'Cept that it's not terribly peaceful or orderly, and the good government part is a joke.

--Canadian liberalism has been elite-driven and top-down. --

Monarchy. World hasn't changed, we got away and they hate US for it.

Considering it was a few elite who had the brainy idea of setting up a republic with three competing branches of government and regional representation, the U.S. could be considered elite-driven and top-down, too.

It is not the people who make America different than Canada -- we're selfish bastards (and corrupt, too), just like Americans.

That U.S. Constitution is a nice straight-jacket to have, but I don't doubt the Founders would lose an election in America today.

That analysis went out with the Beards. The Adamses, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. were hardly elite.

ask jimmy carter or ghwb if the u.s. is driven from the top.

Franklin and Jefferson at the least would easily get elected now. Franklin would be a hugh media hit.

Franklin Pierce? I don't think so!

I specifically used the word "elite", not "elitist". If Franklin and Jefferson were not "elite", then there is no such word in the English language. I also said that the distinguishing characteristic of the Founder's legacy is the Constitution, not the people.

So, who are the equivalent men today?

John Kerry is the French-loving land owner who fought against the installed power base by opposing the war on Vietnam. He can't win a national election.

The only people I can think of selfless enough and inventive enough to be Franklin would be open source programmers. These guys can't even crawl out of their basements, much less get elected.

G.W. Bush can't even pass Social Security reform with a majority in both houses. You think he could pass something as ground-breaking as the Constitution? All he has accomplished (which is plenty) is due to the power he inherited from George Washington.

No. It was a special act of God that created the U.S.A. And I, for one, wish we had lost on the Plains of Abraham.

Ah, but they were relatively elitist. They weren't elite.

The Constitution passed on the basis of desperation -- due to the failure of Confederation -- and disinformation -- such as calling the anti-federalists the Federalists.

"Peace, order and good government" doesn't work for Canada?

Keeping their behavior prior to the Iraq war in mind, let me suggest "Work, Family, Country."

Interesting take, oj.

But I still wonder why you think Canadians are any different than Americans... I married an American and we are both grandchildren of immigrants who tilled the soil and invested every penny. Eventually, we may move south, but it won't be the people of Canada (at least Western Canada) who drive us there. It will be a parliamentary style of government that has no God, no King and no conscience.

You answer your own question.

Which is why I've never been able to figure out why when we clean up a country and help it establish a democratic system, be it Germany, Japan or Iraq, why do we use the parliamentary model? Why do we inflict a system which is ultimately going to fail them. (Is there any non-English speaking country with a gov't over a century old? Other than Sweden and Switzerland and the later is a Federal system, like ours) And even among the English speaking countries with parliamentary systems, will Canada's parliamentary system survive another half-century to celebrate its bicentennial? (Or England's survive its perversion by socialism, for that matter?)

Yet ours has worked fairly well over two centuries, adapted with techonological and societal changes (like abolition and suffrage) and still seems to work. Why is that? What is it about American elites that they still have faith in what is obviously not the superior system? The same elites who keep pushing such schemes like proportional voting here, too. Schemes, most of which have zero years of actual practical application. "If it's new, it must be better."

Mr. Voth;

Because the elites don't value those things, but only systems in which their ilk can be in charge. I.e., a parlimentary system. In the view of the elites, they do not want to hobble their fellow members of the ruling class with the impediments they face.

Raoul: Because the political scientists all think that a parlimentary system is better in theory, and they don't care about practice.

oj -- Yes, the question was rhetorical and I am glad you agree that our only difference is our form of government.

(along with, of course, our fondness for black socks with khaki shorts ;-)

I can't figure out why so many here think the Canadian system doesn't "work". In some ways, it works all too well despite the chronic regional dissentions. By and large the country is safe, free, prosperous, clean and orderly. We even go through regular bouts of fiscal prudence. The secular liberal ethos is corrosive, especially on social questions, but is tempered significantly by a well-known (and much-mocked) cultural reserve and decidedly American attitudes to work, entrepreneurialism (?), family and immigration. Hey, all you happiness-pursuers, what is wrong with "peace, order and good government" ? Don't you think it is a little inconsistent to be both painting us as a failed state on the edge of collapse and complaining about all those free rides those spoiled, ungrateful Canadians are getting.

For five years I've thought the problem has been how we have become self-absorbed and insular and forgotten how much of this was built on principles and peoples that transcend our privileged little bubble, and to and for which we owe. Then, I come here and find out the problem is we are near-starving and collapsing in political and social pathology. Do me a favour, guys, don't tell my wife.

I'll go with David and Raoul that that American system is better, mainly because it is more responsive to the democratic will. But it is hardly a case of darkness vs. light. The parliamentary system has its strengths, and you do pay a price through your sovereign, bureaucratic fiefdoms and turf wars and your imperial judiciary.

Peter:

You've quit:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020703/d020703a.htm

Randall:

No, just God.

Hey guys, did you forget? We're all elites here.

Orrin:

"Fight on, my men", Sir William said,
"A little I'm hurt, but yet not slain.
I'll lay me down and bleed a while,
And then I'll rise and fight again."

Peter:

Yes, the Bartons were a family, Canada used to have such things too.

Hmmm. Don't you have some innocent car drivers you need to go harass?