U.S. President George W. Bush acknowledges his welcome by Free Dominion, in Ottawa
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.
U.S. President George W. Bush acknowledges his welcome by Free Dominion, in Ottawa
You are a charlatan - I've met many Canucklehead ignoramuses, and NONE of them ever made such a moronic statement.
As I have stated here before, your antipathy to Canadians must be based upon some personal slight or defeat at the hands of a tuque-head.
Get over it, bozo! Your ignorant slurs are beginning to irritate me.
And you do not want that. Believe me.
I'm not. Seems you are.
I have great respect, and admiration for most Canadians. Those who continually insult the US, offend me.
Excellent, excellent riposte, WildHorseCrash!!!!
America did not exist before her war of independance either. So what is your point.
It is easy to view someone as bellicose, simple and reactionary when they are the one who is required to take action, and you are the one who gets to sit back reap the benefit of their action.
I like Canada, I think they are a fine country with a great history. They fought well in WWII and Korea. But if Canadians are not going to get behind us on this, and instead, side with the UN, then I would just as soon have no truck with them. It is one thing to take action that protects grateful, helpful people. It is another to shed blood and money for obstructionist ingrates.
For the most part, Canada is little more than 60 years old. An extraordinarly young country by any standard.
Lots of name calling, but nothing to refute what I have said. How Canadian.
Please. Set me straight. What year did Canada fight for her independence?
Yea. OK.
"Canada has strong socialist leanings."
True, but it's not fair to paint everyone with the same brush.
"Your fellow Canadian suggests this is mostly due to American draft dodgers."
Some of it can be attributed to draft dodgers. But also from landed immigrants from the USA who are educated leftists and greens. They have managed to gain access to the media(I am personally familiar with one columnist) and push a PC environazi agenda while blaming the USA for the world ills. But then whats different about our MSM?
I don't know if you can say, however that Canada did not exist and could not fight for her freedom before 60 years ago.
Wouldn't that be like saying America did not fight for freedom in 1812 because many of the states had not become states?
Right, you little twit.
Canada never 'fought for its independence' - YOU appear to have a learning disorder.
Seek help.
When your buddy says that Canada fought for her freedom in 1812, and again in WWI; he is wrong.
The 1812 one is ridiculous; I agree. LOL.
Charming.
Still with the name-calling. You do not refute anything I have said.
Set me straight. What year did Canada fight for her independence?
(perhaps if you call me a doody-head)
Lets face it, Canada will always be dependant upon the good will of America, it is an unavoidable act of geography and in many ways the fact she has survived this long as an independant Nation is a tribute to the people that carved a viable country out of the frozen leftovers. It is irresponsible and uninformed knowitall critics like you that foster much of the anti-American feelings up here. Fortunately you are only a vocal minority, similar in nature to the rabble of juvenile protesters that demonstrated against your fine President in Ottawa yesterday, totally irrelevant.
Perhaps English is not your first language.
Indeed, it may be that you have every reason in the world to be stone-ignorant about Canada.
That is your right.
Americans fought for that right in the Revolutionary War against Britain.
If those heros had realized the number of slobbering goobers who would claim that heroism second-hand, they might have stuck with King George.
Less hypocrisy, at least!
Are you flirting with me? You'll never get me into bed that way.
What is the easiest, and quickest way I can irritate your glacier-sliding rear-end?
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.