Whisper
June 22nd, 2008, 02:26 AM
'A prosperous Canada means a more dynamic and resilient American economy," John McCain asserted yesterday. If he becomes president, "America is going to expand those ties of friendship and co-operation between our two nations." Most Canadians aren't buying it.
If Canadians were allowed to vote in the U.S. presidential election, according to a Harris-Decima poll, 55 per cent would mark their ballot for Barack Obama, while only 15 per cent would support Mr. McCain.
On the face of it, this makes no sense. Self-interested Canadians should probably be backing the Republicans in this election. Mr. McCain defends and supports free trade, while Mr. Obama has vowed to renegotiate or even rip up the North American free-trade agreement. Mr. McCain came to Canada in the middle of an election campaign to make exactly that point to American voters.
"Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls," he told the Economic Club of Canada.
That Canadians themselves have no time for his message, that they support a Democratic candidate who could visit great harm upon the Canadian economy, might be a sign of Canadian foolhardiness. It might also, however, reveal a deeper wisdom.
Canadians may see Mr. Obama as the prime minister they never had.
"Nations don't have friends, they have interests," as Lord Palmerston (or maybe it was Talleyrand, or maybe Metternich) is supposed to have said. Canada's interests strongly coincide with the campaign platform of Mr. McCain.
Yesterday, Mr. McCain vowed to defend NAFTA "without equivocation," and to work at reducing border lineups and streamlining regulations.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is a NAFTA skeptic. "NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people," his website declares. "Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers."
When Austan Goolsbee, Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser, reportedly told Canadian diplomats that Mr. Obama's statements on NAFTA were mere campaign rhetoric, the ensuing controversy embarrassed both the candidate and the Canadian government.
Mr. Obama does appear to be trying to distance himself from some of his earlier tough talk, telling Fortune magazine that some of his trade rhetoric was "overheated and amplified." But his support for increased trade ties with Canada is lukewarm at best, and he could actually prove hostile to the bilateral trading relationship.
Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the United States (among many other things), believes Mr. Obama's protectionist claims should be "kept in a box," because no one knows whether and how he will act on this file.
"Let's just wait and see what happens," he advises.
But while we wait, the border is thickening. New passport requirements contributed to a 12.4-per-cent drop in visits to Canada last year. There were 2.3 million visitors to Canada last year, the lowest number since 1972. New inspection requirements have increased the wait times for southbound border crossings by 20 per cent.
Figures in the Department of Homeland Security view Canada with a suspicious eye. At a gathering a few weeks ago, I chatted with a very pleasant woman who was joined by her rather drunken husband, a mid-ranking official in Homeland Security. When he learned I was a Canadian journalist, he growled: "You guys let a lot of people in and you don't know who they are."
Last year, a pilot project that would have allowed trucks crossing the border to be prescreened at an inland facility and sealed, so that they could then cross the border without having to line up for inspection, was scotched by Homeland Security, which now appears to have a veto over any border initiative and is happy to exercise it.
Meanwhile, rabid populists such as the CNN commentator Lou Dobbs are stoking American fears about illegal immigration and economic decline, demanding that continental economic integration be reversed.
"The idea that the United States should fear being taken over by its weaker neighbours is bizarre," Robert Pastor, a prominent foreign-policy consultant and scholar, wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "but it is becoming a staple of the populist critique."
So the last thing Canada needs is a protectionist in the White House, especially since every indicator is pointing to major Democratic gains in Congress. Heavily Democratic Congresses tend to be protectionist — this senator wants her state's steel industry protected from competition; that congressman wants to reopen the softwood lumber issue.
"Canadians need to get over their love affairs with Democrats," warns Mr. Burney, "though given the sour mood of middle America, we will have to be vigilant in defending our interests, no matter who wins."
Ottawa counts on the White House to resist, or at least temper, these protectionist pressures. But Mr. Obama wants to reinforce them, by demanding that Canada and Mexico reopen negotiations.
What Mr. Obama actually wants to discuss with Canada is an open question. He argues that future trade agreements should contain environmental and labour protections, so that Third World (read Mexican) sweatshops can't undercut American workers.
But just how is Canada a laggard in protecting the environment and the rights of workers? Three times I have asked this question in conference calls with Obama campaign officials. They have no answers. One congressman specifically said that Mr. Obama was referring to Mexico, not Canada. Yet Mr. Obama persists in specifically mentioning Canada when promising to reopen NAFTA.
David Emerson, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, has warned that if NAFTA gets reopened, its provisions guaranteeing the United States a secure supply of Canadian petroleum will also be on the table. Great. Just what we need. A trade war.
Beyond the specifics of trade is the question of perception and priorities. Mr. Obama would be America's first truly Pacific president, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. Economically and geopolitically, his country's global perspective has been shifting south toward Latin America and west toward the Pacific for years. An Obama presidency could be expected to accelerate this, with Canada and Europe the losers.
NO FRIEND OF OUR SNOW
Besides, he doesn't like our weather. Advisers confess that Mr. Obama isn't happy when he has to bundle up. His upbringing conferred a permanent preference for tropical breezes over "but it's a dry cold." (Note to Ottawa: If you invite President Obama up for talks, wait till July and make it Vancouver.) Given all this, it should be obvious that, for Canada, Mr.
McCain is a preferable choice — an experienced, multilateralist free trader who could be counted on to protect NAFTA and who would be sympathetic to Canada's interests, should Congress start to get ugly.
And yet for so many other reasons, which are every bit as important as they are intangible, Canadians identify with Mr. Obama.
The most obvious reason is that Canadians are Democrats, except in Alberta. It has been said that the greatest contribution Canada could make to global civilization would be to allow ourselves to be annexed by the United States, thus ensuring Democratic administrations in perpetuity.
So when Mr. Obama speaks of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, when he calls for greater public involvement in health care, when he promises to fight global warming, he is promoting policies and espousing values shared by some Americans but most Canadians.
More important, Mr. Obama epitomizes the multicultural present that Canada celebrates. While we are stuck with an uninspiring assortment of mostly middle-aged white males to lead our country, Americans are contemplating electing a Kenyan-American who has an Indonesian-American half-sister who is herself married to a Chinese-Canadian doctor. Mr. Obama shouldn't belong to the United States. He should belong to us.
And perhaps at an intuitive level, Canadians understand that America needs Mr. Obama. The country is in a funk. Recent polling shows that 80 per cent of American believe their country is headed in the wrong direction, a higher number than at any time since polling began.
Whether or not Canadians grasp the specifics of Mr. Obama's platform, they seem emphatically to buy his message of hope and change. What sort of change, what sort of hope? That's not the point. The world is a happier, healthier safer place when the United States is abiding by its Constitution, when its economy is expanding and its public finances are in order, when it respects its friends and deals responsibly with its enemies. Canadians and, it would appear, people around the world believe Barack Obama better than John McCain can heal the wounds America has inflicted on itself.
Beyond that, "more and more it seems to me that Barack Obama's staying power appears to come from the fact that he gets above the partisan rancour that dominates politics," Mr. Burney suspects.
It just may be that Americans and Canadians both have reached the limit of their tolerance for the personal partisan attacks that have characterized politics since at least the 1990s.
"The public tunes out," Mr. Burney believes. It may be that Mr. Obama is getting them to tune back in.
If so, then Canadians support Mr. Obama despite his disquieting talk on trade because Canadians want change they can believe in too, and can't find it in any of their own leaders.
It is the perceived grace of Mr. Obama that fires Canadians' imagination, which should chill the blood of the tired, querulous men who lead us.
If Canadians were allowed to vote in the U.S. presidential election, according to a Harris-Decima poll, 55 per cent would mark their ballot for Barack Obama, while only 15 per cent would support Mr. McCain.
On the face of it, this makes no sense. Self-interested Canadians should probably be backing the Republicans in this election. Mr. McCain defends and supports free trade, while Mr. Obama has vowed to renegotiate or even rip up the North American free-trade agreement. Mr. McCain came to Canada in the middle of an election campaign to make exactly that point to American voters.
"Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls," he told the Economic Club of Canada.
That Canadians themselves have no time for his message, that they support a Democratic candidate who could visit great harm upon the Canadian economy, might be a sign of Canadian foolhardiness. It might also, however, reveal a deeper wisdom.
Canadians may see Mr. Obama as the prime minister they never had.
"Nations don't have friends, they have interests," as Lord Palmerston (or maybe it was Talleyrand, or maybe Metternich) is supposed to have said. Canada's interests strongly coincide with the campaign platform of Mr. McCain.
Yesterday, Mr. McCain vowed to defend NAFTA "without equivocation," and to work at reducing border lineups and streamlining regulations.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is a NAFTA skeptic. "NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people," his website declares. "Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers."
When Austan Goolsbee, Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser, reportedly told Canadian diplomats that Mr. Obama's statements on NAFTA were mere campaign rhetoric, the ensuing controversy embarrassed both the candidate and the Canadian government.
Mr. Obama does appear to be trying to distance himself from some of his earlier tough talk, telling Fortune magazine that some of his trade rhetoric was "overheated and amplified." But his support for increased trade ties with Canada is lukewarm at best, and he could actually prove hostile to the bilateral trading relationship.
Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the United States (among many other things), believes Mr. Obama's protectionist claims should be "kept in a box," because no one knows whether and how he will act on this file.
"Let's just wait and see what happens," he advises.
But while we wait, the border is thickening. New passport requirements contributed to a 12.4-per-cent drop in visits to Canada last year. There were 2.3 million visitors to Canada last year, the lowest number since 1972. New inspection requirements have increased the wait times for southbound border crossings by 20 per cent.
Figures in the Department of Homeland Security view Canada with a suspicious eye. At a gathering a few weeks ago, I chatted with a very pleasant woman who was joined by her rather drunken husband, a mid-ranking official in Homeland Security. When he learned I was a Canadian journalist, he growled: "You guys let a lot of people in and you don't know who they are."
Last year, a pilot project that would have allowed trucks crossing the border to be prescreened at an inland facility and sealed, so that they could then cross the border without having to line up for inspection, was scotched by Homeland Security, which now appears to have a veto over any border initiative and is happy to exercise it.
Meanwhile, rabid populists such as the CNN commentator Lou Dobbs are stoking American fears about illegal immigration and economic decline, demanding that continental economic integration be reversed.
"The idea that the United States should fear being taken over by its weaker neighbours is bizarre," Robert Pastor, a prominent foreign-policy consultant and scholar, wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "but it is becoming a staple of the populist critique."
So the last thing Canada needs is a protectionist in the White House, especially since every indicator is pointing to major Democratic gains in Congress. Heavily Democratic Congresses tend to be protectionist — this senator wants her state's steel industry protected from competition; that congressman wants to reopen the softwood lumber issue.
"Canadians need to get over their love affairs with Democrats," warns Mr. Burney, "though given the sour mood of middle America, we will have to be vigilant in defending our interests, no matter who wins."
Ottawa counts on the White House to resist, or at least temper, these protectionist pressures. But Mr. Obama wants to reinforce them, by demanding that Canada and Mexico reopen negotiations.
What Mr. Obama actually wants to discuss with Canada is an open question. He argues that future trade agreements should contain environmental and labour protections, so that Third World (read Mexican) sweatshops can't undercut American workers.
But just how is Canada a laggard in protecting the environment and the rights of workers? Three times I have asked this question in conference calls with Obama campaign officials. They have no answers. One congressman specifically said that Mr. Obama was referring to Mexico, not Canada. Yet Mr. Obama persists in specifically mentioning Canada when promising to reopen NAFTA.
David Emerson, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, has warned that if NAFTA gets reopened, its provisions guaranteeing the United States a secure supply of Canadian petroleum will also be on the table. Great. Just what we need. A trade war.
Beyond the specifics of trade is the question of perception and priorities. Mr. Obama would be America's first truly Pacific president, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. Economically and geopolitically, his country's global perspective has been shifting south toward Latin America and west toward the Pacific for years. An Obama presidency could be expected to accelerate this, with Canada and Europe the losers.
NO FRIEND OF OUR SNOW
Besides, he doesn't like our weather. Advisers confess that Mr. Obama isn't happy when he has to bundle up. His upbringing conferred a permanent preference for tropical breezes over "but it's a dry cold." (Note to Ottawa: If you invite President Obama up for talks, wait till July and make it Vancouver.) Given all this, it should be obvious that, for Canada, Mr.
McCain is a preferable choice — an experienced, multilateralist free trader who could be counted on to protect NAFTA and who would be sympathetic to Canada's interests, should Congress start to get ugly.
And yet for so many other reasons, which are every bit as important as they are intangible, Canadians identify with Mr. Obama.
The most obvious reason is that Canadians are Democrats, except in Alberta. It has been said that the greatest contribution Canada could make to global civilization would be to allow ourselves to be annexed by the United States, thus ensuring Democratic administrations in perpetuity.
So when Mr. Obama speaks of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, when he calls for greater public involvement in health care, when he promises to fight global warming, he is promoting policies and espousing values shared by some Americans but most Canadians.
More important, Mr. Obama epitomizes the multicultural present that Canada celebrates. While we are stuck with an uninspiring assortment of mostly middle-aged white males to lead our country, Americans are contemplating electing a Kenyan-American who has an Indonesian-American half-sister who is herself married to a Chinese-Canadian doctor. Mr. Obama shouldn't belong to the United States. He should belong to us.
And perhaps at an intuitive level, Canadians understand that America needs Mr. Obama. The country is in a funk. Recent polling shows that 80 per cent of American believe their country is headed in the wrong direction, a higher number than at any time since polling began.
Whether or not Canadians grasp the specifics of Mr. Obama's platform, they seem emphatically to buy his message of hope and change. What sort of change, what sort of hope? That's not the point. The world is a happier, healthier safer place when the United States is abiding by its Constitution, when its economy is expanding and its public finances are in order, when it respects its friends and deals responsibly with its enemies. Canadians and, it would appear, people around the world believe Barack Obama better than John McCain can heal the wounds America has inflicted on itself.
Beyond that, "more and more it seems to me that Barack Obama's staying power appears to come from the fact that he gets above the partisan rancour that dominates politics," Mr. Burney suspects.
It just may be that Americans and Canadians both have reached the limit of their tolerance for the personal partisan attacks that have characterized politics since at least the 1990s.
"The public tunes out," Mr. Burney believes. It may be that Mr. Obama is getting them to tune back in.
If so, then Canadians support Mr. Obama despite his disquieting talk on trade because Canadians want change they can believe in too, and can't find it in any of their own leaders.
It is the perceived grace of Mr. Obama that fires Canadians' imagination, which should chill the blood of the tired, querulous men who lead us.