The red menace


Allan Woods files a rather devastating series of paragraphs from Strasbourg.

They’ve rattled Arabs for Jewish votes, made elaborate apologies and payments for immigrant votes and tailored tax cuts to middle class votes.

But did Canada’s Conservative government pick a fight with the Russian bear for NATO votes, in a failed bid to get Defence Minister Peter MacKay chosen secretary general of the military alliance?

That’s the latest read of the actions of a Tory government that critics say views the world not simply as good or evil, right or wrong, but through the prism of wedge issues just waiting to be employed for political gain.


The red menace

  1. Any notion of an “Arctic cold war” with Russia is sheer exaggeration and fantasy. The Russian prime minister and his hand-picked hand-puppet, the Russian president, spend a vanishingly small amount of time thinking about Canada.

    While i’m sure MacKay’s public criticism of the Russian bomber was at least partly politically motivated (is there any politician, anywhere, who makes a public statement that isn’t “politically motivated”?) it seems ludicrous to suggest that MacKay was trying to boost his chances as NATO Sec Gen. In fact, Secretaries General have traditionally made it their business to avoid talking about such things.

    • I think it only seems ludicrous to the degree that you assume McKay is/was competent in approach and in general. seems to me that is far more ludicrous.

    • The Russians spend a “vanishingly small” amount of time thinking about Canada, only because we spend an even smaller amount of time thinking about implications of ignoring most of our “soveriegn” land and sea areas – the soveriegnty of which currently rests predominantly on the legitimacy of the British Empire.

  2. ya, real “devastating”… yawn.

  3. I am afraid this article stretches credibility to the limit. I can only think of two factors – slow news day or a new mix of kool aid is needed

  4. Why do politicos and journalists persist in referring to the “base” as a group that needs rhetorical nourishment? They are the base owing to their unwavering loyalty to a particular political party or philosophy embodied in that party — so they are unlikely to need persuasion. Isn’t it the “undecideds” that hold the balance in any political contest? You know, the thoughtful citizens that vote based on a rational comparison of any candidate’s or party’s stance on the issues that matter?

    The “base” would seem to be lake a herd of sheep that move wherever their preferred leaders steer them. The only “appeal” consists of pointing the “shepherd’s crook.”

    • Like a herd,” he amends sheepishly.

      • I thought you had just developed an interesting accent.

    • Good point. I think the answer lies in the fact that many politicos and journalists see their own “base” as a loyal core of politically opinionated readers who constantly demand to be fed.

      It is inevitable that those in the business of peddling their trademarked right-wing or left-wing agitprop would confuse their own insatiable reader “base” with the far more sheeplike voter “base” of the politicians that they cover.

  5. Peter MacKay use of the ‘red menace’ to further himself politically would only work if the world took him seriously which I suggest they don’t.

Sign in to comment.