O’Leary adds a refreshing element to a ho-hum contest
On foreign policy, the Conservative leadership candidates are visionless, Bruce Mabley writes.
Over the last few months, the public has witnessed a series of debates and policy discussions designed to differentiate the 14 Conservative leadership candidates’ views on various issues. So far, the debate has not been overwhelmingly successful in capturing the imagination of most Canadians.
As a foreign policy expert, I regret the lack of substance on international issues that we have seen so far, something to be expected given the overall mediocrity of the field. There is the usual right-wing bluster on foreign affairs about ensuring borders and the safety of Canadians against dimly understood threats, opening foreign markets to Canadian goods and reeling in Canadian aid to needy countries in the developing world. There is not much new when considered against the Harper years of foreign policy stagnation and international-visibility degradation.
A careful reading of candidates’ pronouncements, websites and media interviews reveals the absolute subjugation of foreign policy and vision abroad to domestic social and economic policy — they are inward looking and visionless in foreign-policy terms.
What is also clear is that Kevin O’Leary is in front of the pack, even if he was not the first to throw his hat into the ring. His energy and clarity on issues are refreshing. He is intelligent, outspoken and not afraid to grapple with difficult subjects.
On the economic side, O’Leary is head and shoulders above the others. To be sure, he is abrasive and comes off as an arrogant anglophone bloke from the West Island. However,
He is intelligent, outspoken and not afraid to grapple with difficult subjects.
he knows the business world, has a handle on economic policy and a plan on how the government can help create jobs. (He may be wrong, though, if we look at how little Stephen Harper’s deficit cutting did for the working people of Canada.)
O’Leary attempts to understand the role of government in nurturing business and innovation. I would probably trust him much more than a Trudeau and civil service visionaries on how to create innovation in the economy.
Never mind about O’Leary living and travelling outside the country — that is a low blow that Michael Ignatieff, and others of international repute, have to listen to as they return to practise the uncertain art of politics in a fish bowl. Whether we like it or not, someone with a purely domestic background is hardly likely to be fully effective in key strategic international negotiating venues where Canada’s bread and butter is discussed.
To be sure, even if O’Leary is crowned leader, I will not be voting for the Conservative party. I simply do not have that type of DNA, for one thing. And there is another important reason: The fact that O’Leary cannot speak French, even though he lived and studied in Quebec and abroad, yet is running for the leadership of a national political party, is hardly to his credit. Yes, learning another language can be difficult, and those undertaking that task deserve to be cut some slack. But O’Leary has been slow to start. This prompts me to fear the worst: that he disdains French Quebec and its language and culture. Federalists might want to take heed of this. This, and his arrogance, may be the only major faults in an otherwise superior candidacy.
Or maybe the field of candidates is so poor, almost anyone with a few original ideas could compete. This is not such a far-fetched notion.
Nonetheless, for the shrewd Jean-François Lisée and the Parti Québécois, an O’Leary victory, coupled with an increasingly cumbersome and mistake-prone Liberal government in Quebec City, might revive hope in attaining their sovereignty goals in Quebec. After all, O’Leary would present a perfect political target for them.