Canada's Prophets Of Pessimism: Canada Is In Decline

[NATO AIR]

good look at what a growing number of intellectuals in canada say is its decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/americas/29letter.html?hp

Canada's Prophets of Pessimism (Is It the Weather?)
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Published: September 29, 2004

TORONTO, Sept. 28 - As one of Canada's pre-eminent historians, David Bercuson of the University of Calgary is not your average couch potato. But with beer in hand and feet up on the sofa, he watched the Olympics on television last month to cheer on the world champion hurdler Perdita Félicien to win a gold medal for Canada.

When Ms. Félicien inexplicably stumbled into the very first hurdle like a rank amateur, Mr. Bercuson dashed straight to his computer. He knocked out a screed declaring that her sad performance, and that of the entire Canadian Olympic team, was just another symptom of "the national malaise'' that is making Canada a second-rate, uncompetitive nation.

"It's not the individual performers whose shortcomings are on display for all the world to see,'' he wrote in an op-ed article for The Calgary Herald. "It is the very spirit of the nation and the sickness that now has hold of it that is at fault.''

His acidic commentary is characteristic of the view of a growing number of historians, foreign policy thinkers and columnists from some of the nation's top newspapers. Many see themselves as part of an informal school that has no name or single mentor, but all are writing the same assessment: Canada is in decline, or at the very least, has fallen short of their aspirations.

For these thinkers, Canada is adrift at home and wilting as a player on the world stage. It is dogged by not only uninspired leaders but also by a lack of national purpose, stunted imagination and befuddled priorities even as its economy prospers.

"I'm in almost total despair,'' Michael Bliss, a University of Toronto historian, said in an interview. "You have a country, but what is it for and what is it doing?''

In a newly published updated edition of his classic "Right Honorable Men," about Canada's leaders through history, Mr. Bliss wonders about the recent "decline in quality" of the nation's leadership. "A logjam developed in the river of Canadian political history," he wrote. "Where are the visionaries?"

Canada may still have a glowing reputation as a sensible country that promotes peace and social justice abroad, and it is a pioneer in decriminalizing drugs and allowing same-sex marriage. But, they groan, the bold foreign aid programs of the past have been much reduced.

It once built great railroads, conquered the Arctic and had the world's fourth largest armed forces at the end of World War II, pioneering peacekeeping in distant trouble spots. But today, they argue, Canada outfits its peacekeepers with 40-year-old helicopters and decrepit jeeps akin to dune buggies.

The country, they say, has seemingly come to define greatness by how much money it sinks into health care or day care. Even so, education budgets are shrinking and there is brain drain of doctors and other professionals to the United States.

Such themes run through two widely sold recent books by two of Canada's most distinguished authors, "Who Killed the Canadian Military?'' by J. L. Granatstein and "While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World" by Andrew Cohen, which earlier in the year was on the Canadian best-seller lists for 10 weeks.

The two books hark back to the days when Canada lifted far more than its weight to win World Wars I and II and when Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1956 for his role in establishing a United Nations peacekeeping force that settled the Suez Crisis.

"What has happened to that sense, that impulse for excellence, that sense of ambition that gives life to a nation?'' asked Mr. Cohen in an interview. "We're a country with a strange attitude toward success."

Mr. Granatstein had a similar critique. "We're not soft so much as softheaded,'' he lamented. "A country is not just a health system."

Canadian intellectuals note that if there is an Eeyore lurking in their midst, they are not alone. The chronically depressed can also be found inhabiting other intellectual traditions. Danish and Swedish intellectuals, too, tend to have an overcast view of their country, from time to time, Mr. Bliss noted, "and they go through long winters too.''

Desmond Morton, a McGill University historian who has written jointly with members of the school of thought but is not a member himself, said nations that sit next to countries with far more power and confidence - like, say, Belgium beside France - share "these envy problems."

But pooh-poohing his colleagues, he said, "They would love to be greater, but being great has a cost - usually to the foot soldier.''

Explanations for Canada's supposed and undoubtedly debatable demise vary among the thinkers. Nevertheless, intellectual complaining about the state of the nation seems to be as much a part of the Canadian tapestry as curling and maple syrup.

In that regard, the dialogue is eerily reminiscent of the past. Some of the best-selling books in Canada during the 1960's and 70's went by such titles as "Must Canada Fail?'' "Lament for a Nation," and "Silent Surrender."

Many intellectuals on the left posed the theory that Canada's economy and culture were destined to be swallowed up by the United States. Others viewed the divide between Quebec and the rest of the country as so wide that complete national disintegration was virtually inevitable. Neither prediction has come true.

Several of the new school of thinkers were young in the era of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, a leader whose panache and focus on big national issues like opening Canada to "third world" immigration and striking an independent foreign policy made him recognizable around the world. His policies are criticized by some of these same thinkers for shrinking the size of the military and diluting the national character. But at least, they say, he was a man of big dreams.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, by comparison, looks to them simply asleep.

The gloominess was much in evidence in recent weeks as the National Hockey League headed for a season-killing lockout and Mr. Martin met with the provincial and territorial premiers to promote federal financing for health care, without taking any meaningful measures to re-engineer a system short on doctors, technology and affordable drugs.

"Two of Canada's defining institutions - health care and hockey - are sick,'' wrote the columnist Jeffrey Simpson, no stranger to pessimism, in The Globe and Mail. In an interview, Mr. Simpson said that while this was not a particularly bleak time for the general population, pained intellectual musings are not that surprising for a country "that has never had a defining national myth'' like America's Revolution or Civil War.

"Besides, if Americans had to live through our long winter,'' he added, "it would test their optimism as well.''

 

[Comrade]

"Besides, if Americans had to live through our long winter,'' he added, "it would test their optimism as well.''

Alaska and Chicago are booming and suffer the same degree of suffering.

No, there is only one solution to Canadian malaise. Lobby for statehood. I expect we'd take each province in as equal states, barring of course Quebec which would refuse to try for statehood... and become akin to a Mexico in the north while the rest of former Canada became rich very quickly.

 

[NATO AIR]

Alaska and Chicago are booming and suffer the same degree of suffering.

No, there is only one solution to Canadian malaise. Lobby for statehood. I expect we'd take each province in as equal states, barring of course Quebec which would refuse to try for statehood... and become akin to a Mexico in the north while the rest of former Canada became rich very quickly.

:rotflmao: the french would send an intervention force to prevent Quebec from falling apart.

 

[Comrade]

:rotflmao: the french would send an intervention force to prevent Quebec from falling apart.

 

[Said1]

:rotflmao: the french would send an intervention force to prevent Quebec from falling apart.

But they would bicker over linguistic issues, only proving them to be ineffective.

 

[CSM]

More likely, the French would clandestinely offer weapons and technology to Quebec so Quebec could become a world power. All at a nominal fee of course.

 

[NATO AIR]

yep, and the plight of the Quebec people would replace the Palestinians thanks to French whining and pleading for sanctions against those awful "Anglos"

 

[Said1]

yep, and the plight of the Quebec people would replace the Palestinians thanks to French whining and pleading for sanctions against those awful "Anglos"

Tsk, tsk you mean "Square Heads".

 

[NATO AIR]

Tsk, tsk you mean "Square Heads".

i stand corrected. i wonder how the french would spin the quebec crisis into the headlines and the UNSC over the true genocides and crises in darfur, iraq, zimbabwe, burma, etc etc

 

[MrMarbles]

All those guys in that article seem pretty depressed. It makes us all seem tired and worn out, ya for only one side of view!

Some points i beleive are correct, even if just semi-correct. Canada has become bland over the 80's and 90's.

A big reason, i think, perspective. Before the 80's Canada was very much out there, cutting itself an existense in the international community. But latley it seems that our only bar to measure ourselfs with has been the one south. A lot of younger people souly compare Canada to the US, which is like comparing apples and oranges. But when Canada is unable to turn into an orange, they get upset. In the past Canada did work hard and well with America, but did not compare cultures so closely.

There is a brain drain, and a lack of leadership. But its not bad, not nearly as it seems in this article.

What is funny, is how people will fight to keep themselves from being confused as Americans. Yet because of two + decades of American culture blasting into us, we can only compare ourselves to them, and when we aren't the same we think something is wrong. It's all the way you loom at things.

 

[dmp]

I wonder how much of the 'decline' is the result of Moral relativism which runs rich in their government?

 

[Merlin1047]

Canada suffers from the ills of socialism, plain and simple. Their problems are the same that we will face if our current headlong rush toward socialism continues.

You may recall that, approximately twenty years ago, American automakers were in crisis. AMC had gone defunct and Chrysler was on the way to the scrap heap. Foreign imports were gouging out huge chunks of the US auto market.

Yes, we all know the overt reasons for the success of the Japanese. These reasons had their basis mainly in quality of construction, cost of maintenance, reliability and fuel efficiency. But WHY did American automakers allow themselves to lose their market? In a word - committees. GMC, Ford, Chrysler et al were not run by a single person with a clear vision for his respective company. They were run by committees. Committees of executives who insulated themselves from responsibility for their decisions because, after all, they could blame any adverse consequences on "the committee". The clearest evidence of this theory is when Lee Iacocca took the helm of Chrysler and asserted his personal vision on the company. He took responsibility for the outcome of his actions. He did not seek to hide behind a committee.

Socialism presents the same shortcomings as the incompetent committees of the American automakers. Socialism breeds bureaucracy. Bureaucracy breeds incompetence and inefficiency. Canadian government is becoming inefficient in direct proportion to its size. The bigger the bureaucracy, the greater the inefficiency. And the mechanism is simple - no single person can be held resposible - just like a committee.

But socialism also causes a gradual decline in personal responsibility. The more services a government seeks to provide, the more will be demanded. Our own medicare/medicaid scheme is proof positive of that. What started out as a small program to provide basic medical assistance to the elderly poor has now burgeoned into a massive entitlement program which will one day be the single largest governmental budget item. Again, as people see a "free" handout, they seek to access it. As politicians troll for votes, they see these entitlement programs as a means of purchasing their re-election. And so it goes. More programs, more demand, more programs.

So Canada now finds itself with a substantial portion of their population who view the government as RESPONSIBLE for their individual welfare. Once the idea takes root that government handouts can supplant individual effort, the program-demand-progam spiral begins. Those in that descending spiral usually do not realize that the only thing they have to do to get out of the trap is to get off the committee (government dole) and take a leadership role in their own lives.

 

[MrMarbles]

Nope. Canada is not suffering. It's morals are just fine. We are not even that socialist. I don't expect a handout and my welfare is up to me. There are support systems in place to help those in need.

It's funny to have Americans accuse us of having no morals. Yet everything we get from the US envolves sex or violence, and if not, it is sold with sex and violence. Canadian entertainment can be considered bland, but thats compared to America's sex and violence. What is America's ubsession with sex and violence?

 

[dmp]

Nope. Canada is not suffering. It's morals are just fine. We are not even that socialist. I don't expect a handout and my welfare is up to me. There are support systems in place to help those in need.

It's funny to have Americans accuse us of having no morals. Yet everything we get from the US envolves sex or violence, and if not, it is sold with sex and violence. Canadian entertainment can be considered bland, but thats compared to America's sex and violence. What is America's ubsession with sex and violence?

Moral relativism is not the same as 'no morals'. Your goverment is secular and socialist.

America's obsession w/ sex and violence? The 'sex' part has to do, in part, with how 'closed' we are about sex. By and large our puritian herritage remains; We tend to view bodies as 'forbidded' and somehow 'dangerous'. We live and breathe Hedonism. Since not much 'feels' better than sex, it's our primary focus. Rather sad, imo.

Frankly, I'd rather drive a Ferrari than Elizabeth Hurley. Maybe.

 

[Said1]

Nope. Canada is not suffering. It's morals are just fine. We are not even that socialist. I don't expect a handout and my welfare is up to me. There are support systems in place to help those in need.

I was hoping Martin was going to take a step back with public spending, the new health care plan leaves me wondering how far our government is willing to go to save it, especially when money could be spent better elsewhere (like the Heritage Fund ).

 

[dilloduck]

I was hoping Martin was going to take a step back with public spending, the new health care plan leaves me wondering how far our government is willing to go to save it, especially when money could be spent better elsewhere (like the Heritage Fund ).

oh hell--just move down here---you can live in my freezer !

 

[Said1]

oh hell--just move down here---you can live in my freezer !

Brat! But seriously, how long would I have to reside in the state of Texas before I qualify for welfare and could I use your address?

 

[CSM]

Brat! But seriously, how long would I have to reside in the state of Texas before I qualify for welfare and could I use your address?

What makes you think you would have to actually LIVE in Texas to do that?

 

[Said1]

What makes you think you would have to actually LIVE in Texas to do that?

I didn't say I was planning to move - duh.

 

[dilloduck]

I didn't say I was planning to move - duh.

How good is your Spanish ?