Michael Higgins: Carney's Davos Mantra Represents Moral Abrogation, Not Realpolitik
Prime Minister Mark Carney's signature phrase "we take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be" has become a convenient political tool that allows him to straddle difficult foreign policy fences while avoiding moral clarity, according to columnist Michael Higgins.
The Slogan That Deflects Difficult Questions
With this slick soundbite, Carney can simultaneously support and oppose controversial international actions, creating confusion and inconsistency in Canada's foreign policy positions. Higgins argues this approach represents not genuine realpolitik but rather a form of moral abrogation that enables the prime minister to defer difficult choices and deflect challenging questions.
The prime minister's pragmatism appears to consistently override matters of principle, creating a foreign policy approach that prioritizes political convenience over moral consistency.
Contradictory Positions on Iran Conflict
The inconsistency becomes particularly evident in Carney's shifting statements regarding the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran. On Saturday, March 5, 2026, Carney issued a full-throated endorsement, stating: "Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security."
Just four days later during a press conference in Australia, his position had noticeably shifted. "We support efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security," Carney said, before adding, "We do, however, take this position with regret because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order."
Later statements referenced "limited" support for the military action, creating confusion about Canada's actual position. When pressed about whether the U.S. was wrong to attack, Carney responded that there "appeared to be a prima facie case that the U.S.-Israel actions were inconsistent with international law," but then added, "It's for others to make those judgements. As I said, we are dealing with the world as it is."
A Pattern of Avoiding Moral Clarity
This pattern extends beyond the Iran conflict. Following his return from Beijing, when questioned about how trade with China squares with the country's human rights abuses, Carney again deployed his signature phrase: "We take the world as it is not as we wish it to be."
During the Australian press conference, journalists pointed out that Carney's position on the Iranian conflict appeared contradictory to his Davos speech where he discussed "the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter." Carney's response was tellingly consistent with his established pattern: "What I also said at the Davos speech, and said today, we take the world as it is not as we wish it to be."
The Convenience of Moral Ambiguity
The great advantage of the "taking the world as it is" creed, Higgins notes, is that it allows politicians to leave principles and judgments to others while maintaining maximum political flexibility. This approach enables Carney to make a case for multiple contradictory positions on the same issue, sometimes offering his slogan as the sole justification for these shifts.
The phrase has become a rhetorical escape hatch that allows the prime minister to avoid difficult questions and navigate conflicting principles without committing to clear moral or policy positions.
While presented as pragmatic realism, Higgins concludes that this approach represents a troubling abdication of moral leadership in international affairs, creating confusion about Canada's values and commitments on the world stage.
