Nixon vs. Harper

Canadian Prime Minister Harper's recent move to recognize les Quebecois as a nation has sponsored some curious debate here in the Wenzel offices. Given our earlier post, "I Stand Not By My Country . . ." it would seem that this issue might not even surface on our radar. It is true, some of us feel that the quest for nationhood is a step backwards, or made meaningless in an era of increasing government decentralization and devolution. We recognize though, that speaking from the priveleged position of having your nationalist demands overly satisfied, it is quite easy to renounce them. We also recognize that our opinions on nationalism are not shared by the majority of Canadians.

Thus, let us grant that national identity is still a meaningful construct; where does that leave us? Bassano del Grappa cheerfully pointed out that the tension between English and French Canadians is precisely what defines us to the outside world. Where other ethnic groups would have long ago resorted to armed bloodshed, French Canadians maintain that they must leave, English Canadians argue that they want them to stay, but neither side appears to move much in either direction. With a smile and a toast, del Grappa concluded by saying that if we were ever to resolve this relationship we would cease to be Canadians, regardless of whether Quebec seceded.
The consensus however, appears that Trudeau's vision of a Canada containing no priveleged groups must prevail. If Quebec's identity is based on some two hundred years of being treated as English Canada's hinterland, how much different might this be from the views of Western or Atlantic Canada? Of course, Quebec would argue that it has a history of suffering cultural, linguistic, and religious discrimination at the hands of English Candians. True, but Trudeau neatly dealt with these issues in the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Furthermore, we can think of know claim to nation-status that has not ultimately led to a territorial one. Thus, Harper's decision to recognize les Quebecois only grants legitimacy in the long run to the seperatists. That it was a political decision, borne out of the need to make inroads in Quebec, to cut support for both the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals, without a view to Canada as a whole in the long term, reveals the fundamentally short-sightedness of Canadian conservatism.

Enter the ghost of Richard Mulhouse Nixon, who fragmented electoral voters in the United States, first by alienating specific social groups and then playing them off one another. The American voting public is perhaps only now recovering from Nixon. In the last year and a half, we have seen Harper aim directly at the Canadian middle-class, appealing to its basic self-interest, and now it is doing the same with Quebec. In each case Harper makes little to no argument for the consideration of Canada as a nation. Is Harper our Nixon?