CBC: Wide Divide between Canada & US

[Winnipeg Fury]

Bush re-election highlights wide divide between Canada and U.S.

08:19 PM EST Nov 04

BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON (CP) - There's a new map of North America making the rounds where all the so-called blue states that went Democratic in this week's U.S. election are now part of Canada.

It's a joke, winding its way via e-mail across the continent, but it belies the wide divide between Canada's view of the world and the views of Americans who re-elected President George W. Bush. And it reinforces the notion that many Democrats are more comfortable with Canada's liberal take on social policy and its tradition of separating politics from religion.

"There's queasiness in the blue states, with Bush's political style, his conservatism, the evangelical religiosity he wears on his sleeve," says Stephen Newman, a political scientist at York University in Toronto.

"I think all of that makes Canadians a little queasy too."

Bush's big success was in galvanizing fundamentalists, who have a long tradition in the United States, and regular church-goers of all sorts.

He also appealed more to Americans in rural areas and small towns in the "heartland," while Democrat John Kerry prevailed in cosmopolitan urban centres.

Many Bush supporters reported that moral issues like banning same-sex marriage, limiting abortion rights and cutting funds for embyronic stem-cell research topped their list of concerns.

In fact, gay marriage was banned in all 11 states that had the question on election ballots.

Those profound conservative convictions make many Canadians nervous as they consistently move in the opposite direction on such critical social issues.

And it's hard for Canadians, or many Europeans for that matter, to understand the intense involvement of the religious right in U.S. policy, which dates back to the Moral Majority of the 1970s.

Even issues like the Iraq war and anti-terrorism engaged Americans on moral grounds in the election and people nervous about their security flocked to the faith-based Bush.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, America turned inward and Bush resorted to the kind of "you're in or you're out" doctrine that has alienated many Canadians and other key allies.

"Just about everybody is mad at us and for reasons that are real," says Chris Sands, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"Canadians are closer to the other side of the U.S. divide, the softer side, the pre-Sept. 11th America."

That some north of the border can't remotely identify with the siege mentality that has overtaken much of American politics was evident in Wednesday's comments by Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish, who called Bush "war-like" and "completely out of step with most of the free world."

"I guess it's a reflection of the profound psychological damage of 9-11," she added.

Adding to the chasm between Canada and the U.S. is the fact that Americans have moved steadily away from seeing government as the solution to societal ills like poverty after costly programs in the 1960s didn't provide the expected results and spurred a huge backlash.

Liberalism has come to symbolize high taxes and the unwelcome interference of government in much of the U.S., the antithesis of Canada's national pride in its public health-care system and focus on tolerance and equal opportunity.

"I definitely feel there's a level of social consciousness in Canada that I relate to," said artist Chris Walsh, 49, a New Hampshire native who lives in Brooklyn with his Canadian wife and son.

"I don't get the feeling that Canadians are simply looking out for themselves. As a group, I can't understand how Americans can say we don't care about what the rest of the world thinks."

The big question is whether, in the interest of uniting Americans, Bush will return to some of the goals he professed in 2000, including a "compassionate conservative" agenda and a humble foreign policy.

Many analysts didn't see it as likely, especially after being handed what Bush called "earned capital" in an election that increased Republican majorities in both levels of Congress.

"I'm going to spend it for what I've told the people I'd spend it on," said Bush, who vowed to press ahead with his tough anti-terrorism war at all costs.

Some U.S. analysts blame Bush for exacerbating the fears of Americans with a campaign that traded heavily on his leadership after 9-11, a traumatic event that allowed him to restrict some civil rights that Canadians regard as sacred.

"It is legitimate that people have safety concerns," said Clarence Lusane, a political scientist at American University's school of international service.

"But Republicans built their campaigns around these fears rather than people's hopes. And people have been willing to give up rights that have existed for more than a couple hundred years because these fears have been exploited."

Newman, for one, says it's possible that the U.S.-Canada divide will grow over the next four years.

"More of the same is not going to make Canadians feel any better. If the situation in Iraq gets worse, the Canadian public will grow even more disaffected."

© The Canadian Press, 2004

[Winnipeg Fury]

Most Canadians oppose missile defence: poll

Last Updated Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:05:22 EST

OTTAWA - A new survey suggests 52 per cent of Canadians don't want Prime Minister Paul Martin to sign on to the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence System.

Washington is already moving ahead on the plan. It has placed 10 of the land-based missiles in western states, poised to shoot down incoming threats to the United States.

* INDEPTH: Missile defence system

On this side of the border, Martin has repeatedly said Canada must do its part in defending North America as long as there's a guarantee it won't lead to putting weapons in space.

A poll released Thursday suggests a decision to join the American system poses a major political risk for Martin's minority government, however.

The poll, conducted by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada and called "Portraits of Canada," questioned more than 3,000 people between mid-September and mid-October.

It showed more than half of Canadians don't want any part of the plan, though 46 per cent support this country's involvement.

Opposition to the plan was strongest among people polled in Quebec. In the province where Martin's Liberals lost more than a dozen seats in the June 28 election, 65 per cent of those surveyed said they oppose Canada joining the missile defence system.

Support for the system is strongest in Newfoundland and Labrador (66 per cent) and in Alberta (54 per cent).

More passion among those opposed

Donna Dasko is the vice-president of the polling firm Environics, which conducted the survey in English Canada.

She said the key finding was that people who oppose missile defence feel much more strongly about the issue than those who support it.

"The passion is on the side of not participating. That's where the voices are going to be strongest in saying, 'This country shouldn't be doing this.'"

Members of the Liberal caucus are also deeply divided over whether Canada should join in the missile defence system.

Defence Minister Bill Graham said he has long thought the government needs to do a better job of explaining what's at stake.

"This is an issue of some complexity, but very important to our U.S. relations," he said.

The poll also found that most Canadians want good relations with the United States, but are increasingly wary of getting too close to their southern neighbour.

That concern was fuelled by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 19 months ago, as well as the divisive presidential election campaign that returned George W. Bush to the White House this week.

The survey is considered accurate to within 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Written by CBC News Online staff

[SABuffalo786]

CBC should change that title to "Wide divide between Canada & American Midwest and South"

[DoyleG]

How many of those opposed to the missle system are opposed to spending on the military as a whole?

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

How many of those opposed to the missle system are opposed to spending on the military as a whole?

I've got no problem with increased military spending, but am opposed to missile defence.

Considering it will be extremely expensive and a number of US generals have stated that it doesn't work, I fail to see the point.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by SABuffalo786

CBC should change that title to "Wide divide between Canada & American Midwest and South"

That is pretty much what I was going to say. The differences aren't as great as alot of canadians like to make them out to be. In fact IMO they are mostly negligible if you consider that alot of it comes down to demographics and if you look at values and voting patterns, the US and canada are identical.

1) As the first article points out, Canada has far larger proportion of urban and suburban dwellers and just like in the US, rural and small town dwellers vote largely conservative while urban dwellers vote mostly liberal.

2)The US has far more evangelical christians and the overall influence of moral groups is far more significant in the US than in canada. But the voting pattern of these groups is identical in both Canada and the US. Furthermore, In Quebec, the "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960's was almost exclusively about erradicating the power and influence of the church. So you are not going to get any votes there on moral platform. Quebec represents 24-25% of the population in Canada.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

I've got no problem with increased military spending, but am opposed to missile defence.

Considering it will be extremely expensive and a number of US generals have stated that it doesn't work, I fail to see the point.

Those generals aren't going to be in opposition anymore when they knwo the only only allies they have here are "American haters" like Carolyn Parrish.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Those generals aren't going to be in opposition anymore when they knwo the only only allies they have here are "American haters" like Carolyn Parrish.

She called Bush a war-monger. Most of the world (including Canadians) would agree with her.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Those generals aren't going to be in opposition anymore when they knwo the only only allies they have here are "American haters" like Carolyn Parrish.

So you're one of those "you're either with us or against us" types, then, eh?

Just because she (rightfully) called Bush a war-monger does not make her an "American hater".

[ted]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

How many of those opposed to the missle system are opposed to spending on the military as a whole?

Not me. I am a rabid conservative when it comes to defense (I would reintroduce mandatory national service if I was dictator) but the missle defence system is a highly suspect technology with political ramifications that would neuter our military by making them nothing but support troops for the US Missle Command.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

That is pretty much what I was going to say. The differences aren't as great as alot of canadians like to make them out to be. In fact IMO they are mostly negligible if you consider that alot of it comes down to demographics and if you look at values and voting patterns, the US and canada are identical.

1) As the first article points out, Canada has far larger proportion of urban and suburban dwellers and just like in the US, rural and small town dwellers vote largely conservative while urban dwellers vote mostly liberal.

2)The US has far more evangelical christians and the overall influence of moral groups is far more significant in the US than in canada. But the voting pattern of these groups is identical in both Canada and the US. Furthermore, In Quebec, the "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960's was almost exclusively about erradicating the power and influence of the church. So you are not going to get any votes there on moral platform. Quebec represents 24-25% of the population in Canada.

I don't see the logic in your points particularly with regards to the evangelical Christians. The fact that the percentage of evangelical christians and the political power they wield differs greatly in each country is a huge difference between the social make up of both countries. This supports the hypothesis that there are great differences between the two countries although certainly greater between the south and midwest than the north and west coast. Your argument is like saying there would be little difference in the politics of Iranians and Canadians because if the Iranians had a free election and voted for religious radicals Canadian Islamists would have also have voted the same way. Nor is it correct to assume that Canadian evangelicals or rural dwellers while generally being more conservative than other Canadians would have voted for George Bush and the Republicans. Our Consevative Party is to the left of even the Democratic party and the Republican party supports a wide range of values that are distinctly "un-Canadian" and many of which the two above mentioned groups would have a hard time supporting. If Bush were running against Kerry in Canada I doubt Bush would win the majority of the vote amongst either the traditionally conservative rural or western voters and even among evangelicals I think it would be a pretty close race (many Canadian evangelicals while socially conservative do not subscribe to many of the other values of the Republican party and many would consider these Republican beliefs unchristian). Certainly polls showed that Kerry was far more popular than Bush in Canada in every region and social group.

[Grizzly]

I also support increased funding of the military and am against the missile defence system. In fact, the money we would have to spend on this unreliable and unproven system promoted by military companies affiliated with Bush and his cronies would be far better spent on strengthening our conventional forces. The Americans would be far better off to spend this money on preventing delivery of dirty bombs and biological elements in their ports. This is just going to start another arms race with China and Russia who are not presently a threat to us or the US. I don't see the benefit of us joining this questionable endeavor. Assuming the system even works, if the Americans want to shoot down a missile over Canadian territory does anyone really think they will listen to our protests whether we are involved or not. The only country that has ever invaded us is the US and they are still by any analysis the most likely country to invade us in the future. I am not saying this is likely (though world politics can change quickly) but still more likely than a war with any other nuclear power with long range weapons delivery capabilities.

[Guest Ed]

If said missile defence system involves boosters under the NDHQ building in Ottawa, and a payload of a few hundred overpaid, long past their due date, generals, I support it. Otherwise, spend the money on things that the troops, airmen and sailors can make use of.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

So you're one of those "you're either with us or against us" types, then, eh?

Just because she (rightfully) called Bush a war-monger does not make her an "American hater".

Don't be surprised when you've used "either it's healthcare or the military" line for so long.

Only you would say that because you focus on a single part of all the comments she has made. She doesn't know the difference between Ugly Americans and Americans in general.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

So you're one of those "you're either with us or against us" types, then, eh?

Just because she (rightfully) called Bush a war-monger does not make her an "American hater".

Don't be surprised when you've used "either it's healthcare or the military" line for so long.

Only you would say that because you focus on a single part of all the comments she has made. She doesn't know the difference between Ugly Americans and Americans in general.

[massimo]

Increase Military spending....for what reason, just because Bush and his 'war on terror' means we need to spend more on military. Who are we protecting ourselves from anyway?

I have a simple analogy war breeds more war. Every republican president that has been in power since the korean War (Except Ford) havs had wars during theirs terms in office.

The Korean war Eisenhower...Vietnam, Nixon, ...Regan (massive military spending) and the Cold War...Bush Sr, Iraq...Bush Jr, Iraq again.

My point is that all these guys(Republicans) know, it also helps they invest in companies like the Chargyle group. So war helps fill their own their pockets with bling bling.

War...what is it good for?

[massimo]

Increase Military spending....for what reason, just because Bush and his 'war on terror' means we need to spend more on military. Who are we protecting ourselves from anyway?

I have a simple analogy war breeds more war. Every republican president that has been in power since the korean War (Except Ford) havs had wars during theirs terms in office.

The Korean war Eisenhower...Vietnam, Nixon, ...Regan (massive military spending) and the Cold War...Bush Sr, Iraq...Bush Jr, Iraq again.

My point is that all these guys(Republicans) know, it also helps they invest in companies like the Chargyle group. So war helps fill their own their pockets with bling bling.

War...what is it good for?

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by massimo

Increase Military spending....for what reason, just because Bush and his 'war on terror' means we need to spend more on military. Who are we protecting ourselves from anyway?

Yes, and missile defence ! What a joke ! Exactly who is trying to lob nukes at Canada ?

Grizzly is 100% correct. If anyone ever invades Canada (Manisfest Destiny), it will be the US.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by massimo

Increase Military spending....for what reason, just because Bush and his 'war on terror' means we need to spend more on military. Who are we protecting ourselves from anyway?

Yes, and missile defence ! What a joke ! Exactly who is trying to lob nukes at Canada ?

Grizzly is 100% correct. If anyone ever invades Canada (Manisfest Destiny), it will be the US.

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

Yes, and missile defence ! What a joke ! Exactly who is trying to lob nukes at Canada ?

Grizzly is 100% correct. If anyone ever invades Canada (Manisfest Destiny), it will be the US.

[my strange sense of humour (?)]

So if any-one invaded and took over Canada ......and they kept Tim Hortons and our neighbourhood taverns (pubs) open and we kept our jobs ......would we notice ?

But a couple of weeks ago I saw on TV news our one Naval ship that's left to police the Atlantic was in drydock .....GAWD let's hope there's a ton of Dept of Fisheries boats beating the foriegners off the Grand Banks

But do we want spending to leave roof and food issues for military matters after all to give to the military it has to leave some-where ?

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

Yes, and missile defence ! What a joke ! Exactly who is trying to lob nukes at Canada ?

Grizzly is 100% correct. If anyone ever invades Canada (Manisfest Destiny), it will be the US.

[my strange sense of humour (?)]

So if any-one invaded and took over Canada ......and they kept Tim Hortons and our neighbourhood taverns (pubs) open and we kept our jobs ......would we notice ?

But a couple of weeks ago I saw on TV news our one Naval ship that's left to police the Atlantic was in drydock .....GAWD let's hope there's a ton of Dept of Fisheries boats beating the foriegners off the Grand Banks

But do we want spending to leave roof and food issues for military matters after all to give to the military it has to leave some-where ?

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by massimo

Increase Military spending....for what reason, just because Bush and his 'war on terror' means we need to spend more on military. Who are we protecting ourselves from anyway?

I have a simple analogy war breeds more war. Every republican president that has been in power since the korean War (Except Ford) havs had wars during theirs terms in office.

The Korean war Eisenhower...Vietnam, Nixon, ...Regan (massive military spending) and the Cold War...Bush Sr, Iraq...Bush Jr, Iraq again.

My point is that all these guys(Republicans) know, it also helps they invest in companies like the Chargyle group. So war helps fill their own their pockets with bling bling.

War...what is it good for?

Spanish_American War and Philipines Insurgency: McKinley (Republican)

World War I: Wilson (Democrat)

World War II: FDR and Truman (Democrats)

Korea: Truman (Democrat, up to the begining of '53) and Ike (Republican, last 7 months of war)

Vietnam: JFK and LBJ (Democrats) and Nixon (Republican)

1st Gulf War: Bush Sr. (Republican)

Kosovo and Iraqi "Punishment" operations: Clinton (Democrat)

War on Terror and 2nd Gulf War: Bush (Republican)

Since the begining of the 20th century, 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans have been invovled in major conflicts.

[beachesl]

How Bush renenacts the Battle of Fallujah on the cabinet table.

[Desigol]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

How Bush renenacts the Battle of Fallujah on the cabinent table.

Sums up Neo-Cons perfectly.

[jonovision]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Spanish_American War and Philipines Insurgency: McKinley (Republican)

World War I: Wilson (Democrat)

World War II: FDR and Truman (Democrats)

Korea: Truman (Democrat, up to the begining of '53) and Ike (Republican, last 7 months of war)

Vietnam: JFK and LBJ (Democrats) and Nixon (Republican)

1st Gulf War: Bush Sr. (Republican)

Kosovo and Iraqi "Punishment" operations: Clinton (Democrat)

War on Terror and 2nd Gulf War: Bush (Republican)

Since the begining of the 20th century, 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans have been invovled in major conflicts.

I agree that it is painting with far too broad a brush to categorize the Dems as doves and the Reps as hawks, but leaving Reagan out of your list is a gross oversight of the illegal but substantial campaigns he was conducting through the CIA, for the most part in Central America. In more recent history, there are clear differences of scale between Bush Sr.'s attack on Ronnie's pal Saddam, Bush Jr.'s unilateral Iraq trip and Clinton's punitive diversions, especially the Kosovo version.