Thursday, September 29, 2005
(11:23 AM) | Old - Doug Johnson:
O Canada
Canada. Gleefully Green. Disposable diapers are composted into industrial energy here in Toronto. Militantly multicultural and pro-immigration. Ottawa just voted to up Canada's already high immigration quota by 100,000/yr. The Baptist church that recently interviewed me not only volunteered that Canadian evangelicals have long had to accept minority status, but did so with a certain amount of pride. Gay marriage is the law of the land. Canucks were the first ones to suggest the 'make poverty history' standard of 0.7% GDP for foreign development assistance. A French speaking, openly gay man is about to become the leader of a major political party in spite of admissions that he used cocaine as late as the late 1990's and while serving as a cabinet minister. There's the whole health care thing. Free for nearly everyone in the country. Reasonably priced for those temporarily here to study and the like (we're paying around $1,500 Canadian for a whole year - approximately $100US/month - for a family of four). We're not in Bushville anymore.Nevertheless, I can't help but think that this is far from paradise. Is this really the promised land for US liberals? Our sister site is constantly reminding us of the benefits of Northern secession, with a simultaneous move to join Canada. With California and New York's economies (not to mention Michican, Washington, etc.), would that turn the G-7 into G-5 + one super G? While suggesting 0.7 GDP be given, Canada is having trouble living up to that standard. Even if it did meet or exceed, isn't there still something massively unfair as evidenced by the oft quoted description of G-7 members as the 20% of people who control 80% of the world's resources? In articles on the Schroeder-Merkel debacle, I've seen a new concept kicked around: an estimated length of time remaining (quite short) that a particular country (Germany here) can 'sustain a European lifestyle.' I've always thought the whole 'globalization inevitable' response trite and missing the point altogether. Of course globalization is inevitable. It is in fact already here in all its belching glory. The question is whether it is sustainable. Must we simply accept the need to drastically curtail our 'European lifestyles' or can redistribution somehow float all boats? If the former, could we entertain a grand politics toward this end or must we wait for cataclysm (e.g. oil runs out)? If the latter, is there a grand politics toward this end, or must we be self-satisfied with creeping, incremental social justice?
