More populism at the pumps
The 18th-century lexicographer and wit-about-town Samuel Johnson claimed that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel. For populist politicians, the last resort is manufactured outrage over gas prices. Thank heavens there isn't time for this to become more of an election issue in Canada. Americans may not be so lucky.
In the past week, both Canadian opposition parties and President Barack Obama have claimed that we should ignore obvious reasons for gas price increases and instead look -yawn -for Big Oil conspiracy. Mr. Obama also cited the impact of ever-handy "speculators." (A 2008 study by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission suggested that oil traders tend to keep prices down, but who wants to hear that?)
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff promised to unleash Dangerous Dan McTeague on the oil industry if, by any slimmer-than-slim chance, the Liberals should win. As an editorial in Tuesday's Post succinctly put it, this is "as good a reason as any not to vote for the Liberals."
Since then, Mr. Ignatieff has responded to questions about gas prices by suggesting that (a) perhaps higher corporate taxes might bring them down, and (b) why don't we think about his environmental renovation tax credit instead?
Since oil company demonization is a permanent feature of what passes for NDP thought, Jack Layton has promised that when he rules the world, not only will every day be the first day of spring, but that he will appoint an ombudsman who would have "some real power to take on some of these unfair increases and toughen up the resources and abilities of our Competition Bureau to go after these companies when they collude together to raise prices." This despite the fact that the Competition Bureau has carried out numerous studies and found no such grand collusion.
Last week, the Obama administration launched a "major investigation" into both alleged gas price manipulation and oil market speculation. Attorney-General Eric Holder declared that consumers deserved to know whether soaring pump prices were the result of collusion or market manipulation. Are there no other alternatives? Funnily, he didn't mention government policy as a target for investigation.
Although there's not much that the U.S. administration can do to bring down world oil prices, government policies have for decades held back the construction of new refining capacity. Meanwhile, if energy independence is a genuine concern, then the United States would have to acknowledge the impact of sanitizing large areas of the United States, on and offshore, from exploration. Overreaction to the BP Gulf oil spill and kowtowing to green activism over the Keystone XL pipeline to ship oil sands crude to the Gulf coast haven't helped Project Independence much, either. And then there's the impact of U.S. monetary policy.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, at his press conference on Wednesday, was keen to suggest that gas prices would moderate and even fall, but he wasn't primarily interested in being the voice of reason or educating the public on market realities. Indeed, just the opposite. He was, as my colleague Terence Corcoran pointed out Thursday, primarily seeking to avoid blame for the inflationary bubble that his market-manipulating policies have created. In the wake of his denial of responsibility, U.S. gasoline futures hit a new 33-month high.
Apart from the undeniable, although difficult to quantify, impact of loose monetary policy on dollar-denominated commodity prices, crude prices have risen due to a still-shaky U.S. economic recovery, continued strong demand from the fast-growing Asian economies, in particular China, and all those rebellions in North Africa and the Middle East.
Some legitimately ask why gasoline prices are at or above 2008 levels when crude is 25% cheaper. The answer is that there are additional factors that influence gasoline markets, such as refining capacity, shifts in demand for refined crude products, and even accidents. Currently tight gasoline markets represent a double whammy for the consumer.
Consumers seem not to understand much about the workings of markets, and politicians have no interest in educating them, since it is alleged market imperfections that keep them in business.
One might also note that while political scoundrels Obama, Ignatieff and Layton all imply gouging, none can bemoan high gas prices per se because all want higher prices as part of their espousal of draconian climate policies.
One of the multiple perversities of such policies appeared last week, when the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the U.S. industry's main trade group, pointed out that the President's proposed new stricter, Soviet-style fleet mileage standards would put them out of business unless gas prices were higher. Naturally, they don't want higher gas prices, but they know that without them nobody will want to buy the smaller cars that Mr. Obama is forcing them to make. He's bailing them out with one hand and threatening to put them out of business with the other.
Mr. Harper, by contrast, doesn't believe in man-made climate catastrophe, but has to keep his "denial" as part of his secret agenda. Certainly, he too has played the populist anti-oil company gouging card in the past, including in the 2008 election. Indeed, there aren't many economically challenged notions to which Mr. Harper hasn't subscribed in his desire to win votes. Still, at least he gets it. Neither his opponents, nor Mr. Obama, appear to. And that's a better reason than most to vote for Mr. Harper.
The Liberals' anti-American disease
On Wednesday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff gave an interview to the Toronto Star that was so odd that not even the traditionally pro-Liberal Star could sugar-coat it. Most memorably, he declared that Stephen Harper and his Conservatives could "go to hell."
Mr. Ignatieff also seemed to play the anti-American card. Speaking of dealings with U.S. intelligence officials, the Liberal leader warned: "You don't believe what the American tells you. You go into a room with the Americans, they have their sources of information and you had better be damn sure you have your own. You better be darn sure you don't let yourself be persuaded by bad evidence."
On the face of it, this seems like sound advice (apart from the tough-guy language, which seems slightly ridiculous coming from a bookish man such as Mr. Ignatieff ). The National Post has long argued that Canada needs to strengthen its foreign-intelligence-gathering capabilities precisely so that our politicians, generals and diplomats are do not have to depend on the sources and interpretations of other governments.
But this is the first time the largely pro-American Liberal leader has hinted at American untrustworthiness. And for it to come now, in the final days of a failing campaign, and for it to be so seemingly rueful in tone, makes it look like a last-straw grasp by an embattled man.
It seems obvious Mr. Ignatieff was referring to America's incorrect intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Yet in his former role as a foreign-relations academic, Mr. Ignatieff sensibly explained away the failure as a Western one, and not just an American one. After all, the intelligence agencies of every major Western country -and even Saddam Hussein's own generals -had been persuaded the Iraqi dictator possessed WMDs.
Clearly the pressures and insults that accompany a national campaign are beginning to wear on Mr. Ignatieff. But he should be careful not to respond to these pressures by resurrecting Uncle Sam as a Liberal bogeyman.
Mr. Ignatieff also seemed to play the anti-American card. Speaking of dealings with U.S. intelligence officials, the Liberal leader warned: "You don't believe what the American tells you. You go into a room with the Americans, they have their sources of information and you had better be damn sure you have your own. You better be darn sure you don't let yourself be persuaded by bad evidence."
On the face of it, this seems like sound advice (apart from the tough-guy language, which seems slightly ridiculous coming from a bookish man such as Mr. Ignatieff ). The National Post has long argued that Canada needs to strengthen its foreign-intelligence-gathering capabilities precisely so that our politicians, generals and diplomats are do not have to depend on the sources and interpretations of other governments.
But this is the first time the largely pro-American Liberal leader has hinted at American untrustworthiness. And for it to come now, in the final days of a failing campaign, and for it to be so seemingly rueful in tone, makes it look like a last-straw grasp by an embattled man.
It seems obvious Mr. Ignatieff was referring to America's incorrect intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Yet in his former role as a foreign-relations academic, Mr. Ignatieff sensibly explained away the failure as a Western one, and not just an American one. After all, the intelligence agencies of every major Western country -and even Saddam Hussein's own generals -had been persuaded the Iraqi dictator possessed WMDs.
Clearly the pressures and insults that accompany a national campaign are beginning to wear on Mr. Ignatieff. But he should be careful not to respond to these pressures by resurrecting Uncle Sam as a Liberal bogeyman.
America's Birther disease
It has become a cliché of Canadian media culture to decry how "partisan," "shrill" and "divisive" our politics have become. Yet a comparison of our election campaign to events south of the border shows how relatively moderate and civilized things are in this country.
On Wednesday, Americans observed the extraordinary spectacle of their President making public his original birth certificate, which demonstrated that -shocker! -he was born, as every reasonable person always knew, in a Honolulu hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. The spectacle was extraordinary not because the document contained any bombshell information, but because the President felt compelled to release this confidential health record in the first place. Thanks to the prevalence of "Birther" conspiracy theories, one recent poll found that 62% of Americans suspect or believe the myth that Mr. Obama was born outside the United States (which, if true, would constitutionally prohibit him from becoming president). One hopeful for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump, has made the issue the centrepiece of his populist campaign.
Here in Canada, our leaders sling plenty of mud at each other. The Conservatives even have attacked Michael Ignatieff for the many years he has spent abroad. But the basis for these attacks at least is grounded in fact. No Tory leader has suggested that Mr. Ignatieff isn't really a Canadian citizen, or that he is some kind of secret communist or Islamist (two claims that Birthers often make about Barack Obama). Our politics may be slathered in spin and spite, but they at least are conducted in the realm of reality, not out-and-out conspiratorial fantasy.
The United States is a resilient country, and it will bounce back from this low point. But in the meantime, its Birther disgrace is a cautionary tale for Canada; the same insidious politics could take root here if we are not careful.
For this reason, radical leftist attacks that brand Stephen Harper a "Fascist" or even a "Nazi," or right-wing critiques that brand Jack Layton a "communist" or "Stalinist" cannot be dismissed as harmless bluster. As the example of the United States shows, even the most advanced democracy can become captive to toxic delusions.
On Wednesday, Americans observed the extraordinary spectacle of their President making public his original birth certificate, which demonstrated that -shocker! -he was born, as every reasonable person always knew, in a Honolulu hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. The spectacle was extraordinary not because the document contained any bombshell information, but because the President felt compelled to release this confidential health record in the first place. Thanks to the prevalence of "Birther" conspiracy theories, one recent poll found that 62% of Americans suspect or believe the myth that Mr. Obama was born outside the United States (which, if true, would constitutionally prohibit him from becoming president). One hopeful for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump, has made the issue the centrepiece of his populist campaign.
Here in Canada, our leaders sling plenty of mud at each other. The Conservatives even have attacked Michael Ignatieff for the many years he has spent abroad. But the basis for these attacks at least is grounded in fact. No Tory leader has suggested that Mr. Ignatieff isn't really a Canadian citizen, or that he is some kind of secret communist or Islamist (two claims that Birthers often make about Barack Obama). Our politics may be slathered in spin and spite, but they at least are conducted in the realm of reality, not out-and-out conspiratorial fantasy.
The United States is a resilient country, and it will bounce back from this low point. But in the meantime, its Birther disgrace is a cautionary tale for Canada; the same insidious politics could take root here if we are not careful.
For this reason, radical leftist attacks that brand Stephen Harper a "Fascist" or even a "Nazi," or right-wing critiques that brand Jack Layton a "communist" or "Stalinist" cannot be dismissed as harmless bluster. As the example of the United States shows, even the most advanced democracy can become captive to toxic delusions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment