The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Book Review: J.J. McCullough on The Canadian Century
Western Standard cartoonist J.J. McCullough has put together a thoughtful review of The Canadian Century: Moving Out of America's Shadow . The book, penned by Brian Lee Crowley (Macdonald-Laurier Institute), Jason Clemens (Pacific Research Institute), and Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) tries to defend and make a case for the Wilfrid Laurier vision for Canada. In his largely positive review, McCullough insists that the book "may prove to be enormously prescient."
The Canadian Century is a tome that desperately wants to remind Canadians of four important facts that are either largely forgotten or unfashionable to recall in the present day:
1) Canada had a very, very poorly-run economy from the 1960s to the late 1990s, and in terms of national debt and unsustainable spending, was teetering on “third world” status.
2) The 1993-2003 Liberal government of Jean Chretien embarked on a remarkable agenda of fiscal conservatism to resolve the aforementioned crisis, as did many of the provincial governments of the same era.
3) Canada’s political culture has historically favored small-government and low spending. The left-wing goofiness that dominated the 1960s through 1990s represents an aberration of the national character.
4) The United States has become an extremely fiscally irresponsible country in recent years, and should no longer be regarded as anyone’s role model.
With such points assembled into a cohesive whole, the authors’ conclusion is self-evident: Canada’s destiny, ordained by its historic ideology and America-toppling desires, lies in perpetuating a tradition of fiscal restraint and small government. This is the “Canadian Century” the title refers to, a future in which Canada stands alone as a model of growth and wealth, the proud benefactor of its own sensible fiscal traditions. It will be a country engorged with national purpose.
You can read the rest here, and check out J.J.'s cartoons over on his website, Filibuster Cartoons.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Friday Filibuster Funny: Canada's underclass
It's been a while since we posted J.J. McCullough's political cartoons (you can click on the comic above for the full size). While J.J. did take a break, he's been back delivering quality comics for his fans on his website for some time now (so the fault is ours, dear reader, not his). To help catch you up, we put together this little pictobrowser below, which will let you see some of the work we've missed:
Do check out J.J.'s website Filibuster Cartoons, and scroll through a few more of his cartoons. You'll be glad you did). Below the fold, J.J.'s commentary:
Stephen Harper announced his pick for Canada’s next governor general yesterday, and in a somewhat surprising pick, selected University of Waterloo president and longtime law professor David Johnston. Somewhat surprising, but not really. As you can see by consulting my handy governor generals chart, there has never been a governor general from British Columbia, despite the fact that it’s Canada’s third largest province, and an extremely influential part of the country, both culturally and economically. Prior to the Johnston announcement, the B.C. media was thus giddy with anticipation, assuming that this would finally be our year. But once again, it was not. Not even with a noted “friend of the west” like Harper as prime minister did B.C. get one of its own in Canada’s top job.
The major reason, once again, was apparently bilingualism, a cruel and inescapable expectation of all holders of high office in modern Canada. Almost no one in British Columbia speaks fluent French, not even people in extremely elite positions of society, simply because there is no real need to. B.C. is not a province with an ample French population, so important people tend to focus their educational time elsewhere, studying matters that may actual have some tangible relevance to their career.
But British Columbia is hardly unusual in this regard. According to the Government of Canada’s own statistics (PDF link) only a measly 8.8% of Canadian Anglos can speak French, meaning about 91% of Canada’s majority population can never hope to be governor general (or prime minister for that matter). As a result, the people who do get appointed to the office are either French-Canadians, who have a much more immediate interest in being bilingual, or strange lawyer-types like Mr. Johnston, who come from a very isolated, elite subculture in Eastern Canada, centered around the greater Ottawa-Montreal axis, in which functional bilingualism is common and practical.
At one time, right-wing politicians like Mr. Harper criticized official bilingualism for extracting such a high toll on Canada’s majority population in order to appease French Canadian resentment — which didn’t even seem to be lessening, by the way. Now, however, Harper seems perfectly keen to continue to prop up the system he once opposed, in his suddenly pressing pursuit of eastern votes. The substantial differences between Canada’s two political parties continue to lessen as a result, and unilingual are once again left wondering if anyone in the political system actually cares about their interests.
Friday, October 23, 2009
George Jonas: A bizarre twist in Canadian liberalism, from individual equality to parity for groups.
George Jonas' keynote address on democracy, freedom, rights and identity politics in Canada at The Canadian Constitution Foundation's 2009 law conference on "Race, Religion, Equality and Freedom" (delivered by CCF Executive Director John Carpay) followed by a Q&A with vir ipse:
After describing the political developments and degradation of values since his arrival in Canada 53 years ago, Jonas concludes his prepared remarks with his pessimistic take on liberalism: "anarcho-libertarians are optimists, they believe that the state is an unnecessary evil; classical liberals are pessimists, [we] think the state is a necessary evil."
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Brian Lee Crowley: The fall of Canadian values and the birth of the welfare state
The National Post has published an excerpt from Brian Lee Crowley's Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values:
The reigning political consensus that characterized this country right up to the birth of the New Canada in 1960 took a quite different view of the role of the individual, of government and of the effects of government intervention on people's character than the one that prevails today. The view that predominates today on both sides of the border is of Canadians as kinder and gentler than their American neighbours, more willing to use the power of the state in pursuit of public goods, more welfare-minded, more socially left wing. It is also a view that could establish itself only by defeating and then consigning to a trunk in the never visited attic of our collective memory the older view that had defined Canada for almost the first century of its existence and for many decades prior to 1867.
Read the rest. And here's a review of the book by Neil Reynolds for The Globe and Mail.
I had the privilege of seeing Mr. Crowley speak at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar. I found his speech to be fascinating and I encourage you to take the time to listen to it.
Canadians are often groping for a national identity. Some point to government programs as our nationhood, others point to people with blades on their shoes and sticks as our identity. Yet most people are unsatisfied by this, we have forgotten who we were from the beginning.
Canada is free and freedom is its nationality.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Canadian Tradition
I'm currently part way through Brian Lee Crowley's latest book: Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values. So far so good. I hope to have a review up later in the week. The basic thesis is that Canada was founded as a classically liberal society, and then lost its way through a combination of changing intellectual trends and Quebec nationalism. It is the later that Crowley cites as vital in explaining Canada's higher than average level of statism compared to other English speaking nations. The Quiet Revolution, and its aftermath, sparked a bidding war for the loyalty--if that's the word--of the Quebecois. The thesis is not original, but Crowley brings a considerable weight of scholarship to bear on the issue. He also breaks the taboo among the Canadian intelligentsia of stating the obvious: In the main the Quebecois are not loyal to Canada. The book is endorsed by a dazzling array of Canadian conservatives: Conrad Black, Michael Bliss, William Gairdner, Barbara Kay, Tom Flanagan and David Frum. If we can speak of Canadian conservative establishment, the above is a Who's Who. From the National Post:
The state had been expanding on both sides of the border for years. When Stephen Leacock warned of the impending arrival of socialism in Canada in 1924, the state in Canada was spending 11% of GDP. By 1960, we were spending over 28%. Again, however, there was nothing in that that distinguished Canada; government was carving out a bigger role for itself everywhere. No one denies that the zeitgeist was there, no one denies that government in general and the social service state in particular were growing. What has to be explained is not the direction of change, but rather its speed and scope and timing.
And here the parallel social and economic developments of Canada and the United States over the previous century must be given their due weight. We were two societies with a similar intellectual, philosophical and institutional endowment. We Canadians thought of ourselves as the truer guardians of the British traditions of liberty and limited government, but the Americans fought a revolution in order to vindicate what they thought of as the rights and liberties of Englishmen. The spirit of the great liberal individualist John Locke presided over America's founding debates in the eighteenth century, just as he did over the Confederation debates of the nineteenth.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Those were the days . . .
So which prominent Canadian recently said this?
“When I studied Canadian history in my last year of high school, we concentrated a good deal on the evolution of our system of government from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 through the Quebec Act of 1774, right up to the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and the Letters Patent of 1947. This last document – the Letters Patent – is of vital importance and set in place the contemporary powers of the governor general which it transferred from the monarch. Yet it is virtually unknown to the general public. We also focused heavily on the King/Byng crisis of 1926; our entire class, contrary to most current opinion, thought that Lord Byng had done the right thing!"
If you want to know the answer, head over to Janet Ajzenstat's always interesting blog.
But before you do, please pause to marvel at the fact that once upon a time Canadian high-school students actually received a rigorous education.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A Quebec sovereigntist association is demanding an apology for a tract published in 1849 by the Montreal Gazette that the group contends incited 1,500 anglophone Montrealers to burn down the city's parliament.
The St-Jean-Baptiste Society commemorated the fiery episode yesterday in the very place where the three-storey parliament once stood -- now a parking lot ringed by grey stone buildings in a popular tourist districts.
The arsonists were protesting a bill introduced by Louis Lafontaine meant to compensate Canadians who had lost property in armed political uprisings of 1837 and 1838.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Wilfrid Laurier and Repeal Day
Today the United States celebrate repeal day. It is the day that the constitution was changed to end the prohibition of alcohol. Today I encourage all of Americans and Canadians to celebrate their freedoms by choosing to get drunk (or by choosing freely not to get drunk).
There is an interesting moment in Canada’s own prohibition history that I didn’t know about before. In 1898 there was a plebiscite in Canada to decide if alcohol should be banned. The yes side won but the Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier refused to enact the law. He said that the margin of victory was too small.
Never before have I heard anything that underlines the difference between individual liberty and the principles of democracy. Laurier’s refusal was undemocratic. The majority of the electorate had made their decision and Laurier, one man, was refusing their ‘general will.’ At the same time it was the right thing for Laurier to do.
A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny, and in many ways it is worse than the tyranny of the one. Laurier acted to protect individual freedom against the tyranny of the ‘general will.’ He ensured that each person would have the ability to come to their own moral and philosophical conclusions when it comes to alcohol. Local municipalities could still vote to make themselves dry, but Canada as a whole would never prohibit alcohol.
So on this repeal day celebrate with the Americans for the restoration of their freedom, and give one toast to Wilfrid Laurier.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Was Beijing's Olympic model Montreal?
I know I'm in the minority in my analysis that the Olympic Games were a failure for the regime, but based on the latest news that the tourist dollars just didn't show had me thinking about the Montreal Games in 1976.
I was too young to remember the Games themselves, but the legend of a city bankrupting itself over them lasted for years afterwards. Did Montreal really get whacked as badly by the Olympics as the legend goes? Or was it myth? I'm curious to know.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Question: How do you know it's a bad day for the CCP?
Answer: When its best friend in Canada comes to its defense, only to find Canadian media use it as an excuse to interview the leading espionage whistleblower from his era.
Actually, that's not even the half of it.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Ric Dolphin Writes Again
Although loath to use another of those horrible words concocted by the geeks who, sadly, have inherited the world, there seems to be no avoiding it. I now have a "blog" which I shall endeavor to update at least every Monday and which you are
invited to visit at, ricdolphin.com
Be aware that, unlike when I wrote for Western Standard magazine, I am not being censored for language. I am also not specifically writing about politics, although the subject may be broached on occasion. Be assured, however, that I shall never use "blog" as a verb.
Posted by Ric Dolphin on July 9, 2008 in Aboriginal Issues, American History, Books, Canadian Conservative Politics, Canadian History, Canadian Politics, Canadian Provincial Politics, Crime, Current Affairs, Film, Humour, International Affairs, International Politics, Media, Military, Municipal Politics, Religion, Science, Television, Trade, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Western Standard, WS Radio, WStv | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Thursday, July 03, 2008
What an Awesome History
Given that Canada Day was this week, I decided to recount this country's recent history.
My effort was published as a column in today's Sun Media chain.
By the way, I conclude Canada is a pretty awesome place to live, despite the best efforts of the politicians who run the place.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
July 1, 1916 - Remember Beaumont Hamel
It has been some time since I posted to the Shotgun. My legal practice and my political activism have kept me away from the bloggy bog. My apologies.
I realize that today many Canadians celebrate Dominion Day or some new beast of a holiday known as Canada Day. For me and for many other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, this is not a day for celebration. For many in Newfoundland and Labrador, this is a sad day, but it should also be a time when we pay tribute to the great fighting Newfoundlanders who gave so much for us.
This is the day we mourn the loss of most of the Royal Newfoundland regiment at the battle of Beaumont Hamel on July 1 1916.
That battle cost us some of our brightest leaders. The Dominion of Newfoundland spent more per-capita on the war effort than most allied countries. Yet it is my understanding that it was one of the very few countries NOT to have a sizable part of its war debt forgiven.
This debt contributed greatly to the need for a commission government from 1934 to the late 1940s. It contributed greatly to the forces that, in a less than fair way, swept Newfoundland into Confederation. For those who believe Confederation was a mistake and who also mourn loss of statehood for the Dominion of Newfoundland on March 31, 1949, there is perhaps a painful connection between that date and this one.
While celebrating Dominion Day, please take a moment to think about the men who lost their lives at Beaumont Hamel.