Canadians feel like Americans take them for granted and don't know the country well enough, Ambassador Frank McKenna said Tuesday in a strong pro-trade pitch geared to sharpening Canada's image south of the border. . . .Oy vey. I wish Canada could just say "fuck it" and not care what the US thinks or does. Canadian wmtc readers have taught me why that can't be; of course the answer is economic, what else?
"We want Americans to know us better. Because we look like you, sometimes we think you take us for granted. . . . We feel that we sometimes get lost in the crowd . . . We want you to know that we are your northern neighbour and that we have a lot to be proud of in our own right."
In listing a host of famous Canadians from all walks of life, McKenna said he wants to change U.S. perceptions that Canada merely produces great hockey players.
Still, I can't help but wish the boyfriend wannabee would find the dignity to walk away.
25 comments:
Yeah, but McKenna is a Martin-ite, as in Paul. The Mr.Dithers syndrome (hey, let's please everyone!) runs deep in the Liberal party. Some Canadian self-confidence issues there? Definite needy kid why-don't-they-like-me-for-who-I-am syndrome.
Then again, the PCs are no better ... difference is Harper isn't looking for Canada to be recognized as something different ... in policy he seems to want us to be more like the US (51st state?). Basically it's the geek doing whatever it takes to be like the big boys syndrome. Harps just wants Bush to tell him he's cool enough to hang with him at the White House, and then everything will be all right because his new friends will look after him.
And the NDP? Well, I think they might be your best bet. Definitely the "fuck it" party you are looking for. Almost too much, at times, though. A bit of the look at me, I'm a rebel! syndrome tends to emerge at the absolute wrong times.
So basically we are tied to the US Gov no matter what - we have one guy desperate for an ego-boost who can't stop pleading our laurels, one guy desperate for an ego-boost who can't stop kissing ass, and one guy desperate for an ego-boost who can't stop alienating the right.
Hmm. Guess I'll have to go with the guys pleading the laurals (the Martin-ites). Middle ground. Insecurity issues aside, at least they are trying to reach a balance between the values that make us who we are (NDP on this side only) and the political ties of necessity (PC on this side only). It's funny - Americans all want to come here - yet we all want to go to Sweden!
We most certainly do not "all want to go to Sweden". It is that typical Toronto mentality that assumes whatever people in Hogtown think is what Canadians think. I can assure you, there are millions of westerners who have a very different perspective. We don't seek to emulate the US because we want to be liked, we simply recognize that the most powerful nation of the modern world might actually be doing something right and that just maybe, we might learn what that is.
I'm afraid the US is acting like Ted Nugent these days. Some people enjoy the macho posturing, while others see it as obnoxious bullying. Perhaps Canada is more like Elvis Costello - smart, funny, self-deprecating and in the end, very sexy.
Crabby
PS Hogtown? What's that?
Hogtown - also know as t'rana or to the foreigners as Toronto
Right you are, Crabby. That is exactly my take on the extreme-rightwing mentality. It's like a bunch of high school boys trying to out-macho each other. You end up with Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank trying to show how much of a badass he is.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the perfect politician for the new American century.
L-girl on iPAQ:
"It is that typical Toronto mentality that assumes whatever people in Hogtown think is what Canadians think."
My guess it's not what most people in Tronto think, either. I think it's G's sense of humor. (?) Most Americans don't want to go to Canada, either.
"...Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank trying to show how much of a badass he is."
Ugh. The low point of the low for the Dems.
I'm sure the remark about going to Sweden was intended as a metaphor, but the sentiment is real. Toronto is quite a bit more liberal than many parts of Canada, not just western Canada, but also rural Ontario and Atlantic Canada as well. Yet, there is this perception that Toronto's values are Canada's values. The Toronto-based "national" media, especially the CBC, Maclean's and the Globe and Mail perpetuate this belief.
It's really not that different from Republicans who accuse liberal Americans of being anti-American.
Right, I hear ya. It's similar to NYC (or SF) compared to the rest of the US - the difference being no one confuses NYC's values with the rest of the country's.
Why oh why would Canada give a damn what American's think of them? Most American's aren't the least bit concerned with what Canadians think. About anything.
I for one think Canada is a great country and has some of the most wonderful people on the planet. I'd move there today if I had the financial means to do so. Canada is the country our forefathers envisioned when they first established the United States of American.
Thanks, Kyle!
"Arnold Schwarzenegger is the perfect politician for the new American century." Sigh. I hate that Californians elected him. Stupid, stupid people. Why can't we have smart conservatives, like Canada's?
Yeah Wanda! I couldn't agree more. Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks L-Girl for recognizing the dry sense of humour in the Sweden comment.
It's not really a Torontonian view, actually ... I'm not even from there ... the Sweden thing just my own personal shot at Canadian politics and the frustration (at least from the POV of left-leaners like myself) of having no decent political option to vote for at the moment.
Rob, one day, you and I will agree on something, I'm sure. But not today. I look at the US deficit, debt, limits on health care, state of education, self-polarization, defiance of global standards, alienation of allies ... educate me, please: what is it that they've "done right" that the politicians of the west (and majority of people as you suggested) wish to emulate?
"what is it that they've "done right" that the politicians of the west (and majority of people as you suggested) wish to emulate?"
Thanks for playing this role for me, G. Early on, I scrapped with Rob about his defense of the US. Now I don't have to!
A lot of the issues you raise are the result of the current administration. Clinton didn't alienate Europe the way Bush does. Westerners admire America for all it has accomplished over the last century, not just the last four years. Sure, there have been abuses, but as even L-girl has conceded, every country has blood on its hands.
Current admin ... hmmm ... I agree with you on pushing away European allies. Still, last I looked education and health care in the US were problematic even before Clinton - many people I've talked to see those as Republican problems dating to Reaganomics - I can't say I'm familiar enough with the history to back up that assertion though.
What I do know is Clinton did try to address those issues, to his credit. And you are right about history, Rob ... America was admired when it actually did look out for the world rather than just its own interests. And I do think it will be admired one day again - but it has much social and political rebuilding to do before that becomes possible.
On my reading list right now is Beyond the age of innocence: Rebuilding trust between America and the world, by Kishore Mahbubani. It's quite good, and focuses on what went wrong and exactly America needs to do to have hope at regaining the reputation it once held in the world. It is actually quite pro-US without suffering from over-Patriotism in its bias, making it a great read even for cynics such as myself. Look for it.
As I see it from a conservative POV, the biggest advantage that America has over the rest of the world is the inherent self-confidence of its people. A lot of US liberals bemoan the fact that many working-class Americans vote Republican, which they believe runs contrary to the economic interests of the working-class. Most Canadians would agree, because Canadians have no hope. If we become unemployed, we expect our government to help us, because we don't believe we can make it on our own. The majority of Americans feel differently. They don't believe the world owes them a living. They do believe they can make it on their own. Self-confidence and hope, Americans have those qualities in adundance. Canadians do not.
For all interested parties, here's a nice overview of why the Canadian government is in a state of turmoil.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114473668795_50/
Good article - thanks!
On the other matter, I'm really sorry that your part of Canada feels that way. I know certainly that is not the case out here ... there is no self-defeat or lack of hope anywhere.
People in this country are routinely screwed by EI and pension plans, so much so that there is no dependency on it, or faith in it, at all. Our belief is in ourselves. Hey, if a govt has a program to provide a safety net to those in need, then yes, of course we embrace it. Why wouldn't we? But we won't depend on it and despair that we have nothing else to get us through. I don't buy that for a second, man ... I'm sorry that the area you are in apparantly does.
Fact is capitalism is as capitalism does, so to speak, and this is still a capitalist economy. Anyone can make it on their own - and I know in Ontario we certainly feel that we can. I'm willing to bet more than a few Albertans see it the same way. If not, hey, what can I say, I feel badly for you guys. Really, really, badly.
"If we become unemployed, we expect our government to help us, because we don't believe we can make it on our own. The majority of Americans feel differently. They don't believe the world owes them a living. They do believe they can make it on their own."
Pardon me, Rob, but this is bullshit. Some Americans may talk that game, but the vast majority want and expect unemployment insurance and social security when they need it. They may be so selfish that they would like to deny it to others, but they sure as hell want it and take it when it's due them, what little they get.
If you could hear recent college graduates whine about how their parents had it so much better than they do, how they have no opportunity anymore, you would hear how Americans often expect the world owes them everything, just by virtue of their being alive.
"Sure, there have been abuses, but as even L-girl has conceded, every country has blood on its hands."
But what I conceded, and readily know, is that all countries have blood on their hands somewhere in their history. Canada does, of course, since the continent wasn't owned by Europeans. But the US continues to perpetuate it, every day, at home and around the globe.
The current admin has made it much worse. But I believe much of what the world respected during the Clinton years was a window dressing.
Clinton is warm and charismatic, he speaks respectfully of other cultures, he isn't a cowboy, he believes in cooperation. So it looks way better than the current Resident of the White House. But America under Clinton wasn't structurally different than America under Bush.
There were useless wars, the poor were forgotten, the courts trampled on individual rights, etc. It's a matter of degree.
"Some Americans may talk that game, but the vast majority want and expect unemployment insurance and social security when they need it. They may be so selfish that they would like to deny it to others, but they sure as hell want it and take it when it's due them, what little they get."
That may be true and if so, it is truly sad because it means the vitality that made America great is being lost.
L-girl on iPAQ:
That may have come out wrong. I meant: The economy is very tough for a lot of Americans. People do want to work. But of there's no work, or the work doesn't pay enough to sustain them, they need a safety net.
It's not that they expect to be supported. But how are people supposed to survive?
It does seem that so many Americans are selfish, and don't believe they have obligations or responsibilities to others. As long as they have theirs, nothing else matters.
I have no problem with the concept of a "social safety net". A safety net is supposed to catch you when you fall, to make sure you don't fall too hard. Eventually, however, you are supposed to get out of the net. In Canada, we are obsessed with social programs, especially on the left. There can never be too much spending on social programs. All other national priorities must be set aside to make room for more social programs. As we speak, the NDP is blackmailing the Liberals into providing still more billions of dollars for social programs. Never mind that the billions in question were supposed to go to corporate tax cuts which certainly would have generated much needed employment, we Canadians consider it more enlightened to hand out government checks instead of providing job opportunities.
Speaking as a person who falls somewhere outside the normal left-right spectrum, I'll try to explain the way I see it.
From the right, Rob is quite right about social safety nets. They keep you from falling, but they seem to have no mechanism to help you get out of the net. In a sense, they're more like webs then nets, they keep you from falling further *and* from moving back up. This is especially true in my ancestral home (and Rob's?) of the Maritimes where UI has really locked people into a seasonal work pattern.
From the left, its true that these days tax cuts for the wealthy rarely cause the trickle down effect the right believes in. This is because capitalism does not exist anywhere, instead we have a corrupted version of capitalism called corporatism.
There are generally three authorites in a person's life. Ideology (such as religion), government, and employment. When religion gets in bed with the government, they both become corrupted. Its too much power in one place. Corporatism is like that except its business and the government in bed together. Its created a system where growth is necessary to sustain society. Thus its not enough to make a profit, you have to make a bigger profit then last year.
Think about it. America's golden age in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was before corporatism existed. Back then, everyone wanted to go to America, the land where "the streets are paved in gold". America of 2005 is no longer such a place.
I agree with you about nets and webs. I've definitely seen how a safety net can become a dependency.
In the US the problem was "solved" (ha!) by dumping people off the welfare rolls. Some did ok, but many sunk into permanent destitution.
To get people off welfare, there have to be training, jobs that pay enough to live on - and social support which doesn't exist in the US.
The biggest thing is child care. How can a woman with young kids keep a job if she doesn't have dependable, affordable child care? It's a HUGE problem here - but a complete non-issue, no one even talks about working on it.
To my knowledge, tax breaks don't create jobs. Maybe they do in Canada but they sure don't in the US.
Kyle, I agree with much of what you say above, except... don't forget that the corporations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had to be reined in by government, under constant pressure from the labor movement.
Without regulation and enforcement, we had the seven-day workweek, no minimum wage, no safety standards (lose an arm? too bad, no more work for you!), child labor, etc. etc.
My point is that I don't think corporatism is new. It's just that the global economy makes it cheaper and easier to do it.
Post a Comment