Sounds like Yank Derangement Syndrome to me. It's a painful statement about the state of political discourse in this country that you can't just frankly admit that the United States, for all its warts, is still the single greatest force for good in the world today, without immediately alienating a sizeable chunk of the electorate. This has got to be on the top-five list of Unhealthy Canadian Political Neuroses.

How about voting for policy above party. Like how in the US many will vote for Republican-type policies despite disgust with the Republican political machine.

I've got a question.

Is it possible to disagree with the proposition that the US is the greatest force for good in the world today? Maybe ... because ... you feel such a statement is more appropriate for a junior school debate. It is akin to arguing who's dad is tougher, or who's your favourite Supermodel.

Maybe you believe the evidence suggest most mdoern nations calibrate their foreign policy to correspond to how they understand their national interests. (See Condi Rice Foreign Affairs March 2000: Toward the National Interest). Not as arising from some benevelant desire to do good.

Was it not possible to make an informed decision opposing the US's invasion of Iraq? Or, is any and all Canadian opposition categorically symptomatic of Yank Derangement Syndrome?

To take the opposite tract. It didn't seem to me that many of the Canadian's who supported the Iraqi invasion understood the issue very well. Starting with Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day and ending with Margret Wente and Robert Fulford.

Why should anyone support a party who's leadership displayed what seemed at the time, and has proven to be, an obvious lack of judgement. On a scale that more than rivals creating a Quebec slush fund. If in power what else can Canadians expect the conservatives to get wrong?

Do you really think Iraq has much of chance becoming a Liberal Democracy anyone can be proud of? Venezuala-on-the-Euphrates seems more likely. WWith a Soutern Iraqi Theocracy thrown in for good measure.

Matt,

For now I'm less concerned with eradicating YDS than I am with somehow getting people with YDS to vote other-than-Liberal, and that's what Harper should be concerned with too. And for the record, I've seen YDS, and this fine cabbie didn't have it.

"...the idea that Mr Harper would have had our boys dying for Iraq's freedom was a non-starter with him."

I wonder what he would consider adequate reason to deploy our troops? No Canadian government (or, to be fair Government-in-Waiting) has seriously addressed this question in the past two decades, other than by slathering platitudes on top of bromides, and dusting with a layer of disdain. I'll take your word for the fact that the cabbie didn't suffer from YDS, but I don't think you can make the same assertion about da &*^%$ Liddle Guy who made the call on this issue.

Dean

"...other than by slathering platitudes on top of bromides, and dusting with a layer of disdain..."

You could say the same about virtually any political debate in this country. Health care certainly comes to mind. Fiscal policy? Check. Equalization? Check. Post secondary education? Check. Belinda Stronach? Check.

Why did we have troops in Germany for all those years? Because Canada was unsure about why we should deploy our troops? I think the Red Army and out Nato obligations supplied a pretty good rational.

Then there is the matter of Afghanistan?

I think there was a pretty compelling case to deloy there, one which was accepted by most of the Canadian population.

So let me get this straight. According to DCardno Canada didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq because Prime Minister Jean Chretien suffers from Yank Derangment Syndrome. Good one.

I guess that's why he played so much golf with Clinton. Because he hates America and everything it stands for.

"You could say the same about virtually any political debate in this country."

Yes you could - except Health Care, where they hold the Distain Dusting™ but give you an extra helping of Pious Posturing™ as a side dish. No one is ever disdainful of Health Care.

"Canada didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq because Prime Minister Jean Chretien suffers from Yank Derangment Syndrome."

That's about the size of it.

"I guess that's why he played so much golf with Clinton."

Ummm, wsam - you might have noticed that the US had a little thing they refer to as "an election" (we use the same term for what in other countries is called a coronation) - Clinton had gone on to the speaking tour circuit and the Executive Mansion was no longer home to a Democrat by the time the question came up, even though Raymond Chretien did his best to instruct the damned Yankees on how to vote (and we complain about their ambassador!). The opportunity to kick Bush in the shins was too good for Da Liddle Guy to resist. Given credible reports that the Defense Staff were working on plans for participation in Iraq right up to the time Chretien pulled the plug by announcing a surprise committment to Afghanistan, I think it is the only explanation that fits.

Dean

So what? Would you prefer the Defence Department didn't draw up plans for potential military deployments? That we considered joining in and then didn't doesn't prove Chretien hates the US. (Just what does being anti-American mean anyway? Being against Jazz and comic books, Desperate Housewives?)

The remark I was adressing accused Chretien of anti-Americanism (Yank Derangement Syndrome). That is ignorant to the extreme. His golf buddy Clinton, I might remind you, is an American. In fact, the US requires its presidents to be citizens. Ergo: Chretien doesn't hate the US. You are going to have to look elsewhere to discover why Canadians aren't, at present, toturing people in Abu Gharib.

That he and Bush didn't get along is most likely true. So what? A majority of Canadians, who also liked Clinton, would probably see that as a point in Chretien's favour.

Maybe, in the future, you should inform yourself about an issue before deciding which explanation fits?

...all of which is beside the point (though you're free to continue your palaver), however, I think wsam inadvertently gets at the meat of the nut with this: "A majority of Canadians, who also liked Clinton, would probably see [disliking Bush] as a point in Chretien's favour."

Unless he's so principled that he'd rather lose, Stephen Harper needs some of those people to vote for him. How is he going to make it happen? I'm not quite sure, but I'll say this much: the good vibes Harper builds with his productive "Get tough on softwood" talk are immediately and completely dampened the moment the word "Iraq" passes his lips.

As phenomenal as it seems to reasonable people, Ontarians don't care about AdScam, or not even close to nearly enough to make them vote CPC. Harper's mad as hell, he's not going to take it anymore, and no one gives a single fat damn. Is he going to continue with this strategy, or is he going to try to create some winning conditions? Sadly, I think we all know the answer.

wsam,

You misunderstand me, which I'll assume is my fault. You are welcome to disagree with my assertion and I wouldn't mind having that debate if this were place for it, but my point was that any politician who dared to say something like that would immediately kill their chances of ever becoming Prime Minister, regardless of how sensible their other policies may be. And that's sad.

Maybe I have misunderstood. I wouldn't be the first time. Though, I would hope any politician who capped an agrument by stating the United States of America is the greatest force for good in the world today would be immediately disqualified from high political office as surely as Carolyn Parrish was.

They would be putting on public display a profound misunderstanding, not only of contemporary international realities, but the history which got us here.

As Allen Gottlieb has stated many times, Canada needs a bit more realism and a bit less idealism in its foriegn policy.

The rah rah US stuff is an idealism as naive as anything the left displays. Not only that. But it's brand of naif sentiment seeks to serve the interests of a foriegn power.

"...by stating the United States of America is the greatest force for good in the world today would be immediately disqualified from high political office as surely as Carolyn Parrish was.

"They would be putting on public display a profound misunderstanding, not only of contemporary international realities, but the history which got us here."

So, no doubt you can name a greater 'force for good' wsam? It's not enough to point out that the US has not been an unalloyed force for good, or even that it could have done even better; you have to point at a 'greater force for good' - but that will be easy, since it is merely a counter-argument to an assertion that evidences a 'profound misunderstanding of contemporary realities and recent history.'

It would be nice if your 'greater force for good' had actually, you know, accomplished something - consider that as a bonus mark on this assignment.

I commented earlier the question is juvenile. It still is.

It is unanswerable for a thinking person. Anyone challenging someone on this point is clearly an idiot. Just as anyone would be who blames the US for all the world's ills. Both statements are really about proving loyalty to one side or another.

In the real world countries have interests. Which they follow according to how they interpret those interests.

To suggest the US, or any nation, somehow acts according to some, however defined, universally global interest should be enough to disqualify from high political office. Because it's a naive statement to make, demonstrating they are not ready for the world of grown-ups.

Not that, for example, US and Canadian interests aren't often aligned. But to hold up the US as some sort of shinning foriegn policy beacon is to engage in mythology. Not clear thinking. Which Canada needs more of, not less.

Piffle - a wonderfully nuanced response, but piffle, none-the-less.

Saying that the US is "a force for good" does not imply that they are not acting out of their own interests, although it may imply that those interests are consonant with developments that any thinking person would recognize as "good."

"But to hold up the US as some sort of shinning foriegn policy beacon is to engage in mythology."

No - it is to engage a strawman. The US can actually be a force for good, even without being "the city on the hill" or a foreign policy "beacon" - and that's as far as the assertion that they are currently the 'greatest force for good' does. You aim to discredit the assertion by saying "well, if they aren't perfect (by whatever measure), then they aren't a force (or the 'greatest' force) for good." Alternatively you argue that "if they have their own motives, then they aren't a force for good." Neither of those assertions is logically valid.

I agree that Canada needs more clear thinking: good catch.

What political party has been 'the greatest force for good' in Canadian politics?

The Liberals have been the most powerful and successful of all federal political parties and, thus, have had more of an opportunity to affect change (in their favour). Much of this change has been positive. Some not. All of it has been implemeanted to further the interests of the Liberal party, however implicitly. Furthermore, their electoral success is indisputable.

Does this make them 'the greatest force for good' in Canadian political history?

You don't have to be a rabid conservative or a druid NDPer to see what's wrong with this argument.

"You don't have to be a rabid conservative or a druid NDPer to see what's wrong with this argument."

> There is nothing wrong with the argument - so long as you agree that organizations, whether they be political parties, registered charities, or nations, can be a force for good or bad. In the case of the Liberals I would posit that most of their direct influence has been malign, while most of the positive development that has occurred during their time controlling the political apparatus in the country was due to external factors that they either had no control over (or actively worked against), and would have occurred no matter who was in office. Hence, despite their electoral success, I don't see them as a (net) force "for good." That doesn't mean that I wave my hand and claim that the argument cannot be made.

There are some (perhaps W Kinsella, or J Chretien, for instance) who would no doubt agree with this assessment, or who would make it for themselves. In that case, your response would seem to be "no - that argument is out of bounds, because the Liberal Party is motivated to achieve its own ends, not to achieve the common good." I don't find that to be a convincing reason to consider that the question cannot be discussed - as you note, all actors work to further their own ends at some level; so what?

I never wrote the argument couldn't be made. I wrote it was silly and juvenile. Attempts to define some sort of moral calculus never survive examination.

It's a trap. Refuse to play it.

Here's how it goes:

How can you deny the many fine contributions successive Liberal governments have made to Canada? From Health Care to delivering the Constitution and giving us our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not to mention leading us through World War Two, no government has had more of a positive impact on the fabric of Canadian life and society. Noooooobody.

To deny this you must be a partisan hack, or some creten so alienated from your surroundings you cannot recognize the good that exists in this country.

Yes they've made mistakes, who hasn't. The fact remains, the Liberal party's historical goodness transcends party divides. That is as clear as it is absolute.

Regardless of your particular, Canada-hating pathology, it is obvious you are interested only in scoring points for your side.

Not in serious debate.

You are the Liberal-hating equivilent of someone who denies the good US leadership has accomplished on the world stage. Without the US we wouldn't have the UN!!! You prefer Saddam Hussien ruled Iraq? (or that our constitution sit in Westminister). You must be some wierd form of America-hating, jibber-jabber secretly hoping the jihadis will win. (Please make the obvious replacements yourself).

Therefore, if you don't admit the US (the Liberal Party) has been the biggest force for good in the world (Canada) your opinion is proven to be horribly biased and not worth considering.

Before we can proceed to consideration of the Gomery Report (or Abu Gharib) this point must be conceeded.

Here's another one:

What country has the best democracy?

"Therefore, if you don't admit the US (the Liberal Party) has been the biggest force for good in the world..."

The original assertion was "is" the greatest force for good - that simplifies the analysis somewhat, since we only have to consider current activity. Other than that, I take your point.

As for "Yank Derangement Syndrome" - I think the problem is that in this country you can't get elected if you acknowledged that the US is "a force for good" in the world - and that doesn't matter whether they operate for their own ends or not. Was Chretien afflicted by it? - yes, irrespecive of being a golf buddy of Clintons.

Nobody ever lost a Canadian election by taking cheap shots at the US. Though nobody's ever won one that way either. Unlike in Germany.

I agree reflexive distrust of the US doesn't do anybody any good. Mainly because it doesn't do anything. It's useless. The US isn't going to go away. We have to deal with it and trading in mythology, either from the left or right, only makes the effort more difficult. It's better to try and take the country as a real place.

One thing Iraq demonstrated was how prominent members of the 'right' are just as knee-jerk as some of the 'left' were with Free Trade.

However, things aren't as bad as they could be. Most recent international polls (insert grain of salt here) have recorded Canadians as having a more favourable attitude toward the US than other Western Countries. Canadians apparently like the US by and large more than Brits, Australians, New Zealanders, Germans, Italians, the French etc ...

It seems maybe that familiarity doesn't breed contempt.

"Though nobody's ever won one that way either."

I think we are going find out in the next three months or so...