Canadian self-image

Was Canada Just Too Good to Be True?

I probably shouldn't be posting this article, since the country certainly doesn't come off well in it. But sometimes we forget some of these truths, especially in the face of government pronouncements. Fulford’s point is probably the most spot on (as usual from him). While Canada certainly has many advantages as a place to live for just about anyone (we didn’t top the UN’s quality of life list for so many years for nothing), the government usually exaggerates that view to extreme degrees. Jean Chretien was a master of doing so (he almost always responded to any criticism of the country and government policies, even in Parliament, by referring to the ranking on the UN list), and Paul Martin has picked right where Chretien left off. The result has been a growing belief in our moral superiority, especially compared to the U.S., because we preach official multiculturalism, have universal health care, and are involved in UN peacekeeping (although most people have become more concerned with just being on the missions than with actual peacekeeping – see Darfur). And of course the sponsorship scandal proves that Canadian politicians can be just as corrupt as those elsewhere. But most Canadians probably won’t see it that way in the end. And that point goes a long way to answering the question another blogger posed to me elsewhere: Why would Martin call a judicial inquiry into his own party when there was a danger it could damage both the party and himself politically? The answer is that he knew that by reminding people of the Liberal line about Canada, he could downplay the impact of the scandal, and reduce its impact on him even if it does prove that he knew what was going on. And so far, the polls seem to indicate that it’s working.

I have some more posts up at Markrite, including one on Canadian-American relations.