LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Nihil nisi bonum is the rule for the recently departed.  So when I say Senator John McCain was a pain in the neck, I mean it in a good way.  Whatever his failings, he stood up for what he believed in.  And we need more of that kind of irritation.

If informed that he had annoyed me, I'm sure Senator McCain would have said "Who?"  But he often annoyed presidents and colleagues and was not in the least embarrassed.  Instead he reveled in his role as a gadfly.

I shall have little to say about McCain personally.  Doubtless he had moments the eulogist does not dwell on, for most of which he took full responsibility.  But he also inspired love and admiration in great quantities and will be missed including, remarkably for a man who died at 81, by his mother.  (And the girl he and his 2nd wife adopted from a Mother Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh after bringing her to the U.S. for medical treatment.)

The various distinctions of his military career including a Bronze Star were overshadowed by the horrendous treatment he endured as a POW with courage most of us can only hope we might possess some of in such a situation.  But my point here is to evaluate McCain the politician and neck pain.

What made him commendably annoying was mostly his resistance when urged to go with the flow.  I do not agree with everything he stood for, particularly restrictive campaign finance laws; I believe the U.S. Supreme Court was not merely technically but philosophically right when they said in essence the state may not tell free people how they can spend their money to express opinions on public matters.  And McCain could be snarky in the middle of a political fight or on losing one.  But he did not tend to hold grudges or inspire them.

McCain was also applauded as a maverick partly because he tended to annoy Republican presidents and colleagues.  It is remarkable how often liberal commentators' favourite conservative is not conspicuous for holding recognizably conservative beliefs on almost anything.  But McCain was not in that category.

He was a deficit hawk and opponent of pork-barrel politics.  I think his support for the line-item veto was, again, misguided, even unconstitutional; the separation of powers clearly gives Congress, not the president, the power and responsibility for budgeting.  But I applaud his determination to fight this scourge of democratic politics.  (And while I'm discussing the Constitution, McCain voted for two of Clinton's Supreme Court nominees on the grounds that "under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."  If only both parties were more willing to take that view today.)

McCain was also a hawk in the classic sense, a staunch supporter of national defence whose dissents in this area tended to be against missions lacking clear goals or exit strategy.  Sometimes his stance appeared to give aid and comfort to political adversaries opposed to a robust foreign policy generally.  But he didn't care; if he thought something was wrong he said so including Reagan's deployment of marines to Lebanon that ended in a horrible barracks bombing, and Clinton's PR-driven deployment of troops to Somalia that ended in national humiliation.  McCain's painful awareness of what soldiers risk when deployed may have helped hone his sense of caution about vague military ventures.  But mostly he was hard-headed about the use of power even when others were fuzzy.

Sometimes his "maverick" character made it hard to be sure what he stood for.  I was in Manhattan during the 2000 Republican primaries in which McCain lost an early lead to George W. Bush, and at one rally the band backing him pumped out a song whose only lyrics were "John McCain" which I found revealing.  There were rumours in 2004 that John Kerry might ask him to be the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.  But if his 2008 campaign lacked ideological focus, it was generally characterized by a civil tone.  And in 2009 he led opposition to Obama's stimulus package saying it cost too much and did too little.

He was no friend of Donald Trump, a point on which opinions may be divided.  But he was so hated by the Russian government that when he died a member of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of the Federal Assembly said "The enemy is dead" while a pro-Kremlin academic prominent on social media openly wondered how to replace him as a hate figure.  If he annoyed Vladimir Putin that much, we should all admire his capacity to be a pain in the neck.

His unbending devotion to public service and to what he thought right over partisan expedience were the qualities we who did not know him will most miss.

John McCain, RIP. 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


 

If now-Independent MP Maxime Bernier had started his own party last year, when the sting of his narrow, narrow loss to Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer was still fresh, I would have joined up immediately.  Even better, if he had started his own party after a few months of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper's welfare-heavy industrial policy mandate, I would have been a member for at least five years.  Had Bernier operated on that schedule, he may not have developed the reputation for irritating his colleaguesmaking fans of the alt-right, and letting his ego get the better of him that he now has.

For those reasons, along with the "too much diversity" thing, I find myself unable to join the 13 percent of voters who are ready to cast their lot with Bernier in the 2019 federal election.  Not that Scheer will get my vote.  Nor will Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  Or NDP leader Jagmeet Singh.  Maybe Kodos?

For hardcore partisans who fear lengthening Liberal rule with a divided Canadian right, the choice to stay with the Tories is a simple one.  Conservative strategist Jason Lietaer is one of many who called Bernier a "fool" for apparently not knowing this.  It is equally foolish on Lietaer's part to assume that this is remotely Bernier's concern.  He doesn't see enough daylight between Scheer and Trudeau to support the former over the latter, and created his party for the benefit of voters who feel the same way.  He doesn't accept the view that a political party, even if it is more an electoral vehicle than an ideological one, should make its principles so murky that they barely exist.

For free-market voters who have no patience for hackery, the choice to support Bernier should be simpler than he's made it.  In many areas, he doesn't have to do much work himself; the Tories continue to alienate libertarians with the greatest of ease by voting to keep creating new tax loopholes and working far too closely with the agricultural lobby.  Why they are worth keeping out of the big tent would be a mystery if we didn't know how many hopes the Tories are pinning on Quebec.

But immigration is as much a wedge issue within this bloc as it is within the Conservative Party.  During his leadership campaign, Bernier developed a two-pronged approach to immigration: hailing the economic benefits that high-skilled newcomers offer while insisting that Canada's total annual immigrant intake should be reduced.  Too much immigration, he said then and now, might "forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada."  The current intake of 300,000 is not "SUSTAINABLE."  And, of course, polls show Canadians would rather take in fewer immigrants than more.

All this is very appealing to the wing of Bernier's base that is happy to hear anyone speak of immigration with anything less than rapturous praise.  For others, however, free movement of labour is as integral to national and international economic growth as free movement of goods and services.  This is especially true in Canada, where 41 percent of employers struggle to fill available jobs.  Bernier's recent emphasis on "cultural character" suggests this will not be the main focus of his immigration policy going forward.  His talk of "extreme multiculturalism" may have been dismissed during the leadership campaign as a distasteful but politically helpful sop to immigration hardliners; now it's inescapably his opinion.  What seals the deal for a meme-making edgelord may break the deal for a free-market ideologue.

(On this, for the record, Bernier is only slightly worse than the Conservatives, who at last week's policy convention voted to crack down on "birth tourism" by withdrawing support for birthright citizenship at the behest of one such edgelord.  Babies born to people living in Canada on student or work visas, who are plainly not birth tourists, would miss out as a result.  You'd think they'd want to provide incentives for their parents to stay and continue contributing.)

Even if Bernier's attitude toward immigration was perfectly satisfactory, there's the question of his leadership mettle.  A leader must be consistent: Bernier did accept corporate welfare for businesses in his own riding.  A leader must have a strong work ethic: There is talk that he has a history of falling asleep in cabinet meetings.  A leader must be good at building relationships: Not even his few supporters in caucus will join him now, even if they agreed with his agenda before.  With such fundamental deficiencies, how can one trust Bernier to be an effective leader or advocate?

Thus there's only one remaining reason to back Bernier's party: vengeance against Scheer.  But as Bernier himself says, not being the other guy isn't good enough.

Written by Jess Morgan

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.