Centerfield

Marc,

As I wrote at my blog last night, the Times article is completely overblown. Click here to go to the complete post.

Although Canadian nationalism is, at times, framed in terms of anti-Americanism, especially by the Toronto-based Establishment (much of it associated with the ruling Liberal Party), there is in truth no such smugness up here. If anything, there is envy, and envy tends to lead to a manufactured sense of superiority -- but that's what comes when you live right next to the world's superpower. Most Canadians I know are full of the self-doubt that characterizes our national sense of self. We're proud to be Canadian, but we recognize our fragility in the face of globalization and changing internal pressues.

As for the scandal: Yes, it's all over the papers, each and every day -- even that is, in my view, overblown, but there's no doubt that the Liberals have engaged in dubious financial dealings in Quebec. One of the problems is that since 1993, when the Liberals returned to power under Chretien by trouncing the Progressive Conservatives (reducing them to two seats in the House of Commons), there hasn't been much in the way of a real, legitimate opposition to Liberal dominance. After the 1993 debacle, conservative in the west shifted to the new Reform Party (later the Canadian Alliance), which recently merged with the PCs (who had recovered somewhat) to form the new Conservative Party. This is finally a potentially governing party, and the Liberals barely survived a confidence vote a week ago (the Speaker had to break the tie). We're now more likely to see an election early next year -- and the Conservatives do have a chance of winning at least a minority government.

Regardless, I wouldn't say that we Canadians are surprised by this. There have been scandals before and there will no doubt be more to come. So I really don't think that Canadians suffer from an abundance of "righteousness" at all. On the contrary, this current scandal has just reinforced our self-doubt.

Michael,

I will defer to your obviously better knowledge of Canadian politics. My real point was not to sweat a scandal or two--it's part of political life. My perhaps unbecoming schadenfreud was based on what I see as almost uniformly negative comments about the US from Canada--we have our insecurities as well despite our position in the world.

Your comment about Canadians' self-doubt reminds me of Sandra Bee, the comedian on teh Daily Show who has done hilarious take offs on how passive and deferential Canadians are vis a vis the US.

Once again, why not to believe everything you read in the New York Times.

As bad as the media's liberal bias is, it's sensationalism and over-simplification bias is much worse. Controversy sells. It sells a lot more papers (and it's easier to tell the story) to quote one Canadian MP trashing America than the dozens who make far more moderate statements and exhibit the self doubt Michael discusses. This controversialism and sensationalism contributes to the misperceptions that America has about the rest of the world, that the rest of the world has about us, that liberals have of conservatives and conservatives have of liberals.

Pat,

That's an excellent comment. I believe that much of the problem with the media is not intentional bias but an inability or unwillingness to convey the complexity of the world. If people understood that issues are not black and white, they would be less likely, IMO, to treat opposing opinions as apostasy.

Pat and MWS, Exactly!

It reminds me of something a young Brazilian military cadet told me at a conference almost seven years ago. In trying to explain to the others that what they "knew" about Brazil was going to be biased, he noted: "If I believed of America only what I see on my tv or in the news magazines, I would be scared to death of all those kids shooting people at their schools!"

True dat, Pat. If one gets ones impressions about Canada as a whole from what the media decides to focus on, one is using a very unrepresenative sample. And it's a lesson worth applying across the spectrum. When I hear an inflammatory quote, I always entertain the notion that the speaker is first and foremost a willing bigmouth seeking attention.

Meet a Canadian, and they're an awful, awful lot like an American. I wonder, if we had a meter and could measure it, would we find a higher rate of sanctimonious anti-americanism in Canda, or right here at home in the US. Might be more of a dog fight than one might expect...

If one gets one impressions about Canada as a whole from what the media decides to focus on, we're using a very inrepresenative sample

Bobby,

You mean if I go to Brazil I won't see unending Carnivales and parades of hot topless women wearing thongs in the middle of Main Street? Cancel my vacation!

These are all excellent comments -- and they show how this site can foster intelligent conversation from which one can learn.

One thing remains true, however: We Canadians are nowhere near as fun as Brazilians.

This is kind of like the perverse satisfaction I got when the UK reelected Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The point being, that right or wrong, a majority of Britons felt the economy was more important that [perceived?]crimes leading to war.

Now, when they [organized antiAmerican protests] yell at us for nominating and supporting President Bush, there is, perhaps, the barest hint of hypocrisy to it all. And that makes me smile. Is that wrong?