Are the Conservatives pandering to the anti American vote?

[Trotz]

It would be,
you would think that the nationalist (Pearsonian) component of the liberal party would somehow strike a bargain with the conservatives!

IMO, we narrowly avoided a civil war during the October Crisis and we haven't been the same since. At least in British Columbia, most young British Columbians I have met have an attitude which amounts to: "if Quebec hates us so much than leave!". I know it's probably a bit different in Ontario but it's obvious to me that Canada is an extremely fragmented country - the only thing which keeps us together is anti-Americanism.

 

[Machjo]

Okay, whether you consider yourself to be of Liberal persuation or not, the truth is, Michael Ignatieff is an elitist putz that is being portrayed accurately by the Conservatives in their ads. What's worse, Ignatieff being an elitist, that hates Canada and is only here to rule over us or the Conservatives rightly pointing it out?

this isn't pandering to Anti American people it is pandering to patriotic people. There is a big a$$ difference between the two. I will not be voting conservative either. I am actually voting with a protest vote for the Marijuana party but that's besides the point. If the Liberal party has a problem with having their idiot leader being seen on TV making stupid comments that can't be misconstrued as anything but what they are, then don't freakin' make said idiot your leader

1. If the Conservatives have such a grand vision to present to us, then thy shouldn't need to stoop so low as to attack an elitist, right?

And as for the video, let's analyse it a little closer, shall we.

First off, here's the oral transcript:

Michael Ignatieff is back in Canada.

But for how long?

While away, he called America his country.

[Ignatieff] 'You have to decide what kind of America you want. It's your country just as much as it is mine.'

He even professed his love for America.

[Ignatieff] 'I love the Repulic I live in.'

No wonder he'll ask Harvard to let him back.Ignatieff. He didn't come back for you.

Now, let's break this ad apart, shall we.

First off, let us remember that while communication may present ideas or facts about someone other than the speaker, the intent of all communication is always determined by the speaker. After all, he is the one who clearly sees some kind of purpose in communicating the information in question. Bearing that in mind, let's analyse the possible intent of the communication here, along with what it may unintentionally reveal of the speaker.

Michael Ignatieff is back in Canada.

This is a simple statement of fact. As to its having either a negative or positive meaning depends of course on what the speaker intends. Within the context of the ad, it's clear that his intent is negative, and so we can speculate what he may intend to communicate based on that. Did he mean that he does not welcome Canadians who leave and then return to Canada? Or that he sees any Canadian who seeks opportunity abroad as a traitor or a person of dubious loyalties? I honestly don't know the answer and can only speculate, but my understanding is in fact that he questions the loyalty of any Canadian who leaves and then returns to Canada. If that is his intention, then what is his opinion of Canadian international entrepreneurs, students, professors, workers, spouces, children, soldiers who live or are stationed abroad, diplomats, and other Canadians who live abroad? Where is the arrogance and elitism there, in Ignatieff or the narrator of the video?

But for how long?

Again, what is the purpose of the question? Is it saying that any Canadian who's lived abroad, even if as an ex-RCMP training police officers abroad under UN auspices such as is the case with one of my family members, is of questionable loyalty to Canada and cannot be counted on to remain for long?

While away, he called America his country.

So when a person moves to Canada, would the narrator of this video feel offended at the idea that such a person should come to love Canada and its people so much as to feel like he is a part of it?Or does he look snobbishly down on the US as somehow inferior, and so is offended at the idea that any Canadian should come to love another country than his own? Again, where is the snobbishness and elitism there? if anything, to come to identify with a people, as a part of that people, rather than a superior outsider would seem to show some humility in my opinion.

[Ignatieff] 'You have to decide what kind of America you want. It's your country just as much as it is mine.'

While the context of this quote is unclear, what is clear is that Ignatieff has developed a love for his adopted country while he was there. Is that not a sign that he is capable of identifying with a people wherever he lives, that he is capable of love for a people and identifying as a member of a larger community? This would seem like a positive trait to me. Obviously not to the narrator of the video though.

He even professed his love for America.

Of course, how could you come to identify with a people without loving it unless you didn't love yourself?

[Ignatieff] 'I love the Repulic I live in.'

This could be interpreted in a number of ways, but suffice it to say that this reinforces his claim to love the community he became a member of by moving to the US. Again, within the context of the video, the narrator seems to see this as a bad thing.

No wonder he'll ask Harvard to let him back.

So he loved working at Harvard, and presumably helping his students. Seems like a positive enough trait to me, again showing his love for his adopted country while he lived in the US. It also shows him to be a smart man who knows how to ensure a backup plan in case he loses his seat so that he can continue to serve his students. Is the narrator suggesting that it is bad to love to serve people outside one's own country and to love other people who are not your co-nationals?

Ignatieff. He didn't come back for you.

Pure speculation. Maybe, maybe not. But let's suppose the narrator is right. His being right in this case would be pure luck, a totally out of context statement having no relationship to the previous statements in the video. As for arrogance an elitism, whether Ignatieff qualifies or not is one matter, but nothing in this video proves that. What the video does prove though is that the narrator of the video is a snobbish nationalist elitist who believes that loving and identifying with a people who are not his co-nationals is below him.

While this video neither proves nor disproves Ignatieff's elitism, it does prove:

1. That he identifies with and loves the people of the US, and serving the his students at Harvard.

2. That he loves Canada enough to have chosen to leave Harvard, a university he clearly loves, to come back, and

3. That the narrator of this video is an ignorant nationalist who believes in Canada's moral superiority over the US, questions the loyalty of any Canadian who comes back from abroad and does not particularly welcome them, and has nothing positive to say about himself nor his own party.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not necessarily an Ignatieff fan myself, but am merely taking the video at face value.

Have I missed anything?

 

[BaalsTears]

Anti-Americanism is a slender reed on which to rest the question of national identity. Besides, American immigration to Canada in the years to come will make it politically impossible for any politician to be perceived as anti-American.

 

[Machjo]

This isn't pandering to Anti American people it is pandering to patriotic people.

How is this pandering to patriotic people? As far as I can see, there is nothing patriotic about the video at all. A truly patriotic video would focus on the narrator's love for Canada. Where in the video does the narrator ever express any love for Canada or any Canadian? As far as I can tell, it's merely expressing contempt for a fellow Canadian along with a nationalist superiority complex towards Canada in relation to the US.

Let's not confuse patriotism and nationalism. The Anti-Americanism portrayed in the video is a straightforward example of pandering to the basest nationalistic instincts of Canadians, which we know often does manifest itself in a moral superiority complex towards the US.

It would be,
you would think that the nationalist (Pearsonian) component of the liberal party would somehow strike a bargain with the conservatives!

IMO, we narrowly avoided a civil war during the October Crisis and we haven't been the same since. At least in British Columbia, most young British Columbians I have met have an attitude which amounts to: "if Quebec hates us so much than leave!". I know it's probably a bit different in Ontario but it's obvious to me that Canada is an extremely fragmented country - the only thing which keeps us together is anti-Americanism.

If Anti-Americanism is all Canada has holding it together, then I'd say dissolve the country pronto. No country can last long if it's unity is dependent on opposition to an outsider as a common enemy. True unity must come from within, from a common positive bond shared in common, not a common enemy.

 

[Cannuck]

The fact remains that most Canadians who still bother to vote, don't trust either the Liberals or Cons and that's why there is still a Minority government.

Liberal, Conservative and Dipper numbers haven't fluctuated too much in the last 40 years. What has changed is the BQ and that is the only reason we haven't been seeing majority governments. It used to be that whomever took Kweebeck got 24 Sussex. No longer.

 

[wulfie68]

Liberal, Conservative and Dipper numbers haven't fluctuated too much in the last 40 years. What has changed is the BQ and that is the only reason we haven't been seeing majority governments. It used to be that whomever took Kweebeck got 24 Sussex. No longer.

That really just emphasizes how regionalism now governs the nation and it is something that will only get worse over time, as more us vs them situations arise (like the maritimes vs Quebec on the power cable issue for example). So much of the Canadian identity is based on the "we're not American" mantra, that most of us don't really know what we are. As it relates back to the ad, well, Harper has openly complimented Chretien's political savvy before, so its not surprising to see the CPC utilize the old Liberal strategy that worked so well, by repeatedly bringing up the "secret agenda" of Preston Manning and the Reformers.

And it all leads to the same conclusion, which is all of the parties are in it for their own sake, not the good of the country: they're primarily interested in their own power, not healing the rifts and restoring a united Canada.

 

[Cannuck]

And it all leads to the same conclusion, which is all of the parties are in it for their own sake, not the good of the country: they're primarily interested in their own power, not healing the rifts and restoring a united Canada.

The number one step in problem solving is identify the problem. To the overwhelming number of politicians, the problem is not crumbling infrastructure, debt, Afghanistan, the economy etc, it is how to get elected next time around.

 

[Machjo]

I just hope the next election will present us with candidates who are a little more gentlemanly than the person who'd created that video.

And quite honestly, an analysis of the analysis of the deeper message of the video and the contempt it expresses towards Canadian living abroad and its contempt for the US is worrisome should it in fact attract large support.

 

[mentalfloss]

It would seem so to moi...

YouTube - Ignatieff America

:lol:

That was almost as funny as the China from the future commercial.

 

[BaalsTears]

Query: What country is destined to live forever in the bosom of American affection? What country has integrated its economy, national security, media, and blood ties with Americans? What country needs to learn to accept American affection? What country has also penetrated the American economy with its money and people?