Our friend Stephen Manfredi just sent me the latest issue of the moderate conservative Ripon Forum from The Ripon Society. Lots of talk of the Big Tent in there, yet no urls or citations to us. Tsk tsk.
Seriously, there is a lot of good stuff in there. Stephen has a nice article on Karl Rove and an interview with Bill Frist. And our friend Rachel begs Canadians to get a grip. Excellent. Go read it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Tom, I'm not exactly a _founding_ member of The Ripon Society, but I was active in it for many years. Good people, trying to make sure the Republican Party continues to be a big tent.
Ralph
Amazing how, after you add a Canadian to your staff, they start talking about themselves and their country. Isn't it, Big Tent?
Seriously, though, I do have to comment on Rachel's piece. While many Canadians do have to get a grip, so do many Americans when looking at Canadian anti-Americanism. Canada has always been anti-American; it was founded on anti-Americanism. But for most of our history, certainly since WWII, we've realized the importance of a good relationship with the US, and anti-Americanism has been more humourous (please note the spelling) than political. Sure, there are those like Carolyn Parrish (who I've criticized here several times) who are truly anti-American, but they are the minority, especially among people who really matter in the relationship. And it's also true that many if not most Canadians don't like Bush, and would rather have seen Kerry in the White House. But policy differences now don't mean that Canada is becoming more anti-American, or that the relationship between the two countries is in danger. Most Canadians will make jokes about how stupid Americans are, but then go on vacation there and come back raving about how nice everyone is. And most importantly, few will ever support a policy that would truly hurt the relationship, especially the economic relationship. Thus, while PM Martin says now that Canada will not sign on to missile defense, there always has been a policy of making some sort of minimum commitment to the program that will allow Canada to contribute as best it can (which isn't actually very much, so at least it will look like we're taking a contrary stance). And the American soldiers who have tried to move to Canada and claim refugee status have found that it's not quite that easy, and not likely to work like it did in the 1960s. These aren't draft-dodgers, don't forget, and there are standards to claming refugee status, standards that most Americans don't meet, no matter what their views on the war.
So Americans should not worry about Canada's drift away from them (not that they do, I'm sure). There will be policy differences (as there always are), there will be nationalist idiots claiming Canada does not need the US (as there always are), but Canada and the US will continue to have the closest relationship between any two countries in the world.
^^^ What he said. ^^^
Also, just to add, from the perspective of a Canadian still actually living in Canada:
- Any American who believes Carolyn Parrish seriously represents the view of all Canadians in everything she says (as opposed to satirically) might also believe that Rush Limbaugh seriously represents the view of all Americans in everything he says. A rather startling case of over-generalization. In any case, Ms Parrish's dismissal took as long as it did partly because, well, we're pretty slow to anger. Maybe cause it's so cold and snowy up here. Also, see point below about delighting in satire.
- Canadians do not "express their distaste for America's core values". Instead, they express bewilderment at the apparent conflict in the United States between the declaration of core values of freedom and equality for all and the way it appears to play out in areas like health care, education, and civil rights. I mean, we have these problems too, but we don't seem to come to blows about it to nearly the same degree as they do in the U.S. (see point above about being slow to anger)
- When Canadians "delight in attacking the United States at every turn", it's usually because Canadians delight in satire. In fact, we're pretty well known for it, having exported many of our most successful satirists to the U.S.
- I, personally, have "an almost pathological distaste" for Bush's personality and political beliefs. But then, I also frequently had an "almost rabid visceral reaction, sometimes called crippling nausea, to the political attitudes and presence" of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris (I had to shake his hand at our school's open house a few weeks ago, and was pleased to note that I managed to keep my lunch down). I'm allowed, aren't I? (see previous note about core values) Come to think of it, Jack Layton makes quite a few Canadians, left-leaning and otherwise, cringe with an almost pathological desire to slap any card-carrying New Democrat who elected him leader of their party. So what? Mark is absolutely right in alluding to the fact that Canadians still realize that a country is larger than its leader, and that the relationship between the two countries will outlast any single administration.
Canada is much like the often-overlooked, slightly-less-accomplished younger sibling who likes to crack smart-aleck remarks about the older sibling's obvious successes (and equally obvious foibles) from time to time, simply because they can. One can only hope that the older sibling's got a sense of humour about it all.
Post a Comment