Vision or lack of Ambition
I'm ripping off Slate and posting my latest response in an ongoing conversation with my friend josh, who posted this in response to my critique of Rafe Mair's recent foray into Chicken Littleism. Forgive the use of the second person.
I thought the response interesting. I think that you are right in that we don't have national dreams anymore, and haven't really tried to achieve anything since the 60s.
What always bothers me is that on the one hand, we want to do big and important things- be a player on the international stage, be a city on the hill domestically, and all that good stuff- but on the other we have captured the Reagan/neo-liberal mentality that the state and taxes are sins, and not the fun kind.
Bliss is particularly guilty of this. He pushes for us to have a national direction, yet writes shit like we could have been richer if the state did less. In the 50s, we build the trans canada highway and the seaway, in the 60s healthcare, a flag, expo, and all the rest. What have we done, charter a side, on the nation building front since.
In a lot of ways, I get tired of nationalism pretty quickly, thinking that too often it reeks of jingoism and cheap appeals to emotion which tend to limit debate, not add to it. The contest to prove that you are more Canadian (or I suppose less French) than someone else is a stupid pissing contest. Does that make me a post-nationalist? But at the same time, I do think that Canada should be important, and that we should make ourselves a city on the hill. That requires a bit of vision, not rhetoric. No one has been particularly good at that for a long time. It might be that politics limits it, as rhetoric wins elections, and ambitions can easily be polarizing. The Charlottetown Accord (which I don't like), suffered that fate. Locally, the O-train seems to have gone down those tracks as well, pardon the pun.
I thought the response interesting. I think that you are right in that we don't have national dreams anymore, and haven't really tried to achieve anything since the 60s.
What always bothers me is that on the one hand, we want to do big and important things- be a player on the international stage, be a city on the hill domestically, and all that good stuff- but on the other we have captured the Reagan/neo-liberal mentality that the state and taxes are sins, and not the fun kind.
Bliss is particularly guilty of this. He pushes for us to have a national direction, yet writes shit like we could have been richer if the state did less. In the 50s, we build the trans canada highway and the seaway, in the 60s healthcare, a flag, expo, and all the rest. What have we done, charter a side, on the nation building front since.
In a lot of ways, I get tired of nationalism pretty quickly, thinking that too often it reeks of jingoism and cheap appeals to emotion which tend to limit debate, not add to it. The contest to prove that you are more Canadian (or I suppose less French) than someone else is a stupid pissing contest. Does that make me a post-nationalist? But at the same time, I do think that Canada should be important, and that we should make ourselves a city on the hill. That requires a bit of vision, not rhetoric. No one has been particularly good at that for a long time. It might be that politics limits it, as rhetoric wins elections, and ambitions can easily be polarizing. The Charlottetown Accord (which I don't like), suffered that fate. Locally, the O-train seems to have gone down those tracks as well, pardon the pun.
posted by an Mike Powell at 12:27 PM
4 Comments:
Another day. Another lament for a nation. This time, Ryan gets in on the act. He writes "Perhaps it is time we took a good long look at ourselves in the mirror, decide what kind of country we really want to be, and get on with it." This sentiment has reached critical mass.
Question: What's one Canadian politican who is articulating a vision of Canada that you subscribe to? Perhaps it's time to join their parade.
Now now Josh, I know I may be a big guy, but calling my blog posting a "critical mass" is just going a little too far! ;-)
Mike (and Josh) - right on. My other catch phrase which I have yet had the opportunity to float (the original of course being the "free market of ideas") is that government is (should be?) the place to dream the big dreams.
Next time I have a parade my friends, you will be sure to have an invitation!
"What's one Canadian politican who is articulating a vision of Canada that you subscribe to?"
Is Weibo Ludwig a politician?
Well, a patriarchal, anti-gay, diehard fundamentalist eco-terrorist doesn't exactly set my heart aflutter (:
Post a Comment
<< Home