I'm sorry, but the narcissist who got rid of Canadiana on our own passports, made it illegal to wave Canadian flags in Ottawa, and supports a two tier justice system, and racial optics, while being the most devisive PM in recent history has absolutely ruined Canadian morale, and national pride along with it.
Not to mention the economy, which plays into that as well.
You did cherrypick around all of Trudeau's most postnational policy decisions, like:
- doing the absolute bare minimum to commemorate Canada's 150th anniversary, while going all-in on flying flags at 1/2 mast for months on end and declaring Canada a genocidal white supremacist state
For every one of these things, you can point to an opposite example, or something similar Harper did (cutting military finding, for example). Also all your sources are from conservative media framing Trudeau in the worst possible way to fit their pre-determined narrative.
If I'm reading it correctly, your argument is that the true decline in Canadian pride stems not from ideological battles over national identity, but from the erosion of the practical, material conditions that many Canadians associate with their country's success.
I would argue that by teeing off his leadership with commentary regarding Canada being a post national state, he set the tone that he doesn't care about Canada's history, or it's future.
He has yet to follow through on his promises to indigenous communities for clean water, and in fact, has spent millions of taxpayer dollars fighting them in court over various issues.
The rise in antisemitism, and the rise of invasive protests for foreign causes without repercussion, despite the violent activities, combined with his response to the trucker convoy, even if unintentional, is repulsive.
Add the resources of the above comment from Miles, and I think it points to a lack of pride due to poor leadership, and a lack of leadership skills.
People on any team will look to their leader for guidance, and judge whether they feel the leadership they're receiving serves them, and the team they're on towards the goals they hope to achieve.
In this case, I feel like most Canadians, regardless of affiliation, feel like the leadership of our Prime Minister is deeply flawed, in that he creates division among the population, in every way possible.
With the amount of ethics violations, and *alleged* scams the current Government has been caught in, or accused of, people feel helpless in that, even with tax rates going up, the money has lost efficiency.
While the economic side of it definitely hurts, the lack of pride comes from having a leader that very few people believe in, and that the populous does not trust.
With the amount of gaslighting the current Government (all parties are guilty of it) has been doing, it creates despair, which leads to many other individual and group issues.
Not being able to address these concerns in a sincere manner with the Government feeds into that as well. Thinking of not being able to wave a Canadian flag in front of the Parliament buildings, while other causes are given free reign to do so.
Our post national leadership has not addressed concerns like these, and won't have an honest conversation about them. That has laid the groundwork for people to not have pride in our country.
It's hard to have pride in a country, when the leadership of that country works so hard to pit everyone against each other, and economic hardships are a completely different issue, albeit with the current Government and NDP holding hands to bring that to the forefront.
The problem with a national identity based on "good times" is that by definition, the good times come and go. Patriotism based on something other than economic prosperity is what you need to pull you through the hard times
I think what Canada is clearly showing is that when your government betrays the vision of the good life that makes you proud to be Canadian, you vote that government out. I don’t think people should be eager to reelect Trudeau just because he gives nice speeches at war memorials.
and for: "Is the declining fate of the Canadian oil and gas industry, for instance, problematic because it reduces Canada’s geopolitical standing as an energy power at a time when Putin’s belligerence has exposed the dangerous, paradoxical dependence of many NATO members on Russian energy? Or because it’s one more thing contributing to high gas prices?"
Well, clearly both. Same to the other question about woke teachers and ideology.
Most Canadians do not care about Canadian history at all, so it’s wrong to assume they are offended by it as opposed to the breakdown of social order that tearing down statues and so on represents
I think most Canadians care about our history, or at least used to until the liberal leadership told us we're not really a country, just some set of values and that we should be ashamed of our past.
For sure people care more about the tangible things in front of them. But I don't think Canadians don't care at all about our history, they are just ignorant en-mass about it (which frankly I'm not convinced is all that different in other countries; they just have more nationalism than us). Humans are humans; our understandings of things we don't need to know about is limited, the meme example often being geography. History is also one of those things unless you're a historian, professor, etc..
That's not to say most Canadians care much about history, but the lack of care isn't out of spite (although on the left there certainly many with this feeling). Rather, it's at least partly a product of our ignorance and a lack of nationalism vs. other countries; nationalism which reinforces specific knowledge of their history/story - i.e., a cycle.
Thanks for your clear-eyed take though. It's critical to see partisan blindspots, and I think you still have an overall working thesis here.
This is the opinion on which I (respectfully) disagree with you most. I can only imagine it stems from a kind of frozen-in-time Chretien era paradigm in which Canadian nationalism is thought of as a liberal phenomenon and hence being anti-nationalist is somehow the conservative position in the upside-down land that is Canada.
It requires quite a bit of squinting to make that perspective make sense in the current context. Framing Trudeau's focus on Indigenous issues, for example, as a 'nationalist' position is an impressive spin, given that it is explicitly motivated by postcolonial shame. It is this point, more than any other, which I think has really killed off any notion of left-wing nationalism in Canada. As for the other supposed pillars, Trudeau has placed no more emphasis on any of them than any previous prime minister, and inarguably far less emphasis than say Harper. Conversely, painting Poilievre as if he represents this purely economistic vision of Canada that you have requires ignoring everything he says about any other issue than the economy.
It's certainly a bold take to argue that the real problem with Trudeau is that he's actually not post-nationalist enough, but I don't think it works. Britain is another country seriously struggling with national self esteem lately, largely because of its economic woes, but I hardly think that's an argument for reducing British national identity to a matter of paycheques and grocery prices. I think you'll find that far more people than the supposed elites and intellectuals you're talking about are genuinely bothered by what they see as the erosion of Canadian identity in a way that goes far beyond petty economic concerns.
Ultimately I think this vision of a country based on post-national economic conservatism is doomed for the same reason post-national social liberalism is doomed, because when the going gets rough you need people to feel a sense of loyalty and responsibility for their country, and a country built on this purely transactional framework would be abandoned as soon as it was unable to provide either the economic benefits or values it promised. To the extent that Canada has become this under Trudeau, my take is that it's a bad thing, and to the extent that Poilievre doesn't have a substantive vision for the country to counter this, that's also a bad thing.
Trudeau is just as much of a “nationalist” as Harper. I don’t see any meaningful distinction. The press pretended Harper was this very nostalgic, backwards looking person in part because they wanted to portray him as a white supremacist, but when you look at what he and Trudeau actually did in terms of “nationalist” initiatives, they’re basically the same on the substance.
I don’t know of any elites in Canada arguing we should do less aboriginal stuff. Incorporating indigenous culture into the Canadian story as a form of nation-building has been a thing since at least the 1950s.
I really don’t see what you mean by aboriginal stuff being a “nationalist” concern. The biggest things Trudeau has done on this front are establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission/Day and incorporating land acknowledgements and ceremonies into various public events.
But all of this is explicitly to atone for past wrongs and colonialism, which is really just a left-wing position more than anything and is in every country that has an indigenous population. I would hardly call Anthony Albanese of Australia, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand or Gabriel Boric of Chile “nationalists” in any conventional sense and they’re very much the same kind of progressive politician that Trudeau is.
Now I agree that Trudeau has not gotten the same amount of flack for engaging in the same traditional pageantry that Harper (and every other PM) did, and that’s because unlike Harper his opponents can’t make hay portraying him as a militaristic reactionary.
But to argue, as you seem to be doing, that Trudeau perfunctorily supporting your pet gripes of bilingualism, military history and the monarchy represents a special commitment on his part to these things, much less “doubling down” on them, is a bit absurd.
His tenure happened to coincide with several events (i.e. Vimy Ridge and D-Day anniversaries, jubilee, death of the Queen and the coronation) that gave him occasion to speak on these matters and in doing so he didn’t deviate from the historic Liberal party line on them. No one apart from you seems to consider these to be defining characteristics of Trudeauism.
One can't think of postnationalism without situating it in the context of globalization and the role of the nation state. This is an old debate in International relations between political Realists and Liberal Internationalists.
The US is a good example of the former. Believes in a Global superpower and in deterrence to maintain peace, in the centrality of the nation State, in protectionism, often resorting to more virulent and closed minded forms of nationalism, like ethnic based nationalism.
Canada is a good example of the latter. Peace depends not only on deterrence but co-operation, there are many players on the International stage rather than unitary nation States, sees globalization is a good thing because it is transforming the world into a global civil society.
Neither is a pure example of the theory and both views are intertwined in each nation State. Up for grabs is the role of the nation State, the basic political unit of the modern world, in international relations. Is the future protectionist and recoiling into the nation-State or will we see the power of nation State diminish as assaults on sovereignty continue from wars, from transnational corporations, and even from new forms of political organization like the EU, possibly coming soon the AU (American Union)...
If a key challenge of 21st century politics is how to manage pluralism, I do think Canada has, until the current worldwide swing to the Right, been in a leading and privileged position, a postnational position and in part because it never established a deeply rooted nationalism and at best established not ethnic but civic nationalism.
Right now, the "end of history" and the supremacy of Liberalism, after its victory over Communism, seems far fetched. The pendulum is clearly swinging to the Right. A new World Order is emerging. Is it the last gasp of Conservatism. Will a dystopic Conservative society like the Handmaid's Tale assert itself? Will the pendulum swing, as pendulums are wont to do. Will it be Blade Runner? Will it be Star Trek? Someone we can't even imagine yet?
Regardless I think what has often gone under the banner of Modernity is coming to an end, and what is to come is wildly uncertain and unpredictable.
I did read it. I wasn't offering a critique, just adding some context to this very substantial and important concept of post nationalism, a misunderstanding of which allows Conservatives to somehow claim Trudeau hates Canada.
A critique would be the false dichotomies at the end which you claim Poilievre navigates with dexterity.
I mean of course it's a larger movement than Trudeau. However, he's the one with the power these last 9 or so years who identified with this wider 'regressive progressive' (any less loaded terms available?) movement.
While raised in Quebec, I vehemently defended English Canada when they were accused by my fellow Quebecois that it didn't have a cultural identity. Having lived in Toronto for a decade now, I must say I was wrong. Not dealing with burning churches, and toppling of statues didn't help the case. PP is clueless about culture, so I'm not holding my breath for any changes in the foreseeable future.
I think you hit this on the nail, but i would add that this is equally true for (most) Americans too.
A lot of people across the political spectrum like to claim that “wokeness” was what did Kamala and Dems in this Election, but polls show that it was almost exclusively more material things like inflation and immigration that led to her defeat, not pronouns in schools.
In general, this is a common mistake political commentators and analysts make. They assume voters are hyperinformed, rational, ideological actors who have concise political philosophies that guides how they vote, and the aforementioned people scramble to guess what that supposed philosophy of voters was on Election Day. Except, of course, there was no guiding philosophy amongst voters, the rational voter is a myth, and most people (Canadian *or* American) vote based on vibes and perceived material well being.
So while i agree with the basic premise of your article (canadians care more about the economy than silly cultural nationalist stuff), i think trying to connect this as something that is unique to Canada is a mistake.
I actually had a conversation about this just the other day. I (and a bunch of my friends of the same age) felt like when we were young kids we were told pretty vehemently by our parents that Canada was this peacekeeping country who helped out other nations if they were having trouble and never went to war anymore. That was something we all distinctly remembered our six-year-old selves being really proud about.
I don’t know if we just stop talking about that sort of thing once people pass the age of 10 or if it’s just not tenable post 9/11 or what, but we all felt like that whole vibe is pretty much gone, and that sucks.
I think it’s fallen out of the narrative in large part because peacekeeping itself has fallen out of fashion as a useful tool of foreign policy. And to the extent it’s still being done, Canada is too rich and western to be considered credible in doing it. In the 90s, Canadians were told we made the best peacekeepers just because we were inherently wonderful people, but in reality that sort of thing matters less than the geopolitical perception of the peacekeeping country.
Let me highlight this 2017 paper by Acemoglu, Robinson, and Verdier, which may add some elements to your argument (Acemoglu and Robinson were two of the winners of the 2024 Nobel prize in Economics):
They mostly focus on the United States vs Scandinavia comparison, where the "dynamism vs. stability" contrast is sharper, but their argument works equally well in explaining Canada’s relationship with the United States.
Their insight is that when two countries are economically and technologically interdependent, one can benefit from adopting a "softer" form of capitalism with higher social insurance, relying on the other's dynamism. This can result in the softer country being poorer yet achieving higher social welfare by reducing risk.
In other words, the “unlike America” attitude that permeates Canada’s choices of policies and institutions may simply reflect an optimal response to its interconnectedness with its southern neighbor.
(You can google the paper’s title to find ungated versions)
Is it a uniquely Canadian thing for national pride to be synonymous with how good middle class people feel about the economy/government?
If so, I guess it never occurred to me that in other countries people can feel proud of their country yet also think it sucks to live in it (during periods of higher than normal inflation/unemployment for example).
Fascinating. If nothing else, Trudeau's vision requires an MA to even wrap your head around. That alone is terrible politics.
Linking identity and material circumstance is a more sellable starting point, regardless of sincerity or detail.
I'm sorry, but the narcissist who got rid of Canadiana on our own passports, made it illegal to wave Canadian flags in Ottawa, and supports a two tier justice system, and racial optics, while being the most devisive PM in recent history has absolutely ruined Canadian morale, and national pride along with it.
Not to mention the economy, which plays into that as well.
Did you read the article?
I did, and I stand by the comments.
I don’t think you did.
You did cherrypick around all of Trudeau's most postnational policy decisions, like:
- doing the absolute bare minimum to commemorate Canada's 150th anniversary, while going all-in on flying flags at 1/2 mast for months on end and declaring Canada a genocidal white supremacist state
https://quillette.com/blog/2022/10/31/welcome-to-canada-nation-of-genocidaires/
- rolling out new passports scrubbed of all patriotism, replacing it with generic globalist woke copypasta
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-under-fire-for-passport-redesign-legion-calls-it-a-poor-decision-to-replace-iconic-images-1.6393018
- defunding the Canadian miltary and infusing what remains with divisive woke progressivism in lieu of combat readiness
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadian-military-in-shambles-thanks-to-liberals-underfunding-and-woke-policies
- abolishing Canadian citizenship ceremonies in favour of online box-clicking
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-what-we-all-lose-when-we-lose-the-citizenship-ceremony/
For every one of these things, you can point to an opposite example, or something similar Harper did (cutting military finding, for example). Also all your sources are from conservative media framing Trudeau in the worst possible way to fit their pre-determined narrative.
If you think CTV/Globe and Mail are conservative media then you're deep in a woke bubble.
So you're response to someone pointing out just a few Mr. Trudeau's many failings is to resort to a classic whataboutism?
Well then, I suppose that would make two of your opinions incorrect.
What was my argument?
If I'm reading it correctly, your argument is that the true decline in Canadian pride stems not from ideological battles over national identity, but from the erosion of the practical, material conditions that many Canadians associate with their country's success.
I would argue that by teeing off his leadership with commentary regarding Canada being a post national state, he set the tone that he doesn't care about Canada's history, or it's future.
He has yet to follow through on his promises to indigenous communities for clean water, and in fact, has spent millions of taxpayer dollars fighting them in court over various issues.
The rise in antisemitism, and the rise of invasive protests for foreign causes without repercussion, despite the violent activities, combined with his response to the trucker convoy, even if unintentional, is repulsive.
Add the resources of the above comment from Miles, and I think it points to a lack of pride due to poor leadership, and a lack of leadership skills.
People on any team will look to their leader for guidance, and judge whether they feel the leadership they're receiving serves them, and the team they're on towards the goals they hope to achieve.
In this case, I feel like most Canadians, regardless of affiliation, feel like the leadership of our Prime Minister is deeply flawed, in that he creates division among the population, in every way possible.
With the amount of ethics violations, and *alleged* scams the current Government has been caught in, or accused of, people feel helpless in that, even with tax rates going up, the money has lost efficiency.
While the economic side of it definitely hurts, the lack of pride comes from having a leader that very few people believe in, and that the populous does not trust.
With the amount of gaslighting the current Government (all parties are guilty of it) has been doing, it creates despair, which leads to many other individual and group issues.
Not being able to address these concerns in a sincere manner with the Government feeds into that as well. Thinking of not being able to wave a Canadian flag in front of the Parliament buildings, while other causes are given free reign to do so.
Our post national leadership has not addressed concerns like these, and won't have an honest conversation about them. That has laid the groundwork for people to not have pride in our country.
It's hard to have pride in a country, when the leadership of that country works so hard to pit everyone against each other, and economic hardships are a completely different issue, albeit with the current Government and NDP holding hands to bring that to the forefront.
The problem with a national identity based on "good times" is that by definition, the good times come and go. Patriotism based on something other than economic prosperity is what you need to pull you through the hard times
I think what Canada is clearly showing is that when your government betrays the vision of the good life that makes you proud to be Canadian, you vote that government out. I don’t think people should be eager to reelect Trudeau just because he gives nice speeches at war memorials.
When a government, through incompetence, ruins a good life for many of its citizens, it should be voted out.
exactly.
and for: "Is the declining fate of the Canadian oil and gas industry, for instance, problematic because it reduces Canada’s geopolitical standing as an energy power at a time when Putin’s belligerence has exposed the dangerous, paradoxical dependence of many NATO members on Russian energy? Or because it’s one more thing contributing to high gas prices?"
Well, clearly both. Same to the other question about woke teachers and ideology.
Most Canadians do not care about Canadian history at all, so it’s wrong to assume they are offended by it as opposed to the breakdown of social order that tearing down statues and so on represents
I think most Canadians care about our history, or at least used to until the liberal leadership told us we're not really a country, just some set of values and that we should be ashamed of our past.
For sure people care more about the tangible things in front of them. But I don't think Canadians don't care at all about our history, they are just ignorant en-mass about it (which frankly I'm not convinced is all that different in other countries; they just have more nationalism than us). Humans are humans; our understandings of things we don't need to know about is limited, the meme example often being geography. History is also one of those things unless you're a historian, professor, etc..
That's not to say most Canadians care much about history, but the lack of care isn't out of spite (although on the left there certainly many with this feeling). Rather, it's at least partly a product of our ignorance and a lack of nationalism vs. other countries; nationalism which reinforces specific knowledge of their history/story - i.e., a cycle.
Thanks for your clear-eyed take though. It's critical to see partisan blindspots, and I think you still have an overall working thesis here.
This is the opinion on which I (respectfully) disagree with you most. I can only imagine it stems from a kind of frozen-in-time Chretien era paradigm in which Canadian nationalism is thought of as a liberal phenomenon and hence being anti-nationalist is somehow the conservative position in the upside-down land that is Canada.
It requires quite a bit of squinting to make that perspective make sense in the current context. Framing Trudeau's focus on Indigenous issues, for example, as a 'nationalist' position is an impressive spin, given that it is explicitly motivated by postcolonial shame. It is this point, more than any other, which I think has really killed off any notion of left-wing nationalism in Canada. As for the other supposed pillars, Trudeau has placed no more emphasis on any of them than any previous prime minister, and inarguably far less emphasis than say Harper. Conversely, painting Poilievre as if he represents this purely economistic vision of Canada that you have requires ignoring everything he says about any other issue than the economy.
It's certainly a bold take to argue that the real problem with Trudeau is that he's actually not post-nationalist enough, but I don't think it works. Britain is another country seriously struggling with national self esteem lately, largely because of its economic woes, but I hardly think that's an argument for reducing British national identity to a matter of paycheques and grocery prices. I think you'll find that far more people than the supposed elites and intellectuals you're talking about are genuinely bothered by what they see as the erosion of Canadian identity in a way that goes far beyond petty economic concerns.
Ultimately I think this vision of a country based on post-national economic conservatism is doomed for the same reason post-national social liberalism is doomed, because when the going gets rough you need people to feel a sense of loyalty and responsibility for their country, and a country built on this purely transactional framework would be abandoned as soon as it was unable to provide either the economic benefits or values it promised. To the extent that Canada has become this under Trudeau, my take is that it's a bad thing, and to the extent that Poilievre doesn't have a substantive vision for the country to counter this, that's also a bad thing.
Trudeau is just as much of a “nationalist” as Harper. I don’t see any meaningful distinction. The press pretended Harper was this very nostalgic, backwards looking person in part because they wanted to portray him as a white supremacist, but when you look at what he and Trudeau actually did in terms of “nationalist” initiatives, they’re basically the same on the substance.
I don’t know of any elites in Canada arguing we should do less aboriginal stuff. Incorporating indigenous culture into the Canadian story as a form of nation-building has been a thing since at least the 1950s.
I really don’t see what you mean by aboriginal stuff being a “nationalist” concern. The biggest things Trudeau has done on this front are establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission/Day and incorporating land acknowledgements and ceremonies into various public events.
But all of this is explicitly to atone for past wrongs and colonialism, which is really just a left-wing position more than anything and is in every country that has an indigenous population. I would hardly call Anthony Albanese of Australia, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand or Gabriel Boric of Chile “nationalists” in any conventional sense and they’re very much the same kind of progressive politician that Trudeau is.
Now I agree that Trudeau has not gotten the same amount of flack for engaging in the same traditional pageantry that Harper (and every other PM) did, and that’s because unlike Harper his opponents can’t make hay portraying him as a militaristic reactionary.
But to argue, as you seem to be doing, that Trudeau perfunctorily supporting your pet gripes of bilingualism, military history and the monarchy represents a special commitment on his part to these things, much less “doubling down” on them, is a bit absurd.
His tenure happened to coincide with several events (i.e. Vimy Ridge and D-Day anniversaries, jubilee, death of the Queen and the coronation) that gave him occasion to speak on these matters and in doing so he didn’t deviate from the historic Liberal party line on them. No one apart from you seems to consider these to be defining characteristics of Trudeauism.
Who was the prime minister who apologized for residential schools again?
One can't think of postnationalism without situating it in the context of globalization and the role of the nation state. This is an old debate in International relations between political Realists and Liberal Internationalists.
The US is a good example of the former. Believes in a Global superpower and in deterrence to maintain peace, in the centrality of the nation State, in protectionism, often resorting to more virulent and closed minded forms of nationalism, like ethnic based nationalism.
Canada is a good example of the latter. Peace depends not only on deterrence but co-operation, there are many players on the International stage rather than unitary nation States, sees globalization is a good thing because it is transforming the world into a global civil society.
Neither is a pure example of the theory and both views are intertwined in each nation State. Up for grabs is the role of the nation State, the basic political unit of the modern world, in international relations. Is the future protectionist and recoiling into the nation-State or will we see the power of nation State diminish as assaults on sovereignty continue from wars, from transnational corporations, and even from new forms of political organization like the EU, possibly coming soon the AU (American Union)...
If a key challenge of 21st century politics is how to manage pluralism, I do think Canada has, until the current worldwide swing to the Right, been in a leading and privileged position, a postnational position and in part because it never established a deeply rooted nationalism and at best established not ethnic but civic nationalism.
Right now, the "end of history" and the supremacy of Liberalism, after its victory over Communism, seems far fetched. The pendulum is clearly swinging to the Right. A new World Order is emerging. Is it the last gasp of Conservatism. Will a dystopic Conservative society like the Handmaid's Tale assert itself? Will the pendulum swing, as pendulums are wont to do. Will it be Blade Runner? Will it be Star Trek? Someone we can't even imagine yet?
Regardless I think what has often gone under the banner of Modernity is coming to an end, and what is to come is wildly uncertain and unpredictable.
Did you read my piece?
I did read it. I wasn't offering a critique, just adding some context to this very substantial and important concept of post nationalism, a misunderstanding of which allows Conservatives to somehow claim Trudeau hates Canada.
A critique would be the false dichotomies at the end which you claim Poilievre navigates with dexterity.
I love how materialistic ordinary Canadians are. Literally my favorite thing about Canada. So great that Pierre is tapping into this impulse.
I mean of course it's a larger movement than Trudeau. However, he's the one with the power these last 9 or so years who identified with this wider 'regressive progressive' (any less loaded terms available?) movement.
While raised in Quebec, I vehemently defended English Canada when they were accused by my fellow Quebecois that it didn't have a cultural identity. Having lived in Toronto for a decade now, I must say I was wrong. Not dealing with burning churches, and toppling of statues didn't help the case. PP is clueless about culture, so I'm not holding my breath for any changes in the foreseeable future.
Did you read the article?
I think you hit this on the nail, but i would add that this is equally true for (most) Americans too.
A lot of people across the political spectrum like to claim that “wokeness” was what did Kamala and Dems in this Election, but polls show that it was almost exclusively more material things like inflation and immigration that led to her defeat, not pronouns in schools.
In general, this is a common mistake political commentators and analysts make. They assume voters are hyperinformed, rational, ideological actors who have concise political philosophies that guides how they vote, and the aforementioned people scramble to guess what that supposed philosophy of voters was on Election Day. Except, of course, there was no guiding philosophy amongst voters, the rational voter is a myth, and most people (Canadian *or* American) vote based on vibes and perceived material well being.
So while i agree with the basic premise of your article (canadians care more about the economy than silly cultural nationalist stuff), i think trying to connect this as something that is unique to Canada is a mistake.
I actually had a conversation about this just the other day. I (and a bunch of my friends of the same age) felt like when we were young kids we were told pretty vehemently by our parents that Canada was this peacekeeping country who helped out other nations if they were having trouble and never went to war anymore. That was something we all distinctly remembered our six-year-old selves being really proud about.
I don’t know if we just stop talking about that sort of thing once people pass the age of 10 or if it’s just not tenable post 9/11 or what, but we all felt like that whole vibe is pretty much gone, and that sucks.
Does anyone else remember this sort of thing?
I think it’s fallen out of the narrative in large part because peacekeeping itself has fallen out of fashion as a useful tool of foreign policy. And to the extent it’s still being done, Canada is too rich and western to be considered credible in doing it. In the 90s, Canadians were told we made the best peacekeepers just because we were inherently wonderful people, but in reality that sort of thing matters less than the geopolitical perception of the peacekeeping country.
I find Pierre Poilievre to be so negative. I question if he likes Canada.
Let me highlight this 2017 paper by Acemoglu, Robinson, and Verdier, which may add some elements to your argument (Acemoglu and Robinson were two of the winners of the 2024 Nobel prize in Economics):
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/693038?mobileUi=0&
They mostly focus on the United States vs Scandinavia comparison, where the "dynamism vs. stability" contrast is sharper, but their argument works equally well in explaining Canada’s relationship with the United States.
Their insight is that when two countries are economically and technologically interdependent, one can benefit from adopting a "softer" form of capitalism with higher social insurance, relying on the other's dynamism. This can result in the softer country being poorer yet achieving higher social welfare by reducing risk.
In other words, the “unlike America” attitude that permeates Canada’s choices of policies and institutions may simply reflect an optimal response to its interconnectedness with its southern neighbor.
(You can google the paper’s title to find ungated versions)
Is it a uniquely Canadian thing for national pride to be synonymous with how good middle class people feel about the economy/government?
If so, I guess it never occurred to me that in other countries people can feel proud of their country yet also think it sucks to live in it (during periods of higher than normal inflation/unemployment for example).
Yes, South America would be a good example of the latter phenomenon.
“…said Will Ferguson, is ‘success without risk.’”
I would add “without cost”.
J.J., you list a few "either or" statements. I submit that you replace or with and since one can hold both to be true at the same time.
Love it. More cynical than I would be, but I'm swayed.
GDPatriotism