Two recent items in the Canadian press tell the story of Canadian-American relations these days. The first is a February 9 Maclean’s magazine cover story (“Hope you lose, eh”) that reports only 15% of Canadians polled would vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming election. The second item is the news of comedian Conan O’Brien visiting Toronto for a set of shows next week.
They may not seem like comparable stories, but I think they speak to a distinction in Canadian culture that should be made more often in the public forum: Canadians don’t hate Americans, Canadians hate George W. Bush. And “hate” is a strong word in Canada.
By now it is obvious that Canadians, much like Europeans, use anti-Americanism as the constitutive “other” of their national identity. “America” has become a signifier of all that is arrogant, caustic, and low-brow in society, whatever society that may be. Of course not all Americans are arrogant, caustic, and stupid; in fact, just based on sheer numbers, there should be more kind and articulate Americans than Canadians (considering America has ten times the population). For most Canadians and Americans, the real numbers don’t matter: Canadians will always have a somewhat smug sense of superiority when talking about Americans, and Americans will always ignore Canada. There, how’s that for superficial generalizations?
But as the Maclean’s article notes, there is something different about the Canadian dislike of George W. Bush. Canadians have always felt somewhat more uncomfortable with Republican presidents than with Democrats, for the obvious reason that Republicans tend to skew a little more to the right on social matters, but the distrust and dislike of Dubya is a much more extreme reaction. And in this Canadians are not alone. Dubya has polarized moderates around the globe.
“The intense sympathy Canadians felt following the attacks of 9/11 – something that manifested itself not just in acts of mourning and charity, but in a willingness to support whatever actions the U.S. deemed necessary – has dissipated,” writes Jonathon Gatehouse. “In its place is a deep dislike of the bellicose new global reality, and a lingering distrust of Bush’s motives.”
It’s too bad the article tries desperately to represent a spectrum of reasons why Canadians hate Dubya, because some of the reasons provided (and the people who provide them) represent the lunatic fringe:
- “In Canada, a country that has always fretted about being swallowed up, either territorially or culturally, by the behemoth to the south, the spectre of an expanding American Empire feeds a deep-seated paranoia. At least for some.” Yeah, well, that “some” is quite small. Most Canadians don’t give a second thought day-to-day about an American invasion. And even if we did, we’d be justified: a 2002 poll showed that 32% of Americans thought Canada should be “annexed.” So, this point is either insignificant or entirely attributable to real American attitudes.
- The article then cites David Frum, which is like asking Joseph Goebbels about life in Germany in the early 1940s. Frum coined the phrase “axis of evil” writing propaganda for Bush, and has since co-authored a blueprint for insanity with the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle. Frum tells Maclean’s, “My contention is that the differences are much less dramatic than they are usually made out to be…. The Canadian media have generally taken a very belittling approach to [Bush].” Of course! The Canadian media made Bush look like a stupid ass. Frum then says something like, “Terror, terror, terror. Security, security, security.” Look, couldn’t Maclean’s find a more credible source than some power-hungry lackey like David Frum? If anything, the Canadian media has been much more balanced than the American media, which until very recently has refused to publish anything critical of Bush, and this despite a mountain of evidence depicting his post-9/11 deceptions.
- Then the article cites Reginald Stuart, a Mount Saint Vincent University expert on U.S.-Canada relations, now at Washington’s Woodrow Wilson International Center. Stuart thinks the Canadian distaste for Bush “is smug and more than a bit juvenile.” This is remarkable, because it is an opinion that completely devalues the analytic capabilities of people who disagree with Bush. Maybe Bush deserves contempt? Maybe his policies do threaten the progressive social politics of Canada? Hasn’t Bush made overtures about new drug laws in Canada, and about same-sex marriage issues? America has never hesitated to interfere with other countries’ political landscapes in the past: Just ask Chile, Panama, Iraq, Iran, etc.
- Finally, the article concludes: “Bush’s repeated ‘with us or against us’ declarations have made it clear that there are new, tougher requirements for being America’s ally. And as long as he remains well-positioned for another four years in the White House, we may have to do our share of puckering up. Canadians know that. We just don’t have to like it.” First, Bush is not necessarily “well-positioned” to win this next election; his approval ratings are at an all-time low. Second, and more important, why should Canadians have to accept (at least overtly) Bush’s arrogance and unilateralism? It’s that kind of fatalism that allows empires to be built and social injustices to be perpetrated. What you are seeing now, with the rising tide of anti-Americanism and the ebbing tide of America’s economy, is the quiet retribution of the rest of the world, our collective response to Bush’s arrogance. No man is an island. No country is either. This, too, shall pass.
The Star Week article on Conan O’Brien’s visit to Toronto next week represents the flipside of Canadian-American relations. See, we’re not always sniping at each other, ignoring the other, or making smug remarks about one country’s intellectually-challenged leader. Sometimes we share comedy.
O’Brien discusses his appreciation of Canadian comedians, especially SCTV.
“O’Brien is such a notoriously hardcore fan, he was asked to present the cast with a special award at the 1999 Aspen Comedy Festival, and also this year to write the introduction to the show’s new DVD package.” O’Brien calls SCTV the “least needy comedy show” he’d ever seen.
Late Night With Conan O’Brien will be taping shows in Toronto for the week of February 10-13. It seems appropriate that O’Brien would be the one to try this: His self-deprecating and occasionally absurdist humour seems closer to the Canadian brand of comedy than Leno’s crass populism, SNL’s abrasive frat boy hijinks, or Letterman’s cool cynicism. O’Brien is “nicer,” one might say, invoking a common perception of Canadians (and really, what’s so wrong with being nice? Some Americans find it problematic, I think, because they would rather be showy and occasionally abrasive than nice and occasionally dull).
The comedy exchange program next week will undoubtedly contain a host of American stereotypes about Canada (O’Brien is, after all, still making his show for an American audience), but it will also probably be accompanied by O’Brien’s general sense of charity; that is, his comedy occasionally has “victims,” but his overall demeanour isn’t malevolent.
And this is what George W. Bush could learn from Conan O’Brien and from Canada. Conflict happens in the world, yes, but isolationism and dogmatism will only exacerbate the conflict, they will not help resolve it. In fact, as many have noted, Bush’s response to the so-called threat of terrorism has only made things worse (much to his delight, I’m sure). Think about O’Brien’s characterization of SCTV as the “least needy” comedy show: That’s a selfish form of comedy he is describing, because it is being made for its creators, not for the audience. But the difference is, it wasn’t a malicious form of comedy, so the audience could enjoy it, too, without exclusion.
America needs to define itself, like all countries, with some measure of self-absorption and self-aggrandizement, but it also needs to define itself in less exclusive and dogmatic terms. Some Americans need to learn the social and economic benefits of charity and respect for others. A regime change at home would be the first step toward an America foreigners can laugh with, and not simply at.
12:53:00 PM 
|
|
