The Keystone XL pipeline is fast becoming a “worthwhile Canadian initiative” – a headline readers of The New Republic once voted the most boring in all of history.
It’s also the worst possible association for a project that is vital to this country since it could provide the White House with the cover to block it on the basis that it just doesn’t matter.
That, remember, was the backhanded compliment Keystone received from the State Department assessment of the project, which determined Keystone would have no impact on the development of the oil sands. Once we get into that mindset, the road to approval gets narrow and dark.
America is different. It expects robust debate, and the more the merrier.
We’re best to embrace the loud and noisy public debate underway. We’re also best not to get too squeamish about entering a political debate in a foreign country, even though we tend to get a little testy when Americans or others try to interfere with ours. America is different. It expects robust debate, and the more the merrier.
But what we say and how we say it is critical. Two weeks ago, the New York Times published a scathing editorial against the Keystone XL project. The Alberta government responded quickly by taking out an ad in the same paper. It was entitled “Keystone XL: The Choice of Reason.”
Get breaking National news
The ad made a reasonable argument for a reasonable project, that was probably reasonably ignored. Raucous debate in the American arena of ideas doesn’t give much space to nuance.
Take for instance the very odd senatorial election unfolding in Massachusetts. The Democratic contender, with the unintentionally appropriate name of Stephen Lynch, is being publicly strung up by a Democratic billionaire from California, Tom Steyer, for having the temerity to support Keystone. Lynch said he thinks it’s a good way to create jobs and wealth in his state, while the billionaire is accusing him of “running to be the senator from Canada”. You see the depth and reason of this so-called debate.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be putting the case in a reasoned, accurate way. But if that’s all we’re doing, we may well lose.
Americans have sharp elbows and even sharper pencils, but they also have big hearts, and this debate won’t be won by winning minds alone — there is an emotional component that the pipeline supporters aren’t addressing.
The opponents are miles ahead on that one; Keystone has become a touchstone for environmental concerns, and is now one of those political filters that define who you are.
So where’s the room for an appeal to the American soul? Try the local movie house.
Argo recently won best picture at the Oscars, and for all its inaccuracies, for all of its slights to some remarkably brave Canadian diplomats, it nevertheless rocketed Canada’s profile to the very top of American consciousness in a very positive way. It was a moment to be seized.
This debate won’t be won by winning minds alone — there is an emotional component that the pipeline supporters aren’t addressing.
If the emotional ground was to be contested, Canada might have taken out some congratulatory ads for the movie with a cut line saying, “We had your backs then. We have your backs now.” It’s the sort of message that resonates and has the added bonus of being true. It makes the case in a simple, straightforward way that Canada is there, with a secure supply of oil, to help our best friend.
American foreign policy is complex and, at times, mystifying. But Americans themselves are not. They react well to being liked, as do we all. If Canada truly feels that Keystone is vital, we might try a little love.
Comments