Posted on 11/01/2003 1:11:37 PM PST by sourcery
For as long as Canada has existed, Canadians have compared themselves to Americans(1). But for the past 30-40 years they have done so in a curious and disturbing way: their point of reference is invariably the disastrous set of social policies enacted since the 1960s(2) and their conclusion is invariably that, whether it takes the form of the subsidisation of unemployment, medical expenses or university academics' standards of living, Canadian governments have always intervened in the market more extensively than their American counterparts. That was true for the quarter-century after 1970, but it is arguable today ? and was certainly not true in the more distant past. The Canadian and the American, in other words, are quite alike in one respect: each is appallingly ignorant of his own history. On both sides of the border, misconceptions and costly mistakes have sprung from that ignorance. Many Canadians probably know (or could venture a reasonable guess) that in the mid-1990s Canadian governments were about seven percentage points of GDP larger than American governments. Few, however, know that Canadian and U.S. governments were of similar size in 1970 and that until the 1960s Canadian governments were smaller than their American counterparts. Despite their neighbours' incessant and boisterous rhetoric about "freedom," in order words, for most of the century after Confederation in 1867 Canadians enjoyed smaller governments and a greater degree of economic liberty.
During the first decade of the 20th century, academics (particularly in the fledgling social science departments of the country's few universities) noted the old age pensions and workers' compensation schemes in Europe and other parts of the British Empire and wondered "why Canada was so far behind other jurisdictions." The main reason, says Owram, was that the Dominion Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier interpreted the 19th century British constitutional tradition "in more anti-statist terms than [...] any other government in Canadian history." It is true, for example, that Laurier's Liberals introduced old age pensions; critically, however, their scheme was voluntary, the state subsidised only the plan's administrative costs (which Sir Wilfrid ensured would not be burdensome), the pension was paid only at age 70 ? and at that time the average life expectancy in Canada was less than 60 years. Accordingly, between 1908 and 1927 only 7,713 annuities were issued.
King regarded President Roosevelt "with public adulation and privately with a mixture of admiration, amazement, scepticism and some merriment. He thought many of Roosevelt's policies quite crazy [and] looked on much of the New Deal as mere political hokum." Hutchison recounts King's recollection of a wartime meeting with FDR. "'I said to Roosevelt last time we met, how do you expect to go on spending all these billions out of deficits? The President said, well, Mackenzie, my family has held French securities since before the Revolution and they're still paying interest; why can't we do the same?' At this revelation of Roosevelt's economic adolescence, King raised his hands in a gesture of friendly despair. It was hard, he confessed, to see what would come out of this dizzy sort of financing." Equally importantly, during the 1920s and 1930s Canada's external relations were commendably limited and non-interventionist. The Dominion, according to King, was "not inclined to organise or join in crusades on other continents [...] We are not asking and will not receive any help from outside in meeting [our] difficulties and we are unlikely to have any surplus of statesmanship or good fortune to bestow elsewhere." On the eve of war in 1939 he affirmed that "the idea that every twenty years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a war overseas [...] to save, periodically, a continent that cannot run itself, and to these ends risk the lives of its people, bankruptcy and disunion, seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness." In that year Dominion, provincial and municipal governments consumed 19.5% of Canada's GNP; in the U.S., the corresponding levels of government consumed 22.5%. Jack Pickersgill, a Winnipeg-born historian who worked in the Prime Minister's Office from 1938 to 1952, recalled in My Years with Louis St Laurent: A Political Memoir(5) that in 1943 King was extremely reluctant to introduce family allowances. The Prime Minister "said no Canadian government would dare to start providing family allowances [...] He felt family allowances would be a greater threat to national unity than any other measure he could think of except [military] conscription." Watson chronicles the long debate about family allowances during the late 1920s and early 1930s, with much opposition expressed and nothing enacted, and staunch opposition continued into the 1940s. Similarly, after the end of fighting in Europe in May, 1945 and a comprehensive Liberal victory at the polls in June, King's Liberals trod the path of intervention very cautiously and half-heartedly. In April 1946, for instance, after making a formal pre-budget presentation, the forerunner of the Canadian Labour Congress "was sharply rebuked by Finance Minister [James] Ilsley for its costly demands. [...] Ilsley [stated] that the government's priorities were for reducing taxes, balancing the budget, and retrenchment." In 1948, when King left office, Canadian governments consumed 24.6% of the country's GNP. In the U.S. the equivalent figure was 35.2%. What, then, has happened to Canada? What was once a Duke of Edinburgh country has since the late 1950s degenerated into a Prince of Wales country (see in particular Oh Canada! by Adam Young). When Canadian élites argue that big government is the Canadian tradition (as they have done virtually without exception since the 1960s) they betray their bias that that tradition is synonymous with the erection of an intrusive welfare state. From the 1940s to the 1980s, Bruce Hutchison was one of Canada's most perceptive and eloquent journalists. In 1952, members of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly were so outraged by one of his editorials that they came within a few votes of summoning his publisher before the bar to apologise. Hutchison responded by reprinting the editorial on the front page ? just in case anyone missed it the first time ? and for good measure wrote a follow-up that congratulated the parliamentarians for averting their "ridiculous" censure(8). The offending editorial was one of a series that won the National Newspaper Award for 1952. In 1943, his book The Unknown Country: Canada and Her People(9) won the Governor General's award for non-fiction. With a world war raging in distant lands, Hutchison wrote from the relative solitude of Vancouver Island that "we Canadians can probably claim the distinction of being the most rugged surviving individualists [...] The best Liberals, in their hearts, still believe in free trade, the play of natural economic forces, the sanctity of enterprise and the evil of monopoly. They behold on all sides precisely the opposite [...] but they hope that a better day will dawn, that the world will come to its senses, trade again, reduce government interference, abolish monopoly." Canada's calamity is that this hope presently beats in so few Canadian hearts. Its greatness is that it once did in so many.
|
And if they have their way, they'll do the same to California. Hopefully, it will be stopped in its tracks.
Just when I thought we in CA were collectively insane, we drew ourselves up and had ourselves a revolution. And we're not done yet -- the Car tax and Driver's licenses for Illegals are next. Piece by piece right-thinking Californians (more than anyone thought) will dismantle this Socialist Paradise that the Dims tried to build in the last few years.
Illegal Immigration is no longer the 3rd rail in politics. Those politicians (outside of the Bay area) who ignore it - INCLUDING BUSH - do so at their peril.
It's taken me a long time to accept the fact that the MAJORITY of Canadians have spoken and openely embrace socialism and everything that goes along with it. Leeches that have sucked the military dry to pay for foolish government programs. What a shame.
Alberta: the 51st state!!!!!!
Many Albertans would leap at the opportunity to leave their exploitation by Ottawa.
Then we need a little self-examination cause this thread is nothing more than a hate Canada rant. Given how much we rely on them for the success of our economy, we shouldn't keep spitting in their soup...
Your use of the word hate is a hallmark of the left.
SS. They rely on us for their success! And if you would read the article : The truth is they are spitting in their own soup!
Canada is a real mess and their anti-Americanism and creeping socialism pose a danger to us. I find Dr. Luv's opposition to our speaking the truth to be suspect!!!
I posted the article because I love Canada, but hate socialism. I'd apply many analogous criticisms to many of the social and governing policies in the United States. I loathe and despise the New Deal, the Great Society, the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the idea that one person's needs form a valid call on the life, liberty or property of anyone else.
What about you?
What nonsense. This thread is all about belittling another country - what precisely is conservative about that? Canada has much to recommend it and there is a great deal that we can learn from them. Despite our constant prattle about their socialistic tendencies, many people here with opinions about Canada actually know nothing about them and have never been there.
For example, did you know they have run a surplus budget every year for the last seven or eight years? That they have decided they need to pay down their debt and not load it onto the backs of their children (like we have done). That they, by far, buy and sell more to us than any other country? That doesnt sound very Marxist to me
Finally, does the constant avalanche of disparaging comments about our northern neighbor make us feel better about ourselves? I can think of no other reason for it to be done
You seem either to be unwilling or unable to understand what the difference between "conservative" and "socialist" is. You also seem to have no comprehension about the difference between speaking the truth and "belittling" a country. It is my view that Canada is in decline and people like you who blindly defend Her deterioration are indeed suspect.
Clinton paid off the deficit on the backs of tax payers as Canada is doing. There is nothing "conservative" about that. Conservatism is about respecting individuality, personal liberty and personal responsibility within a Constitutional Republic and the rule of law. Canada is about collectivism, anti-Americansim, smug complaceny and socialism.
If that appeals to you and conservatism does not, perahps you would be happier up North???
"If you don't see things my way, then you are not a conservative."
Predictable claptrap from someone who seems to know nothing about our northern neighbor. Have you ever actually been to canada? This concept that we have nothing to learn from anyone else is a disturbing trend on this forum and a real weakness amongst conservatives.
Maybe you also think that we should explore the "root causes" of terrorism and "learn" from the militant Islamics so that they won't hate us so much...
Have you ever really studied the founding of this country? Have you ever really studied that Founding Documents, the Federalist Papers, the biographies of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin etc??
Maybe, instead of trying to "teach" others, Dr. Luv, you would do well to take your own advice and "learn" from conservatives...
Given the vicious and stupid things you've said about Canada on this and other threads, that seems unlikely.
Here's something you said a while ago on another thread that lends credence to you not having adequate access to the facts: "I hope this leads to much stricker and slower border crossing between America and Canada. I hope this leads to tedious and thorough checks of everything and everybody coming into this country from Cannuckistan."
Anyone with an IQ over a hundred would know that your above suggestion would cripple their economy - at the same time that it crippled ours. We receive car parts from plants in Ontario in JIT delivery for the automotive engine of Michigan. This is just one of the many industries that would be destroyed by tedious and thorough checks of everything and everybody coming into this country. The economy of our country is directly linked to the economy of theirs stupid border wars would be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot. Or perhaps you would like a wrecked economy in order to make your point? Fortunately for us, the leadership of our country are not as witless or as small-minded as to take your advice.
"I refuse to discuss anything. I am only going to attack those who don't agree with me"
You have not responded to anything that I have said. It seems to me that you are just here to promulgate socialism and defend it in Canada. Do you prefer that we NOT have tedious checks on our borders??? Do you prefer that we are just "trust" Canada to radically change and start caring about terrorists??? The same Canada that would not even lift a finger to help us in Iraq? The same Canada that calls our President a moron and us Americans "bastards"? The same Canada that tells us they are "morally superior" to us because they are more socialist???
It seems to me that the one who is being vicious here is you. For whatever reason you think you are "entitled" to come onto a conservative American site and tell people that they should "learn" from you and socialist countries like Canada. For whatever reason you seem to think you are "entitled" to come onto a conservative American site and tell people that you don't like their opinions and that they shouldn't hold the opinions they do, because, I guess, *you* disagree with them.
As I said, maybe it is you who needs to "learn" something from us...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.