It doesn’t seem too likely. I mean, look at the party’s founding document:
Of course, the NDP abandoned the positions put forward in the Regina Manifesto long, long ago, but Tommy Douglas et al would have given McCarthy fits.
I like it that Canada is very much its own place: For one thing, I’ve got someplace to run if I have to.*
*So long as they’ll take me, of course.
But nationhood is such an irrational thing, how can a linear prediction be made about it? You can’t simply shuffle institutions and expect things to go on as they were. There’s a reason that almost every time anyone played with borders in the Twentieth Century, it lead to violence – riots, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, genocide. Psychologically speaking, border is a powerful thing – move it one way or the other, and you tend to get explosions.
Let me tell you that half this country would rank “being absorbed by the United States” as one of their greatest fears. Think of the sense of failure and loss, the scar on the national psyche. Would we survive it? Could we survive it?
And leaving aside the psychological effects of this project, think of the practical aspects from our point of view – we have a hard enough time getting our corrupt political, business, and intellectual elite to stick with the Great Canadian Experiment. Most people who work their way into power in this country are the most self-loathing of Canadians, and are utterly convinced that things are better somewhere (anywhere) else.
It’s a constant effort to remind them that we like Medicare, social programs, and environmental programs. The forces of assimilation up here spend their time coming up with new, creative excuses to destroy these things and make us just like the US.
And you want to saddle us with Republicans? What do we get out of the deal?
You Americans will have to learn to love your new Albertan overlords…
Just kidding. But I don’t know why anyone would assume that Canada would vote Democratic. Alberta would definitely vote Republican. Alberta is to the right of most U.S. states. BC would be like California - the heartland would vote Republican, and the big cities on the coast would vote Democratic. Saskatchewan and Manitoba could go either way. Ontario could easily be a swing state.
You have to remember that much of what drives Canadian politics are uniquely Canadian issues. Public health care, language issues, equalization paymnents, multiculturalism, etc. If Canada gets absorbed in the U.S. and has to start making decisions based on U.S. policies, I think you’ll find we’re not quite the monolithic enlightened liberals you think we are. Canada has the same structural makeup as the U.S. - large urban centers are liberal, and rural and suburban areas are conservative. Canada as a whole just looks liberal because our politics are completely dominated by a few large, densely populated population centers.
If Canada had the kind of government the U.S. has, with a Senate that gave Alberta the same power as Ontario and an electoral college that made sure politicians had to appeal to smaller provinces to win nominations, I think our politics might be indistinguishable, with the exception of Quebec.
Likewise, if the U.S. abandoned the Senate and EC, and political power was apportioned purely by population, it would move to the left.
The one scenario where I can see it possibly happening is to counter a too powerful China.
And it would have to be much more than just Canada, due to small population.
From the perspective of bodies and size of army, we are badly outmatched (I don’t have any current numbers, I’m thinking in terms of a full out war with draft etc.) Although we clearly have the lead in technology etc., that won’t last for ever.
From the economic perspective, I haven’t worked out the advantages/disadvantages, but my gut tells me having more resources is a net gain.
Ummm…are you talking about this election? If so, I’ll have to ask for a cite.
Here’s one: cite - not very recent, but the best I can find.
Back in July, before he even was even nominated, Kerry held a 38 point lead over Bush amongst Canadians polled. Now, I’m not about to shell out for full access to Ipsos-Reid polls to see if there’s a breakdown by province, but I have significant doubts that Bush could have carried even Alberta with a total like that.
Moreover, so long as Republicans opposed socialized medicine, they would be crushed in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Not even the slightest bit of doubt. If we pull health care out of the mix, then maybe. But still doubtful. I mean, hell, we keep returning the NDP to the provincial legislature, and the federal Tory sweep in Sask was due to serious vote-splitting on the centre-left. One Tory seat was won with something like 27% of the vote. Faced with a choice between Republicans and Democrats, I doubt that election nights would hold much suspense here.
As far as I know, Pat Buchanan has NEVER proposed that the U.S. should “unite” with Canada. I HAVE heard him say that the dissolution of Canada is almost inevitable at some point, and when it happens, we should be ready to embrace the Western provinces (which are the most conservative provinces of Canada) as states.
I happen to think Buchanan is talking through his hat here. My hunch is that, despite the griping of the Quebecois and the occasional resentments expressed by Western Canadians, Canadians will always find SOME way to patch things over and muddle through.
Gorsnak said:
I don’t think I did a very good job of explaining myself. I agree with everything you said. Canadians have their own interests which drive our politics. What I’m saying is that Canadians are fundamentally very similar to Americans, so if we were assimilated and started having to vote as Americans, we’d fall into the same divisions.
Now, I don’t have anything to prove this - just the observation that culturally Albertans aren’t much different than residents of Montana, and the population of Vancouver isn’t much different than the population of Seattle. The real divisions in North America are not along the Canada/U.S. border - they’re more the difference between east and west, large populations and small.
If you were to divide North America along boundaries that matched the temperament and culture of the people, I think you’d find that the Prairie provinces would fall in line with middle America, and the densely populated areas of Ontario would be happy joining up with Northeastern Americans. A left-coast nation spanning from Vancouver to LA would find more in common than the citizens of LA and San Francisco have with Boise Idaho.
Well, we do have the rather extreme incentive of not wanting to be Americans. If anybody is to do any side-switching, you guys should just make it easy on yourselves and give us Washington, Oregon, Maine, Vermont and Alaska. We’ll give 'em a good home.
Okay, I entirely agree with this. But it’s worth noting that the socialized healthcare issue alone would make Republicans virtually unelectable in every province besides Alberta, and even there it would badly hurt them. If we take that out of the mix, then things line up to a greater extent, though I’d compare SK/MB more to Minnesota than to the Dakotas, Kansas, etc.
There’s a good point there, though - Canada would never agree to join the U.S., but what if Canada breaks up? Then I think you might see some provinces become at least protecterates.
Granted, the possibility of Canada breaking up seems to be diminishing. There was a real risk ten years ago, but things have abated somewhat. But I remember hearing a social scientist give a lecture about scenarios for Canadian disunity. One of them was that Quebec would leave, Alberta would demand more power (or be threatened with a new NEP), and decide to also break away. This would cause Saskatchewan and BC to go with Alberta, and Ontario to join up with the Maritimes, and Canada would break into three states (Manitoba could go either way). I don’t think this is likely at all any more, but at the time I heard it it seemed more reasonable.
But if such a scenario came to pass, I could imagine Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan joining the U.S as one large state, creating contiguous territory all the way through Alaska.
Which is why we would rather not unite with your nightmarish sink-hole of xenophobia and fundamentalism. Besides, who would we have to ridicule if we signed on with the USA?
I enjoy responsible government. I enjoy better health care and a longer and healthier life. I enjoy a socially progressive culture, including gay rights. I enjoy freedom from religion. I enjoy supporting the United Nations and international law. I enjoy an outward looking and inclusive society. I enjoy being able to look people from other cultures in the eye.
Why would I want to give up what I enjoy?
America needs to look at other nations to see how others function, but America must look to itself to solve its own problems.
If Canada were to break up, , with the exception of Alberta, I expect that it would be in such a manner as to ensure enough stability to avoid having to turn to the USA. Sovereign association did not fly because Canada was not willing to break up. If the writing were on the wall that Canada was breaking up, then sovereign association would become viable.
I happen to really, really like my Maple Leaf flag and I will not give it up.
Why would these have to go? I wouldn’t expect, say, Montana, to lose its state troopers upon unification; why should we lose the Mounties? And as for the flag–just replace the fifty stars on the current US flag with fifty maple leaves, and we’ll call it even, OK? 
Seriously, why would we have to give up two very prominent and important Canadian symbols upon unification?
I find a lot to admire in the United States, but not even I am willing to rush willy-nilly into unification without some assurance that any unification will allow Canadian culture, customs, and traditions to survive. Yet I find of lot in this thread to make me think that Canada would just be swallowed–that the US would not have to change anything (not even its flag, if the above quote is to be believed), but Canadians would suffer (yes, suffer) a great upheaval in their way of life.
Since the general consensus among Canadians posting to this thread (myself included) is that they do not want such things to occur, what assurances can you give, Brain Glutton (or any American poster), that they will not? And perhaps more importantly, what concessions are you Americans willing to make in order to ensure a smooth and trouble-free unification where everybody feels like they gained something?
I dunno, what would you like? For my part I’d be just as happy to see Canada annex the U.S. as the other way aboot. That way, we get single-payer health care out of the deal. Also, if the FBI were folded into the RCMP instead of vice-versa, all our feds would have to dress up like Dudley Do-Right on formal occasions! Just imagine Mulder and Scully in Mountie uniforms!
Only an American… and only an American as clueless about the subtler complexities of human nature as Pat Buchanan… would bring something like this up, operating under the assumption that Canadians would want to become Americans.
After all doesn’t everyone wanna come be an American? :wally :smack:
Since Bush won the popular vote, I don’t see why you’d assume that to be the case.
I don’t care whether the “Canadians” become “Americans” or vice-versa. Pat Buchanan is an American nationalist. I’m rather hostile to the whole concept of national identity. Hell, if it’ll help bring down the border, I’ll learn to eat peameal bacon, and baked beans with maple syrup!
BTW, I’ve got all of Stan Rogers’ albums! On vinyl, yet!
Ah, for just one time
I would take the Northwest Passage
And find the hand of Franklin
Reaching for the Beaufort Sea
Tracing one warm line
Through a land so wide and savage
And make a Northwest Passage
To the sea!