Just a Side Order of Democracy Please

Jim Travers has an interesting take on Missile Defence in the Toronto Star.

"Back when Martin was toppling Jean Chrétien, the malevolently misnamed Son of Star Wars project was so low profile that Ottawa could have negotiated a role without much risk."

but now...

"Along with measuring growing opposition to the missile shield, EKOS Research finds that a majority of Canadians now think the issue could be important enough to justify a federal election."

and as a result...

"Liberals are now expected to bow to changed political realities at their March convention by confirming their antipathy to Star Wars."

with the lesson we take from this being that,

"Tough decisions demand that leaders lead. Seizing opportunity requires courage.

"This Prime Minister is falling short on both, first by failing to proselytize his policies and then by doing nothing. Now, he can only read today's poll and mourn what could so easily have been."

So if I'm reading this right, Travers is saying that Martin should have approved missile defence before Canadians learned enough about it to seriously oppose it. Interesting view on democracy, a little paternalistic if you ask me.

Update: Jonathan, over at No More Shall I Roam goes into more detail on why all those 'misguided' Canadians might have good reasons not to support Missile Defense.

Wait Till Your Father Gets Home

So Bush came to town and tried to sell us on joining up with the States' wacky "lasers from space", a.k.a. "missile defence" plan.

The thing I find odd about Canada-U.S. relations is how many people (mostly, but not entirely from the 'right wing') believe that Canada should do things we don't like because if we don't we will be punished by the U.S.

Now admittedly, there are situations where this is a prudent course of action. For example, if someone has kidnapped a family member and is demanding a $100 ransom for their release, it seems logical to pay them, as distasteful as that may seem. But if you keep getting hostages taken time and time again, any normal person would look for a way to change the dynamics of the situation.

So, the part that really puzzles me, is that a number of commentators don't seem to really mind this state of affairs where Canadians are forced into policies we don't like (appeasement on trade issues, unnecessarily tough stance on pot use, etc.) because of our fear of retribution from the U.S. In fact you never hear them say something like, "Well, we have to go along in this case, but we need to take steps so that we can do what we want without fear of retribution in the future" or even less likely, "we may be punished for doing this, but it's worth paying the price in order for us to maintain our independence and do what we think is right."

I can't help wondering if the people who take this approach view the Canadian public as an unruly child which stubbornly won't go along with what they (the nagging mother) think they should do. As a result, they resort to telling the public to wait until their father (the U.S.) gets home, and then they'll be sorry they didn't change their ways sooner.

Unfortunately, I don't have any good examples of this type of reasoning on hand at that moment, but I'll keep an eye out and post them if I do. I'm guessing that if you read the news regularly, you know what I'm talking about.