Stephen Harper must have suffered a few worrying moments, though, as he sat beside Queen Elizabeth and listened to her flattering words of praise:
At 84, the Queen said she has witnessed more than half of Canada's national history and praised what Canada stands for.
"This nation has dedicated itself to being a caring home for its own, a sanctuary for others and an example to the world," she said...The Queen also praised the commitment of the Canadian Forces, and said Canada has reason for optimism, even in trying times.That was dangerous. Nothing turns a "conservative" stomach quite as sourly as the absurd notion that Canada is culturally worthwhile and serves as a global example of social development and civility. To wit, Stephen Harper has made absolutely clear what he thinks of Canada and what he thinks serves as the planetary paragon of everything that is good and true and pure:
Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth[sic], a standard of living substantially lower than yours[sic], a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country[sic], and double the unemployment rate of the United States[sic]...Your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.Harper must have been rendered speechless by the Queen's ingratiating intemperance, as reports of the event lack any evidence that he responded with words of his own, suggesting that he violated the tradition according to which prime ministers are expected to mumble a few platitudinous words on Canada Day. Of course, reporters may have simply guessed (accurately) that nobody would care to hear what Harper had to say and thus left his limping vacuities unrecorded. More likely, Harper has been drained, over the past four holidays, of the shallow pool of vestigial Canadianism he brought with him into office and cannot now utter a pro-Canadian sentiment, however tepid, without self-inducing a grand mal seizure.
That's a shame. Fortunately, Harper has many friends who can speak on his behalf and utter the fascinating perspectives that he, languishing under the discipline of power, is no longer free to claim as his own. Take for example Ann Coulter, darling of Canada's self-loathing right. Ms. Coulter recently slimed her vile way across our fair land as the special guest of Ezra Levant, rabid Harper supporter, former Reform/Alliance Party operative, and the generous soul who stepped aside so that Harper, newly-minted as party leader, could gain a seat in the House of Commons.
What is it about Coulter's world-view that would lead one of Harper's intimate ideological allies to drag that skeletal shrew across our (unfortunately) undefended border and inflict her Canada-hating diatribes on the country? Is it her view that "only the worst people move to Canada"? Is it her assertion that Canadians "should feel lucky that Americans don't just roll over and crush them"?
Is it her wish to see Calgary become the 51st American state (as if it isn't already), which drew a huge cheer from 900 folks in Harper's hometown? Whatever the reason, Coulter's degrading blitherings, and the "Conservative" Party's sponsorship of them, are depressingly revealing of the "conservative" attitude to the nation of which Harper and his Harperoids claim to be passionate defenders.
For Canada-hating slightly more articulate than Coulter's, we may turn to Mr. Leon Craig, a laughable Alberta separatist whose anti-Canadian rantings were accorded a standing ovation at the 2006 Calgary Conference by the likes of CPC Member of Parliament Jason Kenney and two of Stephen Harper's key mentors, Preston Manning and Dr. Barry Cooper. Here is Jason Kenney bringing the assembly greetings from "Canada's New Government":
The content of Craig's presentation may be gauged by his website, a deliriously gauche monument to paranoid ressentiment that features an on-line store wherefrom one may purchase a T-shirt depicting former Prime Minister Paul Martin as a rat. Here is Mr. Craig receiving a token of gratitude from a beaming Link Byfield, Albertan "senator-elect" and one of the country's most strident Harper apologists:
Yes, indeed: Harper-friendly "conservatives" are the go-to folks for true patriot love. And if you believe otherwise, you're a Taliban-sympathising traitor who clearly doesn't understand how lucky you are that America hasn't yet felt it necessary to crush you.
Now, wipe that smug, self-satisfied smile off your face and go have yourself a wonderful Northern European, second-rate socialistic Canada Day!
10 comments:
Good to see a post from you SF.
Actually Harper did say a couple words... something about how Canada in 2010 is the best EVER because our soldiers are in Afghanistan and our economy did less bad than elsewhere.
Actually Harper did say a couple words...
Ah, I see. And I trust his seizure proved manageable...
...Canada in 2010 is the best EVER because our soldiers are in Afghanistan and our economy did less bad than elsewhere.
Indeed. Thank God for the army and our chartered banks—the twin pillars of our greatness.
Nice post, Sir Francis! My takeaway: patriotism requires talent - specifically, a talent for pondering as many as two facts at the same time - and so naturally the CPC cannot be patriotic. I might say the same thing about personal dignity and ultimately virility.
I am really happy you are back SF. I do enjoy your outlining of just radical the CPC is. To their credit, with support structures like the Fraser Institute, they have been able to create their own institutional memory by inculcating their youngest members of their party. What I have noted is that the stability of this process rests on effectively appropriate and redefining Canada's history as a way of maintaining their legitimacy as a party that is 'conserving' whatever that may be.
A most illustrative example is the overlap between the support for American neo-Conservatism with the northern brand. There is great support for Coulter, Sarah Palin and Karl Rove who was a contributor to the G20 Conservative conference. A second observation I have seen is the declaration that it was myth that Canada practiced communitarianism much less collectivism. To me, this practically rewrites(or erases) Tory history altogether.
My biggest laugh or perhaps mild annoyance is the empty gestures of deference to the Monarchy. At least, progressives are overt about their disdain. However, I find it always funny for neo-Conservatives to show such a zeal for direct democracy through elected senates, empowering the executive branch, and admonishing (and practically neutering) the GG but will proclaim loudly that the Monarchy should be steadfastly preserved. If not for constitutional reasons, I really would like to know just why they would like to keep it.
* just how radical
...the CPC cannot be patriotic. I might say the same thing about personal dignity and ultimately virility.
Of course. A "patriot" is someone who considers the interests and needs of his civic community to be authoritative, in the way a father is authoritative ("patriot" = "patria" ["fatherland"] = "pater" ["father"]), while virility proceeds from a man's understanding of himself as fundamentally a man ("virile" = "vir" ["man"]—a human—rather than as fundamentally a consumer or a producer (i.e. a system). Neo-cons daily prove themselves incapable of those self-conceptions.
For them, the nation-state, as an obstacle to the unfettered operation of “pure” market forces, is both a nuisance and an obsolescent irrelevance—except the American nation-state, of course, whose size, messianism and trans-national belligerence are useful disintegrators of the smaller nation-states that lie within its imperial purview.
...the stability of this process rests on effectively appropriate and redefining Canada's history as a way of maintaining their legitimacy as a party...
Absolutely. And the historical illiteracy that distinguishes too many Canadians, especially younger Canadians, has made that process tragically easy. As is true of the U.S., widespread Canadian public ignorance and apathy are key "conservative" assets.
An example. Five years ago, a committee of elites decided to grace our nation's capital with a national memorial to the warriors who've shaped Canadian history. When completed, the Valiants Memorial ended up lacking any mention of the Plains of Abraham and any trace of Wolfe and Montcalm. Nobody (except me, apparently) noticed or gave a shit.
The moral: in a nation whose collective cultural memory barely extends farther than the invention of the Blackberry, real conservatism is well nigh impossible. What you get instead is a cracked-out drag queen doing a bad Maggie Thatcher act in Ayn Rand's fuck-me stilettos on Amateur Night.
If not for constitutional reasons, I really would like to know just why they would like to keep it.
It's part of the cynical "conservative" window dressing, a crucial component of all faux-conservatives.
The rabidly anti-Christian Hitler kept his hands off the German churches (and even negotiated a Concordat with the Vatican) for precisely that reason. Stalin left the Russian Orthodox Church alone and maintained much of Russia's Tsarist iconology, going so far as to resurrect Tsarist slogans and regimental formations during the Soviet campaign on the Eastern Front.
Faux-conservatives need conservative symbols in order to mask their lack of conservative substance: the more impotent the symbol, the better—and nothing is currently more impotent than the monarchical component of our constitution.
Sir Francis:Faux-conservatives need conservative symbols in order to mask their lack of conservative substance: the more impotent the symbol, the better—and nothing is currently more impotent than the monarchical component of our constitution.
Quite true. It's amazing the way these folks wave the red ensign, rail against the Maple Leaf, and write column after column lamenting the renaming of Dominion Day, while they work to destroy the Senate and every other Canadian institution. I don't believe it's an intentional effort to deceive, I really do believe these people get off on marching bands and the snow birds, it's just that they're stupid.
JKG:What I have noted is that the stability of this process rests on effectively appropriate and redefining Canada's history as a way of maintaining their legitimacy as a party that is 'conserving' whatever that may be.
Keep an eye on what happens with the long form census jkg. How long before the CPC gets to define, quite literally, who Canadians are? This is one of the most disturbing policy decisions I've seen in awhile.
It was because of this kind of poor intellectual awareness and historical knowledge & context that I left formal party politics in the early '90s.
As the Party (parties to be fair ...), became highly focused on ideological issues at the expense of praticality in pursuit of a goal (a United and Independent Canada maintaining a unique Northern Kingdom in North America), it became apparent that it was time to leave.
FTA, and then NAFTA, were merely the kickers for me - they were proof that ideology took precedence over the idea of Canada.
What more to say? Canada is a temporal shell that every once-in-a-while shudders out of its morbidity (as when The Queen arrives ...). Such love and awareness is fleeting however, and then we slip back into the dark slumber.
There is no sense of mission - only task. Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho-Hi-Hi, Hi, Ho ...
What you get instead is a cracked-out drag queen doing a bad Maggie Thatcher act in Ayn Rand's fuck-me stilettos on Amateur Night.
SF, I am putting this in the quotable quotes file. Tubourg came out of my nose.
Post a Comment