Stephen Harper and the "Noble Lie" ?

Much has been made recently in the Blogworld over Stephen Harper's apparently unprovoked statement that Canada will not cede her claims to Arctic Sovereignty in the face of American policy statements (this time by the US Ambassador to Canada) that stand contrary to those claims.

I lauded this move, and expressed the hope that such sentiments would colour the policies of the new government. Others has suggested that perhaps this was "set-up" for Harper by the US Administration, so that Harper could appear unaffiliated with certain aspects of US Foreign Policy. The argument is that the Bush Administration is so pleased to see a Harper Government in Ottawa, that they will conspire to help-out with the Public Image of that Government on issues of low import to the USA, but of high symbolic value in Canada.

There is perhaps, if not full merit to this accusation, at least a plausible fear empowering such views. Stephen Harper has a lot of atoning to do for his past statements - which place him out of the mainstream in Canadian political life. His many identifications with the US "conservative" movement are offensive to many Canadian Tories and many other Canadians of various political affiliation. Could he be engaging in a classic Straussian "noble lie" strategy? The Bush Administration has proven that they are not afraid to apply this gambit in the short-term.

"AS YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP."

NO TRUER WORDS WERE EVER UTTERED.

He has to earn the trust of the people in this regard, but my real fear here is that he will do so under the aegis and pressure of minority government, but when the times comes and the CPC grabs a clear majority, we may see something different.

The Harper Ministry may act quite differently if given a majority. A perfect example of this was Liberal Party of Canada, which was handed successive & large defeats in 1984 and 1988, and yet found enough within itself between 1993 and 2005 to become perhaps the most arrogant and corrupt government in modern Canadian history - despite their many efforts to paint Mulroney as a sleazy operator. They became that which they supposedly despised.

Majorities change parties. Look what happened to the PCs after 1984. They went from being the party of Canadian nationalism to a continentalist party within three years. It only took them 36 months to turn their back on over 100 years of party tradition and policy.

I personally hope that we have a succession of minority governments for the next few decades. It would keep them all in check. It would prevent radical changes in policy and law. It would best preserve what is left of Canada.