|
Yes,
good point. I would guess that the differences in values within the US is
greater than those between, collectively, the US and Canada.
Someone earlier (Ed?) wondered whether Canada was losing its own way.
(Sorry for the lack of precise attribution: I have been for the last two weeks
embroiled in complicated and time-consuming negotiations and and skipping
lightly on my list-reading...) I hope this isn't happening. The West,
generally, is in my growing opinion in deep trouble, morally, culturally. We
very much need a place or places where this degradation is not happening, both
to serve as a haven for those who do not wish to remain part of the degradation,
and to serve eventually as a resource through which the West can rebuild
itself.
I can
think of no more important a priority than this.
Lawry
The current issue of the Economist contains a review
of the US that suggests rather wide ranging differences and growing
divergences in values there as well.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:12
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Be a good
little beaver for Uncle Sam!
Further to this you may be interested in the book:
Fire and Ice: The United States and Canada and the Myth of Converging
Values by Michael Adams.
Adams runs Environics, a polling firm of some repute in
Canada. His sampling of opinion (over a very wide range of
values/issues) shows the differing values between Canadians and Americans
and within the US itself where there are surprisingly wide regional
spreads.
arthur
Lawry:
Times are very difficult, and require a surer, more granular, and
more disciplined treatment than is normally the case. Missteps at this
time can create very bad results. I would hope that Canada's historical
ability to see the moral light and policy essentials will again prevail,
and that Canada may be able to help the US learn what it must, but by
ignoring the US's mistakes, but by guiding the US to their
resolution.
My fear, Lawry, is
that Canada may also have lost its way and that our moral light has faded
since Pearson and Trudeau were Prime Ministers. Chretien, who is
about to leave the scene, is a very bright man, but
a pragmatist, not an idealist. To his credit, he kept us
out of the "coalition of the willing", but he has not offered anything as
an alternative except the rather tired idea that if the UN goes along with
it, we'll go too, knowing full-well that the UN would not. I read
Martin, the incoming Prime Minister, as a neo-con whose major concern will
be keeping the deficit down and improving the economy, including trade
relations with the US. And to improve trade relations with the US we
have to pretend to support what the US Administration is doing, don't
we?
The light of
higher purpose still shines on in Canada, but you increasingly have to
look for it. One sees it in people like Romeo Dallaire, the general
who almost single-handedly tried to stop the blood bath in Rwanda, but I'm
afraid we're not going to find it in our politicians.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003
10:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Be a good
little beaver for Uncle Sam!
Good morning, Ed,
The single most important task that lies ahead for the US is to
learn what it must learn so as to be able to start playing a positive
and helpful role in the world. At this point, we are doing the very
opposite, so the learnings will have to be profound and cognitively
revolutionary. Any reassurances that those who are the present
creators of the US's current policies receive, whether they come from
other US citizens or from foreign sources, will only serve to delay
those learnings and ensure a continuation of the present policies.
I do not believe that is in the interests of anybody, whether US
citizen or citizen of some other country, for anyone to engage in
behavior that allows the current US policy-makers to believe that they
have done right.
Times are very difficult, and require a surer, more granular, and
more disciplined treatment than is normally the case. Missteps at this
time can create very bad results. I would hope that Canada's historical
ability to see the moral light and policy essentials will again prevail,
and that Canada may be able to help the US learn what it must, but by
ignoring the US's mistakes, but by guiding the US to their
resolution.
Many of us here in the US remember the help of Canada with the
hostages and Americans in Iran. We remember Canada's sterling record in
peace-keeping, and international development assistance. We remember the
contributions of Canadians to the arts and domestic life in the US.
Canada has a great standing in the eyes of US citizens, and it would be
wonderful if Canada could use some of this standing to help the US find
its way to becoming that better citizen of the
world.
Cheers,
Lawry
There are times when, as a Canadian, I feel a little less than
proud of my country's political leaders. This is one of
them.
I see by today’s local paper, the Ottawa Citizen, that Canadian
Federal opposition members are demanding that Prime Minister-to-be
Paul Martin's first order of business this week must be to phone U.S.
President George W. Bush to arrange a meeting that will begin the
process of repairing badly damaged Canada-U.S. relations. The softwood
lumber crisis, mad cow disease and the Iraq war are just three issues
he should address with Mr. Bush immediately, not to mention
establishing a good personal relationship, they say. Tory leader Peter
MacKay said Mr. Martin should not wait for Mr. Bush to call and
congratulate him on winning the Liberal leadership, but should pick up
the phone first and do so this week. And, says Alliance MP Deb Grey:
"He needs to prove what he says about mending relations with the U.S.
-- on BSE, get the borders open, deal with softwood lumber. We didn't
want to get involved in Iraq -- so what are we going to do on that
front?"
Yes, what indeed? What might Bush want in return to favoring us
with a pat on the head? Well, he could grant us the privilege of
joining the US in sinking into the Iraqi quagmire. The Americans
certainly need help there. According to this morning’s Power and
Interest News Report (PINR) dispatch,
"… if the White House is able to corral a greater number of
countries into committing troops to Iraq, the president and his
administration -- specifically the likes of Vice President Dick
Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul
Wolfowitz -- will appear vindicated on charges of unilateralism and
anti-internationalism, which is one of the most widespread and
accepted criticisms of this White House's foreign policy. It would be
both an international and domestic political victory over their
critics if the Bush administration were able to create a true
coalition of military forces sharing constabulary duties in
Iraq."
Question for my fellow Canadians: Do we really want to help these
guys out even if it does mean getting a few more cows over the US
border?
Ed Weick
|
