I watched a biography of Ronald Reagan on PBS last night and was reminded of a lot of things. He was my high school to my getting into law school. He did come across as an old stuffy bumpkin know it all as well as your favorite uncle. All anyone had to do back then was to say "wehhlll" and toggle his head to get a laugh. But he told a good story. And he used the phrase "self-government" in a way Canadians don't understand. For us it is just about autonomy - whether a euphemism for Quebec separation or greater First Nations autonomy. But in the states, it means running your own affairs. It may also mean less government, more local government or a bunch of other things. I don't really know. See, I am Canadian.
Over on Facebook, a beer blogging acquaintance supposed that there must be something called "Canadian exceptionalism" which immediately struck me as an oxymoron - like curling action. All I could think of was "Canada would be a greater nation except..." Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great country except we don't talk about it. The very idea is a dirty phrase politically. We have other things to do. Ronnie Raygun would have talked about it. He had no issue with the idea of unity, purpose and a greater collective good. In that sense he is mirrored by Obama. He just didn't see it as a function of government action. He did see it, however, as a proper government policy but one placing the function over into the private sector, aligning it with the responsibility of each citizen. Responsibility. He was no Randian.
Is there something or someone to blame for the drift from a paradigm that Reagan would even recognize let alone support? Did he create a backlash such that conservatism had to become what it is today, the neighbour of disloyalty, the ideological puritan happy to bring the house down, the disassembler? In taking apart the story of the other side did it also throw out the idea of having any story at all? Or have we just drifted of our own accord without anyone to give a better road map, tell a better story.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - February 8, 2011 9:31 AM
Reagan would totally back the Tea Party of today.
I don't think he'd mirror some of the tactics -- he always preferred a soft touch -- but then, after some of the stuff in the 1990s and the 2000s, maybe he would. (That's the difference, I think -- we've been arguing over the same turf for about twenty years.)
As for Canadian identity -- growing up as I did in the 1980s and 1990s, I've often associated it with a good deal of navel-gazing and preening self-righteousness. :p But that's not Canadian history, of course -- that's certainly not the Canada of 1812, of the 1837 rebellion and the 1849 rebellion against the rebellion, of the 1869 and 1885 Riel rebellions, of Laurier's Sunshine Years, of Vimy Ridge, and of Juno Beach.
That's a very different Canada. I don't think it's dead yet.
I think that much of being Canadian includes taking the piss out of people -- at its worst, it's tall poppy syndrome, but at its best, it's pleasingly democratic and socially egalitarian. (I've seen it here in your anti-PEI rants. (And hell, anyone who sells citizenship without the rest of the country noticing...))
(Of course, that could easily apply to most of the English-speaking world except the Americans.)
But then, I've just gotten myself into trouble for some Top Gear-esque comments about the Japanese, so perhaps I'm not the best advisor. :p
Alan - February 8, 2011 10:30 AM
That is not far off but he wouldn't back it, he would lead it and he would lead it in a different way laced with optimism. He would not allow the failure of the Tea Party to present a unified front or a coherent story. It's like the discussion fractured so that Obama has half the legacy and the Tea Party a bit more and another chunck got lost.
I am not sure that Canada is only defined as the obedient wartime colony, either, though I take your point as to to that aspect. There is too much as well of the canoe-ist that Trudeau very oddly captured and which Harper absolutely trips over. Could you imagine Steve in a tent?
Ben (The Tiger) - February 8, 2011 12:25 PM
He would lead it, absolutely. And lead it differently. That's part of why the GOP is obsessing over Reagan -- people want another such leader, and don't see him or her just yet.
Obama doesn't have any of the legacy, sorry. Reagan wouldn't have had his people say that his opponents were backed by illicit foreign money.
Couldn't imagine Harper in a tent. A helicopter, sure, but he's definitely an urbanite.
Alan - February 8, 2011 1:25 PM
Obama would not have allowed his underlings so much latitude that they fund extra-national armies in violation of the constitution.
aside from the lasting legacy, Reagan's legacy in 1980 was no less or more than Obama's as he carried a lot of baggage from failed attempts to win the GOP nomination as well as a less than stellar governorship. Yet he responded to a time of crisis as Obama did with a positive story. Apart from their content (and the mutual weakness of their content), they enter their first Presidential campaigns and play out their first terms more like each other than any other cross-party comparison I can think of.
Harper is a suburbanite. I can't see him at a good busy restaurant anymore than a tent.
Ben (The Tiger) - February 8, 2011 1:55 PM
I could see him at that, actually.
But looking uncomfortable like suburbanites do, yes.
Re Reagan as governor -- California was left in surplus, whereas he'd entered to a great fiscal crisis. I didn't like how he got there -- and neither did he -- but he did what he could with the legislatures he had.
portland - February 9, 2011 12:49 AM
happy truck day.