Post-election post mortem

[WIP]

From the pov of a former U.S. citizen who has many family members there, I'm often more plugged in and aware of U.S. politics than I am with what goes on here. But, I think most of us who were following the latest two year presidential extravanganza have moved on to other subjects. But there still are some interesting side bars and issues that I would like to see answered or at least get more information on. Let's start:

1. It's Still Not Over Yet!

Believe it or not, the final vote tally still isn't in yet, but what's really shocking is how many votes remain to be counted: as many as two million....and most of them are in New York and California, so, it's not likely that Romney is going to pull a surprise come-from-behind win now. Irony of ironies, with mostly Obama votes remaining, it looks like Romney's final popular vote total will fall to 47%, or possibly lower. So, he ended up winning the 47% after all!

Liberal schadenfreude is about to reach overdose levels. Just when you thought the dead horse of Mitt Romney's campaign had been beaten more than enough — and most

savagely

by members of his own party — Dave Wasserman at Cook Political Report

projects

that the final count of the popular vote, which is still ongoing, will show

Romney winning 47 percent of the electorate

.

This could raise related questions like WHY aren't all the votes counted yet, and why did the Republican vote get counted so quickly, while so many predominantly Democratic districts are still trying to sort out the mess?

What was most disturbing about the latest U.S. Elections, is the decline in democratic process. For example, the poorer and the darker your district was, the more likely it would have fewer polling stations per capita; 'malfunctioning voting machines', and given provisional ballots to fill out...which can be long forms that have to be completely filled in correctly or tossed; find that their names had been stricken off the voter lists through voter caging and other nefarious Rove tactics; or find that their polling station just happened to have "poll watchers" from 'True The Vote' and other Republican-sponsored groups. So, if you were dark and/or didn't have money, the greater the hurdles to exercise your democratic franchise to vote. I suspect there were no similar lineups at the polls in South Beach Florida and other millionaire bastions around the Country!

Just more evidence that conservatives view the democratic process as an annoyance to a existential threat....depending on just how far out of synch the rich are with the interests and welfare of the majority....and that's pretty damn far now, as the wealth and income gaps keep growing and growing! And that leads to the next question I have after viewing some of the highlight reels of the meltdowns of Rove, Trump, Limbaugh and the nuts and bolts at Foxnews:

2. Was The Fix In For Romney and Republican Senate Candidates On Election Night?

A lot of liberal, especially Democrat activists have been enjoying the comedy show...especially between Rove and Megyn Kelly on Election Night. But when I watched the clip, I wondered whether Rove was in denial...like John Stewart and similar talking heads are saying, or was he still confident of Romney winning Ohio because he was still sure that the fix was in? Recall the story about how the bean counters in the back room at Fox called Ohio for Obama because the districts still remaining to come in were going to be mostly Democratic. Well, does anyone really think that Rove was stupid enough not to realize that? He successfully fixed the vote in Ohio in 2004 for Bush, and you can bet for damn sure that he knows the details about every district in Ohio...and most other states as well....this is what he gets payed to do, and what his reputation as a campaign strategist hangs on.

Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix?

That article about Anonymous and the Get Out The Vote Democratic strategists, reveals one of the key reasons why Republican vote-rigging failed this time -- it was too bloody obvious! The Republican Party had started making it more and more obvious that they weren't interested in the votes of certain minority groups for some reason, and seen a better return in running against them....especially Latinos, by targeting their populist appeals at white suburbanites fearing being "overrun" by immigrants and darkies. They were far less subtle with these tactics in this election than in previous campaigns. And now that it's over, and the results show it was a failure because of the backlash it created, they are back to courting the Latino vote again! Just like in the runup to the 2000 Republican Convention, where everyone who could speak Spanish was put on the stage. This time around, they refused to give any except for Marco Rubio any chance to speak at the Convention. Now, it's back to square one, as they try to do that balancing act that Dubya did, and try to tone down the rhetoric of the anti-immigration activists....let's see if it works this time!

And then there are the fun stories that come out after the election:

3. How The Secret Service Said Goodbye To Mitt Romney

In brief: he rode from his hotel to the convention hall in Boston to make his victory speech in a 15 car secret service motorcade, and as soon as the results came in, the detail leader told the agents to pack up and return to their base....and the Romneys had to hitch a ride with their son Tagg, back to the hotel....love it!

And his statement a few days before election night - that he had only written a victory speech seemed to be more than bravado, judging from the fumbling mishmash of concession speech that he had to end up delivering instead. It seemed like Romney sure was sure that he would win! Was it just because he surrounded himself with a bunch of flunkies and yes men like a typical millionaire? Or, was it something he had been told by the operatives who were trying to fix the election for him. Obama had prepared both, according to Politico. But, Romney really was awfully damn sure that he only needed one speech on Election Night.

Edited November 23, 2012 by WIP

[bush_cheney2004]

Many Canadians are more "plugged in" to what happens in US politics regardless of former citizenship. US elections are pretty much the same as they have always been, complete with undervotes, overvotes, fraud, spoiled ballots, recounts, and dirty tricks. Nothing special about this one.

Edited November 23, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

From the pov of a former U.S. citizen who has many family members there, I'm often more plugged in and aware of U.S. politics than I am with what goes on here.

"Former U.S. citizen?" You revoked your citizenship? So just out of curiosity ... why are you "more plugged in and aware of U.S. politics" than Canadian politics? If you chose to move to Canada and give up your U.S. citizenship, why would you be more aware of what goes on where you don't live than where you do live? I assume you vote in Canada - so why not make yourself more aware of what goes on in Canada?

[WIP]

"Former U.S. citizen?" You revoked your citizenship? So just out of curiosity ... why are you "more plugged in and aware of U.S. politics" than Canadian politics? If you chose to move to Canada and give up your U.S. citizenship, why would you be more aware of what goes on where you don't live than where you do live? I assume you vote in Canada - so why not make yourself more aware of what goes on in Canada?

Maintaining dual citizenship is more difficult than you think. If you reach a point in life where you're pretty sure where you're going to stay, you're better off without it and just getting a passport now for travel.

[Guest American Woman]

Maintaining dual citizenship is more difficult than you think. If you reach a point in life where you're pretty sure where you're going to stay, you're better off without it and just getting a passport now for travel.

That doesn't answer any of my questions. So did you revoke your U.S. citizenship? And why do you care more about American politics than Canadian?

[WIP]

That doesn't answer any of my questions. So did you revoke your U.S. citizenship? And why do you care more about American politics than Canadian?

And your question really has nothing to do with the topic! I was not born in the U.S. in the first place! I was born in Canada, but applied for U.S. citizenship after discovering through one of my older brothers that I was still within the age limit -- at that time it was up till age 21. But, as I said before, even though I never lived in the U.S. for very long, I still have lots of American relatives, and besides, U.S. politics is always a topic of conversation when I visit my mother today. I have to stay informed.

[WIP]

Many Canadians are more "plugged in" to what happens in US politics regardless of former citizenship. US elections are pretty much the same as they have always been, complete with undervotes, overvotes, fraud, spoiled ballots, recounts, and dirty tricks. Nothing special about this one.

Not only Canadians, but the rest of the world too, is fascinated by the pomp and pageantry that surrounds presidential campaigns. But the dirty tricks seem to get dirtier as the years go by. And it appears to be aided by the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have colluded to prevent some needed reforms when they see greater advantage for themselves by leaving the system as is. It would be a big help if the U.S. could ever manage to install a national election commission to run federal elections....like I think every other democratic country does in the world.

Another big problem is not having a third party in charge of examining Congressional boundaries and redistricting. The House of Representatives also needs to be increased in size. The Wikipedia entry says the last increase was half a century ago in 1963, and the House only added a handful of seats in the last century. If each member of Congress had smaller constituencies, they would have a greater ability to represent the needs of the people in their districts, and likely would be less dependent on cash from campaign donors and lobbyists to win elections.

It's not like things are perfect in Canada -- we have a couple of our own election fraud stories to deal with. But usually boring is better than high drama when it comes to electing politicians.

[Guest American Woman]

And your question really has nothing to do with the topic!

It has to do directly with the response that you made.

I was not born in the U.S. in the first place! I was born in Canada, but applied for U.S. citizenship after discovering through one of my older brothers that I was still within the age limit -- at that time it was up till age 21.

That clarifies things for me, so thank you. It sounded as if you were born an American, grew up in the U.S., but decided to move to Canada - and had made the decision to "stay there" while revoking your U.S. citizenship. This puts a different light on it. However, unless you have revoked your U.S. citizenship, you are not a "former U.S. citizen" as you said - you are a former U.S. resident, and apparently one who did not even reside here very long. But again, if you were granted citizenship, unless it's been legally revoked, you still are.

But, as I said before, even though I never lived in the U.S. for very long, I still have lots of American relatives, and besides, U.S. politics is always a topic of conversation when I visit my mother today. I have to stay informed.

"Staying informed" is one thing, but being more tuned into the politics in the U.S. than in the country you live in, to me, is an enigma.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not only Canadians, but the rest of the world too, is fascinated by the pomp and pageantry that surrounds presidential campaigns. But the dirty tricks seem to get dirtier as the years go by.

No, this is just your current day perception. The history of local, state, and federal elections in the USA is filled with such things going way, way back.

And it appears to be aided by the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have colluded to prevent some needed reforms when they see greater advantage for themselves by leaving the system as is. It would be a big help if the U.S. could ever manage to install a national election commission to run federal elections....like I think every other democratic country does in the world.

Perhaps, but the US doesn't want to be like every other democratic country in the world, many of which have their own unique peculiarities, including Canada.

Another big problem is not having a third party in charge of examining Congressional boundaries and redistricting. The House of Representatives also needs to be increased in size. The Wikipedia entry says the last increase was half a century ago in 1963, and the House only added a handful of seats in the last century. If each member of Congress had smaller constituencies, they would have a greater ability to represent the needs of the people in their districts, and likely would be less dependent on cash from campaign donors and lobbyists to win elections.

Not at all, as campaign financing is crucial to political success. Think of it as another form of voting.

It's not like things are perfect in Canada -- we have a couple of our own election fraud stories to deal with. But usually boring is better than high drama when it comes to electing politicians.

Most Americans don't know and don't care what happens in Canada come election time, no matter how proper Elections Canada may pretend to make it seem. It's a different system with a monarch as head of state that nobody gets to vote for.

[bush_cheney2004]

...."Staying informed" is one thing, but being more tuned into the politics in the U.S. than in the country you live in, to me, is an enigma.

Agreed, but I'm beginning to understand why some are so invested in what happens "south of the border".

[WIP]

It has to do directly with the response that you made.

That clarifies things for me, so thank you. It sounded as if you were born an American, grew up in the U.S., but decided to move to Canada - and had made the decision to "stay there" while revoking your U.S. citizenship. This puts a different light on it. However, unless you have revoked your U.S. citizenship, you are not a "former U.S. citizen" as you said - you are a former U.S. resident, and apparently one who did not even reside here very long. But again, if you were granted citizenship, unless it's been legally revoked, you still are.

But not all of those reasons for revoking citizenship are due to criminal offenses. If you join a foreign military.....like the Canadian Armed Forces, you lose your U.S. citizenship unless you can successfully repeal it within the stated time limit.

"Staying informed" is one thing, but being more tuned into the politics in the U.S. than in the country you live in, to me, is an enigma.

I'm not saying that I still ignore Canadian politics (it has gotten more interesting of late, but not for good reasons). And, my lack of interest is not the same thing as lack of knowledge. During my lifetime, I have been a member of five political parties (Green Party three years ago...though I don't do a whole lot), and the last time I worked as a volunteer, was for the P.C.'s when Mike Harris ran for Premier here in Ontario, and then for re-election. So, my political philosophy has changed a lot over the years. Most of it due to what I have seen coming from conservative movements in the U.S., and my disenchantment with right wing ideas.

The main reason why I joined these forums was to try to get inspired to take more interest in politics again. At the time I joined, I was still on the right....except for religious and social issues. But, my thinking on a lot of subjects has changed radically over the last five years, and some of the changes have led to view most politics as applying bandaid solutions to systemic, fundamental problems that are either ignored or misunderstood.

I would say that federal politics in Canada has got a lot more interesting of late, now that we have our own Machiavelli trying to further entrench himself and his party's control in Ottawa.

[WIP]

Agreed, but I'm beginning to understand why some are so invested in what happens "south of the border".

Canadians have more at stake now with what's happening in the U.S. than ever before, now that we have a Prime Minister who is following the path that John Howard forged for Australia a few years back -- in brief, turning this country into a vassal state for U.S. economic policy and foreign policy.

[Shady]

turning this country into a vassal state for U.S. economic policy and foreign policy.

How so?

[WIP]

How so?

If you're old enough to remember Chretien, Trudeau and even Mulroney, the answer is self-explanatory. Even past Conservative Prime Ministers like Mulroney -- who had us jump into globalization with both feet, were determined that Canada would chart our own course on foreign policy issues. Some historians even credit Mulroney for being the one who caused the Apartheid regime in South Africa to fall, because he surprised Thatcher and Reagan, who wanted toothless sanctions, and a little reform around the edges. But Reagan and Thatcher were determined that they would treat the ANC as a communist insurgency. The only reason they backed off and let the South African Government fall was because they realized they were standing alone among the community of nations (except for Israel) and decided that continuing support for apartheid would be more trouble than it was worth. Can you picture Stephen Harper doing anything similar under similar circumstances?

[Shady]

If you're old enough to remember Chretien, Trudeau and even Mulroney, the answer is self-explanatory. Even past Conservative Prime Ministers like Mulroney -- who had us jump into globalization with both feet, were determined that Canada would chart our own course on foreign policy issues. Some historians even credit Mulroney for being the one who caused the Apartheid regime in South Africa to fall, because he surprised Thatcher and Reagan, who wanted toothless sanctions, and a little reform around the edges. But Reagan and Thatcher were determined that they would treat the ANC as a communist insurgency. The only reason they backed off and let the South African Government fall was because they realized they were standing alone among the community of nations (except for Israel) and decided that continuing support for apartheid would be more trouble than it was worth. Can you picture Stephen Harper doing anything similar under similar circumstances?

Look, if you're going to state something ridiculous like that, at least back it up. Be specific, how has Harper turned this country into a vassal state for U.S. economic and foreign policies? What has he DONE?

[Guest American Woman]

But not all of those reasons for revoking citizenship are due to criminal offenses. If you join a foreign military.....like the Canadian Armed Forces, you lose your U.S. citizenship unless you can successfully repeal it within the stated time limit.

That's not true, unless the country is at war with the U.S. or you serve(d) as an officer. Are you saying that you are/were an officer in the Canadian military?

I'm not saying that I still ignore Canadian politics (it has gotten more interesting of late, but not for good reasons). And, my lack of interest is not the same thing as lack of knowledge. During my lifetime, I have been a member of five political parties (Green Party three years ago...though I don't do a whole lot), and the last time I worked as a volunteer, was for the P.C.'s when Mike Harris ran for Premier here in Ontario, and then for re-election. So, my political philosophy has changed a lot over the years. Most of it due to what I have seen coming from conservative movements in the U.S., and my disenchantment with right wing ideas.

So conservative movements within Canada haven't resulted in disenchantment? I'm really trying to understand and follow your reasoning, but as someone who cares a whole lot more about their own politics, it's difficult. I started out as a Republican, became a rather liberal Democrat, and now I'm a moderate Democrat - so my political alliances have changed too, but due to what's happened in my own country, not others.

The main reason why I joined these forums was to try to get inspired to take more interest in politics again. At the time I joined, I was still on the right....except for religious and social issues. But, my thinking on a lot of subjects has changed radically over the last five years, and some of the changes have led to view most politics as applying bandaid solutions to systemic, fundamental problems that are either ignored or misunderstood.

I would say that federal politics in Canada has got a lot more interesting of late, now that we have our own Machiavelli trying to further entrench himself and his party's control in Ottawa.

I always end up coming back to the forum even after I decide to take a break because I find I'm more up on what's happening in politics, too, so I understand that. But interesting or not, whatever happens within your own country affects you more than what happens in the States, and that's the bottom line.

[kimmy]

US politics is great theatre.

I think the most interesting aftermath of the election is the fingerpointing going on among the Republicans. It was an election that was ripe for winning... and they lost. Is it Romney's fault? Is it the Tea Party's fault? Is it policies? Is it changing demographics? What do they do next?

It is also interesting that the most technologically advanced country on earth still can't run an election without chaos at the polls. One has to wonder whether some of that is by design. Certain governors in certain states might not be too concerned if certain voters at certain polling locations don't get to vote.

I think the denial and disbelief of many of the Republicans on election night was fascinating. They were so heavily invested in denying mainstream polls and talking up their cherry-picked polls they thought they showed would win, that it's almost as if they believed they could create their own reality just by believing hard enough. "Nate Silver isn't credible! He's too gay-looking to trust!" "Nate Silver is a biased liberal, so our biased predictions are just as valid as his!" Megyn Kelly's famous walk was great TV, I thought. I liked that they put the math-nerds on TV to tell Karl Rove he was wrong. Kelly also apparently earlier responded to Rove's explanation of why he thought there was still a chance of Republican victory by asking him "Is that for real, or is that just stuff you tell yourself as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" Funny.

-k

[WIP]

That's not true, unless the country is at war with the U.S. or you serve(d) as an officer. Are you saying that you are/were an officer in the Canadian military?

No, but your Government has the option to revoke citizenship of any U.S. citizen joining a foreign military. It's up to the individual to jump through the hoops to keep it if they enlist in a foreign, even an allied military. At least that's what the letters I received told me at the time. At the time, I was stationed in West Germany, and allied or not, there was some degree of animosity towards the Americans, at least below the surface. But we usually channeled any hostilities into outperforming the Americans during group NATO exercises. I was asked a few times why I joined the C.A.F. instead of the U.S., even by our officers, so perhaps my lack of interest in maintaining U.S. citizenship came from feeling the need to show which side I was on over there.

But, since this has become the focus of your attention, I'm not sure if my opening statement is correct or not! I think the reason why I felt more North American than Canadian was not because of having dual citizenship for a few years early on in my life. It was more likely from having so many family members across the border, or even because I spent most of my adult life living in a border community (Niagara Falls) and crossing the border two or three times a week. That likely has more to do with it than having a citizenship that I never made much use of.

So conservative movements within Canada haven't resulted in disenchantment?

Well; I for one was disappointed with how the Reform Party from out west morphed into the present Conservative Party. Back in the late 80's, when it started under Preston Manning, and had the Triple "E: Senate (equal numbers of senators from each province like the U.S. Senate), I thought they had a valid point....even though I was living in Ontario. I joined the Reform Party when they first tried to start up in Ontario (I think it was in 1990) because the natural governing party of Canada -- the Liberals, seemed to have figured out long ago, that under our Parliamentary system, all a federal government has to do is to control Ontario and Quebec, because there aren't enough seats in Parliament in the West or the East to form a government.

Even back then, Preston could see that most potential conservative allies in Ontario, had no interest in sharing power, so the Triple E Senate would not get off the ground. And after a brief interlude with a dunce who was our equivalent of George Bush - Stockwell Day, our Dick Cheney - Stephen Harper, stepped up to become leader of what was being called at the time the "Canadian Alliance Party." Harper had been trying to run the Reform movement behind the scenes and had his chance to step up and make the amalgamation deal with the eastern rump that was left of the old P.C. Party and form the new Conservative Party. By that time, Senate reform was long forgotten; and I think Harper realized long before most of us, that Alberta's true power would come through possessing the most lucrative resource in the country - the Tar Sands. Rather than call for equal representation in government; Harper has relied on collective greed and eastern concerns over continued access to cheap energy to make Alberta the tail that wags the dog in Canadian politics today.

I'm really trying to understand and follow your reasoning, but as someone who cares a whole lot more about their own politics, it's difficult. I started out as a Republican, became a rather liberal Democrat, and now I'm a moderate Democrat - so my political alliances have changed too, but due to what's happened in my own country, not others.

I started first with the NDP, but in the early 80's I bought in to the same presumption a lot of people had that the economic malaise of the 70's was due to "big government and taxes", and the economic growth of the 80's was thanks to conservatives applying supply side economic theory. The real story was that it had more to do with oil prices...but I'll leave that for later. I drifted towards the Liberals and then the P.C.s. But now, as a Green Party member who lives in an NDP stronghold, I still would contend that most of what is needed to fix the problems in the world today will have to come from the bottom up....not from the world of politics! So, a lot of times a new topic starts up here, and I read through a few posts and plan a response....and then think "why bother," and go back to what I was doing before.

I always end up coming back to the forum even after I decide to take a break because I find I'm more up on what's happening in politics, too, so I understand that. But interesting or not, whatever happens within your own country affects you more than what happens in the States, and that's the bottom line.

I took a long break from here too....I forget how long I was away....I wasn't banned, I just found myself commenting on issues I wasn't even sure I had settled my opinions on myself, and unable to maintain any consistency. So, I went away....ordered a bunch of ebooks...did some reading....tried a couple of other forums -- one was Religious Forums, which, judging from all of the different sorts of beliefs represented, I thought would be a good place to sort out my own thinking on religious, philosophical - especially metaphysical topics....but found it was usually just opinionated a@#holes arguing with each other about who is right....sort of like what happens when most people accidentally start a conversation on religion in real life. I even tried a small ecology forum to focus on environment issues, but found most of the frequent posters were just interested in advancing their own theories....so I guess this is as good a place as any to park my thoughts!

[Michael Hardner]

US politics is great theatre.

I think the most interesting aftermath of the election is the fingerpointing going on among the Republicans. It was an election that was ripe for winning... and they lost. Is it Romney's fault? Is it the Tea Party's fault? Is it policies? Is it changing demographics? What do they do next?

For those who favour Democrats it's probably more entertaining...

I am more interested in this part of your post than the delusional polling that Republicans engaged in pre-election. I also seem to remember that this self-searching happened last time too. David Frum made comments to that effect after the election in 2008 - I think here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/07/david-frum-why-rush-limba_n_172801.html

The thing Republicans may have to face up to is that as the 47% becomes 57% and onwards, the commons will start to vote themselves entitlements. No amount of finger-wagging or preachy pining for the old days from Bill O'Reilly is going to work against that. If the Republicans can't make trickle-down work as they seem to think it should, then they're in for a big fight.

I believe that it will also be an expensive fight for them, because it will cost more to convince swing voters in the post-television age.

[WIP]

The thing Republicans may have to face up to is that as the 47% becomes 57% and onwards, the commons will start to vote themselves entitlements.

And yet, the billionaires who buy the tax breaks they want, the changes to health, environment and safety legislation they desire, and the privatization of government assets and services they would like to take advantage of, and hire the lobbyists to write the model legislation for their bought and payed for politicians to turn into government legislation, don't seem to consider themselves as voting for their own entitlements!

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians have more at stake now with what's happening in the U.S. than ever before, now that we have a Prime Minister who is following the path that John Howard forged for Australia a few years back -- in brief, turning this country into a vassal state for U.S. economic policy and foreign policy.

Not sure why this would be the case, as Americans didn't give the CPC a minority or majority government. The neurotic tug-o-war often on display here with regard to "U.S. influence" speaks more to the domestic perceptions of Canadians by Canadians, irrespective of what Americans may do or think in their own country. This web site best distills my understanding of what is going on:

http://www.thecanada...nti-americanism

....Disliking, judging, teasing and even hating America sadly forms a central part of the Canadian identity, and is a bias that tends to run through most aspects of Canadian society and culture. For various reasons, the default position of a vast many Canadians is that America, Americans and American things are generally bad, and need to be opposed. These feelings are not always logical and consistent, and can certainly be hypocritical in practice, but they do exist, and understanding their important role in all aspects of Canadian culture is necessary to understand what makes Canadians Canadian.

...The “American-style” slur is more commonly levelled at conservatives by liberals than vice versa, in part because it’s fashionable on the Canadian left to view Canada as a country defined by its embrace of

progressivism

, while seeing America’s flaws as the direct result of the country’s conservatism.

...Attempting to find an explanation for Canada’s sometimes subtle, sometimes aggressive hostile feelings towards the United States is a complicated topic which many Canadians have written about at length. Generally, the most commonly held belief is that by vilifying America, Canadians are able to create a collective identity for themselves.

But just when we think we have it all figured out, things get whacked like this....many Canadians seemingly want it both ways:

In the end, however, Canada’s cultural anti-Americanism should not disguise the very real way that Canadians often casually or unconsciously think of themselves as Americans in day-to-day life. Most Canadians generally take it for granted that American studies or polls on topics like social behaviour, spending habits, family trends and personal psychology apply equally to their country, for example, and it’s very common to hear Canadians speak of “

we North Americans

” as one giant cultural group, in contrast to Europeans or Asians or other “real” foreigners. One of the great troubles of Canada’s entertainment industry, in fact, is that Canadians are almost too familiar and comfortable with American TV shows, music and movies (which barely seem foreign at all), meaning it’s often quite difficult for supposedly “distinctly Canadian” content to generate much public interest. To many, the phrase may even be an oxymoron.

Oh well, it certainly is great entertainment for this American, especially when some Canadians find my MLW membership and interest to be so odd, even as they have done the very same thing all their lives.

[Shady]

I also seem to remember that this self-searching happened last time too.

Just like the Democrats in 2004. How soon we forget history.

[WIP]

Not sure why this would be the case, as Americans didn't give the CPC a minority or majority government. The neurotic tug-o-war often on display here with regard to "U.S. influence" speaks more to the domestic perceptions of Canadians by Canadians, irrespective of what Americans may do or think in their own country. This web site best distills my understanding of what is going on:

http://www.thecanada...nti-americanism

I can't say that I disagree with a lot of their observations from a cultural and psychological perspective, but it should be noted most of the neurosis is English Canadian, not French Canadian! The Quebecois are very sure about their cultural identity and history....just not so sure about their future. And, I would suspect something similar of the Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, and any other French-speaking populations in the Country. It's English Canada which has been adrift for the last 50 years, wondering and desperately trying to invent a Canadian identity. So far, we've been trying to figure out a way NOT to be American, and combining French and English seems to have something to do with it. The anti-Americanism comes as much from the sense of being drowned out by American pop commercial culture that much of the rest of the world complains about, and the fact that our economy has been mostly focused around providing resources for the U.S., and at least up till now, providing branch plant operations of American corporations.

When I was in grade school, our identity was still formed around being the United Empire Loyalists, who gathered in all of the Loyalists from the 13 Colonies who stayed loyal to the British Crown, and rejected the treasonous calls for separation and independence of the Americans. So, even though Canada emerged after WWII as more dependent on the U.S. for trade and commerce than England, it has taken a few decades of wrangling to try to figure out what a Canadian identity is! I'm not sure if we're there yet....and I really don't care that much! There's too much nationalism in the world already. If we're one of the countries where people don't fly the flag much, that's probably a good thing!

[WIP]

I started out as a Republican, became a rather liberal Democrat, and now I'm a moderate Democrat - so my political alliances have changed too, but due to what's happened in my own country, not others.

I forgot to make note of a feeling I had the last time I came back that things had changed quite a bit from a few years earlier. In particular, when you were running the endless "Ground Zero Mosque" thing back when that was the hot issue, I never mentioned it at the time, but it occurred to me that, even then, it seemed like we had switched sides from where we would have been in 2008. I was doing a lot of the Muslim-bashing back then, and collaborating with DOP and a few others that I am on opposite sides with today on Muslims, and Christians and other religions for that matter! It seemed like you were one of the liberal voices back then, but I wasn't sure.

[Shady]

Anyways, so I'll ask again. How has Harper made Canada a vassal state to U.S. economic and foreign policy?