The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Empire Lite of Michael Ignatieff
This may come as a surprise to my readers, but as a lifelong conservative I do pray for the salvation of the Liberal Party of Canada. My Tory colleagues are having difficulty resisting the temptation and pusillanimous belief that ethically challenged and kiddy-gate Librano, Joe Volpe, would make a good Prime Minister-in-waiting, on the basis that such an outcome would improve the prospect of a Tory majority in the next election. They ought to know that that kind of reckless hoping is too dangerous for the future of our children.
Let’s get a grip. Limousine Liberals like Joe Volpe have no place leading our country, not even the prospect of leading it. A major reason why Canada is swiftly raising its standing in the world is our return to a competitively healthy and predominantly two-party democracy. That, and a return to intelligent leadership – albeit, not yet on both sides of the political aisle.
Which brings me to current Grit hopeful, Michael Ignatieff, the grandson of a Russian aristocrat. This guy is a shock to the Liberal flock. He’s what I would call a politically correct or highly nuanced imperialist, one who actually sways to the right of Harper on many important areas of foreign policy. It may no longer be the White Man’s Burden, but it still is very much The Burden. Ignatieff is Kipling lite.
He was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, arguing that America had inadvertently established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire obliged America to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights.
Other shocks. He’s an unapologetic advocate for the construction of a ground-based North American Missile Defence Shield (and he’s a Liberal?); he believes that the U.S. should militarily impose a two-state solution in the Middle East, which speaks to a boldness that would escape even Bush (and he’s a Liberal?); he even makes a case for torture under the right circumstances, taking a lesser evil approach in dealing with suspected terrorists (Picture: Captured terrorist knows a nuke will take out Manhattan in three days. What’s more important? Respecting the terrorist’s human rights or extracting the information needed to save millions of people?). And he’s a Liberal?
In many ways, Ignatieff is the very antithesis of the Liberal beast he wants to lead. If he is the apparent frontrunner, it would certainly have nothing to do with his worldly views, but more to do with the Lib’s unquenchable lust for power. Many probably feel he represents the only plausible chance of defeating Harper, and so he finds considerable support.
But this logic, like so much of Liberal logic, escapes me. By getting Ignatieff as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, it is much more likely, in my view, that more Liberal voters would be alienated than Conservatives gained. The Tories are very happy with Harper and will not be leaving anytime soon. The socialists would also be happy - ecstatic - if a future election became a contest between Harper and Harper lite. All the Liberals would gain is principled, thoughtful and intelligent leadership. Come to think of it, I can see how the Grits might not be that happy.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:47 p.m. | LINKS |
This may come as a surprise to my readers, but as a lifelong conservative I do pray for the salvation of the Liberal Party of Canada. My Tory colleagues are having difficulty resisting the temptation and pusillanimous belief that ethically challenged and kiddy-gate Librano, Joe Volpe, would make a good Prime Minister-in-waiting, on the basis that such an outcome would improve the prospect of a Tory majority in the next election. They ought to know that that kind of reckless hoping is too dangerous for the future of our children. Let’s get a grip. Limousine Liberals like Joe Volpe have no place leading our country, not even the prospect of leading it. A major reason why Canada is swiftly raising its standing in the world is our return to a competitively healthy and predominantly two-party democracy. That, and a return to intelligent leadership – albeit, not yet on both sides of the political aisle.
Which brings me to current Grit hopeful, Michael Ignatieff, the grandson of a Russian aristocrat. This guy is a shock to the Liberal flock. He’s what I would call a politically correct or highly nuanced imperialist, one who actually sways to the right of Harper on many important areas of foreign policy. It may no longer be the White Man’s Burden, but it still is very much The Burden. Ignatieff is Kipling lite.He was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, arguing that America had inadvertently established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire obliged America to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights.
Other shocks. He’s an unapologetic advocate for the construction of a ground-based North American Missile Defence Shield (and he’s a Liberal?); he believes that the U.S. should militarily impose a two-state solution in the Middle East, which speaks to a boldness that would escape even Bush (and he’s a Liberal?); he even makes a case for torture under the right circumstances, taking a lesser evil approach in dealing with suspected terrorists (Picture: Captured terrorist knows a nuke will take out Manhattan in three days. What’s more important? Respecting the terrorist’s human rights or extracting the information needed to save millions of people?). And he’s a Liberal?
In many ways, Ignatieff is the very antithesis of the Liberal beast he wants to lead. If he is the apparent frontrunner, it would certainly have nothing to do with his worldly views, but more to do with the Lib’s unquenchable lust for power. Many probably feel he represents the only plausible chance of defeating Harper, and so he finds considerable support.
But this logic, like so much of Liberal logic, escapes me. By getting Ignatieff as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, it is much more likely, in my view, that more Liberal voters would be alienated than Conservatives gained. The Tories are very happy with Harper and will not be leaving anytime soon. The socialists would also be happy - ecstatic - if a future election became a contest between Harper and Harper lite. All the Liberals would gain is principled, thoughtful and intelligent leadership. Come to think of it, I can see how the Grits might not be that happy.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:47 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
