The Wet Dreams of Canadians
Jack Layton let it be known yesterday that the Canadian military presence in Afghanistan should be removed no later than February of 2007. He further suggested that Canadians should, instead, take part in a "comprehensive peace plan" that would include peace talks with the Taliban. He says, "Canadians want a foreign policy that is rooted in fact, not fear, one that is uniquely independent, not ideologically imported and one that leads the world into peace, not follows the US into wars."
Okay, Jack. But that would be to lend the tiniest bit of credence to this idea that it is even conceivable that the Taliban will participate (in anything other than a token capacity) in peace talks--which is so laughably absurd one can't help but wonder what planet the NDP leader is importing his ideology from. To which, of course, Jack would protest that his position is not the product of ideology at all--that that is a uniquely conservative hangover from the dark ages and, indeed, the source of all our problems.
How to explain the current left's ludicrous belief that what makes their crusade righteous is the very absence of ideology from their, er ..., ideology? This is logically impossible, right? And yet the reasoning prevails that: if (a) we reject the dominating neo-con belief (i.e. that democracy is a thing that has to be exported using force because bad men do exist in the world and will try to stop it at any cost), we are then (b) somehow rejecting all ideology wholesale. Nonsense. If neo-cons suffer under the delusion that bad men exist and are bad enough (and efficient enough in their badness) to have acquired some fairly serious sway over certain parts of the planet, then it is also the case that the likes of Jack Layton--with his moronic faith invested so utterly in the belief that peace is the universally acknowledged aspiration of all men--suffers under an equal and opposite delusion. They are both, in any case, the product of ideology; for while Jack's reasoning may not be rooted in "fear," it most assuredly is not "rooted in fact."
But here I am yakking away, when Jack himself puts the matter at its ironic best when he says, "It's time once again for a made-in- Canada foreign policy that reflects the values and the dreams of Canadians." Why do I get the impression he was on the brink of saying daydreams, or even wet dreams, and caught himself?
But still ... Dreams, Jack? That's the problem, isn't it?
Okay, Jack. But that would be to lend the tiniest bit of credence to this idea that it is even conceivable that the Taliban will participate (in anything other than a token capacity) in peace talks--which is so laughably absurd one can't help but wonder what planet the NDP leader is importing his ideology from. To which, of course, Jack would protest that his position is not the product of ideology at all--that that is a uniquely conservative hangover from the dark ages and, indeed, the source of all our problems.
How to explain the current left's ludicrous belief that what makes their crusade righteous is the very absence of ideology from their, er ..., ideology? This is logically impossible, right? And yet the reasoning prevails that: if (a) we reject the dominating neo-con belief (i.e. that democracy is a thing that has to be exported using force because bad men do exist in the world and will try to stop it at any cost), we are then (b) somehow rejecting all ideology wholesale. Nonsense. If neo-cons suffer under the delusion that bad men exist and are bad enough (and efficient enough in their badness) to have acquired some fairly serious sway over certain parts of the planet, then it is also the case that the likes of Jack Layton--with his moronic faith invested so utterly in the belief that peace is the universally acknowledged aspiration of all men--suffers under an equal and opposite delusion. They are both, in any case, the product of ideology; for while Jack's reasoning may not be rooted in "fear," it most assuredly is not "rooted in fact."
But here I am yakking away, when Jack himself puts the matter at its ironic best when he says, "It's time once again for a made-in- Canada foreign policy that reflects the values and the dreams of Canadians." Why do I get the impression he was on the brink of saying daydreams, or even wet dreams, and caught himself?
But still ... Dreams, Jack? That's the problem, isn't it?
posted by Edward Michael George at 10:11 AM
<< Home