John Robson: Politicians Should Speak Frankly, Not With Empty Words

Soldiers of the 41 Canadian Brigade Group live-fire a 105mm howitzer during training at CFB Suffield, Alta., on Oct. 19, 2024. The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh

Commentary

One of life’s paradoxes is how you can improve something until it’s ruined. From Henry VIII’s flagship Mary Rose, rebuilt to such a peak of Renaissance naval architecture and weaponry that on firing a massive broadside she capsized, to artificial flavour in artificial food to AI writing and reading your emails for you, we find ways to progress onwards and upwards to ruin. Including the latest in political rhetoric.

For my sins, evidently egregious, I’m condemned to read endless politician bumf so cunning at saying nothing that might annoy the public that it enrages the public. Like a headline, “Defence spending being reviewed ’top to bottom’ ahead of NATO summit, [Defence Minister] McGuinty says.” Which sure sounds good, right? A thorough and fearless process driven by frank recognition that our critical underfunding of defence threatens our security and infuriates the United States.

So why am I griping? Because what the minister really said was nothing, at length. Including “We’re working very hard now with colleagues to implement a series of changes. We’ll have much more to say about that financially in very short order.”

Lovely. Except you could say those exact words about any problem, from crime to potholes or housing, and might well if you had no idea how to fix it. They slide you effortlessly past all kinds of real-world problems, starting with if you know how to do it, why did you wait so long, and if you don’t, what’s the plan for finding out?

Given their short-term utility, it’s not just any one minister, party, or the feds. For instance, a June 2 press release claiming in a Saskatoon summit, “First Ministers agreed to work together to accelerate major projects in support of building a strong, resilient, and united Canada. As a first step, First Ministers discussed projects of national interest which fit the following criteria, subject to consultation with Indigenous Peoples whose rights may be affected.”

Ooooh. Agreed. Accelerate. Major projects. A strong, resilient, and united Canada. Projects of national interest. Indigenous. From all parties and two levels of government. Marvellous. But marvellous what?

Nothing actually happened, nor can anyone see what will, how, or when. And politicians beware: if you insist on talking in familiar, safe, soothing generalities that cannot be refuted or mentally engaged with, you end up thinking in them.

Thus, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer just “pledged to make Britain ‘battle-ready.’” For starters, had he or any of his predecessors let on that it wasn’t, instead of spewing oily verbiage about lean and agile? Also, they don’t have the money or a plan for where to get it. So his Defence Secretary promised to make the army “10 times more lethal,” which also sounds great until you start wondering how you’d even measure it.

Here in Canada we have very similar problems, with the Americans rumbling about 5 percent of GDP as we pledge to hit 2 percent for the umpteenth time in 50 years. Pledge, I mean, not hit. As someone sneered online, “Last time Canada spent 2 percent of GDP on defence, we had an aircraft carrier.” But interest on the national debt is rocketing toward $70 billion a year, devouring everything, and we have decades-old crippling procurement and recruitment problems no bromide can salve.

So the PM says, “In an increasingly dangerous and divided world, the new government will rebuild, rearm, and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces. We will rapidly procure new equipment and technology, secure the Arctic, build our defence industrial capacity, create new partnerships, and support our people by making the Armed Forces a lifelong career.” Which he could have cut and pasted from the Mulroney Tories and who would know?

Ditto the recent Ottawa Sun headline, “DND says F-35 review will be completed in the summer.” Review and completed are good words. Until you remember we’ve been at this one since 1997, with review after review from minister to minster. And what if the review is negative? As for when we’ll see it, if ever, “Further information will be provided in due course.” Which sounds good but isn’t.

By the way, here let me praise the new minister of public safety, currently getting the knucklebone shampoo for admitting frankly in Question Period that he didn’t know a bunch of things relevant to the job he just got. We complain endlessly about it being Question Period, not Answer Period (“we” being pundits; maybe nobody else cares). But let someone answer directly, admitting a problem, confessing ignorance, or acknowledging difficulties, and we pound them. Then wonder why, next time, they slime us.

As usual it’s on us. If we’re willing to be addressed plainly about real problems, we will be. If not, we’ll all sail gloriously forward … until the ship of state capsizes leaving us foundering amid rhetorical straws too frail and slick to grasp.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.