Reviewing The Vanishing Country: Part III

Part III of my review of the Vanishing Country by Mel Hurtig gets to the heart of Hurtig's fears: America. An effective way to convince readers that integration is bad is by magnifying America's blemishes.

While the United States and Canada share certain cultural similarities, both nations have chosen different paths in their attempts to obtain a "just" society. "Peace, order and good government rules Canadian civil ethics whereas "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' guards America.

Imagine if we were to combine the two? Just thinking here.

One quote that exemplified Hurtig's concerns about American hegemony is expressed by Senator Doug Roche. "Our values - integrity, compassion, equity and justice - are being shoved aside as Canada slides increasingly closer into a suffocating embrace with the United States."

Never mind the broad scope of the comment, since when does integrity, justice and compassion become the exclusive domain of Canadian values? Don't Americans have similar aspirations?

It's one thing to question further integration with America by examining Canadian leadership and history. It's quite another to dip into America itself. Many do it with disastrous results. It is no different here.

In his section 'America as a rogue state,' I submit the book becomes unhinged. Filled with one-sided perspectives, it gives pause to just how little of American history is known by so many people.

For example, he quotes, "As in other matters already described, the U.S., is a schizophrenic nation. It refused to join the League of Nations, established after the First World War…" What he doesn't say is that it was American ideals - specifically Woodrow Wilson - that conceived the League of Nations. Its refusal to join is a topic that deserves its own study and quite frankly was out of the realm of this book.

In his discussion on how both countries operate and attempt to export their values he writes, 'What Canadians prefer is 'soft' power. Humanitarianism is OUR thing.' Yet by every measure, we are laggards on total aid as a government expenditure. He quotes Foreign Policy but failed to mention that in an index published by FP, Canadian humanitarian aid was abysmal relative to our rhetoric. As for, soft power - which entails many different aspects of foreign policy - it is only as effective as the hard power that backs it up.

For all its hyper reflections and selective bantering (its role in Central and South America for example) about American power, there is one thing to keep in mind. Out of all the great powers in World history America seems to use a light stick in relation to its staggering power. Given the proud persona of the present administration, America might be well served to recall Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" adage.

The wanton selective nature to defend his positions is usually taken out of context. Each one of them is far more complex than what he presents his readers. For example, the specious notion that American sanctions against Iraq led to 500 000 starving Iraqi children. Omitted was the case that aid was being sent but Hussein made sure it did not get to his citizens. Furthermore, this notion collapses when one realizes that he was still trading with major European powers - to say nothing of the UN's immoral behaviour during the sanctions.

After spending much time doing so, he writes, "Of course it is wrong to generalize on all our differences" No kidding.

Above comments notwithstanding, he dives into other aspects of American society. "…We've never had anything like the extent of the prolonged murderous racial violence of the KKK…" Perhaps. However, we did have the Orangemen and a vocal Eugenics movement. Treatment of blacks who escaped slavery in the U.S. was not that much better in Canada. Some would go as far as to argue that the Canadian political landscape is chronically and inherently racist.

As is the case with any anti-American chest pounding, Vietnam and Kyoto are sure to be mentioned.

On Vietnam, "Won't it be wonderful to see our young men and women flown off to the next American Vietnam?" A discussion with any of the world's most reputable military historians can refute this tired intellectual classic. It was presumptuous and unnecessary.

On Kyoto, "Never mind the undeniable evidence that global warming is a terrible threat to life on this planet." Actually, it is disputed.

Hurtig tackles pollution too. Maurice Strong characterized the United States as a "super polluter…" Yet, with sulphur and carbon dioxide emissions, Canada's own record is questionable. In fact, when it comes to environmental issues, Canada's recent improvements notwithstanding - our record does not match our image or rhetoric. When it comes to pollution, many countries are guilty.

Lurking not too far off in the distant is the notion that America will simply swallow up Canada.

That Washington would call the shots would threaten our independence. This position obviously has merit. Is it a done deal that America would actively seek to dismantle our welfare state?

One section that caught my eye was one where if a newcomer came to America he would suggest certain readings. For the 'best and the brightest' in American media he highlights the NYT (despite its recent turmoil), NPR radio and Harper's. Interestingly, the conservative side of the coin such as National Review or the Weekly Standard ares not mentioned. Same goes for libertarian publications such as Reason. The omission of other publications with a differing perspective is unfortunate.

This book was less a call to engage in debate and more a personal polemic. The cold, hard reality is that Canada's international performance under the Liberals in the 1990s and early 2000s was an abject failure in terms of enlightened guided leadership. We should be less concerned with the Americans and more so with our own backyard.

The ultimate irony here, of course, is that Hurtig's biggest fears lies in the notion that America would dismantle and destroy our compassionate welfare state. Implied here is that Americans are socialist pagans. Yet, it is Canada -with its inherited British collectivist disposition - who imported successive socialist ideals from the United States (think New Deal). We then took it a step further.

Where most Americans have not been keen to accepting socialism (there is more government intervention in the U.S. than Americans care to admit) as a mark of their values, Canada turned it into our most cherished value. The welfare state is our raison d'etre.