Mader Blog

Comments: Canada in Decline?

I'm ashamed that I didn't see the story earlier today.

Posted by Dave K. at September 29, 2004 06:42 PM

all is not lost nor it not that bad.

Posted by Dex at September 30, 2004 01:41 AM

"I'm in almost total despair,'' Michael Bliss, a University of Toronto historian, said in an interview.

Now I think we MAY be going just a BIT over the top on that one. I'm hardly going to take anybody that is THAT much of a drama queen seriously.

Posted by Ryan Waddell at September 30, 2004 12:58 PM

I disagree that Canada is in the decline. From my perspective in SouthWestern Ontario, the opposite could not be more true. Everywhere I look I see signs of vibrant, strong, economic growth. Not just the big cities, but even the small towns of Ontario seem to be doing fantastic. Unlike the US, most of our governments are solvent, running balanced budgets. Our municipalities, provincial government, and federal government all must have better bond ratings than their US counterparts. Everything is modern, clean, efficient, etc. We look prett damn good compared to Michigan or upstate New York. Professors, like the ones quoted, are just cynics by nature.

As for leadership, I'm glad that we haven't had any 'charasmatic' leader lately. In Canada, that usually means Trudeau type leadership. I'll take boring, lay low, balance the books Martin anyday.

Now, I should reemphasize my original point I guess. I'm talkin about Ontario here. The article describes the Maritimes perfectly in my opinion. But I still maintain that Ontario and Alberta are probably two of the fastest growing, dynamic, prosperous, and safest places to live in North America.

I do, however, wish Canada could cut back on all these other ridiculous expenditure priorities and divert the money to the forces where it is needed most.

Posted by Chuck at September 30, 2004 03:10 PM

My more lengthy response is forthcoming over at Living In a Society, however, the shorter version is this:

Bliss et. al. are part of long intellectual tradition of historical declinists in Canada. They really aren't saying anything in this article that they haven't been saying for the last twenty years. They're particularly despairing these days because their influence is waning in our universities. The new cohort of Canadian historians, and academics in general, I think, interpret Canada entirely differently.

On the practical points I mostly agree with Chuck, overall Canada is in great shape.

Posted by Matt F. at September 30, 2004 05:05 PM

Canada is in decent shape, but the question of purpose is a very interesting one. Mostly the Canadian purpose seems to be to obtain privileges and security at the expense of someone else's responsibilities and liberties.

Posted by lrC at October 1, 2004 09:24 PM

IrC:

Canada is a nation that is impossible to defend, either from conventional or terrorist attacks. It always has been and likely always will be.

Canada's primary danger comes from sitting right next to the U.S, so likely to be attacked. Conversely, one of America's primary dangers comes from sitting next to Canada, so vulnerable to attack. Let the irony sink in.

One Canadian academic (who's name escapes me) has said that Canada's principal defence priority is to do just enough to convince the U.S that we're not a liability.

So IF Canada is gaining "priveleges and security at the expense of someone else's responsibilities and liberties" it's not because we ever asked for it. It's because it was imposed upon us.

Canada wouldn't need the security the U.S provides if we weren't a geopolitical extension of the U.S. Just consider that this isn't necessarily something that is desireable for either country, but that its not all Canada's fault.

Posted by Matt F. at October 2, 2004 02:45 AM

You need to expand your view a bit beyond the Canada-US relationship to see the full meaning of my statement.

Posted by lrC at October 4, 2004 04:51 PM

Test.

Posted by David Mader at November 15, 2004 08:36 PM

Post a comment