Pandering Could Ruin Harper’s Election Chances

I noticed an interesting editorial on CANOE.ca this weekend about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s political strategy, and how he could ultimately be harming his own chances at a majority government.

Peter Worthington of Sun Media writes that Harper has little to gain by pandering to the beliefs of Canadian Liberals on issues like private medical clinics, same-sex marriage, and the mission in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister should be true to his own beliefs and succeed or fail with ideological honour, Worthington argues.

Although this article tends to simplify things a little (obviously, some bridge-building is necessary in politics), I generally agree with the message that history’s greatest leaders have been some of the most principled ones. I’m not saying that politicians don’t have to tweak and improve upon their political views over time, but they shouldn’t have to sell their souls in doing so.

From where I stand, Stephen Harper seems to be an honest and principled leader who is quite capable of leading this country and doing it well. The more time our Prime Minister spends pouring over polls, however, and giving up on his own beliefs in hopes of pleasing everyone, the more respect he stands to lose. And it’s respect — not hour-by-hour poll numbers — that defines a great leader.

Mitt Romney Makes Disappointing Comments on Civil Liberties

I’ve been casually following the U.S. presidential nomination race for a couple of months now, and had begun to form an opinion that former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, might be a good man for the job. He has an impressive background in business and is a strong fiscal conservative, supporting a free market economy with limited taxation and a parallel public-private education system.

Romney also supports tough anti-crime and terrorism policies, which is often a good thing, but some of his comments at this week’s Republican candidates debate in South Carolina were nothing short of disturbing.

“My view is we ought to double Guantanamo,” Romney asserted when asked about the infamous Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the island of Cuba, which for the past several years has been used to house suspected terrorists and other militants captured by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. “I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil.”

This shows just how little respect Mr. Romney has for the idea of a fair and balanced justice system, where the onus is on the state to prove the guilt of an alleged criminal. He actually sees it as an inconvenience to give proper legal assistance, or even a fair trial, to someone his country is holding prisoner.

Guantanamo Bay may not be located on American soil, but it is operated by Americans, who ought to live their lives by the concepts of liberty and freedom. If the prisoners of Guantanamo are guilty (which most of them likely are), they should be tried and convicted in a fair and just fashion, and properly punished for their actions.

As for Mr. Romney, he is right in saying that intelligence and prevention are crucial to the War on Terror, but preventing terrorism shouldn’t involve sacrificing the very legal and ethical principles that the western world was founded upon.