The Tories need to take a page from Reagan-era conservatives and focus on generating foreign-policy ideas within conservative circles.
News reports note that the Canadian government’s new foreign-policy memo to cabinet is awfully “slim.” This is not comforting, but neither is it surprising, since the government and conservative movement in Canada from which it arises have a track record for undervaluing, and hence underperforming in, the broader foreign-affairs arena. Conservatives of course challenge the notion that they lack foreign-policy expertise. But when asked to name a prominent Canadian academic, think tank, or former senior official who identifies as conservative and is expert in a foreign-policy area – other than relations with the U.S. and Israel, economics, or defence – they have trouble.
Conservatives do understand that foreign policy is important. The problem is more structural: Without conservatives speaking to, and educating, other conservatives on foreign policy, the subject has become marginalized within their circles. This is especially true in the rise of the Reform/Alliance side of the conservative movement. The absence of conservative conversations on foreign policy has led to a negative feedback loop where party leadership views foreign policy as unimportant and is then reinforced in this belief by the conservative base. The fact that most foreign-policy discussions in Canada are thus (by default) conducted by groups seen as “left of centre” only reinforces this distance. And, to be fair, sitting in on a discussion of foreign policy on any Canadian university campus makes this point for conservatives.
The marginalization of foreign policy extends to the bureaucrats at the foreign ministry. The Conservatives arrived in power holding Ottawa bureaucrats, in general, in deep distrust, but reserved the lowest rung of Hades for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), as evidenced by the history of budget cuts, public comments about the department, and attacks on Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin. Without a source of foreign-policy guidance within the Conservative ranks or academia, and without trust in the experts at DFAIT, the incoming Conservative government was at a serious disadvantage. And this has continued, as it has not built up a staff with foreign-policy expertise. In fact, it has done the opposite: Early on, the leadership lost the few political staffers who had any serious foreign-policy experience, and it has since alienated the few key conservative luminaries with such expertise, such as former prime minister Joe Clark. The current staffers are learning on the job, which bodes well for the party in the future but leaves the present in question.
A review of the major parties’ platforms over the past few elections proves the point: In the 2011 election, the Liberal and New Democratic platforms each featured a distinct section on foreign policy, while the Conservative platform did not (nor have any of the Conservative platforms from the three most recent elections). The NDP and Liberal platforms both included a clear statement placing foreign policy in their broader agendas and articulating a vision for Canada in relation to the rest of the world. The Conservative platform included no such vision. It did feature a section entitled “Here to Stand on Guard for Canada,” where most of the foreign-policy issues discussed are to be found. Yet, the section is overwhelmed with purely domestic issues such as celebrating the War of 1812, creating domestic memorials, and deportations and domestic anti-terrorism legislation. One has to read through the platform to try and ferret out items related to foreign policy.
The U.S., for one, has been aware of this weakness in the Canadian government for some time, noting back in 2009 (according to WikiLeaks) that the Harper administration did not seem to have a real foreign-policy strategy, but instead appeared to be making it up as it went along.
A look at the history of the conservative movement in the U.S. proves that the Canadian Conservatives’ lack of expertise when it comes to foreign policy is a structural issue, rather than an ideological one. That is, while foreign-policy ideas are not currently a major focus for Canadian Conservatives, they have been a part of conservative frameworks in the past, and could be again. According to Lionel Trilling, until the 1950s, American conservatives did not have ideas, but rather had “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” Yet, only a few decades later, under Ronald Reagan, conservatives came to dominate government and the world of ideas. How they did so is a study in positive feedback loops.
Conservatives rode into power on ideas originating from conservative-borne organizations, which were taken up in Washington, D.C., and, more importantly, by the conservative base. By directly disseminating their ideas to the base through conservative media and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, conservatives speaking to conservatives were able to introduce more nuanced arguments and change the tenor, tone, and substance of the debate within the conservative movement. Rather than talking about punishing welfare cheats and food-stamp queens, the arguments turned toward the debilitating impacts of welfare dependency on marginalized populations. A positive feedback loop was created and the conversation between leadership and base became dynamic, proactive, and positive. These more polished ideas and conversations filtered into the mainstream media, where they were much better able to compete on substance.
Under Reagan, conservatives took power with ideas and initiatives that were realistic, and that were widely understood and even supported outside of conservative circles. Moreover, as they governed, the American conservatives had the organizations and people to craft new ideas and make adjustments as intellectual and policy equals, without having to rely on the professional bureaucracies. Because this structural capacity was in place, once the conservatives fell out of power, their academics, experts, and centres continued to influence the national debate, which is something left-of-centre institutions currently do in Canada.
Conservatives in Canada have not established this same structural capacity, and nowhere is it more lacking than in their approach to foreign policy. To this point, the government, and country, have gotten lucky in that they have not yet been faced with a major challenge outside of an area where the Conservatives have some expertise. But that will change. Again, it is not an ideological rejection of foreign-policy ideas that stands in the way, but rather the lack of systems and practices in place to foster such ideas. Until the government and conservative movement in Canada develop the capacity, and hopefully the expertise, to address issues of foreign policy, they, and the country as a whole, will continue to skate on thin ice abroad.
Original Article
Source: the Mark
Author: Carlo Dade
No comments:
Post a Comment