I have been reading The Big Shift by Darrell Bricker and
John Ibbitson. The central argument about why the
Conservative Party won, and will continue to win, is
interesting but not the subject of this article. Political parties
come and go but the monarchy endures forever. No, what
interested me is some of points the authors used to back their
arguments.
At one point they argue that Canada have become more
confident in itself as a nation. While the book argues that this
is why the 'frail nation' view of a country eternally beset by
French-English hostility has been largely discredited I think
it applies equally well to republicans. The republican shtick
that Canada needs to 'grow up' and 'cut the apron strings' so it
can stop being so 'colonial' are essentially the point of view of
someone with an inferiority complex. The idea that Canada
has grown up (and did so with the monarchy) cannot be
accepted by republicans. To acknowledge this fact would
mean admitting they are fighting against a Canadian, rather
than foreign, institution. A Canada that is confident in itself,
its institutions, its past, and its traditions is not at all useful
to republicans.
A second point raised in the book is that concerns what issues
Canadians value and whether they have confidence that
governments can 'fix' problems that occur within them. It is
an interesting chart in its own right but I find its implications
for the monarchy equally intriguing. While the monarchy was
not included it does include issues related to culture, national
unity, and First Nations. All three rank low on the importance
scale but, with the exception of culture, they are also pretty
low on the can-we-fix-it scale. That First Nations ended up so
low on both scales is unfortunate since they have many long-
term issues that need addressed. The monarchy is the
quintessential low-importance issue. Even those who are
opposed to it acknowledge this fact. Likewise, if Canadians
don't feel issues that could be addressed by legislation can be
solved they are not going to think issues that require
constitutional reform will either. Also note that the issues
most likely to be seen as unworkable are the 'Big Idea' issues.
In this poll Canadians displayed a marked preference for
issues that require tinkering, not wholesale reform.
The republican cause has always had difficulty due to the
amending formula in the constitution. But as long as there
was a public appetite for change there was a chance they could
succeed. As long as Canadians were embarrassed by their past and feeling envious of other countries there was hope. The
republicans now have neither. The two points raised above
rendered republicanism deader than dead. I'm sure
republicans will deny it. That is but one of their rights in our
fair dominion. So while I fully expect there to still be court
challenges and poorly-attended protests we should remember
that more and more they represent a Canada left behind. A
Canada that refused to grow up.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour
John Ibbitson. The central argument about why the
Conservative Party won, and will continue to win, is
interesting but not the subject of this article. Political parties
come and go but the monarchy endures forever. No, what
interested me is some of points the authors used to back their
arguments.
At one point they argue that Canada have become more
confident in itself as a nation. While the book argues that this
is why the 'frail nation' view of a country eternally beset by
French-English hostility has been largely discredited I think
it applies equally well to republicans. The republican shtick
that Canada needs to 'grow up' and 'cut the apron strings' so it
can stop being so 'colonial' are essentially the point of view of
someone with an inferiority complex. The idea that Canada
has grown up (and did so with the monarchy) cannot be
accepted by republicans. To acknowledge this fact would
mean admitting they are fighting against a Canadian, rather
than foreign, institution. A Canada that is confident in itself,
its institutions, its past, and its traditions is not at all useful
to republicans.
A second point raised in the book is that concerns what issues
Canadians value and whether they have confidence that
governments can 'fix' problems that occur within them. It is
an interesting chart in its own right but I find its implications
for the monarchy equally intriguing. While the monarchy was
not included it does include issues related to culture, national
unity, and First Nations. All three rank low on the importance
scale but, with the exception of culture, they are also pretty
low on the can-we-fix-it scale. That First Nations ended up so
low on both scales is unfortunate since they have many long-
term issues that need addressed. The monarchy is the
quintessential low-importance issue. Even those who are
opposed to it acknowledge this fact. Likewise, if Canadians
don't feel issues that could be addressed by legislation can be
solved they are not going to think issues that require
constitutional reform will either. Also note that the issues
most likely to be seen as unworkable are the 'Big Idea' issues.
In this poll Canadians displayed a marked preference for
issues that require tinkering, not wholesale reform.
The republican cause has always had difficulty due to the
amending formula in the constitution. But as long as there
was a public appetite for change there was a chance they could
succeed. As long as Canadians were embarrassed by their past and feeling envious of other countries there was hope. The
republicans now have neither. The two points raised above
rendered republicanism deader than dead. I'm sure
republicans will deny it. That is but one of their rights in our
fair dominion. So while I fully expect there to still be court
challenges and poorly-attended protests we should remember
that more and more they represent a Canada left behind. A
Canada that refused to grow up.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour
RSS Feed
