MPs are back in Ottawa Monday for the final push before the fall election. What should the government be looking to achieve? What arrows do the Opposition parties have in their quivers? Politicos Jaime Watt and David Herle, who have advised government and opposition, share their strategies in this special episode.
This interview was originally broadcast on CBC’s The House on CBC, January 27, 2019.
This article originally appeared in the
So long shining city upon the hill.
There are, of course, those who scoff that the idealistic notion of American exceptionalism never existed at all.
Others might reasonably suggest that, in fact, it vanished years ago — not in one fell swoop, but incrementally with each passing hour of cable news, gerrymandered district, and bruising nomination battle.
Never mind the when and how. There will be plenty of opportunity for the pundit class to deconstruct what went wrong and divvy up the blame.
But exhibit one in the case for its disappearance is the U.S. government shutdown, which, after five long weeks, has found temporary resolution — the stopgap funding arrangement agreed to by lawmakers and President Trump will reopen government until Feb. 15.
This temporary reprieve, notwithstanding, there can no longer be any doubt that there is not only something unmistakably rotten in Washington but structurally so.
It has now become clear that we are watching the death knell of American bipartisanship.
So, what? Politics is, after all, a team sport which is, for many, a zero-sum game. Winners and losers and all.
But, public servants — those who dedicate their working lives to the betterment of civil society — should not be reduced to bargaining chips or cannon fodder in a battle that is not theirs.
The president painted himself into a corner. The Democrats know it. And, as is reflected in recent waves of public opinion polling, so too do increasing numbers of everyday Americans.
This isn’t an arcane policy disagreement over appropriations. No, it’s as real as it is tangible.
There are some 800,000 federal government workers who were furloughed or forced to work without pay. And that has come with consequences.
The Food and Drug Administration was forced to suspend all non-essential work, including food safety inspections.
The FBI Agents Association acknowledged, “the resources available to support [federal law enforcement activities had been] stretched to the breaking point and are dwindling day by day.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission told companies planning public offerings, this month, to delay their plans.
This is not what conservatives have in mind when they preach about smaller government.
Whatever your political leaning, it’s worth recognizing many of our neighbour’s greatest legislative accomplishments have actually been bipartisan achievements, from LBJ’s 1964 Civil Rights Act, to the Apollo mission, to the Tax Reform Act under Reagan or the Americans with Disabilities Act under George H.W. Bush.
And there is data to back this idea up. Political scientists have studied polarization by measuring all 2.8 million Senate votes and 11.5 million House votes between 1789 and 2004.
Their study has found that bipartisanship began to rise in the early 20th century, as Republicans became more moderate, and persisted even as Republicans swung back to the right in the 1980s.
That’s a notion that is, today, hard to imagine. Distant memory is the sight of anyone reaching across the aisle to the other side.
While it was Trump’s insistence on funding for a border wall, a project that could not even win approval when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, that caused an unprecedented impasse, this issue is merely a symptom of a much more pervasive disease.
In his farewell address to the American people, Ronald Reagan reflected, “I’ve spoken of the Shining City all my political life. … in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.”
Principled conservatives within the Republican party would be wise to heed his words.
President Trump may have “owned” the shutdown, but those in the corridors of power have a responsibility to ensure government remains open.
Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt
This article originally appeared in the Toronto Star on January 20, 2019.
When the Liberal government came to power, it did away with the approach to foreign policy practiced by its Conservative predecessors and replaced it with something a bit more “idealistic.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau embarked on an international media tour during which he repeatedly declared himself a feminist. The foreign service, all the way up to Minister Chrystia Freeland, began to loudly champion environmental and human rights causes in other countries.
This article originally appeared in the Toronto Star on December 9, 2018.
Many believe that, in politics, your successor is your legacy.
Consider the straight-as-an-arrow Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter after the Machiavellian Nixon years.
Or the steady, competent, experienced John Tory after the roller coaster term of Rob Ford.
Or more recently, Doug Ford’s approach to smaller government focused resolutely on every day family affordability after more than a decade of big, bold Liberal schemes.
But the state funeral of the 41st president of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, earlier this week also reminded us that a politician’s successors can also create new frames, and new prisms, with which to view their predecessor.
As every living president, along with not just the entire American political establishment but leaders from around the world — even Charles, the future King of England was there — jammed into the magnificent Washington Cathedral there was an elephant jammed in with them.
And it wasn’t the elephant that serves as the GOP’s mascot and logo.
Rather, it was the astonishing divide between the 41st President and the 45th, President Donald Trump.
As our own former prime minister Brian Mulroney opened his tribute, Trump could be seen slumping in his pew, his arms aggressively crossed on his chest, and a surl on his lips. But he was alone.
The rest of the congregation was right with Mulroney as he offered, “I believe it will be said no occupant of the Oval Office was more courageous, more principled and more honourable than George Herbert Walker Bush.”
Mulroney went on to provide a tour de table of Bush’s accomplishments: The Gulf War, NAFTA, Clean Air Act, leadership that was “distinguished, resolute and brave.”
Others went on to describe the 41st president as the last of the “soldier statesmen,” as one of the last of the “greatest generation.”
And with each accolade, with each remembrance, the difference between George H.W. Bush’s leadership and that of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. became more painfully acute.
The sense of loss of decency in public life became clearer.
And with that how both Americans and the world thought about their former president began to change.
After all, despite all his successes, which were recounted this week, Bush lost the presidency in 1992, after just one term.
A young upstart named Bill Clinton seemed more in tune with the times. He reflected the optimism and freshness that was felt across the country. President Bush, on the other hand, while familiar and reliable — not unlike a panelled station wagon that had served dutifully — was more like yesterday’s news.
But Bush only knew one way to be president and he stood by it. He allowed journalists, historians and pundits to see him as a bumbling patrician.
Incredibly, the New York Times story that came to define his presidency reported Bush had been dumbfounded by a grocery store barcode scanner and didn’t know the price of a quart of milk.
The story, and its implication that he was woefully out of touch, had the ring of truth, and defined Bush for a generation.
But that sentiment dissipated significantly this week, as experts reflected on Bush’s presidency in the wake of his passing.
Instead of being a patrician, the pundits crowed about his gentle nature and impeccable manners. Instead of bumbling on policy, experts wrote of his pragmatism and cautiousness in a world that was teetering on chaos.
Some went so far as to say he was the best one term president since James K. Polk in the 19th century.
Today, Bush’s legacy stands in marked contrast with the one predicted in 1993, after his re-election loss.
By comparison, President Clinton, who had long enjoyed the highest approval ratings in the country, has suffered from historical consideration. His personal behaviour has clouded his policy successes and his approval ratings have dropped significantly.
It turns out how you lead, like how you live your life, actually matters. That what St. Francis taught is right: in consoling we are consoled, in giving we receive, and in pardoning we are pardoned.
And that’s why I don’t think it is random that the Bush family motto is, “et ius illud,” which when translated to English means, “do the right thing.”
Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake,” ranks as one of Napoleon Bonaparte’s most famous quotes.
And it is one that a number of the politicians around Parliament Hill would do well to remember.
Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt
