Editor:
Re: Surrey mum on past U.S. presidents’ price tag, Feb. 11.
The interest and shock generated from inviting Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as keynote speakers for Surrey’s 2011 Economic Summit may contribute to the event’s success. However, wouldn’t a different choice of speakers potentially offer more?
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is concerned about having a dialogue and learning from the other half of the equation. Is this supposed to mean that a balance has been achieved by inviting both Clinton and Bush? It seems to me that Clinton and Bush have the same ideological position: markets rather than governments should shape economic development.
Where is a Canadian speaker, who accepts the idea of a mixed economy and of something called society? Where is the forward-looking speaker with something to say about economic reorganization and societal transformation?
Bush’s presidency in particular was not marked by any openness to “what works” and “what doesn’t work,” but by a commitment to the agenda of America’s corporate elite. It has already been pointed out that this extreme ideology contributed to the current recession.
Watts wants to give Bush a chance to say what went wrong. Does Bush even believe anything went wrong besides a periodic market adjustment? He still seems to be able to make easy money giving speeches.
And it is impossible to separate a speaker from his moral character.
Why should a politician who promoted lies about Iraq being a military threat and turned a blind eye to terrorism inflicted on civilians and prisoners in America’s “war on terror” be counted on to be truthful or wise about economic issues?
Bush’s recently released memoirs show a tendency to whitewash his past actions. Why give him another public-relations opportunity?
With Bush forced to cancel as he did in Switzerland, perhaps someone like author and UBC professor Patrick Condon would be available on short notice to take his place.
David Anson, White Rock