5.15.2005

warnings

Many people are warning me about the (apparently) impending Conservative Canadian government. Where will I go? What will I do?

They just don't get it.

Is Canada eliminating national health care, and almost all other social programs?

Will it suddenly become a huge military power, invading foreign countries to control their natural resources and further their business interests?

Will it imprison hundreds (thousands?) of people indefinitely, without charges, without access to the outside world, even counsel?

Will a neo-Conservative religious minority suddenly exert enormous influence on legislation and the judicial system?

Will abortion suddenly become illegal?

Will gay Canadians be demonized as second-class citizens by the very government to whom they pay their taxes? (And don't tell me about Stephen Harper's opposition to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in 7 of 10 provinces, is about to become legal in an 8th province, and will eventually be legal federally, too.)

Will Canadians suddenly become arrogant, ethnocentric egomaniacs, unable to bear the slightest criticism of their Greatest Nation On Earth, ready at a moment's notice to "blow them off the map," whoever "they" happen to be?

Folks, it's not as if I'm emigrating to Canada because I love Paul Martin!

As I've said ad nauseum in wmtc, emigration is far too big a decision - and too prolonged a process - to be based on what party happens to be in power today.

16 comments:

B. W. Ventril said...

Will Canadians suddenly become arrogant, ethnocentric egomaniacs, unable to bear the slightest criticism of their Greatest Nation On Earth, ready at a moment's notice to "blow them off the map," whoever "they" happen to be?

Um, well, yes to this one, at least so far as Canadians in the US are concerned when they talk about how much better Canada is! Seriously... we're really annoying when we're in the States.

Rognar said...

Assuming the Conservatives win the next election, they will almost certainly have a minority. This means they would not have the power to institute any controversial measures even if they were inclined to do so. If anything, they would be forced to move as far to the left as the rank-and-file will tolerate just to hold on to power. Canadian conservatism does not and will not resemble American conservatism in the forseeable future.

Anonymous said...

While I certainly wish with all my heart that Canada's political pendulum would swing left instead of right, the pendulum in the U.S. seems to have wrapped itself so tightly around the pole that it might never swing again.

Apples and oranges. "Liberal" in Canada means something so different than "liberal" in the U.S. Likewise with "conservative."

It pains me every time I see something in the paper that bursts my little socialist bubble a bit, but there have been many more things that have been in the press about per capita gun deaths, etc., that have had me crying tears of gratitude.

And then there's my health-care coverage costs. ONE TENTH of what I paid in the U.S., and BETTER ACCESS AND CARE!!

But social atmosphere really means a lot to me. I guess I could sum it up this way: Canadians, at least here in Victoria, seem a hell of a lot less "fear-driven" than their U.S. counterparts, and the lack of tension here is palpable. And fabulous.

-Mollie

Anonymous said...

Only worry I have with Conservatives is the level of privatization that could possibly take the place of currently-public services. And possibly a push against gay rights ... though that is less likely to happen despite some of Harper's comments ... he tends to speak before thinking of how the public will interpret it on occasion, which is also a bit of a concern too.

But realistically, even left-leaning Canadians such as myself have little to fear from the Conservative party. Like all Canadian political parties, they talk a lot but really get nothing done. That's sort of been our recent history. Given the past few weeks, I think it's safe to say that won't change anytime soon.

In the meantime, we can all keep sleepwalking until the next election.

David Cho said...

Don't you think though the States has changed very quickly in ways that you did not imagine she would from the Bill Clinton era?

Look back on 1992 when Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House. Things were really looking up for the left. Then the 1994 takeover by the GOP. Then the 2000 takeover by the GOP of all three branches of the federal government. Then four years later, the GOP increased their margins and won re-election despite Bush's mediocre Presidency. I don't think anybody forsaw that back in 1992 when the Democratic Party seemed to be on the upswing. For over 50 years, the GOP could only dream about controlling both chambers of Congress. Now the Democratic Party can only dream about taking back just one of the two, let alone both.

I think 9/11 helped accelerate some of the fast changes since Bush took over, but still given the smaller size of Canada, I would think that things can change even more quickly than here in the States.

Just my hunch. The pendulum can swing very erratically.

laura k said...

Nothing happening in the US now should surprise anyone. In one sense, liberals were shocked because Bush is so blatant and extreme. But the groundwork was being laid for decades.

The religious right's maneuvering into power, industry gaining control of govt agencies, deregulation, dismantling of worker protection and environmental laws - beginning with Reagan.

You'd have a hard time proving - not just saying, but actually demonstrating - that the US was actually liberal under Clinton. "The new Democrat" had liberals gritting their teeth and drove progressive Democrats away from the Dems altogether.

That's why I say over and over it doesn't matter who controls what house of Congress - I was leaving anyway. Similarly, it doesn't matter which party is in ascendancy in Canada - Canada will not change substantially.

"I think 9/11 helped accelerate some of the fast changes since Bush took over..."

Helped accelerate? If you see this as a coincidence, then yes, the changes might seem surprising.

laura k said...

BWV: I know! :)

laura k said...

"Then four years later, the GOP increased their margins and won re-election despite Bush's mediocre Presidency."

Perhaps you don't realize that we don't accept that as a fact. He became president, but he did not win re-election.

laura k said...

"Apples and oranges. "Liberal" in Canada means something so different than "liberal" in the U.S. Likewise with "conservative."

Mollie always manages to say what I'm thinking in fewer words.

David Cho said...

I am aware of the dispute because of the size of the margin especially in Ohio and Florida, maybe Bush did not "win" re-election.

But the point is, given the quality of his Presidency, if the Dems had come up with a halfway decent candidate, Bush should have been walloped by a landslide, and it should not have come down to Ohio.

I agree that much of what is happening now has been in the works for a long time in the States. Aren't there like-minded individuals in Canada who are dreaming of seeing the same in their country? They have to be emboldened by what they see happening in the States.

laura k said...

"But the point is, given the quality of his Presidency, if the Dems had come up with a halfway decent candidate, Bush should have been walloped by a landslide, and it should not have come down to Ohio."

I totally agree with this. I say it all the time. I am quite sure that Bush stole Florida, and so, the election, but it never should have come down to that. It was Gore's to lose and he lost it. I am vehemently and fervently not in the "Blame Nader" crowd.

But the problem of a stolen state and - in my firm belief - two stolen elections are much more important. I don't believe we have fair and accurate elections anymore. And if we don't have that, we don't have democracy. And that's why it doesn't matter which of the duopoly is currently in charge.

"Aren't there like-minded individuals in Canada who are dreaming of seeing the same in their country?"

They are a tiny, tiny minority. Most Canadians are very turned off by what's happening in the US now. I'm sure the Canadians here will reply more fully.

Rognar said...

"Aren't there like-minded individuals in Canada who are dreaming of seeing the same in their country?"


There was a poll done in Canada shortly before the US election asking Canadians who they would vote for if they could vote in the election. 15% said Bush, 85% said Kerry. So yes, there are some, but not many.

David Cho said...

"They are a tiny, tiny minority. Most Canadians are very turned off by what's happening in the US now."

Maybe some of US conservatives will move across the border en mass to "spread democracy" :) I guess you should be thankful that Canada borders blue US states, not red.

laura k said...

No, but I can be thankful that it takes two years and many thousands of dollars to emigrate. And why would any ultra-conservative leave the good ole USA, which they love so very much?

Rognar said...

I border a red state. Of course, Montana is not your run-of-the-mill red state, more libertarian than anything else. Also, there are more people in the city of Calgary than the whole state of Montana.

David Cho said...

I take it back. Four red states border Canada (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota). You are right, Rob, the "run of the mill" red states are mostly concentrated in the South and Mountain states tend to be on the Libertarian side.