Anyone Want to Exchange Mottos ?
US sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, contrasted Peace Order an Good Government (Canada’s Moto) with the American tripartite motto (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to conclude Canadians generally believe in a higher degree of deference to the law and to the elite.
Today a Canadian is more likely to smoke pot in public than an American, and it is more likely that the political regime in Canada will change than the Republicans will be shaken from power in the US. The idea of a Liberal elite in Canada has been proven wrong during the last election.
Historically something has changed since Lipset made his famous pronouncement on Canadian culture.
The nature of Government in the US has changed and Canadians relationship to theirs has also changed. Like I said, does anyoine want to exchange Mottos?
michaelsuddard
daniellarocque
abdulalqrim
holigolitely
The troubling thing for me to do, as a Yank, would be the “deference to …. elites” thing.
But maybe that’s just a remnant of a long-lost “Boston tea party” connection. Who knows? So no thanks, Bill.
And btw, it would be much easier for republicans to “shake” the sorry lot wearing our label in DC from power than you might think. There is a strong movement currently underway among grass-roots repubs to only vote for non-incumbent candidates, and throw the rest of the rascals out. With the mandates we gave them, if they can’t govern with class and integrity, they have no right to expect to return, as the feeling goes.
Of course that could turn the congress over to the dems – who are genetically incapable of NOT voting for an incumbent, even one who’s deceased. But since the dem’s in office are so far removed from the reality that is this country, there is little hope they would be able to get organized in time to do anything, except of course give some more of the country away even further.
But I don’t see a nickle’s worth of difference in congress with repubs in charge as with the dems, so tough luck – bud. You can go home!
If only.
49er – Great to hear there are republicans with integrity. I like you’re your comment that;
There is a strong movement currently underway among grass-roots repubs to only vote for non-incumbent candidates, and throw the rest of the rascals out. With the mandates we gave them, if they can’t govern with class and integrity, they have no right to expect to return, as the feeling goes.
We tried that here in Canada and brought in the conservative party of Canada, to some degree, on the anything but liberal vote, but a time out for the liberals might be a good thing, they were getting as corrupt as the “rascals” you are talking about.
Although I would vote Democrat if I was American (sorry 49er) I could handle a republican government that supports social conservatism and neoliberalism, as the republicans claim to do. For several reasons, all to often Democrats in an effort to forward social programs will step too far too fast. The problem is that republicans are, as far as I can tell, to defend traditional American values. If the Bush administration is really republican they should promoting free trade between nations not attempting to control it, be keeping out of the lives of it’s citizens not bugging their phones, protecting their freedoms not reducing them.
The democrats on the other hand need to learn a lesson from the republicans, by learning to live by their values (like the traditional Republicans not some that are in power now ).
Much as I might support the initiatives of Clinton, The man was a moral idiot.
Unlike many democrats I don’t support this nonsense that humans are imperfect so we should ignore the occasional slip.
Sorry making out with an intern isn’t a minor moral lapse. If I can keep my equipment in my shorts, I expect my Prime minister / President to have the same or better self control.
Some are going to run back to my previous posts on forgiveness, but this isn’t an issue of forgiveness it is qualifications. If you don’t inspire trust in your constituents you aren’t qualified.
Surely religion is a relevant consideration here. The strong evangelical demographic in the USA provides a population that is inclined to trust authority figures, and defer to them.
I know, American emphasis on individual freedom is still the bottom line. But I think evangelicals give the benefit of the doubt to the Bush administration, for example, where other citizens are more sceptical.
God bless you, Bill. I just knew you would vote ‘dem’ in the US if given the chance (just like my in-laws) but I don’t hold that against you. Like I said, sometimes its just ‘genetic’. (smile).
I have lots of dem friends who feel – and felt – the way you do about slick willie. What they – and I – couldn’t get over then were the double standards professional dems expounded when a repub got fingers caught in their own personal cookie jar. Blatant and dishonest hypocrisy. But that period is now over – at least for now!
And Q, you’ve made a fair comment. But really, aren’t we supposed to be patient and forgiving. Or is that just for OTHER sinners?
Hopefully Blogger will let me post this today!
I’m not so sure we’ve strayed from our motto.
Perhaps because we have a high degree of deference to the law, particularly to the tradition of the rule of law, is why we have not given up our individual freedoms in the face of 9/11 as much as Americans have. We haven’t allowed our government to go to the lengths the American government has, and if we don’t know about some nefarious doing, our pitbull Auditor General ensures things come out in the open.
I never saw drugs as a moral issue — they are no different than alcohol other than in the manner they alter brain chemistry — but we have turned drug users into criminals, which ruins the peace and creates disorder. The creakingly slow approach we’ve made to decriminalizing pot is the first step in bringing back some peace, like when prohibition was dropped. Not only was sanity restored back then to our laws, but also order in our streets. It’s too bad Harper doesn’t understand the lesson Prohibition taught us.
I’m not sure I understand your point about equating the Liberal elite being turfed to the erosion of good government…other than maybe the sponsorship scandal showed that we don’t have good government? However, I would argue that the outing of the corrupt, the current guilty verdicts coming in, the role of the Auditor General, and Paul Martin deciding to do the right thing, all show that we do have good government. Furthermore, Stephen Harper (much as I dislike the man) is re-energizing our government institutions through his (meek) electoral reforms. A system that remains unchanged becomes stagnant. The strength of the British Parliamentary system comes partly from its ability to evolve, as it has over the centuries. Our government is based on that idea.
Given the fiasco of the last Presidential election, you’d think there’d be cries for changing the anachronistic Electoral College, if not from the politicians, at least from the people and media. I haven’t heard a peep. Meanwhile, here there’s been a steady populist grumbling over the Senate, which the current government is now responding to.
Nope, I don’t think we need to exchange mottoes. Anyway, I wouldn’t want to. Happiness comes from peace.
Talk Talk Talk
1. I never claimed that pot smoking was a moral issue, in fact morality was never mentioned. Although pot possession is not criminal, the public smoking of it is still illegal. So given this do Canadian’s have a “higher deference to the law?”
2. I also did not say anything about the “erosion of the good government.” The point was on deference to the elite. Like it or not both liberal and conservative writers have noted that there is a consistent liberal elite in Canada, were we deferring to it when we elected the conservatives. Also did the decimation of the Conservatives at the end of the Mulroney years show any deference to them? We may not have the American bad habit of growing antigovernment militias but we do have people threatening to behead our PM.
When you asked about switching mottoes, I assumed you were suggesting that the “good government” in our motto had been eroded through the things you’d mentioned such as pot smoking — since I don’t see pot smoking as moral (the reason why it was made illegal in the first place) or political (the reason why governments are averse to reversing the prohibition), just a health issue, from my perspective, I couldn’t understand how that pertained to the motto. I think I’m even more confused now. However, I’ll give it a shot.
“…given this do Canadian’s have a higher deference to the law?”
Unless police see pot out in the open, which would force them to do something about it, they couldn’t care less about enforcing the pot laws. As for Canadians…they too don’t have any deference to silly laws like these, hence the pot cafes etc. The measure of a good law is when the majority support it or at least don’t ignore it blatently, either in the US or Canada.
But…Americans created their country with an inherent suspicion of government (not the same as suspicion of laws) because of the British King’s arbitrariness. I don’t believe Canadians’ have developed the same level of suspicion of their government since 1867. I think we still trust it, and I think that though we sometimes feel we’re electing 5-year dictatorships, we still vote, still debate with each other, still can disagree, all to a much greater extent than Americans. IOW, we’re still engaged with our governments. And I get the sense Canadians are feeling more optimistic in having good government now that we’ve elected a minority one federally.
I’ll continue later, but I’m getting brain cramp! Perhaps you could explain more about what Lipset meant? And when he said it? Also example(s) of how we’ve (historically) deferred to the elite? Thanks!
I don’t necessarily follow Lipset’s conclusion. I should have made it clear I was less discussing the Moto’s than the historical interpretation of them.
Lipset was hung of two words in each Moto “order” in ours and “Liberty” in theirs. Government supplies order to us and Government protects liberty to the US citizen.
That said, what the public does now is less true of what it did in the past.
I used the pot smoking as an example that Canada is no long a nation of Dudley do rights and the US is not so much the wild west of the past.
Whether the police enforce something or not is irrelevant, it just means that they don’t defer to the law as much as any other Canadian (scarey).
That said I have nothing against pot, except it makes me sick (I’m allergic to the stuff).
Sorry that should have read Lipset was “hung on two words” not of
Thanks for the clarification!
“I used the pot…”
I get your point now!! I agree with you. It seems that things have reversed with Canadians more interested in protecting privacy (which is weird given Americans’ historical distrust of government) than Americans and in protecting freedoms. But I think we still want the police to protect us and haven’t gone the way of Florida, for example, who believe it’s OK for individuals to enforce the law — did they end up passing the law that said it’s OK for a civilian to shoot a trespasser? I don’t remember.
Re the police: you’re right it IS scary. Their inability to protect me because of privacy and rental laws upset me and freaked out my family (long story, I’m biding my time as to when to post it). In the end, I solved it with some help of friends. But I don’t feel I can rely on the police anymore even though I would like to.
I personally can’t stand the smell of pot, but I’m with you on the pot issue.