Canada-Palooza!
In "Welcome To Canada" (March 21), Matt Labash engages in a long criticism of our neighbor to the north. His knee-jerk attack on Canada, Canadians, and their government and culture is rich in sarcastic one-liners and vicious jabs. But the gags quickly collapse into tedium.
Labash cannot even bring himself to admit that two native sons of Canada, Dan Aykroyd and John Candy, are/were actually funny (though I won't comment on Alan Thicke). Moreover, he fails to recognize the majesty of that wonderful country or the talents of its people.
Having spent many years participating in the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, an exchange of legislators between the two nations, I have had the opportunity to visit many areas of Canada, and I can attest to the warm amity of the Canadian government and the vitality of the Canadian people. (And yes, Mr. Labash, I find most Canadians friendly and gracious.)
Although Labash says that he "wasn't keen" on the liberation of Iraq, he admits to working "in the belly of the neocon beast that gets partial credit for hatching it." Is this a tirade against Canada for not joining in the Iraq war? If so, Labash should recognize Canada's past support in World War I and World War II (on the beaches of Normandy), their military support in Afghanistan, and their help in peacekeeping missions around the world. I am grateful for Canada's assistance in preserving freedom.
In fact, we could learn a few things from Canada, such as broadband deployment and producing enough energy to be an exporter (including to the United States). More important, Canada is a democracy and a vital ally in the war on terror. Our nations share the world's longest demilitarized border, and I join many of my colleagues in appreciating this special relationship with Canada.
I prefer to see the people of Canada by remembering those who opened their homes to American travelers stranded in the aftermath of 9/11 and those who gathered on Parliament Hill in support of the United States. After this grand gesture, over 25,000 Canadians went to New York in a moving display of solidarity.
These events offer more accurate portraits of our northern neighbors. And in this instance, I think the "Great White Waste of Time" is Labash's article.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)
Washington, DC
Matt Labash responds: I'm not quite sure how to reason with a man who maintains that Dan Aykroyd is funny, other than to guess that Rep. Stearns has never seen Blues Brothers 2000, Coneheads, or Exit to Eden, to name just three Aykroyd crimes against humanity.
Far be it from me to quibble with a member of the distinguished Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, but I'm a little confused as to whether Canadians are aware of the "special relationship" alluded to by Stearns. While Canadians did express post-9/11 solidarity, as Stearns claims, their Hallmark sentiments quickly dissipated. A 2002 Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 84 percent of Canadians believed America bore at least some responsibility for the terrorist attacks.
If Stearns takes issue with my characterization of Canadians' obsessive anti-Americanism, perhaps he'll accept the verdict of his own counterparts on the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. In 2003, Canada's Hill Times, a political weekly, obtained a draft letter intended for then-Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien. It was authored by the Group's two co-chairs and approved by the majority of members, but never went beyond the draft stage when several MPs balked, failing to achieve the desired unanimous consent. In it, the authors expressed regret at the "deterioration of the relationship between the U.S. and Canada," the state of which they claimed had reached "ground zero." The letter condemned "scornful, disdainful, even condescending, if not openly contemptuous, statements showered by Parliamentarians upon Americans."
Stearns can "prefer" to see Canadians however he wishes. But even the bulk of his Canadian counterparts have opted for reality over his rose-colored illusions.
I will admit to having felt a certain trepidation when I saw The Weekly Standard's March 21 issue contained a feature article about Canada by Matt Labash. I feared the wry arrogance that makes Labash such a pleasure to read would foster an international incident.
Having just finished the piece, however, I am pleased to report that Labash has written one of the smartest and most enjoyable pieces I've read in your pages in some time. I've vacationed in Toronto, so I'm sensitive to the "flannel-wearing lumberjack" stereotype of the average Canadian that simply doesn't ring true. But Labash's piece is a fair and honest assessment, dabbling into stereotype only occasionally for comic effect.
Kevin Corlett
Chicago, IL
Everything Matt Labash said about Canada was true and not necessarily news to Canadians. However, Labash consistently provided only half the story.
Start with national missile defense. Canadians simply think it's a bad idea. We also thought the Vietnam war was a bad idea, so we opted out. Of course, we opted in to World War II two years before the Americans did and joined the fight in World War I three years earlier.
A few other facts Labash omitted. Until last summer, Canada had the second-largest contingent in Afghanistan. Canadians participated in the Bosnia operation before (and in larger numbers than) the Americans. And Canada went along with the United States in Kosovo.
I guess America's grievance with Canada on the foreign policy front seems to be that we don't always agree. But isn't that what separate sovereign nations--even the closest of allies--inevitably do?
In the economic and social arenas, Labash rightly points out Canada's health care woes, the separatist problem in Quebec, and our relative decline in the United Nations's meaningless rankings (an odd evidentiary citation for The Weekly Standard, by the way). Fair enough, but Labash should also admit that Canada's federal government is in budget surplus and is the only G-7 country paying down its national debt.
Ultimately, Canada resembles the United States more than any other nation on the planet. We coexist peacefully and prosperously--and when it really counts, Canadians stand with Americans. Surely, like any big brother with fellow feeling, the United States can overlook a few of its diminutive sibling's insecurities and vanities.
G.C. Kellow
Ottawa, Ontario
As an American married to a former Canadian (my wife became a U.S. citizen in 1993), I could not resist Matt Labash's article on Canada. It took me quite a while to stop laughing.
My main criticism of Labash is that he failed to discuss regional variations. My wife hails from Saskatchewan, a prairie province where pro-American sentiment is far stronger than in Ontario. The prairie provinces are also sharply different in their politics from British Columbia and Quebec.
Indeed, it's my feeling that sectional differences are far more profound in Canada than they are in the United States. Leaving aside Quebec, the asinine anti-Americanism you read about is mostly concentrated in the Ontario province and certain enclaves outside that province. My relatives always stress that they do not share these attitudes.
Many prairie province settlers originally came over from the United States, and there was a lot of moving back and forth looking for jobs and land. Canadian scholars have noted that different regions of Canada have ties to various American states that are at least as strong as their ties to the rest of Canada. The prairies look to our Northern Plains; British Columbia looks to the Pacific Northwest; the Maritimes have longstanding ties to New England; and so forth.
If Quebec secedes, Western Canadians, who have long felt exploited by "the East" (meaning Ontario and Quebec), may start their own independence movement. The current bout of silly anti-American sentiment may cause serious stresses in the Canadian confederation.
Tim Erlander
Richfield, MN
Matt Labash hit the proverbial nail right on its nose-pointed-upward Canadian head. As a dual citizen of Canada and the United States, I say that with sadness and embarrassment. But I had several good laughs--in dismay--at the situations Labash described.
I had occasion about a year ago to be in a private reception where then-Canadian ambassador to the United States Michael Kergin was speaking. Afterwards, I chatted with Kergin very briefly and brought up my concern for the sorry state of anti-Americanism in Canada.
Kergin nodded his head in understanding of my comments--and then responded, essentially, "Americans tend to identify themselves by who they are; Canadians tend to identify themselves by who they are not." Fortunately, he did not say it with pride.
John Boland
Vienna, VA
I thoroughly enjoyed Matt Labash's article on Canada. Sadly, most of what Labash wrote is true. Canada is becoming more and more socialist by the day.
I am a physician in Ontario. Presently we are in negotiations with the provincial government. We are facing a doctor shortage and the government's proposed fix is to organize collectivist teams to provide health care. Doctors are being paid more to enter these teams than they are under the old fee-for-service system in an effort to coerce MDs to join the collectives. Those of us who value our individual rights are scoffed at as the lunatic fringe. We are currently paid less to work on the weekends than during the weekdays.
Canada's once vaunted health system is crumbling. Meanwhile, the nation's central planners concoct schemes to fix it that simply make matters worse.
Glenn Pearce
Waterloo, Ontario
Errata
In Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes's "Professors of Denial" (March 21), the former Soviet spy Hede Massing was incorrectly listed as Hedda Massing.
Because of an editing error, we mistakenly identified one of our contributors with the wrong middle initial. The author of "Forgotten Founder" (March 14) was Pepperdine University professor Robert G. Kaufman. Our apologies to Mr. Kaufman.