Canada: Democracy renewed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lapsed:
Harper will need to tread very carefully here. There is still a lot of fear in the East that he will try and move forward socially conservative policies. This needs to be a case of moving gently forward for conservatives in Canada.
There also seems to be quite a bit of latent anti-Americanism in Canada as well, a constituency that PM Harper went out of his way to appease yesterday. While the new Prime Minister’s remarks may advance his domestic political aspirations, they do little to mend frosty relations between Canada and the United States.

On a lighter note, it appears that the new PM has quite a sense of humor. Case in point: He is, as of yet, apparently undecided as to whether Canada will attack the United States Navy in international waters.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182952,00.html
 
Ahem those would be Canadian waters we are talking about unless the U.S. is willing to admit that all waters surounding their territorial islands are International as well.
 
40.png
Lapsed:
Oh the irony - comparing our new PM with famous dictator in a thread titled Canada: Democracy renewed.

Given how much Jack Layton resembles Vladamir Lenin (anyone see the photo on the cover on McLean’s a few weeks back?), perhaps Martin’s replacement as Liberal leader will look like Mao Tse-tung.
😃
 
40.png
Seamus:
There also seems to be quite a bit of latent anti-Americanism in Canada as well, a constituency that PM Harper went out of his way to appease yesterday.
Actually, there is a lot of open, blatant anti-Americanism in Canada. There’s nothing latent about it. When you’ve got a nation that has been decidedly on the left side of the political fence for a dozen years sitting right beside the proverbial 300lb gorilla, these sorts of things unfortunately breed.
40.png
Seamus:
On a lighter note, it appears that the new PM has quite a sense of humor. Case in point: He is, as of yet, apparently undecided as to whether Canada will attack the United States Navy in international waters.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182952,00.html
Those are Canadian waters surrounding Canadian lands. The refusal of the US government, or any other, to recognize that fact does not change it.
 
40.png
Lapsed:
Actually, there is a lot of open, blatant anti-Americanism in Canada. There’s nothing latent about it. When you’ve got a nation that has been decidedly on the left side of the political fence for a dozen years sitting right beside the proverbial 300lb gorilla, these sorts of things unfortunately breed.
The origin of Canadian anti-Americanism was not Liberal-Leftism. Nor was it beta-gorillaism. The English kept Quebec, the First Nations, and the non-aristocratic colonists in line by playing on their fears toward the Americans to the south.

Kebekers – Catholic at that time – were afraid of being overrun by Quakers. The English addressed that by promising them language and religion rights and then kept them down on the labour market.

First Nations had grudges with the Americans over land claims; the English addressed that by making more treaties which they broke after the American ‘problem’ had been solved. The non-aristocratic colonists were promised ‘inclusion’ but English Family Compact put an end to that.

In the 21st Century, Quebec is no longer Catholic, the First Nations have long since abandonned the notion of trusting the colonizer treaties, and the colonizers themselves are no longer English but from all parts of the world. Yet some of us persist in picking on the American scapegoat in order to silence opposition to the next golf course.

Hate is a blunt instrument. The everyday lives of Canadians are a more finely woven fabric, intimately interlaced with American tourists, American cousins, Americans coming up to play on our hockey teams, football teams, basketball teams; trips to Disneyland and retirement in Florida. Many of us are cognizant of the reality that the US buys 80% of our exports and provides a deterrant for foreign military aggression.

However, Lapsed, I would agree with you that the Liberal-Left has piggy-backed on the rhetoric of Family Compact.

As for American subs in our Arctic waters: the Ambassador is simply trying us on for size. Boston taxi drivers do the same thing. They come on all aggressive and full of strongly held opinions when you first get in the taxi. After you come back at them with a sensible rebuttal with good support, they settle right down and tell you stories of their ancestors in the Revolution. Works for me.

I am not worried about American subs in the Arctic. In the first place, we have bled our own military dry and consistently put our troops at risk by under-equipping them since Hellyer in the 60s. In WWII we had the third largest armed forces in the world. We can hardly fault another country for demonstrating their military might in our waters when we have abrogated our responsibilities for policing those same waters. In this case we can be thankful that it was the Americans up there posing for the cameras, and not someone else.

More to the point, we need to start talking about Perimeter Defence seriously. Either we get Canadian ice breakers up there or decent subs – not English hand-me-downs that burn off the coast of Ireland – or we have to let the Americans patrol for us. What kind of society are we that our priorities revolve around throwing expensive parties for politicans in power – and their friends – rather than requiring them to govern to our standards?

So, in summation:
  1. Start pulling our weight by restoring our military capability.
  2. Sit down with the Americans, Mexicans, Carribbeans, and Central Americans and work out the details of Perimeter Defence before Chavez and Castro do it for us.
  3. Revisit NAFTA by making sure the softwood lumber incident does not happen again (and that Americans can afford to buy houses because their local lumber suppliers are not doing an endrun on competition).
Finally, we need to look at the differences in the ways that Canadian and Americans define themselves. From my experience, Americans tend to see their lives as revolving around the Revolution: one central point where it all began.

Around what do Canadian lives revolve? We can discuss this at length, but I predict that we will all end up acknowledging that Canadian identity is not event-specific; it is process-specific, always evolving like the forests and prairies which have accepted us as part of them.

The American story begins at the beginning. Our story begins in the middle.
 
The Canadian press have this to say about Harper after his first press conference:
the entire media availability seemed to take up no more time than one of outgoing Prime Minister Paul Martin’s subordinate clauses.
:rotfl:
 
Canada Rejects Populism—Again
Refugees of Mob Rule

Anti-populism in Canada has its origins in the early colonial period.

In English Canada, it was a response to the perception of the American Revolution as a triumph of “mob rule” rather than democracy. This negative view of the United States was brought into the colonies that remained part of British North America by the refugees of the American Revolution…

For French Canada, another revolution left its mark: the French Revolution of 1789… The Catholic Church dominated French Canada, particularly in the colony called Quebec, and its bishops feared the spread of the anti-clerical ideas of the Jacobin firebrands in Paris.
continued…
 
More recently
This free-wheeling populism always had greater legitimacy in western Canada… because, by the time these regions were settled, the American Experiment looked more successful than it had in its early years…

In the early twentieth century, prairie populism mobilized farmers in both Canada and the United States to demand changes in farm policies and relief after the onset of the Great Depression. But western Canada’s populism was one reason that western Canadian politicians had limited success in national leadership.

In Ontario and Quebec, western populism was associated with nascent communism in the red-baiting years of the 1940s and 1950s, and then as nascent “redneck” politics in the Reagan years and afterward…

…the Reform Party was able to become the official opposition by having more seats than any party other than the Liberals, who formed the government in 1993 and 2000. Yet the consensus among most observers was that the Reform Party was too tainted by the perception of redneck populism… As a result, the party leadership embarked on a remarkable process of rebranding itself…

The Canadian Alliance, as it came to be known, did marginally better in the 2003 federal election and again formed the official opposition, but it did not achieve the breakthrough in Ontario that it had hoped for—the Liberals effectively tagged the new party brand as a cynical attempt to disguise the true face of the party, which was the same angry bunch of rednecks it had been before…[namely, the Reform Party].
continued…
 
Anti-populism versus Anti-Americanism
One aspect of western populism that was consistent, when it was progressive in the first half of the twentieth century and when it was conservative in the later years of the century, is that western populism was willing to look to the United States for new policy ideas.

Progressive populists like Saskatchewan’s [NDP] Tommy Douglas saw value in emulating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. Reform populists like Preston Manning saw a strong senate where all states had equal elected representation as a way to address tensions within the Canadian federation.

As a result, established elites in Ontario and Quebec cheered as the Liberal Party branded the westerners as suspiciously pro-American and suggested they would try to “Americanize” Canada…

In the 2006 election, a strange thing happened… Martin, a life-long member of the Canadian elite, would doubtless reject the argument that his campaign was populist, and in a way, this is true.

Anti-American bigotry is more popular with Canadian elites than it is with ordinary Canadians… Yet what makes this appeal work as a populist message for Martin (it got him elected in 2004) is the political persona of George W. Bush…
read more
 
Ani Ibi:
Na. Look at the hairline. Harper’s eyes aren’t as tired as Kennedy’s. But the gaze is level.
ohhh, JFK!!

(Napoleon - heh heh, did I actually post that, what was I thinking??:o :o )

%between%
http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:Jv-M7_vOqBn6xM:www.netarmenie.com/photo/venise/napoleon.jpg

YES - the JFK-Harper resemblance really jumped out at me during the 2004 debate. Even wondered if it was planned - his haircut, square-folded hanky, suit. When I see Harper on the news, his mannerisms remind me of JFK all the time. His stiff posture makes him look like he wears a back brace or something.

(but enough highjacking this thread, onwards with the philosophical stuff - it’s pure gold!!😛
 
Lost&Found:
onwards with the philosophical stuff - it’s pure gold!!😛
Here’s another surprise:

Harper transition team packed with non-partisans
In setting up his government, Harper appears to have recognized the value of independent advice from experienced people who have no personal stake in how the government is structured or staffed…

Martin has been heavily criticized, even by fellow Liberals, for blurring the line between his political objectives and the public interest. Many Liberals complain that the inner circle who helped him wrest the leadership from Jean Chretien did not have the temperament or skills to run the government. “I’ve said many, many times that people who run the transition exercise shouldn’t go into government,” said Zussman. “To do it otherwise is almost to be in a conflict of interest”…

Given the tenuous nature of Harper’s minority government, Zussman doubted his transition team would recommend any wholesale restructuring of government departments. But he said it will have to address two lingering problems left over from the Martin era: the separation of Skills Development from the Human Resources Department and the separation of International Trade from the Foreign Affairs Department…

Zussman said Harper may want to reconsolidate the departments… Other structural issues the transition team will have to address include Harper’s election promise to create a public prosecutor’s office and a public appointments commissioner.
 
Ani Ibi:
I think Canadians are in for lots of pleasant surprises from this person, no??

Sounds like Harper is consulting Mulroney. I know how disliked he was when he left office but I think this is still wise on Harper’s part to be consulting him, not openly. What do you think?

Has anyone seen Harper rattled? He seems to be quite even tempered.
CBC (sorry!) had a bio on Harper on tv last night. very interesting. He has a lot more experience than some have been giving him credit for. I think he is ready for the job. I guess I’m optimistic.
 
The most telling thing about Stephen Harper is that he said “God Bless Canada” in his victory speech.

God Bless Stephen Harper
 
An American analysis:

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister-elect Espouses Positive Change
It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian Prime Minister has more power than a United States President. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.)

The Prime Minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the Courts of Appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

Harper’s partisans believe he could maintain power for four years, during which time Conservatives hopefully would witness many vacancies created by Liberals leaving the Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada currently is dominated by Liberals.

As has been the case in the United States, Cultural Marxism largely has been foisted upon Canada by the Courts. If judges who respect the Constitution were to be appointed they would confirm that such rights are not to be found in that document. Sound familiar?
 
In the Globe & Mail yesterday, there were a lot of letters to the editor about an article from the previous day or two. Anyway, the author of the article shot-down Stephen Harper’s use of “God Bless Canada” because it was against the “charter of rights and freedoms” to do so. The letters sent were very angry at this author because many people, I guess (including myself) believe that it is perfectly within the charter of rights and freedoms to do so. I believe we’ve got an interesting few years ahead of us. At this point, I’m almost sorry I doubted Harper’s ability, but I can’t say that yet, he’s only held power for a week 🙂
 
40.png
sarcophagus:
shot-down Stephen Harper’s use of “God Bless Canada” because it was against the “charter of rights and freedoms” to do so. 🙂
Right. Like they’ve read the Charter. I have met very very few people in Canada who even know we have a Charter. The only people I know who have read it are some lawyers. Anytime someone tries to pull the above stunt on me, I ask them to quote the section to which they refer. Then I ask them to apply the Rule of Proportionality.

My response: God bless Canada!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top