First Rumsfeld, now Harper?
Canadians mull over what the Democrats' gains mean for us
Macleans.ca staff | Updated Thursday, November 9, 2006, at 15:35 EST
Chatting with Globe and Mail readers on Wednesday, columnist John Ibbitson offered a decidedly sober reaction to the mid-term election results in the United States.
“Partisan politics has had little impact on Canada-U.S. relations over the years,” he said. “In theory, the Democrats are more protectionist and the Republicans more free-traders. But it was Democrat Bill Clinton who brought forward the North America Free Trade Agreement, and free-trader George W. Bush who slapped tariffs on steel imports.”
var isArticle = true;The U.S. ambassador to Canada, naturally, agreed. But Ibbitson has been otherwise nearly alone this week in his less-than-reactionary reaction. Because even if no one is entirely certain how, Canadian pundits willing to pontificate are confident the Democrat revival spells certain doom for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
"Look beneath the superficial and you'll find we'd do better under the Republicans because they are ideologically for freer trade. The Democrats are more reflective of their labour interests," Colin Robertson, a former official with the Canadian embassy in Washington, told the National Post on Tuesday. "There's no doubt Democrats are going to make gains and those coming in are not likely to be as committed to freer trade as were their Republican predecessors. That's going to present us with challenges."
The Post drove home the point again Wednesday with a second story forecasting trade woes, while Slate's Jacob Weisberg previewed a new generation of Lou Dobbs Democrats hellbent on economic nationalism and CTV chimed in with its own trade concerns.
To read much of the Canadian analysis, though, free trade might be the least of the Prime Minister's worries.
Victorious Democrats, argued Michael Byers in an op-ed for the Toronto Star, will quickly begin prosecuting George W. Bush's war on terror - and though Harper has not sent troops to Iraq, his cozying up to the President will inextricably link him to Bush's downfall. If that's not enough, Byers contended, the PM will suffer from policy changes south of the border on nuclear proliferation and climate change.
Writing on the same page, both literally and figuratively, James Travers predicted abandonment in Afghanistan and argued that Harper miscalculated the "pendulum's inevitable swing" back in liberalism's favour.
Concurred Byers: "Here in Canada, Harper, nostalgic for the past successes of Ronald Reagan and Bush, is still looking backwards. Today, as he glances south, will he see the early signs of his own political rip tide? Or will ideology prevail over good sense, prompting our neo-conservative Prime Minister to maintain his grip on a failed president, whose only escape from a hostile Congress lies in his constitutionally unfettered capacity to use armed force abroad?"
Other opinions on how the Republicans' comeuppance will affect our country run the gamut - with all sorts of optimism that various pet causes will finally get their due. Perhaps northern Democrats will be more sympathetic to Canadian issues. The National Union of Public and General Employees hopes Tuesday night's results will put pressure on Canada to raise the minimum wage. And over at unitednorthamerica.org, there's speculation that the Democrats could further the cause of an amalgamated continent.
What does incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the new face of the Democratic party, have to say about all of this? Not a whole lot, actually. Those hoping to read the tea leaves are left studying her voting record for hints - or taking note of her support for the legal import of prescription drugs from Canada.
For what it's worth, Slate's Michael Kinsley points to this document for clues as to what Democrats might do with their new political capital. Entitled "A New Directon For America," it fails to include the word "Canada" even once.
Canadians mull over what the Democrats' gains mean for us
Macleans.ca staff | Updated Thursday, November 9, 2006, at 15:35 EST
Chatting with Globe and Mail readers on Wednesday, columnist John Ibbitson offered a decidedly sober reaction to the mid-term election results in the United States.
“Partisan politics has had little impact on Canada-U.S. relations over the years,” he said. “In theory, the Democrats are more protectionist and the Republicans more free-traders. But it was Democrat Bill Clinton who brought forward the North America Free Trade Agreement, and free-trader George W. Bush who slapped tariffs on steel imports.”
var isArticle = true;The U.S. ambassador to Canada, naturally, agreed. But Ibbitson has been otherwise nearly alone this week in his less-than-reactionary reaction. Because even if no one is entirely certain how, Canadian pundits willing to pontificate are confident the Democrat revival spells certain doom for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
"Look beneath the superficial and you'll find we'd do better under the Republicans because they are ideologically for freer trade. The Democrats are more reflective of their labour interests," Colin Robertson, a former official with the Canadian embassy in Washington, told the National Post on Tuesday. "There's no doubt Democrats are going to make gains and those coming in are not likely to be as committed to freer trade as were their Republican predecessors. That's going to present us with challenges."
The Post drove home the point again Wednesday with a second story forecasting trade woes, while Slate's Jacob Weisberg previewed a new generation of Lou Dobbs Democrats hellbent on economic nationalism and CTV chimed in with its own trade concerns.
To read much of the Canadian analysis, though, free trade might be the least of the Prime Minister's worries.
Victorious Democrats, argued Michael Byers in an op-ed for the Toronto Star, will quickly begin prosecuting George W. Bush's war on terror - and though Harper has not sent troops to Iraq, his cozying up to the President will inextricably link him to Bush's downfall. If that's not enough, Byers contended, the PM will suffer from policy changes south of the border on nuclear proliferation and climate change.
Writing on the same page, both literally and figuratively, James Travers predicted abandonment in Afghanistan and argued that Harper miscalculated the "pendulum's inevitable swing" back in liberalism's favour.
Concurred Byers: "Here in Canada, Harper, nostalgic for the past successes of Ronald Reagan and Bush, is still looking backwards. Today, as he glances south, will he see the early signs of his own political rip tide? Or will ideology prevail over good sense, prompting our neo-conservative Prime Minister to maintain his grip on a failed president, whose only escape from a hostile Congress lies in his constitutionally unfettered capacity to use armed force abroad?"
Other opinions on how the Republicans' comeuppance will affect our country run the gamut - with all sorts of optimism that various pet causes will finally get their due. Perhaps northern Democrats will be more sympathetic to Canadian issues. The National Union of Public and General Employees hopes Tuesday night's results will put pressure on Canada to raise the minimum wage. And over at unitednorthamerica.org, there's speculation that the Democrats could further the cause of an amalgamated continent.
What does incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the new face of the Democratic party, have to say about all of this? Not a whole lot, actually. Those hoping to read the tea leaves are left studying her voting record for hints - or taking note of her support for the legal import of prescription drugs from Canada.
For what it's worth, Slate's Michael Kinsley points to this document for clues as to what Democrats might do with their new political capital. Entitled "A New Directon For America," it fails to include the word "Canada" even once.