George, Tony, meet Stephen...
The Globe and Mail is showing that only 32% of Canadians approve of Harpers stance on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon...
Maybe he should have looked at Bush's and Blair's poll numbers before signing on to the neo-con dream....
Maybe he should have looked at Bush's and Blair's poll numbers before signing on to the neo-con dream....
posted by RedEnsign at 1:43 PM
5 Comments:
I'm still working on who you support Red.
The term Neo-Con was invented in the 40's in a reference publication and actually was invented to define the people who moved from the left to the center or slightly right of center. I think it's the use of the "Neo" that makes it sound derrogatory and is intended to bring "neo-nazi" to mind.
The press however, as well as the Liberals have latched onto this term so it appears to have undergone a definition change.
Actually DD "neo" means 'new', which distinguishes Conservatives from conservatism which has little to do with many of their core values, which, at times, resembles liberalism (economically at least) more than conservativism. Post-Laurier Liberals would deserve the "neo" label just as much as the current "conservatives" deserve their neo.
The term 'neo-conservative' refers to a political ideology that was born in the late 70's and 80's... whatever the term meant in 1940 is irrelevant to the current understanding of the term.
By suggesting that Harper is wanting to join the neo-conservative 'dream' I'm referring to that aspect of the ideology that holds that 'western' values can be best spread through aggressive use of military force rather than through other less aggressive means... and suggesting that Harper is latching onto the foreign policy aspect of neo-conservatism at a time when the war in Iraq has shown it to be a failure.
I don't actually know whether Harper is a neo-conservative or an old-school conservative (I suspect the latter), and would guess that rather than adopting neo-con philosophy, Harper is just engaging in the usual Tory sucking up to America of the sort best seen during the Mulroney years.
Gotcha.....
Larry Zolph from the CBC, a guy i think is quite the windbag, made a good point the other day.
Many people are claiming he is modelling himself after the GWB administration when it comes to Foreign Affairs, but Zolph had a different take.
a closer look at history shows that Harper's stance on the Middle East is not aping Bush and the Americans. A careful look shows that the real model for Harper's present foreign policy and stand on Israel is John Diefenbaker.
If Harper really is adopting the foreign policy stance of a marginal prime minister from 40 years ago, and is applying it to a far different world than the one Diefenbaker had to deal with, then it would indicate that Harper is out of touch and basing his policies on idealism, not on reality. I want a prime minister which is capable of dealing with the Middle East as it is now, not as it was 40+ years ago.
However, I think Zolph is fishing... trying to retroactively justify a bad decision by saying that it is the natural descendant of the policies of (insert respected Prime Minister here) in order to obscure the obvious links with the failed policies of George Bush. I don't know what Zolphs usual take on politics is, but his essay sounds like apologetics, not analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home