Posted on 12/01/2004 5:31:56 AM PST by Clive
A poll done just before U.S. President George Bush's first official visit to Canada yesterday informs us that nearly three-quarters of Canadians view America as our "closest friend."
But the same poll also indicates Canadians in equal number dislike Bush.
There is something wrong when Canadians proclaim friendship for their most important trading partner and traditional ally, then distance themselves from the democratic choice of Americans, with whom their common continental destiny is joined.
The answer lies somewhere in the reality of an America that challenges Canadian self-identity, is unnerving and, hence, many Canadians indulge in caricatures of an America that Bush supposedly represents -- bellicose, simple-minded, uncouth, reactionary.
Following last month's election, with Bush winning his second term and Republicans making gains in the Congress as the majority party, it is time Canadians showed maturity in appreciating the reality of America as it is, rather than seeking comfort from the polemics of self-loathing Americans such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and their followers.
In a recent New York Times column, David Gergen observed, "George W. Bush is emerging as one of the boldest, most audacious presidents in modern history."
Gergen is not an uncritical fan of the president, yet he is an astute observer of his nation's politics as a media person and academic who has also served four U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat.
Gergen writes that Bush "believes he has a mandate for a revolutionary agenda."
This can be frightening to those who are afraid of altering the status quo in domestic or international politics.
But no American president -- whether a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan -- can lead a revolution without the people's electoral support.
American politics is ultimately the people's business, or its representative majority, and Americans are arguably the most revolutionary of all people in the world.
This fact gets obscured due to the noise and images surrounding the term "revolution," associated with violent uprisings or repression.
But the modern American revolution at home, and by extension abroad, is the unceasing quest for expanding human freedom to constantly reconstruct the world. It defies past norms and skepticism of the faint-hearted everywhere.
A generation ago, Jean-Francois Revel, an uncommon French intellectual, wrote: "The revolution of the 20th century will take place in the United States. It is only here that it can happen."
In his most recent book, Anti-Americanism, Revel discusses once again how much of European antipathy towards America is driven by hostility to Jeffersonian democracy, rather than any rational analysis.
Europe, Revel reminds us, is the cradle of the two great criminal ideologies of the 20th century -- Communism and Nazism -- and it is America that rescued her from both, as it will most likely again from the perils of Islamist fascism.
Canadians' desire to be different from Americans, or be more European, makes us imagine rhetorically a value system more compassionate and more abiding of UN principles than that of Americans.
Americans decided after 9/11 to take their revolutionary principles of freedom and democracy into the heart of Middle Eastern darkness and, accordingly, gave Bush a second mandate.
Victor Davis Hanson, a historian at Stanford University, California states in a recent essay: "We are living in historic times, as all the landmarks of the past half-century are in the midst of passing away ... as the United States is proving to be the most radical engine for world democratic change and liberalization of the age."
Canadians are not required to join Americans in this venture, but at least they need to soberly understand the historic forces at play, rather than indulge in caricatures.
Your family has every right to be proud of those who've served and died defending freedom in the past. It is hardly 'nothing'. The problem today, however, seems to be that Canadians don't believe anything is worth fighting for. What happened to Canada's brave heart?
I have said exactly that repeatedly, and in plain english. I assume your comment was intended for someone else. I appreciate your help in making this point.
Thank you for supporting GW. We're like a large, sprawling family. We reserve the right to squabble among ourselves, but woe betide anyone who attacks either one of us.
But isn't Canada still part of the Commonwealth? If so, then there's still an umbilical cord to Britain and not true independence. It's a state of mind thing.
Canadians are in Afghanistan and some have died there. Our previous Prime Minister refused to go without U.N. approval. At the time, Canadians were divided 50/50 for and against participation. In fact, troops were actually on standby, however Naval ships were dispatched to the Gulf to provide unofficial support. There were probably more unofficial Canadian servicemen in the Iraqi theater than many of the coalition of the willing. Unfortunately the failure so far to unearth WMD has given the lefties rightious indignation for their anti-war stance.
I, and many other Canucks firmly believe Bush had no choice and was correct in his decision to act unilaterally. We support GWB and the USA wholeheartedly and I will continue to fly Old Glory from my porch until the battle against the terrorists is won.
Well, I confess I dropped in on Fox/Brit's All Stars in time to hear Charles Krauthammer give his opinion on why Canada gets itself tied in knots over the US all the time...(an identity crisis). Then Fred Barnes said he was disgusted because Canada's actions were all about money. No ethics or moral stand, just money. He implied France and that sleazy UN rep. deVillipan? (Whatever -- you know the man I mean -- the one who blindsided Powell at the UN, then raced around the world bribing African countries, among others, to vote against the US resolution to do something about Iraq.) This guy must have stopped off in Canada and made some promises. It seemed as if the All Stars (Fred, Charles, KiKi or whatever that woman's name is, and Brit), had been talking about all this just before I started watching.
I know Canadians were and remain in Afghanistan, and, sadly, that some have died there. This is indeed no small sacrifice, esp. since Canada's armed forces aren't large. What I didn't know until recently...when I read about it here on FR, is that the US and Canada quietly made a pact some time ago that the US would defend Canada if she were attacked. Well, we would have done that anyway, but this is evidently a formal treaty deal. maybe not a treaty...that would have had to be ratified by the senate. A formal, written agreement, then.
And vice-versa, under NORAD and NATO that is one reason why Canadians are and will continue to operate in Afghanistan. Despite all the negative rhetoric about Canada's Forces, they are being quickly ramped up man and materialwise and we will be increasing our military presence. As President Bush mentioned in his Halifax speech a Canadian General has just been appointed to head the Afghan mission and Canada will see Afghanistan through to the end.
Thank you
This is how we see the war of 1812 my friend and as I said,if our forefathers did not die for thier independance then they died for nothing.
British/Canadian Perspective
At the outset of war, Upper Canada consisted of a loose collection of villages scattered between Cornwall and Amherstburg. Most of the settlers were subsistence farmers who grew wheat, raised livestock, and distilled whiskey when they found the time.
A substantial portion of the population were Loyalist refugees who had fled to Canada during the American Revolution. Many more were recent American immigrants who had been lured to Upper Canada by the promise of cheap land. These new arrivals did not consider themselves British, and as far as they were concerned, the term "Canadian" referred to their French neighbours. Evidently, most Upper Canadian settlers did not feel especially patriotic towards British North America. Sir George Prevost, commander of the British forces in Canada estimated that the militia in Upper Canada had a potential strength of 11,000. It is interesting to note that he also warned it "might not be prudent to arm more than 4000."
Major General Isaac Brock, the political and military commander of Upper Canada, was also acutely aware of the American presence in this region. In February of 1812, Brock asked the Upper Canadian legislature to adopt certain preparatory measures for war. The legislature voted for some of his proposals, but a pro-American faction sensitive to civil rights quashed Brock's request for the power to suspend habeas corpus (detention without trial) and a partial exercise of martial law.
While most Upper Canadian settlers might not have been enthusiastically pro-British, they certainly didn't welcome an American invasion. When General William Hull stormed into Upper Canada with a proclamation stating that the American forces were going to emancipate the locals "from tyranny and oppression", Upper Canadian settlers were amazed. After all, most settlers were comfortably ensconced in their new homes and felt no need to be liberated.
Many Upper Canadian settlers were neutral at the beginning of the war, but as increasing numbers of their compatriots were killed in battle, forced from their homes, or had farms pillaged by American forces, local support for the British defenders increased.
Considering the foreign origins of most Upper Canadians in 1812, it is not surprising that there were some traitors in the crowd. For instance, Joseph Willcocks, a former member of the Upper Canada assembly, led a group called the Canadian Volunteers around the Niagara region. They fought alongside the American invaders, gathered information and did whatever they could to help the U.S. cause.
The majority of Upper Canada's population actually developed a stronger commitment to their country over the course of the conflict. These settlers-cum-soldiers were extremely proud of their efforts to repel the enemy from Canada, their new home.
Your threat has gone limp, and flacid. You had me all exited too.
I'm hoping that you're not actually some sort of pervert.
But frankly, I don't mind if I get you all 'exited', as you put it.
You can exit your sorry *ss out of here any time you please, AFAIAC.
As I said, I'm hoping that you're not actually some sort of pervert.
"I agree with most of Kagan's thesis, but we part ways over the meaning of 'paradise'. Americans have no desire to live in a European style country/govt."
Thanks for the correction. I had the Treaty of Paris in mind but didn't get the year right.
If we want to be absolute purists, Canada only became independent in 1931 when Britain proposed and passed the Statute of Westminster and which Canada ratified in the same year. Prior to that, Canada was a self-governing country in the British Empire - everything but foreign affairs were conducted in Ottawa yes, but foreign affairs theoretically still needed to be handled by the White Hall officials in London.
It is a bit like the relationship between Cook Islands and New Zealand today.
Or to put it in Lee Kwan Yew's words "Independence was handed to you on a silver platter.". He was speaking this concerning Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman of course. :)
I most certainly do! It gives me strength to see that not everyone in every other country has gone off the deep end of common sense!
More pics, if you have em...
Ooooo! Code-speak. How very brave.
Rest easy. I'm no pervert. It's just my way of laughing directly into your face.
Your threat was well received, and most enjoyable.
AFAIAC, you are just f'n nuts!
Don't stalk me.
That was a quick change. From threatening me, to whimpering like a little girl in no time flat. Well, don't worry wee-one. I won't hurt you. Run along and play now.
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.