Finding a balance...

Mike Brock just wrote a really good post about Canada's false or at least overstated sense of moral superiority in relation to the rest of the world. He makes the point that in terms of government aid (and even in personal aid) America is far ahead of Canada in terms of humanitarian efforts. Many people actually don't realize that with the supposed rise of the 'religious right' in America, more effort has been put than ever before on battling AIDS, famine, disease, etc. I think it'd be really interesting once some liberals learn that Christianity (and most other religions) can actually motivate and drive people to do good and noble things. Mike also takes note of Canada's deteriorating peacekeeping capacity due to the neglect of Canada's armed forces... and also most Canadians' willfull ignorance when it comes to that issue.

I think his post is exactly right--but only in relation to Canada's large numbers of delusional, misinformed far-left liberals. A lot of liberals would be pro-American if they received that directive from the party leadership. (I think he makes that point actually.)

I'm going to go off on a tangent now, but I used to be a self-loathing Canadian not so long ago, until I realized that Canada is (relative to the rest of the world) a pretty damn good country. Mike doesn't lose site of this himself, as he's a proud Canadian, but a number of other conservative bloggers do. I know that these might be federal liberal talking points, but Canada has a surplus, reasonably good economic growth and lots of other impressive economic indicators. I've made the point before that in terms of racial and ethnic harmony, Canada is also far ahead in comparison to every nation besides a small handful (and even in comparison to them, Canada still leads the pact --which is personally important to at least myself).

Some (Canadian) conservative bloggers blatantly dislike Canada, and some of their concerns are genuinely well-founded, while others are generally baseless. The genuinely good complaints are basically about Canada's rigid, ideological and impractical healthcare system as well as the tax burden. Healthcare will probably have to be reformed by necessity within the next decade or so anyway, so I'm not too worried about that and once we eventually (and this WILL happen) have a conservative government, taxes will also go down. Its been proven much easier in recent years to lower taxes than it is to raise them.

I guarantee if Canada had joined the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq back in March 2003, patriotism amongst Canadian conservatives would be sky-high, even with a Liberal PM. Most people forget that we actually almost did join the war. If Paul Martin was Prime Minister a few months earlier, or if something else worked to ensure a legacy for Jean Chretien, I'm confident that we would have. (Paul Martin's first defense minister David Pratt openly supported the war. The going-to-war assumption also assumes the split of the PC/CA - therefore allowing Paul Martin or Jean Chretien to make 'unpopular' decisions due to no fear of electoral accountability.) This also raises the point that if conservatives were to ever be happy and proud about Canada, it would probably be because of how Canada is viewed by America (and also how America-like it is)--which is disturbingly similar to the current liberal view of how Canada must be 'different' from America, and looked at as a nuisance instead of an ally. Both of these views are similar, only because they both require the USA to justify and define Canadian identity, which is kind of lame, isn't it?

On the other hand, if a few hundred votes switched hands in Florida during the fall of 2000, America would not have gone to war anyway. And judging from Al Gore's personality over the past 4 years, I see him now as even more liberal and more insane than Paul Martin, and maybe even Jean Chretien. Another example would be if 60,000 votes switched hands last month in Ohio, America would have a spineless, confused, waffling senator as its President. Not much better than Paul Martin, right?

Even George W. himself, although he seems like a genuinely sincere, decent, good man--he's not as 'pure' of a conservative as most people think. His father and grandfather were pretty liberal, and even W. himself is to the left of his party on a number of issues (Medicare reform, education, immigration, civil unions for gay couples, etc.). I'd dare to say that Stephen Harper is probably more conservative than George W. Bush. (at least in my definition of conservatism, but that definition doesn't include social issues because I consider those issues (abortion, death penalty) dead for the time being.)

Stephen Harper was pretty close to being Prime Minister last June, and I'm about 60% sure that he will be within the next year. If Canada is capable of nearly electing Harper, and if America is capable of nearly electing Kerry/Gore, I don't understand how America and Canada can be seen as so completely different.

I've also made the point before that Canadian conservatives who loathe Canada only re-enforce conservatism's secondary role in Canadian society because of how it perpetuates the notion that liberals are more 'naturally' Canadian, just like how Republicans are more 'naturally' American, and therefore more capable of maintaining power.