The Decline and Fall of Canada?

Here is a great article that discusses a theory about the cultural differences between Canada and Europe on one hand and the US on the other. As with most cultural continuums, there are pros and cons to each extreme. The center is this case might suggest a very positive future Western culture, one based on multiculturalism as a basis for engagement in the world. A refreshing thought, if we can ever get there.

The Decline and Fall of Canada?

"I think fundamentally what we see here are two broad moralities or ideologies represented in the world. On one hand, the United States remains the standard-bearer for the Englightenment: modernity, the free market, science, technological solutions for society, war as an extension of politics, equality of opportunity. It's far from perfect in upholding these standards, as anyone reading the news can plainly see, but nonetheless these are the values it represents. On the other hand, we see Canada and Europe bearing a slightly newer set of ideals: marxism reborn as democratic socialism, post-modernism as a therapeutic outlook toward domestic politics, and post-colonialism as a foundation for multiculturalism and a benign disengagement from intervening in the world.

Does the Enlightenment set of values more often inspire a feeling of greatness, while the socialist/post-modern/po-colonialist ideals inspire something discernibly different?

What is it then that makes a state "great" if not a healthcare system that provides for all? Is this a lack of vision? Is service as a good example not nearly enough to satisfy? What does it mean to abdicate one's possible future of intervention abroad, reshaping the world in one's own image? Canada may have abandoned the will to power, in exchange for peace and stability, only to remember that there are some things worth more than peace and stability."


Complete Article

The Decline and Fall of Canada? (Politics)

By anaesthetica

Fri Oct 1st, 2004 at 03:25:36 AM EST





The New York Times has recently run a piece pondering the renowned nation of Canada, and whether it has fallen from its once lofty heights of international greatness.

"A country is not just a health system." This is the sentiment of one of a few Canadian authors recently lamenting the decline of Canadian engagement around the world. The question then becomes: what makes a nation great? Why would Canadians resent the place of their placid and peaceful country? And, what does this say about the roles taken on by other influential nations around the world?





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Clearly, one must preface this discussion by noting the obvious: that not all Canadians share this point of view, perhaps not even a significant plurality. No doubt in the discussion following we will hear from a few of these.

Still, the topic is an important one, and deserves examination. Canada has a stable and broadly representative government, broad provisions for public welfare, progressive taxation policies to further equality of economic outcomes, a multilingual and multiculturalist culture which accomodates and protects diversity, a stable if modest economy, and no international enemies. How could one be discontent with this place in the world?

Despite Canada's comforts, according to the NYTimes article, the country still suffers from a brain drain of creative professionals seeking employment in other countries, usually the United States. Despite its prosperity, Canada has seemingly been unable to make bold, decisive moves regarding foreign engagement or even domestic policy. Why is it that Canada has not propelled any visionary leaders to the forefront of its national politics, while at the same time suffering the loss of its scientists and other creative classes?

One answer might be the democratic socialist culture that Canada has adopted. Much like European countries, especially post-Cold War, Canada has endeavored to free its citizens from material concerns. The job market is regulated, unemployment compensation is provided, pensions are provided, healthcare is nationalized, etc. In exchange, Canadians have given up other more dubious freedoms, like the total freedom of contract, freedom of the market, freedom of total personal fiscal responsibility, and the freedom to purchase whatever healthcare you might be able to afford. Economic and material stability are the hallmarks of Canadian life, as opposed to the more uncontrolled vicissitudes of the free market in the United States, for example.

One is tempted to make the comparison to Europe, where the conditions of the welfare state are largely similar to those in Canada. Yet, one rarely sees cries from within Europe their their countries are not achieving anything great on the world scale, or that their politicians lack any larger vision for their countries' role in the world. My estimation is that Canada is what a European state would look like without the European Union. The EU project has given European states a grander goal and the promise of a place on the world scene. Not only that, but its combined weight gives it the influence around the world that it desires, despite the financial burdens of the welfare state that would otherwise prevent the single member states from pursuing effective international engagement. Canada is the European daughter left out on the doorstep with Britain's prodigal son next door.

Why would productive Canadians travel south, leaving economic and material comfort for uncertainty and risk? And why would Canada as a country choose to spend the dividends of their stable prosperity on welfare rather than on engagement around the world? Perhaps, the watered-down Marxism of Canadian socialism doesn't have all the answers. There are things that people desire more than material gains, and some things even more than peace.

Of course, the inevitable comparison with Canada is the United States. Even the Democrats, campaigning now in America's heartland for the support of swing states, have realized that Americans will vote against their own economic benefit for reaons like security and values. The working class people of Missouri, for example, are leaning toward voting for Bush, over moral issues and the War on Terror, despite the fact that his policies will likely do little to improve their economic lot. Democrats are only now realizing this, and are not having an easy time adjusting their strategy.

The internal split between U.S. Democrats and Republics can serve us as an analogy for the North American split between Canada and the United States. Canada is a modest actor on the international stage, preferring economic and cultural stability to destablizing engagement and conflict. The United States' system enshrines risk, resultant inequality, and unscrupulous advocacy of its vision for the world abroad. Furthermore, it is clear that the United States weilds far more influence abroad than Canada. Still, one would not expect more immigrants to come to the United States than to Canada. Despite the grandeur of U.S. interventionism, Canada is a much calmer place to live, and would surely provide more for poor immigrants just arriving in their country.

But this is not the case, the United States takes in far more immigrants than Canada, legally and illegally, each year. Are people attracted more to the image of American potential opportunity rather than the solid reality of Canadian welfare outcome? Are people attracted to the cultural, economic and political power of the United States, hoping in some way to be a part of it, even though the vast multitudes of American citizens, much less immigrants, will ever play an important role in shaping American politics? It might seems so.

I think fundamentally what we see here are two broad moralities or ideologies represented in the world. On one hand, the United States remains the standard-bearer for the Englightenment: modernity, the free market, science, technological solutions for society, war as an extension of politics, equality of opportunity. It's far from perfect in upholding these standards, as anyone reading the news can plainly see, but nonetheless these are the values it represents. On the other hand, we see Canada and Europe bearing a slightly newer set of ideals: marxism reborn as democratic socialism, post-modernism as a therapeutic outlook toward domestic politics, and post-colonialism as a foundation for multiculturalism and a benign disengagement from intervening in the world.

Does the Enlightenment set of values more often inspire a feeling of greatness, while the socialist/post-modern/po-colonialist ideals inspire something discernibly different?

What is it then that makes a state "great" if not a healthcare system that provides for all? Is this a lack of vision? Is service as a good example not nearly enough to satisfy? What does it mean to abdicate one's possible future of intervention abroad, reshaping the world in one's own image? Canada may have abandoned the will to power, in exchange for peace and stability, only to remember that there are some things worth more than peace and stability.