Canada faces problems of national identity, regionalism and legislative ineptitude
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian What kind of country will the new Liberal government take charge of when Paul Martin replaces Jean Chretien? Despite all the happy talk at the recent Liberal convention, Canada remains a country with deep fissures and, Liberal propaganda notwithstanding, one that is increasingly unsure about its very identity.
Whereas the old Dominion of Canada's self-definition once rested - - for better or worse -- on the founding union of two ethno- religious groups, British Protestants and French Catholics, the only collectivities we now constitutionally acknowledge as organic entities are the native First Nations and Metis people. Everyone else falls under a vague umbrella of multicultural diversity and individual rights.
The federation we call Canada has become so all-encompassing that it is now little more than a geographical place, a land mass with sovereignty.
Little wonder that for many, Canada is little more than a 'hotel', its citizenship a passport of convenience.
If you wish to contrast Canada with a traditional nation, consider this: Imagine that the 40 million or so Polish-speaking, overwhelmingly Catholic Poles, who have lived in Poland for some 1,000 years, were all removed from their country and replaced by an equivalent number of, say, Italians, Russians, Thais or Turks. Would the country still be 'Poland'? Not in any genuine sense.
But if all 30 million non-aboriginal Canadians, whatever their language, religion, skin colour or historical origin, were removed, and replaced by a random cross-section of 30 million people from anywhere and everywhere in the world, and were these people then given citizenship, this would, certainly outside Quebec, still be 'Canada'. After all, we are the world, we contain all of humanity.
Maybe this helps explain why, of the 20 most-watched TV programs in English-speaking Canada, the only domestically-produced one, according to University of Calgary professor of communications Bart Beaty, is 'Hockey Night in Canada'. Many a citizen lives in a psychological space that has little to do with the country.
In French Canada, by contrast, the top 20 are all Quebecois shows. Even non-separatist francophones in that province typically consider Quebec their primary source of collective identity and focus on their government in Quebec City when they think of politics.
In that sense, the francophones of Quebec, especially those whose ancestry dates back to the colonization of New France, still fulfil a common-sense definition of nationality: if they all left Quebec, that province would no longer be what it is today.
So we face an asymmetrical situation: French Canadians revolve around Quebec as their 'nation', whereas in the rest of Canada, in what we used to call 'English' Canada, nationhood as such has become a nebulous concept.
Maybe identity has devolved even in the rest of the country. After all, many people identify more strongly with their province -- this is certainly the case in Atlantic jurisdictions such as Newfoundland and perhaps P.E.I.
Thus we have the problem of alienation in the regions outside central Canada. The country under Liberal rule is governed like an old-fashioned household: The father and mother (Ontario and Quebec) run the home and determine how to spend the income. The other provinces and territories are the children.
If they are unemployed or in low-paying jobs (say, New Brunswick or Manitoba), then mommy and daddy support them, on condition they do what they're told. If they have a lucrative occupation or profitable business (Alberta, of course, and, in the past, British Columbia), then it's their duty to bring home their earnings and hand them over to the parents, who know best how to allocate the money -- including doling out allowances to the other kids.
Given this situation, it is perhaps not surprising that on the federal level our Liberal-dominated political class in Ottawa has become more autonomous and detached from popular will. And the preeminent role now reserved for the courts under the Charter of Rights has enabled the judicial branch to move into this political vacuum.
'The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy', a new book by Robert Ivan Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, asserts that our highest court is weakening our constitutional democracy.
The justices, he argues, have begun to impose their own personal preferences in setting the country's social agenda. This constitutes an abnegation of popular sovereignty, as elected officials are meant to set social policy.
But what if this task has in effect been foisted on the courts, given the reluctance of a 'big tent' party like the Liberals to propose controversial or unpopular measures that may undermine their ability to retain power? Perhaps the courts are unfairly taking the heat when the fault really lies with our increasingly timid and inept parliamentarians.
The Chretien era has been one of stagnation, with a government capable of doing little more than protecting the privileges of its constituents and supporters, in the party and among allied interest groups -- including those business leaders dependent on government subsidies or other favors.
'Crony capitalism' has long been a feature of Canadian life and many an entrepreneur -- an incoming prime minister comes to mind -- has benefitted from favorable government legislation and sweetheart deals.
One-party dominance without alternation of power leads to stagnation and corruption in political institutions. Yet the psychological mind-set that condones this dysfunctional system seems deeply rooted among large numbers of Canadians, to the benefit of the 'natural governing party'.
Will a new conservative party of the right be able to best such an entrenched political machine? Are the Liberals vulnerable going into a spring election? We will find out soon enough.
Professor Henry Srebrnik
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Defining ourselves by government: Permanent Liberals: PC-Alliance merger may provide serious opposition, but don't bet on it.
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
Will a united Conservative party be able to revive competitive party politics in Canada? We can only hope.
Historically, nations have been defined by some common denominators, be they language, religion, culture, ethnicity, a common historical past, a defining ideological moment of origin such as a revolution, and so forth.
Modern Canada has eschewed all of these forms of identity, and has replaced them with contrived and manufactured symbols of commonality, such as our much-vaunted national health system, our northern identity and our commitment to international peacekeeping.
In a country that lacks the cohesiveness that stems from a common sense of nationhood, political power often comes to rest with a somewhat autonomous nomenklatura -- an interlocking elite composed of ambitious bureaucrats and political operators, who derive benefits from controlling the levers of power.
In Canada's case, this state apparatus has come to revolve around, and is led by, the Liberal Party, whose 1982 Trudeau Constitution and Charter of Rights has embedded its own definitions of what makes a "good Canadian" into a secular state doctrine.
This creed encompasses various components, including a rather pervasive (and perverse) anti-Americanism that passes for "nationalism," the fetishization of bilingualism, multiculturalism, human rights, affirmative action, open immigration, equalization payments to "have-not" regions, environmentalism, pacifism and a host of other left-liberal or vaguely socialist bromides.
It also legitimizes the incredibly onerous extraction of money (read taxes) from the citizenry necessary to keep this political class afloat. The state religion is protected by a secular version of a grand council of theologians, the Supreme Court, who guard against all incorrect interpretations of dogma or outright "heresy." As political scientist Frederick Vaughan states in his new book The Canadian Federalist Experiment, the new politics of rights and entitlements bypasses legislatures "and goes directly to the courts, where judges armed with the Charter rule absolutely."
The elite, which now also includes political entrepreneurs from aboriginal, visible minority and other ethnic communities, finds allies within the cultural and communications institutions, such as the universities and the CBC, which themselves serve in large part to socialize Canadians into the appropriate liberal (and Liberal) mindsets necessary for such a state of affairs to continue.
The government reciprocates by erecting protectionist barriers against the flow of foreign (mainly American) culture and personnel into the country, using various weapons wielded by, among others, Heritage Canada and regulatory agencies such as the CRTC.
All of these mechanisms enable our rulers to successfully fend off challenges to their hegemony from those on the far left and on the right, and also from the threat posed by the ethnically-based Quebecois nationalist movement.
Canada in all but name has become a one-party, indeed one- ideology state, with precious little room for reasoned argument or debate. Federal political parties that oppose the Liberal machine have been reduced to little more than irritants, written off as grumblers and cranks, "regionalists," impractical idealists, or dangerous fools.
Perhaps a merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Tories will provide the Liberals with more in the way of opposition, but don't bet on it. Polls have shown that most Conservative supporters would rather vote Liberal than for a party that moves too far to the right.
Other voices protesting this liberal monopoly have come mainly from provincial governments or groups outside the cosy symbiosis of money and power located mostly in the triangle between Ottawa and the financial centres of Toronto and Montreal.
Their opposition, too, has so far been futile and they seem to be fighting a rearguard action. In fact, apart from governing the country, Liberals are now also in power in Canada's three largest provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
Our Liberal intellectual and political elites, less and less challenged by other parties or ideologies, are becoming ever more brazen, making it plain that they, collectively, "own" Canada, and the rest of us are here to supply them with the money to facilitate their extravaganzas.
Their sense of entitlement, from Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive down to many a mid-level functionary, seems to know few bounds. Think of the recent spate of cases exposing instances of public money being used for personal benefit. Patronage and profligate spending remain the order of the day.
But in reality, this elite, as events over the past decade have demonstrated, is ideologically vacuous and somewhat demoralized.
Medicare is a scandal and our much-diminished armed forces make our ability to serve as peacekeepers more and more uncertain. As for northern identity -- the vast majority of Canadians live huddled next to the U.S. border.
Can such a ruling elite survive indefinitely, given its lack of external enemies and its vast arsenal of ideological weapons? Only time will tell whether, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, it will be able to fool (or buy off) most of the people of Canada forever.
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
Will a united Conservative party be able to revive competitive party politics in Canada? We can only hope.
Historically, nations have been defined by some common denominators, be they language, religion, culture, ethnicity, a common historical past, a defining ideological moment of origin such as a revolution, and so forth.
Modern Canada has eschewed all of these forms of identity, and has replaced them with contrived and manufactured symbols of commonality, such as our much-vaunted national health system, our northern identity and our commitment to international peacekeeping.
In a country that lacks the cohesiveness that stems from a common sense of nationhood, political power often comes to rest with a somewhat autonomous nomenklatura -- an interlocking elite composed of ambitious bureaucrats and political operators, who derive benefits from controlling the levers of power.
In Canada's case, this state apparatus has come to revolve around, and is led by, the Liberal Party, whose 1982 Trudeau Constitution and Charter of Rights has embedded its own definitions of what makes a "good Canadian" into a secular state doctrine.
This creed encompasses various components, including a rather pervasive (and perverse) anti-Americanism that passes for "nationalism," the fetishization of bilingualism, multiculturalism, human rights, affirmative action, open immigration, equalization payments to "have-not" regions, environmentalism, pacifism and a host of other left-liberal or vaguely socialist bromides.
It also legitimizes the incredibly onerous extraction of money (read taxes) from the citizenry necessary to keep this political class afloat. The state religion is protected by a secular version of a grand council of theologians, the Supreme Court, who guard against all incorrect interpretations of dogma or outright "heresy." As political scientist Frederick Vaughan states in his new book The Canadian Federalist Experiment, the new politics of rights and entitlements bypasses legislatures "and goes directly to the courts, where judges armed with the Charter rule absolutely."
The elite, which now also includes political entrepreneurs from aboriginal, visible minority and other ethnic communities, finds allies within the cultural and communications institutions, such as the universities and the CBC, which themselves serve in large part to socialize Canadians into the appropriate liberal (and Liberal) mindsets necessary for such a state of affairs to continue.
The government reciprocates by erecting protectionist barriers against the flow of foreign (mainly American) culture and personnel into the country, using various weapons wielded by, among others, Heritage Canada and regulatory agencies such as the CRTC.
All of these mechanisms enable our rulers to successfully fend off challenges to their hegemony from those on the far left and on the right, and also from the threat posed by the ethnically-based Quebecois nationalist movement.
Canada in all but name has become a one-party, indeed one- ideology state, with precious little room for reasoned argument or debate. Federal political parties that oppose the Liberal machine have been reduced to little more than irritants, written off as grumblers and cranks, "regionalists," impractical idealists, or dangerous fools.
Perhaps a merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Tories will provide the Liberals with more in the way of opposition, but don't bet on it. Polls have shown that most Conservative supporters would rather vote Liberal than for a party that moves too far to the right.
Other voices protesting this liberal monopoly have come mainly from provincial governments or groups outside the cosy symbiosis of money and power located mostly in the triangle between Ottawa and the financial centres of Toronto and Montreal.
Their opposition, too, has so far been futile and they seem to be fighting a rearguard action. In fact, apart from governing the country, Liberals are now also in power in Canada's three largest provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
Our Liberal intellectual and political elites, less and less challenged by other parties or ideologies, are becoming ever more brazen, making it plain that they, collectively, "own" Canada, and the rest of us are here to supply them with the money to facilitate their extravaganzas.
Their sense of entitlement, from Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive down to many a mid-level functionary, seems to know few bounds. Think of the recent spate of cases exposing instances of public money being used for personal benefit. Patronage and profligate spending remain the order of the day.
But in reality, this elite, as events over the past decade have demonstrated, is ideologically vacuous and somewhat demoralized.
Medicare is a scandal and our much-diminished armed forces make our ability to serve as peacekeepers more and more uncertain. As for northern identity -- the vast majority of Canadians live huddled next to the U.S. border.
Can such a ruling elite survive indefinitely, given its lack of external enemies and its vast arsenal of ideological weapons? Only time will tell whether, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, it will be able to fool (or buy off) most of the people of Canada forever.
Monday, August 25, 2003
“We Are Transitioning Towards the Truth”
Henry Srebrnik, Calgary Herald
Anyone who has been a student of politics for any length of time can spot optimistic doublespeak after a while. Calgary Herald readers will immediately recognize some of the most common terms, used time and again by diplomats and by journalists covering news stories from various trouble spots.
When you come across one of these, abandon all hope for that particular country or group of countries. Because the end result will, unfortunately, all too often turn out to be the reverse of the wishful thinking behind the phrase in question:
“International community”: a term that refers to some 200 sovereign states that often are at each others throats and jealously guard their independence
“Peace process”: this phrase is applied when nations or groups within them are in a state of permanent conflict. Examples: Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; Israel and the Palestinians; India and Pakistan
“Conflict resolution”: this refers to unsuccessful attempts by third parties, such as the UN or the European Union, to broker peace in ethnically-divided war-torn countries where there are often irreconcilable “zero-sum” differences. Examples: Burundi, Rwanda, Solomon Islands
“Fragile cease-fire”: this, too, describes continuing hostilities between implacable enemies, usually in a protracted civil war. Examples: northern Arabs and southern Blacks in the Sudan;
Russia and Chechen secessionists; Sri Lanka and Tamil guerrillas
“Peacekeeping force”: these are ineffectual foreign troops inserted between belligerent factions in a volatile country or between hostile states, usually resulting in a semi-permanent cessation of hostilities and a freezing of the status quo, with no final political resolution of the conflict. Examples: Bosnia, Cyprus, Kosovo
“Power-sharing agreement”: this indicates that there are two (or more) inflexible groups within a state, each determined to gain absolute and permanent control of the instruments of government and eliminate all rivals. Examples: Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Madagascar
“Transitional government”: used to identify a powerless regime located in the capital of a failed state with strong warring factions that have created a political vacuum at the center. Examples: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia.
“In transition to democracy”: this signifies that a country will forever be subject to dictatorial or military rule. Examples: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nigeria
“Nation-building”: this term is used in reference to failed states that never were, and never will be, viable nations. Examples: Lebanon, Liberia, Sierra Leone
I hate to seem cynical. Regrettably, though, when trying to make sense of these and other complex political disputes, a sense of pessimism will usually far better serve readers as a realistic guide than if they were to heed the optimistic mantras that so often pass for political analysis in the media.
Henry Srebrnik, Calgary Herald
Anyone who has been a student of politics for any length of time can spot optimistic doublespeak after a while. Calgary Herald readers will immediately recognize some of the most common terms, used time and again by diplomats and by journalists covering news stories from various trouble spots.
When you come across one of these, abandon all hope for that particular country or group of countries. Because the end result will, unfortunately, all too often turn out to be the reverse of the wishful thinking behind the phrase in question:
“International community”: a term that refers to some 200 sovereign states that often are at each others throats and jealously guard their independence
“Peace process”: this phrase is applied when nations or groups within them are in a state of permanent conflict. Examples: Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; Israel and the Palestinians; India and Pakistan
“Conflict resolution”: this refers to unsuccessful attempts by third parties, such as the UN or the European Union, to broker peace in ethnically-divided war-torn countries where there are often irreconcilable “zero-sum” differences. Examples: Burundi, Rwanda, Solomon Islands
“Fragile cease-fire”: this, too, describes continuing hostilities between implacable enemies, usually in a protracted civil war. Examples: northern Arabs and southern Blacks in the Sudan;
Russia and Chechen secessionists; Sri Lanka and Tamil guerrillas
“Peacekeeping force”: these are ineffectual foreign troops inserted between belligerent factions in a volatile country or between hostile states, usually resulting in a semi-permanent cessation of hostilities and a freezing of the status quo, with no final political resolution of the conflict. Examples: Bosnia, Cyprus, Kosovo
“Power-sharing agreement”: this indicates that there are two (or more) inflexible groups within a state, each determined to gain absolute and permanent control of the instruments of government and eliminate all rivals. Examples: Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Madagascar
“Transitional government”: used to identify a powerless regime located in the capital of a failed state with strong warring factions that have created a political vacuum at the center. Examples: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia.
“In transition to democracy”: this signifies that a country will forever be subject to dictatorial or military rule. Examples: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nigeria
“Nation-building”: this term is used in reference to failed states that never were, and never will be, viable nations. Examples: Lebanon, Liberia, Sierra Leone
I hate to seem cynical. Regrettably, though, when trying to make sense of these and other complex political disputes, a sense of pessimism will usually far better serve readers as a realistic guide than if they were to heed the optimistic mantras that so often pass for political analysis in the media.
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Will the Kurds seize the day and attempt to create a sovereign state?
Henry Srebrnik, [
Has the moment of historical opportunity finally arrived for the Kurds, the largest ethnic group in the world without a state of its own? Will one of the results of the war with
A non-Semitic but Muslim group of some 25 million people, the Kurds live in eastern
Their tribal lands were divided up after World War I by the new colonial powers in the Middle East,
Initially, under the Treaty of Sevres, signed in 1920 between the defeated Turkish Ottoman sultan and the victorious Allies,
Instead, the Kurds became a minority in
Today, about half the Kurdish people live in
Kurdish rebels fought the Iraqi government in the early 1970s but the Kurdish guerrilla movement collapsed when neighboring
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States and Great Britain established a so-called “no-fly zone” above the 36th parallel in northern Iraq, allowing Kurds in that region to establish a de facto autonomous jurisdiction with a fair amount of internal democracy.
While divided into two major political groupings, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Kurds have for the time being managed to present a united front in their efforts to gain control of northern
Will the Kurds be able to reclaim Iraqi cities such as
The Kurdish gains in this war have greatly upset neighouring
Because 20 percent of the Turkish population is Kurdish,
Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the Kurdish separatist insurgency inside
It is true that the practical obstacles faced by an emerging landlocked Kurdish mini-state would not be unsubstantial. But reason does not always prevail in the affairs of states and nations, and often passion rules those who can not bear the arbitrary borders imposed on them by diplomats.
Some Kurdish leaders say that if a new
Still, reunification would be rocky, not least because relatively few young Kurds can speak Arabic, the language of most Iraqis. As well, since most Iraqi Arabs are Shi’ites, while Kurds are Sunnis, a democratic
In any case, the Kurds have seen previous attempts to provide them with a large degree of self-rule founder. A 1970 agreement granted four Kurdish provinces a degree of autonomy, but this did not last long.
In a decade of de facto autonomy in
This is probably the best chance the Kurds have had in 70 years to form a sovereign state in at least a part of their historic patrimony. Will they prove audacious enough to defy
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Canadian Jews should rethink alliances.
Henry Srebrnik, Canadian Jewish News
Let me share with CJN readers an anecdote that, I believe, speaks to the tunnel vision we Jews in Canada exhibit politically. In the winter of 2000, while on vacation in Florida, I was criticizing the Liberal party’s attitudes towards the Middle East to my mother in a small fruit store in Hallandale. I suggested that we should not remain forever the captives of one political party. This was, remember, before Sept. 11, 2001.
A Jewish woman from Montreal, standing near us, overheard me and told me she was a “proud Liberal.” She continued, in a rather belligerent tone, “Well, who else would you support? Preston Manning? He’s a dictator!”
As we know, not long afterward, Manning put his leadership of the Reform party, which he had founded, on the line and lost it. So much for being a dictator.
For reasons that the readers of the CJN are familiar with, and therefore do not bear reiterating, the vast majority of Jews in North America have, for the past century, been overwhelmingly and consistently liberal in their political outlook, typically providing electoral support to the Liberal party here in Canada and to the Democratic party in the United States.
However, due to the increasing identification of large segments of the liberal left with the anti-Israel movement, one that has been gaining strength since the second Palestinian intifadah began in 2000, studies in the United States show that many American Jews have been moving into the Republican party, which is perceived as being more pro-Israel and also more willing to confront Saddam Hussein and remove him from power.
In Canada, the Liberals are, if anything, far less favourable to the Jewish state, and more agnostic on the question of military action against Iraq, than are the Democrats in the United States, yet Canadian Jews seem politically paralyzed, unable to contemplate the notion of voting for those who are more robust in defending Israel and opposing Saddam. We also have few counterparts to the high-profile neo-conservative intellectuals who play such a prominent role in America’s political conversation.
It is true that Jews have traditionally been wary of Christian fundamentalists, but the religious right wields much greater influence over policy formulation in the Republican party than it does among Canadian conservatives, and yet this is proving less of an impediment to Jewish political realignment south of the border.
So what accounts for this curious state of affairs? Why do we as a community exhibit such political inertia and remain captives of the ruling party? Why are we so easily frightened by those politicians who benefit from this state of affairs into accepting the prevailing dogmas about what constitutes “legitimate” political orthodoxy in this country, thus rendering the opposition parties beyond the ideological pale? Why are we unable to think “outside the box?”
Is it perhaps because Jews in Canada are overwhelmingly concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, where the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives have little appeal?
Do Jews in this country feel less secure and thus less willing to “rock the boat” by defying current political convention?
This is a defining moment for our community. Israel is in greater danger now than at any time in its history and this is no time for Jews to be timid. In World War II, those on the far left (during the period Stalin was allied with Hitler) took a “plague on both their houses” approach, defining it as an “imperialist” war pitting an equally evil western alliance against the Axis powers, while those on the right opposed to fighting Hitler called it a “Jews’ war.”
Neither was willing to stand up to the Nazis before it was too late and sadly, as we all know, it turned out to be a war against the Jews. Will history repeat itself, with anti-Zionism the new version of political anti-Semitism and Israel the intended victim?
In an article published in the Globe and Mail on Feb. 24, Preston Manning, wrote that “George W. Bush and Tony Blair, whether you agree with them or not, are proposing action with respect to Iraq on a scale commensurate with the problem.” Canada too, he continued, “needs a government that doesn’t think small when it comes to matters of war and peace.”
The Tory leader, Joe Clark, was in Washington the last weekend in February, meeting with State Department officials, and said the erosion in Canadian-American ties was quite evident, thanks to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s confusing and ambivalent Iraq policy over the past three months.
Given this reality, should we continue putting all our political eggs in one basket? Is this really a healthy state of affairs for our community?
Is it a wonder that, in comparison with decades past, we are now taken for granted and are much diminished in our political clout? We Jews, like all other Canadians, need to heed the message of all political parties.
Henry Srebrnik, Canadian Jewish News
Let me share with CJN readers an anecdote that, I believe, speaks to the tunnel vision we Jews in Canada exhibit politically. In the winter of 2000, while on vacation in Florida, I was criticizing the Liberal party’s attitudes towards the Middle East to my mother in a small fruit store in Hallandale. I suggested that we should not remain forever the captives of one political party. This was, remember, before Sept. 11, 2001.
A Jewish woman from Montreal, standing near us, overheard me and told me she was a “proud Liberal.” She continued, in a rather belligerent tone, “Well, who else would you support? Preston Manning? He’s a dictator!”
As we know, not long afterward, Manning put his leadership of the Reform party, which he had founded, on the line and lost it. So much for being a dictator.
For reasons that the readers of the CJN are familiar with, and therefore do not bear reiterating, the vast majority of Jews in North America have, for the past century, been overwhelmingly and consistently liberal in their political outlook, typically providing electoral support to the Liberal party here in Canada and to the Democratic party in the United States.
However, due to the increasing identification of large segments of the liberal left with the anti-Israel movement, one that has been gaining strength since the second Palestinian intifadah began in 2000, studies in the United States show that many American Jews have been moving into the Republican party, which is perceived as being more pro-Israel and also more willing to confront Saddam Hussein and remove him from power.
In Canada, the Liberals are, if anything, far less favourable to the Jewish state, and more agnostic on the question of military action against Iraq, than are the Democrats in the United States, yet Canadian Jews seem politically paralyzed, unable to contemplate the notion of voting for those who are more robust in defending Israel and opposing Saddam. We also have few counterparts to the high-profile neo-conservative intellectuals who play such a prominent role in America’s political conversation.
It is true that Jews have traditionally been wary of Christian fundamentalists, but the religious right wields much greater influence over policy formulation in the Republican party than it does among Canadian conservatives, and yet this is proving less of an impediment to Jewish political realignment south of the border.
So what accounts for this curious state of affairs? Why do we as a community exhibit such political inertia and remain captives of the ruling party? Why are we so easily frightened by those politicians who benefit from this state of affairs into accepting the prevailing dogmas about what constitutes “legitimate” political orthodoxy in this country, thus rendering the opposition parties beyond the ideological pale? Why are we unable to think “outside the box?”
Is it perhaps because Jews in Canada are overwhelmingly concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, where the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives have little appeal?
Do Jews in this country feel less secure and thus less willing to “rock the boat” by defying current political convention?
This is a defining moment for our community. Israel is in greater danger now than at any time in its history and this is no time for Jews to be timid. In World War II, those on the far left (during the period Stalin was allied with Hitler) took a “plague on both their houses” approach, defining it as an “imperialist” war pitting an equally evil western alliance against the Axis powers, while those on the right opposed to fighting Hitler called it a “Jews’ war.”
Neither was willing to stand up to the Nazis before it was too late and sadly, as we all know, it turned out to be a war against the Jews. Will history repeat itself, with anti-Zionism the new version of political anti-Semitism and Israel the intended victim?
In an article published in the Globe and Mail on Feb. 24, Preston Manning, wrote that “George W. Bush and Tony Blair, whether you agree with them or not, are proposing action with respect to Iraq on a scale commensurate with the problem.” Canada too, he continued, “needs a government that doesn’t think small when it comes to matters of war and peace.”
The Tory leader, Joe Clark, was in Washington the last weekend in February, meeting with State Department officials, and said the erosion in Canadian-American ties was quite evident, thanks to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s confusing and ambivalent Iraq policy over the past three months.
Given this reality, should we continue putting all our political eggs in one basket? Is this really a healthy state of affairs for our community?
Is it a wonder that, in comparison with decades past, we are now taken for granted and are much diminished in our political clout? We Jews, like all other Canadians, need to heed the message of all political parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)