In praise of Canadian hedonism
A reader sent me this link today, reminding me of an election-related tidbit from earlier this week.
A prominent American conservative, Paul Weyrich, head of the far-right (wingnut) Free Congress Foundation, has written an article claiming that Canadians are "liberal and hedonistic," indeed, that we are cultural Marxists. The CBC has the story here. It's just more anti-Canadianism from the American right (see here).
Now, taking Weyrich seriously is akin to taking, say, Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson seriously. Unfortunately, these extremists are taken seriously by many in the U.S., even by many in the U.S. media, such is the state of things in today's America. Clearly, Weyrich is yet another dangerous idiot, which is what I've come to call the wingnuts of the right.
As far as I'm concerned, Weyrich can go to hell. I know that isn't the intelligent commentary that I try to bring to The Reaction, but Weyrich and his ilk don't deserve intelligent commentary.
Whether it's possible to be liberal, hedonistic, and Marxist simultaneously is another matter. Conservatives throw such labels around without really understanding them. Anyone who understands Marxism knows that it's neither liberal nor hedonistic. If anything is hedonistic, it's the anti-government, capitalist reductionism of the American right (even the religious right, much of which has blended comfortably into the right's illiberal neo-liberalism.
As for Canada, we are liberal, as I've argued here and here. Is it hedonistic to value each and every human being, to respect gays and lesbians, to welcome immigrants from around the world, to encourage self-fulfillment and a healthy society through an appreciation of diversity, and to provide health care, education, and the basic necessities of life to all?
If so, then I'm a hedonist and proud of it. But it's not. It's liberalism. It's what we in Canada are all about. Even most of our conservatives respect and promote these fundamental liberal values. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party were not my choice to govern this country, but they represent a conservatism that isn't Weyrich's conservatism. It's a decidedly Canadian conservatism that can be traced back to a long-standing Tory tradition imported from Britain. I don't support it, but I'm not unconditionally hostile towards it.
But you know what? I love my country. I love everything about it. And I know that many of you do, too.
And if the American right would criticize us for not being conservative enough, "conservative" according to the wingnut definition, then so be it. That just makes me love Canada all the more.
It proves to me that we're doing something right.
A prominent American conservative, Paul Weyrich, head of the far-right (wingnut) Free Congress Foundation, has written an article claiming that Canadians are "liberal and hedonistic," indeed, that we are cultural Marxists. The CBC has the story here. It's just more anti-Canadianism from the American right (see here).
Now, taking Weyrich seriously is akin to taking, say, Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson seriously. Unfortunately, these extremists are taken seriously by many in the U.S., even by many in the U.S. media, such is the state of things in today's America. Clearly, Weyrich is yet another dangerous idiot, which is what I've come to call the wingnuts of the right.
As far as I'm concerned, Weyrich can go to hell. I know that isn't the intelligent commentary that I try to bring to The Reaction, but Weyrich and his ilk don't deserve intelligent commentary.
Whether it's possible to be liberal, hedonistic, and Marxist simultaneously is another matter. Conservatives throw such labels around without really understanding them. Anyone who understands Marxism knows that it's neither liberal nor hedonistic. If anything is hedonistic, it's the anti-government, capitalist reductionism of the American right (even the religious right, much of which has blended comfortably into the right's illiberal neo-liberalism.
As for Canada, we are liberal, as I've argued here and here. Is it hedonistic to value each and every human being, to respect gays and lesbians, to welcome immigrants from around the world, to encourage self-fulfillment and a healthy society through an appreciation of diversity, and to provide health care, education, and the basic necessities of life to all?
If so, then I'm a hedonist and proud of it. But it's not. It's liberalism. It's what we in Canada are all about. Even most of our conservatives respect and promote these fundamental liberal values. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party were not my choice to govern this country, but they represent a conservatism that isn't Weyrich's conservatism. It's a decidedly Canadian conservatism that can be traced back to a long-standing Tory tradition imported from Britain. I don't support it, but I'm not unconditionally hostile towards it.
But you know what? I love my country. I love everything about it. And I know that many of you do, too.
And if the American right would criticize us for not being conservative enough, "conservative" according to the wingnut definition, then so be it. That just makes me love Canada all the more.
It proves to me that we're doing something right.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
9:03 PM
6 Comments:
Hey there ...
I am a non-aligned Canadian conservative and I don't think that way. People have to start using the term "conservative" more carefully. Weyrich and his ilk are NOT conservatives. At the very least they are American nativists, and perhaps even neo-fascists.
ATY
By
Aeneas the Younger, at 3:15 PM
The reason I used to consider myself a "conservative American" is that I believe in people doing what they feel is right without the government messing with their private lives, and I think government is often a poor answer to many social problems. Obviously, this has nothing to do with right-wing conservatism today. It's a sad time in America, but for every nutjob complaining about "Canadian hedonism" there are a bunch of normal folks who hear it and think "Hey, maybe we can get some good ideas from our neighbors to the north." Things will get better when the Republicans lose the majority and have to face how far out-of-touch with the people they've gotten. Fly the maple leaf flag with pride, Canada!
By
Anonymous, at 12:57 PM
I agree that Weyrich and his ilk are not "conservatives" but I think calling them neo-fascist is a bit strong. Weyrich has been a loony tune for a long time.
But, in fairness, I think plenty of Canadians have insulted, not just the US administration, but Americans in general. It seems that at least some Canadians get a kick out of considering themselves morally superior to Americans (not just Bush). And I must say thatI find using extremists Using people like Weyrich as some sort of metric for what Americans think is unfair.
Americans need to take Canada more seriously (and live up to our obligations)and our administration and its whack-job supporters need to stop using Canada as a hobby horse for their paranoia. But Canada also needs to lose some of its anti-American chip on its shoulder.
By
Anonymous, at 4:01 PM
It's hard to know what to call Weyrich and his ilk. To call them conservatives would be insult real conservatives like, for example, George Will. They're on the right, to be sure, but "left" and "right" aren't always easy to define. Neo-liberal makes some sense, but only where they promote extreme free market positions. Weyrich is too socially "conservative" to be called neo-liberal. And he's not quite a nativist like Buchanan.
Joshua, I tend to agree with you. American Conservatives should be upset by what is being done in their name.
There's a good deal of anti-Canadianism in the U.S., but, yes there is also far too much anti-Americanism up here in Canada, often whipped up around election time. And that does bother me, Marc. Not least because, as I often say here, I live America. I lived down there for a long time and I know parts of your country extremely well.
The problem up here is that our sense of nationhood, our collective sense of identity, is so fragile. What does it mean to be Canadian? Well... it's a tough one, there have been many attempts to answer the question. But we live in the shadow of the world's only real superpower, and we define ourselves very much by our relationship with it. On the one hand, we want your approval. So when someone like Sandra Oh wins, say, a Golden Globe, we put her on the front pages of our newspapers. On the other hand, we want to be different, not like you, anything but you, and then we define ourselves by how different we are. And that's all too easy when your politics shift to the right, when someone like Bush is your president. There wasn't this kind of anti-Americanism when Clinton was in, I assure you.
Anyway, it's a problem and I wish we had the strength to define ourselves positively, by what we are, not negatively, by what we're not.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 8:39 PM
Oh, come on michael. You know that all we do here in Canada is smoke pot and go to strip clubs when we are not getting drunk on Alexander Keiths.
By
Anonymous, at 9:09 PM
I'd like to remind folks that the Conservative party now is not the same Conservative party from two years ago.
This is the canadian alliance/reform party/i forgot what other name they had taht is now in power.
For our yankees friends, these people left the conservative party over a decade ago and took with them teh fringe elements, the racists and kooks (like randy white who made it a personal crusade to kick out US pot refugee Steve Kubby out of Canada), homophobes and such.
They then floundered in getting any real support except in their western base and figured they needed to hijack the name of the Progressive Conservative party, the oldest in Canada, because Reform/Alliance equalled US republicanship in peoples eyes.
Ill spare you the details of how their treachery was filmed live from coast to coast in a handshake deal that was reneged a few months later and allowed the Progressive Conservative to be killed off so the reform party could start a new Conservative party hoping that people wouldnt notice.
And it worked!!!
If you had told a french quebecer 2 years ago that they would have 10 members of parliament from the Reform/Alliance party in their province they would have laughed in your face.
The Progressive Conservative was historically Canada's most nationalist party until the brian mulroney regime in the 1980s (this man is a legend, running a government so corrupt that they went from 150+ to 2 when they were kicked out) and JFK hated John Diefenbaker, the prime minister in the 60's more than Krushtchev.
The new Conservatives are no running the same US centric policy they had under their other names.
I just loved listening to Peter Mckay, the last leader of the PC, who lied in front of the country and destroyed the party, talk about ethics, principle and honesty. You cant make up this kind of stuff.
By
Anonymous, at 1:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home