October 20, 2005


How Bush muddied relations with Canada (Thomas Oliphant, October 20, 2005, Boston Globe)

People in this country don't pay enough attention, but there is no relationship in the world more important than the one with Canada. Right now it is a needless mess.

All you need to know about Canada is that it's the one Anglosphere nation not pursuing the Third Way and has been useless if not antagonistic in the War on Terror. We just don't share a common worldview with them so we aren't likely to be particularly friendly. Essentially, they've gone over to the European side while we've developed closer ties with significant nations like India.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 20, 2005 7:46 AM

A little Canada-bashing always goes well with the morning toast and coffee, but where does your idea that we aren't heavily involved in the WOT or that we're following some Franco/German inspired second way come from? It was Iraq that we messed up and our public finances and economy are in far better shape than they were ten years ago. We haven't had a new major general benefit programme in decades and most of the ones we have have been cut. You can't have missed that we score fine on those competitiveness/growth charts you post occasionally. Surely you don't really mean Britain is headed in a more promising general direction than Canada? Seriously, I'm not baiting, just wondering where all this comes from.

Posted by: Peter B at October 20, 2005 8:20 AM

Iraq is the WoT and Canada refused to even support the Blair resolution at the UN:


Yes, Britain is headed in the right (Right) direction. Consider just Health:


Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 8:28 AM

'..there is no relationship in the world more important than the one with Canada'

Sure, Tom. Now go lie down and get a little rest.

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at October 20, 2005 10:10 AM

"Right now it is a needless mess."

This is true. Canada needn't have acted so rashly as to annoy so many of the few Americans who even know they exist...

Posted by: b at October 20, 2005 11:41 AM

What's this "Third Way" you keep mentioning? Can you define it?

Posted by: Chet at October 20, 2005 12:09 PM

Do bow-ties cut off blood circulation to the brain?:

Senator Simon, Oliphant, tha twit who used to be on Crossfire, now George Will over Miers . . .

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 20, 2005 1:52 PM

French influence. See Lousiana, State of.

Posted by: Gideon at October 20, 2005 2:11 PM


The First Way was the libertarian/Social Darwinist epoch where government provided few or no services and folks sank or swum on their own. The Second Way was the spectrum of socialist responses to that--driven by the extension of the franchise to the poor and women and accelerated at least here by the Depression--whereby the state provided universal retirement, unemployment, welfare, and health services.

The Third Way recognizes that the Second Way is too inefficient because of its top-down nature but that the people demand more than the First Way. It therefore uses capitalistic means--private providers, competition, choice, etc.--to provide the safety net ends of the Second Way.

Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 2:30 PM

Canadian papers and bloggers, Peter?

Candians define themselves by what they're not, which is American.

So, do you think Alberta's separatist movement has a shot?

Posted by: Sandy P at October 20, 2005 3:09 PM

The ideal situation would be for Alberta to find a way to leverage a reform of the rest of the country, or at least find a way to loosen the grip of the Quebec appeasing Axis of Evil that runs the country.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 20, 2005 3:40 PM


They have a very long way to go. Nobody would stop them, but they are far from the critical mass you need to move into the realm of the seriously plausible. As many Quebecers could tell you, overestimating Canada's fragility is a good way to lose bets. They are still a very small and somewhat marginal minority and, for starters, they can't seem to decide among themselves who would be in and who wouldn't, i.e. B.C. and the rest of the West.

Posted by: Peter B at October 20, 2005 4:56 PM


You are completely ignoring the gulf between the word and the deed that characterizes politics and public opinion up here. Remember, you are talking about the country that made a women's right to go topless in public a major human rights issue decided by the highest courts to great general applause, but who eight years later still has nary a topless woman to be seen. Bummer.

A hundred bucks says our medical care is better than the Brits in ten years. Yeah, yeah, U.S. dollars.

Posted by: Peter B at October 20, 2005 5:03 PM


Both will just be hospice care anyway.

Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 5:35 PM