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.
|
You have not responded to anything that I have said
You havent said anything except to prattle on about how awful socialist Canada is. I notice you were afraid to respond to my pointed questions and facts regarding trade. Why am I not surprised.
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???
Given the economic reality regarding our two nations trade (a fact you cant seem to come to terms with) why should checks be tedious? Shouldnt they be thorough and efficient instead? Since we have already made great changes at the border, why are you still whining?. Finally how many of the 19 WTC bombers came though Canada? If you answered zero, give yourself a big, shiny, gold star.
The same Canada that calls our President a moron and us Americans "bastards"?
This is a specious and cowardly argument. Canada did not call the president a moron a minor Canadian official did and she lost her job. Many Americans think hes a moron as well should we boycott products from states where this criticism is prevalent?
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.
Since I am an American conservative and member of this forum for over three years, I have every right to be here, and I have every right to point out stupidity when it raises its ugly head. Being a conservative does NOT mean belittling neighbors because they arent exactly like us it means like our President has said, embracing compassionate conservatism..
Buy yourself a clue and focus you rage where it should be aimed at the heinous abomination known as islam the real threat to our civilization
"Ive always thought there should be minimum IQ level for people to belong to FR. If there were, Id be at FR by myself and you would be someplace alone, pulling wings off flies and making nasty comments about Wayne Gretzky "
Do you think you could be more vile? Apparently you really can't deal with people who disagree with you and, as liberals do, have decided to start making personal attacks to try and change the subject.
You havent said anything except to prattle on about how awful socialist Canada is. I notice you were afraid to respond to my pointed questions and facts regarding trade. Why am I not surprised."
That's not true. Go back and read my posts. And I'm curious, how is it that you know what emotion I am feeling? How is it that you determined I was "afraid" to respond to your statement about trade? Canada is 87% dependent on America for Her economy. Funny that you never mentioned that. You seem to think that Americans should be grateful that Canada is our largest trading partner, but you aren't holding Canadians to the same standard. Shouldn't Canadians be thanking us at every opportunity for the prosperity we bring and allow them?
"Given the economic reality regarding our two nations trade (a fact you cant seem to come to terms with) why should checks be tedious? Shouldnt they be thorough and efficient instead? Since we have already made great changes at the border, why are you still whining?. Finally how many of the 19 WTC bombers came though Canada? If you answered zero, give yourself a big, shiny, gold star."
Once again, you not telling the truth. I'm not still whining. I didn't bring up the subject -- you did. But, of course, what are facts to someone who has closed their mind to other ideas? Thorough and efficient *and* effective is fine with me. But I ask you, since you didn't respond -- are you suggesting that we just "trust" Canada -- the same Canada that tells us they are "morally superiour" to us because they are more socialist?
"This is a specious and cowardly argument. Canada did not call the president a moron a minor Canadian official did and she lost her job. Many Americans think hes a moron as well should we boycott products from states where this criticism is prevalent?"
Wrong again. It is simply the truth. There is a difference between what government officials say and what regular citizens say. Can you imagine the liberal response if Condoleeza Rice said that Chretien was "corrupt"? Canada couldn't even bring themselves to speak, let alone act, on our behalf during the Iraq war. That's pretty low, imo.
"Since I am an American conservative and member of this forum for over three years, I have every right to be here, and I have every right to point out stupidity when it raises its ugly head. Being a conservative does NOT mean belittling neighbors because they arent exactly like us it means like our President has said, embracing compassionate conservatism."
Please tell me what "conservative" means to you. I have said what I think. Please tell me some "conservative" views that you hold. Being "conservative" does not mean that you try and squash people who are expressing their opinion. Being conservative does not mean that you enter a "conservative" American site and tell them that they must be politically correct by liberal standards. It seems to me that you are trying to stop discussion by telling people that they shouldn't hold the views that they do. It seems to me that you are trying to stop free expression by telling people that since there is money to be made by trading with Canada, nothing else matters.
I repeat again, you may benefit from learning from us conservatives instead of trying to "enlighten" us with your liberal views...
"Buy yourself a clue and focus you rage where it should be aimed at the heinous abomination known as islam the real threat to our civilization "
Again, how are you determining my emotional state? It seems to me that you make a lot of assumptions. Are you aware that it is not "PC" to call Islam an abomination? Wouldn't it be more "compassionate" to limit your rage toward "militant Islam" and not the over one billion people who belong to the religion? Isn't your sweeping generalization of Islam just another variety of the idea you claim to be "teaching" us low lives here? Or are you just another liberal who doesn't practive what he preaches?
More likely, the truth is that you are unable to respond and so are trying to justify your exit. You have not responded to what I have said, not even to define conservatism, which any intelligent person could do.
"I don't mean to sound pompous, but the reality is that you're not smart enough to debate me."
I have read a number of your vicious posts to people you disagree with and your response is always the same: you are highly intelligent and they are stupid. You do come across as pompous and truth be told, you do not come across as having superior intelligence. You come across as a bully, someone who enjoys belittling and putting down others. It is sad, in a way, to see you do the very things that you are telling others they shouldn't.
You make a sweeping generalization about Islam and from the other side of your mouth you think you have some kind of moral authority to lecture people and even feel "entitled" to bully them if they make sweeping generalizations about Canada.
It is my opinion that you could really benefit from some serious self-examination and personal change. Probably also dropping the name "Dr. Luv" -- you obviously are not a loving person. You are doing more harm for your cause than you understand with your rudeness and meanness.
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.