large favor a strong social safety net. Those of us on the right disagree with much of this on a fundamental level in terms of how far it should go but it's a fact of life we live with. Where the Liberal split occurs is what the result of this "social consience" says about Canada and Canadians to the rest of the world.
Chretien (leftist) Liberals like to run around bragging to the world how compassionate a country Canada is and telling the rest of humanity how they should emulate us, all the while letting the reality on the ground deteriorate for Canadians if any logical fix steps one step outside their little ideological box.
Martin Liberals would seek to build a country that focuses on Canada first, and let everyone else look at Canada and say "Hey...you've got an interesting approach to that problem. Can you tell us how you did it?"
More simply, imagine this:
Chretien is the guy at the bar that makes a point of loudly announcing to everyone else how great a guy he is while in fact he's nothing more than an arrogant buffoon. Martin would be the guy who never says anything but everyone else at the bar knows he would help anyone who asked. Both are still Liberals who believe in the power of the state to affect change but Martin should prove to be far less ideologically rigid. People like that are usually more willing to look at different approaches that are somewhat out of the Liberal box if it appears there's a chance they will actually work better.
People who don't fundamentally believe they have the definitive answer to every question generally are less arrogant and open to the ideas of others. I hope for my country's sake I'm reading this right. Time will tell.
Thanks.
Unfortunately, we have many left leaning people in this country, as does the USA, who think President Bush is not the smartest knife in the kitchen. It reminds me of how left leaning people in the US and Canada treated Regan in the 1980s.
My own thoughts on Bush are I like him a lot and think highly of his intelligence unlike what ALL left leaning media in the USA and Canada say. I wish we were there officially with his fight in Iraq (note we were there as the third largest support contingent something our former PM doesn't want to talk about for political reasons - just called it fighting terrorism - I hate government spin). I am happy that we are giving a large military contribution in Halfganistan and will continue to do so even after the unfortunate allied bombing that killed our troops and the unfortunate land mine accident that also killed our troops. I am happy we are giving a large contribution in patrolling the Gulf. I am happy we are spending hundreds of millions reconstructing Iraq. I am also happy that we are working on the missle defence system with the Americans.
It is important that Canada and the USA be serious and solid allies for we have to work together on this continent - may it be trading oil for goods or may be for protecting both of our lands - we both need one another (unlike what a few on this board think). Just as important is the relationships at the head of each country becoming solid again. As tensions ease between this solid President and new right leaning PM, then, maybe, just maybe, some on this board will wake up and quit with some of their comments addressed to "all" Canadians, when a left leaning Canadian journalist writes an article.
hawk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.