Let's slow the roll on Iran

0:00Welcome to Hub Headlines. Today's program features the weekly rap by the hub's editor at large, Sean Spear, who analyzes the big stories shaping politics, policy, and the economy in the week that was. Today, he discusses why conservatives would be wise to wait before fully supporting the Iran War. Why poilev is right to defend capitalism and classical liberalism? And why BC is right for switching to permanent daylight savings time? Many conservatives across the Anglo-American world, including here in Canada, have been quick to express support for the military strikes on Iran, and the possibility that they could ultimately lead to the collapse of the regime in Tehran. That instinct is understandable. The Iranian regime is repressive at home and destabilizing abroad. If one could be confident that its removal would lead to a more stable Middle East and greater security for Israel, it would be a trade-off worth welcoming.

1:03But that confidence is precisely the problem. The experience of the past 20 years ought to make conservatives wary of judging military interventions solely on the success of the initial offensive. The more relevant question is the overall outcome. Does the intervention ultimately contribute to greater stability, peace, and security? On that measure, the record from Iraq to Libya is rather sobering. Yet a lot of conservatives who were chastened by the hubris of early 21st century interventionism seem to be making the same mistake once again. Perhaps Iran represents more fertile soil for a better transition to a more stable form of governance. But the potential for chaos and instability shouldn't be underestimated. A week into the strikes, the probability of the latter outcome is high enough that conservatives should approach the prospect of regime change with caution rather than enthusiasm. That concern is compounded by the character of the current US leadership. Donald Trump is an erratic and mercurial president, to say the least.

2:07Regime change would be difficult under the best of circumstances and nothing from his past or present behavior indicates that he has the self-discipline or wherewithal to oversee the long and difficult process of constructing a stable political order in its aftermath. None of this means adopting the reflexive anti-Americanism or anti-Western posture that characterizes parts of the progressive left. But acknowledging genuine security threats doesn't relieve policy makers of the obligation to judge interventions by their likely political consequences. The lesson of the past two decades isn't that military force is never justified. It's that the success of an intervention must ultimately be judged by the political order that follows it. Conservatives should therefore resist zealousness in favor of prudence in the face of Trump's war. Earlier this week, as part of his first major trip abroad, conservative leader Pierre Pualiev delivered the annual Margaret Thatcher lecture at the Center for Policy Studies in London. The remarks were framed as an expression of his thinking on Canada's place in the world in the age of Trump.

3:11But they also offered something more revealing. A window into the unique and underappreciated character of Pualiev's own politics. At a time when many Anglo-American conservatives are jettisoning open markets and human freedom in favor of economic planning and cultural nationalism, his lecture stood out. It amounted to one of the most cogent and persuasive defenses of free markets and free peoples delivered by a major conservative leader in the Anglo-Sphere in years. In so doing, the speech highlighted Pualiev's distinctive effort to reconcile contemporary populism with classical liberalism. His diagnosis of contemporary politics, including concerns around economic precarity, stagnant living standards, and diminished expectations for the future, is one that he shares with many right-wing populists across the Anglo-Sphere. US Vice President J.D. Vance, a leading figure in the populist realignment, would have broadly agreed with much of this part of the speech.

4:12Pualiev's prescriptions, however, are quite different from those advanced by Vance and others on the so-called new right. Rather than blaming free markets and globalization, he effectively argued that the real source of the problem is quite the opposite. Government interference in the functioning of voluntary exchange and open markets is what's held back the promise of modern meritocracy. The task, therefore, isn't to retreat from markets, but to free them from the excesses of state intervention. Pualiev's lecture was framed in genuinely thatcherite terms, invoking the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, as well as the textured understanding of capitalism associated with Adam Smith. He made the case that competition, entrepreneurship, and open exchange remain the most reliable engines of mobility and prosperity. His vision of what he called a meritocratic bottom-up competitive economy was ultimately a defense of classical liberalism as a system designed to serve ordinary citizens.

5:13This effort to synthesize a populist diagnosis with a classical liberal program is refreshing at a time when conservatives in Canada and elsewhere seem to be abandoning the latter. Think of it as classical liberal means towards populist ends. Critics often lump him together with other populist figures like Trump or Vance. But the speech was a reminder that his project is meaningfully different. Pualiev's politics represent an attempt to channel the frustrations of voters without abandoning the free market system that's produced rising living standards and expanding opportunity. The timing of the lecture is notable. Recent polling has cast doubt about his prospects of becoming prime minister and his long run future as conservative leader. If so, one gets the sense that his critics will eventually miss him when he's gone. This weekend, most of North America will spring forward to daylight saving time and lose an hour of sleep in exchange for an extra hour of evening light. For residents of British Columbia, however, this weekend's time change is more than a seasonal adjustment. It marks the province's final shift under the old system.

6:22The government, led by David Eby, announced this week that the province will move to permanent daylight saving time. It's a sensible reform. Other governments should follow suit. Ending seasonal clock changes is broadly popular with the public. Public opinion polling consistently shows that most people want to scrap the twice yearly time change and many favor the extra evening daylight associated with permanent daylight saving time. Longer evenings create opportunities for families and communities to spend time together after school and work. Parents can take their kids to the park. Neighbors linger outside a little longer. Local businesses benefit from increased activity. The social life of communities quite literally expands with the daylight. Permanent daylight saving time aligns the clock with how people actually live their lives. To its credit, the BC government recognized these advantages and acted. In doing so, it has set an example that other provinces and jurisdictions should seriously consider.

7:24The remaining obstacle in many places, particularly in the United States, is legislative inertia. Some governments have expressed support for permanent daylight saving time, but have hesitated to move without broader regional coordination. This caution is understandable, but it shouldn't become an excuse for inaction. British Columbia's decision shows that change is possible. It should prompt policymakers elsewhere to revisit the issue with renewed urgency. Sometimes, good public policy simply means aligning institutions with common sense. And on the question of daylight saving time, BC has just shown the way. That's it for today's edition of Hub Headlines. We hope you enjoyed the program. Hub Headlines is produced by Alicia Rao. This program was narrated by automated voices. Thanks for listening.