POL214Y1- Brooke Readings.docx

47 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Nelson Wiseman

Chapter 2 = Ideology and Political Culture * What are the values that Canadians hold that make them distinct from other nations? * How are Canadian values and beliefs different fromAmericans especially? * Until latter half of twentieth century, we used to believe that Canadians believe in a more orderly, less individualistic society than that of the United States, in which the state is more so expected to engage in activities that promote the welfare of society and the development of an independent Canada. * Our tie to Great Britain remained very strong until middle of the century and saw Canada as more British than American in its institutions, values and heritage. * But this question has become less plausible over last couple of decades. * Many still believe that Canadian values are less individualistic and less hostile to government than the U.S * However, as the bonds joining Canada to U.S economically and culturally have multiplied and deepened, we are still obsessed with, what it takes to be Canadian. * This obsession however is not prominent in French- Speaking Canada, namely Quebec * They are dominantly insulated fromAmerican cultural influences by language and for much of their history by the strongly Catholic character of their society, French Canadians have been less likely than English Canadians to define themselves with the U.S * This is the basis of French Canadian nationalism * What does it mean to be a Quebecois? * Ideas, Values and Institutions * Ideas assume various forms in political life. * When they take form of a set of interrelated beliefs about how society is organized and how it ought to function- interpretative map for understanding the world: we have an ideology * Most people are not aware of having ideological learning’s, and are not aware that they may be labelled as conservative or liberal. * When a nation is pragmatic however, this means that an ideology is so entrenched that it is a national convention. *Apolitical culture consists of the characteristic values, beliefs and behaviours of a society’s members in regards to politics. * Obviously not every citizen will share these values of political culture, however when speaking of a nation’s political culture, we are speaking about the majority * In Canada, research on political culture is mostly focused on differences between French speaking and English speaking Canadians and on the question of whether or not English Canada is characterized by regional political culture. * To determine whether significant and persistent differences exist, political scientists have attempted to measure such things as levels of political knowledge, feelings of political efficiency, political participation and alienation, attitudes toward political authority, and different levels of govt and the sense of belonging to a particular community * They also looked at individual personality * Canadians are said to be more deferential thanAmericans * We focus on relationship between a person’s general attitudes towards authority and non conformity- issues like protection of civil liberties, toleration of political dissent, the group rights of minorities, and attitudes toward public authorities * The main conclusion of this: the general personality traits show up in an individual’s political ideas and action * We categorize political ideas through : left wing, right wing and centrist * These labels are used to signify the broader ideological premises believed to lie behind an action, opinion or statement * The centre- is virtually the mainstream of society’s politics and those who occupy this location on the political spectrum are most likely to identify themselves as pragmatic * Right and left- conflicting belief systems * They include basic notion of how society, the economy and politics should operate * Right winged people adhere to more of a individualistic belief system while left winged people are more collectivist * However, in reality the politics of left and right are much more complicated than simplified portraits suggest * Liberals believe that individuals should be allowed greatest freedoms possible while social conservatives believe in rejection of pluralism that reject traditional values * However libertarians and social conservatives can have a shared apathy of modern welfare that may cause them both to be categorized on the right * There are therefore limitations to left- right categorization of political ideas * There are therefore 3 main ideologies that we use to categorize political culture * Socialism- greatly influenced the politics of Western societies since theAmerican and French revolutions * Liberalism and Conservatism * Classical liberalism- liberalism was associated with freedom of religious choice and practice, free enterprise and free trade in the realm of economic, freedom of expression and association in politics * Classical conservatism- was based on the importance of tradition. It accepted human inequality as the nature of things. Conservatism then emphasized the importance of continuity with the past and the preservation of law and order. * Classical Socialism- although there was no party having the label socialist, socialist ideology has been influential in various ways * This was based on the principle of equality of condition, a radical egalitarianism that distinguished socialist doctrine from liberalism’s advocacy of equality of opportunity. Socialists supported a vastly greater relm for the state in directing the economy, better working conditions and greater rights for workers; also emphasised social services like healthy, pensions, education, etc * Modern Liberalism- does not place individual freedoms above all else. Instead, by their belief that governments can and should act to alleviate hardships experienced by poor and oppressed. They are now more likely to be concerned with group rights than individual freedoms. It has now been associated with support for multiculturalism and openness towards non traditional lifestyles and social institutions. * Modern Conservatism- embraces economic beliefs that once were the classical liberals. Similar to classical liberalism, they defend principle of eqaulity of opportunity and are more likely to place protection of personal freedoms before advancement of minority rights.Although like earlier times, conservatism is still acquainted with more richer people, it is worth noting that conservative parties often receive much support from middle class * Modern Socialism- has changed the least. However, much less confidence today that state ownership of the means of economic production and distribution is desirable * Modern Socialists or social democrats, advocate egalitarian society with the acceptance of capitalism and inevitable inequalities generated from this * The classical ideologies were formed in response to one another as well as the social and economic conditions in which they were rooted * But as the character of Western societies have changed, so too have the ideologies that slug it out in their politics * Consequences of globalization?Adebate in which moral considerations are seldom far from the surface * Explaining Ideas and Institutions * Explanations of Canadians’ political ideas, and of the institutions that embody them are grouped into three groups: fragment theory, role of formative events, and economic explanations * Fragment Theory * Canada along with other new world societies was founded by immigrants from Europe * They were ‘fragments’ of the European societies that gave birth to them * They represented only a part of the socio-economic and cultural spectrum of the European society from which they originated * These immigrants brought cultural baggage- values and beliefs from European nations, kind of like a genetic code that sets the limit to later cultural development in new world societies * But why should the ideas of founders carry such weight that they shape political culture for subsequent generations? Fragment theory is kind of weak on this * They would say that transmission of fragment culture from generation to generation presumably depends on social structures and political institutions that date from the founding period, and embody the dominant ideas of the founding immigrants * Canada is composed of Loyalists that left the U.S * Some say this is because of conservative or Tory values * Formative Events: counter revolution and the conquest * Societies are marked by certain major events at critical periods in development- these are formative events * The society will evolve along particular lines, instead of others * For ex, theAmerican revolution is said to have created liberal values that were entrenched inAmerican constitution * This is said to have shaped the subsequent patterns ofAmerican politics * Seymor Lipset pays close attention to this: U.S shaped by revolutionary origins while Canada by counter revolutionary * Economic Structures and Political Ideas * No longer hopelessly idealistic like the cultural baggage of fragment theory and cultural mindset of formative events *An economic interpretation, explains culture and institutions that embody and perpetuate it as the products of class relations * Ideas and institutions change in response to transformations in the economic system and in the class relations associated with this system * The belief that culture and institutions are the embodiments of power relations whose sources lie in the economic system * This argues that dominant ideas of a society are inevitably those of the more powerful class, that is those who control the system of economic production and distribution * Ultimately, the lack of ‘congruence’ between the values of the conservative ideology and the personal experience of most Quebecois brought about the collapse of one dominant ideology and its replacement by one more in tune with those social groups * The new middle class and growing francophone business community- who have dominated Quebec politics since Quiet revolution * Political Ideas of Canadians- look at history, survey research data on attitudes, and measures of actual behaviour of individuals, groups and gov’ts * Community- Canadians are obsessed with national identity * In the recent years these two historical pillars of Canada’s identity crises have been joined by newer challenges to the political community * These have come from aboriginal Canadians and from some ethnic minorities who reject what they argue is their marginalization within Canadian society * Canada has suffered through many identity politics * The term political community implies a shared sense of belonging to a country whose national integrity is worth preserving * Four major challenges to Canadian political community are * French-English relations * Native demands for self government *American influence on Canadian culture * Regional tensions * French-English relations and Native demands for self government have occasionally been associated with political violence and calls for the redrawing of boundary lines * The challenge ofAmerican influence has assumed forms that are less obviously territorial * The fourth challenge of regional tensions, has been an important factor in Canadian politics from the country’s inception * Some say that regional grievances and conflicts have never threatened the territorial integrity of Canada, while others will disagree * English vs. French political tensions- to understand Quebec separatism, we will consider two measures: political violence and public attitudes * Political violence-Canadians are not accustomed to violent resolution of political disputes * Violence has not however has not been absent or unimportant in Canadian politics * Much of the violence has involved labour disputes or workers protests and the use of Royal Canadian Mounted Police * These violent occurrences and attitudes, regardless of whether we agree with them, represent a significant challenge to the notion of a single Canadian political community * PublicAttitudes- Change in Quebec politics, supported by many Quebec intellectuals but not taken seriously by the main political parties or by the public * Since then, independence has attracted the support of a sizable minority of Quebecois * Freedom: Individual freedom is said to be the part ofAmerican political creed * Canadians more likely to limit individual freedom in pursuit of social order or group rights. Is this true? * This idea is shown in literature- powerful individualistic current runs throughAmerican culture * This is not shown in Canadian literature * Individualism and freedom are also popular inAmerican popular culture * Look at Hollywood: against the grain individualism * Canada on other hand, often portrayed as less assertive and more concerned with social order- this is backed up with attitudinal data * Canadians do not necessarily value freedom less, but that they are more likely thanAmericans to believe that real freedom often requires that govt interfere with individual property rights and economic markets * Equality- you would think that Tory imprint would cause Canadians to value equality less than our American counterparts. However, statistics show that we value equality more than the U.S * We are more likely to support publicly funded health care and to narrow gap between rich and poor * We value; equality of results, whereasAmericans value; equality of opportunity * Canadians are devoted to redistribution egalitarianism * But we cannot say this too much, because this would imply that there is a greater acceptance of economic equalities inAmericans than in Canada...and this is not proved * Canada quite tolerant of cultural diversity * Moreover, Canadians have been less harsh to Native minorities thanAmericans, there is an official policy of multiculturalism and a firmer basis of affirmative action * Canada’s mosaic, vs. America’s melting pot, although this too has its limits in Canada- this should not be pushed too hard * The U.S has minority admission requirements in Universities, extensive system of Spanish schools and affirmative action policies as well * There’s a gender equality as a dimension in both Canada and the U.S * Looking at race-Americans tend to be more racist than Canadians on a whole but they have anAmerican president and we have never even been the leader of a political party. So what can we really conclude here? * Citizens Expectations for Government * Canadians are more likely to look to government for their needs, they are thus more likely to accept state actions that they dislike, instead of mobilizing against them * In contrast to U.S- Thomas Jefferson: the best government governs least * This more dependent and passive attribution of Canadians has been backed up by significant evidence. * Some of Canada’s most prominent scholars have argued that the collectivist ethos and greater willingness of Canadians than Americans to use the state to achieve community goals are central to the Canadian political tradition * George Grant: Red Toryism: conservatives that believe that government has a responsibility to act as an agent of the common good, and that responsibility goes as far as maintaining law and order * Charles Taylor: There is also communatarism: based on the belief that real human freedom and dignity are possible only in the context of communal relations that allow for the public recognition of group identities and that are based on equal respect for those different identity groups. *Amore quantative treatment of this phenomenon is seen by Neil Neviette...that says Canadians are less deferential today than in the past. He attributes this to the post materialist values of those born in post ww2 era. * How different are Canadians andAmerican values? Scholars say that they are fundamentally different. (Adams) * Others would say(Resnick) that there is a similarity, of course but Canadians have alot of fundamental similarities to Western Europeans, such as the French than they do withAmericans. * Resnick argues that the gap between US and Canada is constantly growing * The precariousness of the national identity of English speaking Canada. * This identity has always been based on the premise of significant value differences between US and Canada. Why they are not using the same constitution and why they should not be under the same constitution * The magnitude of these differences, of course- are not great. It is also certain that this issue is very significant in politics, as politicians, commentators, citizens and political scientists- allow their preferences to influence their reading of the evidence. Different summary of Chapter 2 by another student Brooks Chapter 2 - Political Culture -Society has core values or belief system shared by most of its members -Right: individualistic => welfare of society is in allowing individuals to pursue own interests => government involvement should be limited, currently it is too intrusive -Left: collectivist => believe social and economic circumstances determine one’s opportunities => government must intervene in ways that promote the common good -Classical liberalism was associated with freedom of religious choice and practice, free enterprise, and free trade in the realm of economics, and freedom of expression and association in politics -Classical conservatism was based on the importance of tradition. It accepted human inequality - social, political, and economic - as part of the natural order of things. It stressed preservation of law and order and continuity with the past. -Contemporary liberalism does not place individual freedom above all else => contemporary liberals believe the government can and should act to alleviate hardships experienced by the poor and the oppressed => concerned with minority group rights over individual freedoms -Modern conservatives tend to embrace the economic beliefs that were characteristic of liberals. They also defend the principle of equality of opportunity. They are more likely to place the protection of personal freedoms before the advancement of minority rights. -Ideologies may not be as prevalent as they used to be, but they are visible especially on moral considerations. Fragment Theory - New World societies were ‘fragments’ of the European societies that gave birth to them. They were fragment societies because they represented only a part of the socio-economic and cultural spectrum of the European society from which they originated, and because their creation coincided with a particular ideological epoch => What are the strong and weak points of this theory? -Canada has been characterized as a two-fragment society. - French Canada was founded by immigrants from France who brought with them their Catholicism and feudal ideas about social and political relations. - English Canada was originally populated by immigrants from the United States. The ‘cultural baggage’ they carried with them has been the subject of much debate, but it is generally viewed that they held predominantly liberal political beliefs - Refer to page 41 (Table summary of classic and contemporary visions of liberalism, conservatism, and socialism) Formative Events Explanation - Societies are shaped by major events that happen at critical periods during their development and these events influence the society to evolve in a particular way (Example:American Revolution fought in the name of liberal values and followed by the adoption of a constitution that presented the victor’s preference of dispersed political power, a weak executive, and guarantees for individual rights p.43) -Seymour Martin Lipset: an American sociologist and the main exponent of the formative events theory Conclusions - Both fragment theory and formative events explanation are insufficient because they locate the sources of political values and institutions primarily in ideas - cultural baggage for the former and cultural mindset and symbols for the latter. -An economic interpretation by contrast explains culture and institutions that embody and perpetuate it as the products of class relations - Ideas and institutions change in response to transformations in the economic system and in the class relations associated with this system. - Culture and institutions are the embodiments of power relations whose sources lie in the economic system - Why would the members of subordinate classes embrace values and beliefs that, according to this class perspective, are basically justifications for the self-interest of the dominant class? - The answer has two parts: 1) Those who are not part of the dominant class (the majority of people) may be victims of false consciousness- the inability of the subordinate classes to see where their real interests lie. - The notion of the ‘equality of opportunity’ is perpetuated in school, through mass media and other means as a characteristic feature of our society rather than acknowledging that systemic inequality is characteristic of our society. - 2)According to this class perspective, members of subordinate classes accept the ideas of the dominant class as ‘common sense’ because these ideas conform to some significant extent to their personal experience. In a society in which under the constitution there are no second-class citizens and where everyone has the right to vote and participate in politics and enjoys equal protection under the law, claims about equality may appear to be valid. - While some people never escape the socio-economic circumstances they are born into, many others do. There is enough proof that hard work and/or intelligence pays off in terms of material success to make liberalism’s claim about what determines a person’s socio-economic status a credible one. -Acertain degree of congruence must exist between the dominant values and beliefs of a society and the lived experience of most of its members, for otherwise the ideas of the dominant class will be exposed as pure self- interest. - Therefore ‘false consciousness’ cannot be totally false. - Ideological systems not anchored in the social and economic realities of those subject to them are just not viable. => Example: The leading force behind the expansion of the Quebec state that took place in the early to mid-1960s was the new middle class. Ultimately, the lack of ‘congruence’ between the values of the conservative ideology and the personal experience of most Quebecois brought about the collapse of one dominant ideology and its replacement by one more in tune with those social groups- the new middle class and the growing francophone business community - who have dominated Quebec politics since the Quiet Revolution. The Political Ideas of Canadians Community - “The term political ‘nationality’ is used by Donald Smiley to refer to precisely this sort of non-ethnic, non-racial sense of political community.” (p.48) - Canada’s sense of community has often seemed fragile; it is threatened by French-English tensions, western grievances against Ontario and Quebec and conflicts between the aspirations of Native Canadians and the policies of federal and provincial governments. - Four major challenges to the Canadian political community are: 1) French-English relations 2) Native demands for self-government 3)American influence on Canadian culture 4) Regional tensions - To understand how great a threat Quebec separatism has posed to the Canadian community, consider two measures: political violence and public attitudes. - P.51 examples of hostile relations between French and English Freedom -Americans value individual freedom more than Canadians… -Americans’ understanding of freedom as ‘the absence of restraint, or individual behaviour’ (sometimes called a negative freedom) actually denies real freedom to many people. -Canadians’ greater willingness to permit government restrictions on individual behaviour does not mean that they value freedom less, but that they are more likely thanAmericans to believe that real freedom often requires that government interfere with individual property rights and economic markets. -Moreover governments should guarantee to all citizens such things as public education and health care in order to help equalize the opportunities available both to the well off and the less-privileged. Equality - Lipset: “Canadians are committed to redistribution egalitarianism, whileAmericans place more emphasis on meritocratic competition and equality of opportunity.” rd 3 Summary by another student for Chapter 2 Chapter 2 - political culture topics that are examined- • ideologies values and institutions ideology - interpretative map for understnding the world political culture consists of the characteristic values, beliefs, behaviours that are expect of a society when applied to dealing with politics canada research on political culture has focused primarily on the differences that exist between the politically relevant attitudes and beliefs of French-speaking and English speaking citizens Canada is characterised by regional political cultures • fragment theory immigration occured in waves coninciding with major political and ideological shifts in europe. forcing them to immigrate to the New World societies in Canada were "fragments of European societies. they represent a certain part of the socio-economic and cultural spectrum of the European society from which they originated from.And also their creation conincided with a particular ideological "epoch" • formative events marked by certain major events at critical periods in their development these events are formative in the sense that they make it more probably that a society will evolve along particular lines, instead of along others formative events are associated with ideas and with institutions political culture is shaped by revolutionary origins (america) and canada's political culture was shaped with "counter-revolutionary" origins loyalism concealed underlying ideological liberalism they were liberals without the rejecting the government (as americans rejected the US government for being tyrannical and thus forming an more extreme sense of liberalism) Loyalism was a self-justification for not being american • economic structures and political ideas formative and fragment theory explanations are too idealistic. because they locate sources of political values and institutions primarily in ideas. economic interpretation explains culture and institutions that embody and perpetuate it as the products of class relations. class relations form part of the system for economic production and distribution - modes of production. ideas and insittuions change in response to transformations in the economic system and in the class relations associated with this system. beliefs that culture and institutions are the embodiments of power relaitons whose sources lie in the economic system. dominant ideas and existing political arrangements of society are not merely the shadows cast by economic phenomena. dominant ideas are those that belong to the most powerful class - those who control the system of economic production and distribution. other classes must then accept these ideas • the political ideas of Canadians the nature of Canadian andAmerican value differences • Political ideas and values community suggesting obessive and insecure introspection of Canadians constant comparison withAmerican society to justify and identify as Canadians. rejection of the republican democracy in the States challenges to canadian community french-english relations native demands for self government american influence on Canadian culture Regional Tensions chellenge of having canada under a single unified community - often challenged by French and First nations Political violence - when there is opposition, Canadians tend to avoid violent confrontations. violence has not been either absent or unimportant in Canadian politics much of the violence has involved labour disputes or workers' protests violence is usually suppressed by military or police Freedom Canadians are more willing than Americans to limit their individual freedoms in pursuit of social order or group rights e.g. gun control - in US you have the right to bear arms. In Canada, gun registry implemented - representing a way to control crime. few complained about regulating ownership. In contrast, Gun control is often opposed with arguments of threatening individual freedoms and rights. Views of government being able to act to promote freedom, rather than getting out of the way to let individuals do what they want Equality Loyalists have left a Tory imprint on Canadian politics - we would have expected that we'd place a lower value on equality that americans (since tories believed that class hierarhcy was normal and desirable). However Canadians tend to care and "look after" lower classed/underpriveleged groups of people in Canada. Canadians value equality more thanAmericans (healthcare, education etc) egalitarianism has its roots in a more collectivist tradition, in the US it draws on a more individualistic tradition. US draws on more individualistic traditions. Candian's greater tolerance for state measures targeted at disadvantaged groups and reiongs Citizen expectations and attitudes towards state government Both demanding of the state and more passive towards it. Government seems to be more intrusive in Canada than in the US Grant (Lament for a nation) argued Canadian political tradition was marked by a communitarian spirit that rejected the individualism of American-style liberalism. As an influence of conservative ideas and also british connection We have greater faith in government since canadians are skeptical of the practices in the states. Setting our Canadian history apart from the US The importance of collectivism in canadian political tradition citizens less likely to question political and other sources of established authority that US. However recent events in 1985-95 (argued by Pater C. Newman) have less to the collapse of trust citizens have with their governors. Rise of new populism. • how different are canadian and american values differences between US and canada are rather small US is more traditional, religious Canada less religious more secular views both promote self expression. Canadians believe in a more orderly, less individualistic society than that of the United States • state is expected to engage in actiities that promote the welfare of society and the development of an independent Canada • Canadian values continue to be less individualistic and less hostile to government than in the United States. • key words of Canada - Tolerant, compassionate, caring - canadians have more of thesequalities than americans question of what means to be Canadian arises amongst citizens Chapter 3 = The Social and Economic Setting * Canadian self image of compassion, tolerance and prosperity * Their neighbours (U.S) might be richer, but most Canadians believe that their country’s prosperity is more shared. *Although Canadians are fortunate, over 4 million Canadians fall below conventional poverty line * This chapter focuses on social and economic status of Canada...will make comparisons to other countries, regions within Canada and various points in Canadian history * We will understand the societal context that these influences, and is influenced by, politics and public policy by looking at : * Material Well Being * Equality * Quality of Life * Independence * They represent public purposes that most of us expect governments to preserve or promote. * Second, political controversies are frequently about one or more of these values * Like ideology and institutions, the social and economic settings of politics establish boundaries of political life * Material Well Being * Canada is an affluent society * For the last generation, the average real purchasing power of Canadians was the second highest in the world, topped by Americans- this is looking at wealth through purchasing power *Affluence effects opportunities and problems faced by policy makers * The issue of poverty is much different in Canada than it is in poorer nations e.g. Mexico * Within affluent societies, cultural and institutional differences are probably more important as determinants of the public agenda and government response to them than their differences in material well being *Although being one of the richest in the world, Canadians have seldom been complacent about their affluence. Fears that Canada’s material well being may rest on fragile footings have been long expressed. * The political importance of the employment issue is seen as one of the most important facing the country *Americans have a couple of percent higher employment rate than Canadians- but Canada is still doing very well with employment rates * The last two decades have seen the emergence of a politically important debate over the relative value to an economy of service vs. manufacturing jobs * The disappearance of manufacturing jobs has increased the importance of education and skills as necessary qualifications for well paying jobs. * Much of the work in computer programming and financial services has moved to India * Moulds for manufacturing has been relocated to China * This spread of jobs is known as outsourcing * Some say that while outsourcing is indeed troublesome, this is better than providing foreign aid to these poorer nations * This outsourcing advocates the notion usually taken by Canadians that say that world income should be distributed evenly * Equality * Canadians often believe that their society has no classes * In the ‘Vertical Mosaic’ – it is doubtful today whether Canadians are as confident that their society is one without serious inequalities * Homelessness, poverty and growing income inequality seems to be a routine * For various reasons, Canadians are probably more away for inequalities today than they were a few decades ago * Liberal ideology- to say that society is basically middle class means, that the barriers to upward mobility are relatively low for the vast majority of people * Most Canadians occupy a broad middle band in terms of incomes and lifestyles * Wealth is unevenly distributed in all societies...in recent years threes been studies to prove that gap between rich and poor has grown in Canada * Widespread belief that inequality has worsened *Another assessment of inequality is poverty * Canada’s poverty is however, obviously very different from poverty in Nigeria * Poverty lines are relative and arbitrary and some poverty lines are better than others * Native Canadians- the employment rate forAboriginal Canadians are the lowest of any ethnic group, at about two thirds of the national level * Women- are more likely than men to be poor. The poverty rate for women is about one third higher than that for men. Elderly women are 3x more likely to fall below poverty line than elderly men, * Why are these groups more susceptible to poverty? There are some obvious causes although there’s no clear answer: discrimination, lower levels of education * Differences between men and women in regards to poverty is more complex than this, consider high rates of single parent mothers with children under 18 * Inequality also has an important regional dimension in Canada as income levels and employment rates vary dramatically across regions of Canada- poor provinces with low personal incomes are Newfoundland, New Brunswick, PEI * One of the chief influences of equality is socio economic mobility * This refers to ability of individuals, families and groups to move from one social or economic position to another * This implies the existence of hierarchally arranged differences in society, such as those that exists between income groups and occupations...these exists in all societies * The vertical mosaic has opened up for Canadians but gender, ethnicity, race and family background continue to play a huge role in tremendous downward pull on mobility * Why do inequalities exist?And what consequences do they have for Canadian politics and society? Deliberate discrimination, systematic discrimination, choice and politics * Deliberate discriminatation- the prejudice that one person feels towards the members of some group becomes deliberate discrimation when it is acted upon * This is the intent to treat the members in some group in an unequal manner * Systematic Discrimination- this is discrimination without conscious individual intent * It inheres in traditions, costmary practices, rules, and institutions that have the effect of favouring the members of one group over the other * Choice- individual choice also contributes to inequality...e.g.- if you chose to live in Cape Breton, northern Ontario or New Brunswick – there is a greater chance of being unemployed than somewhere like Toronto or Calgary * Politics- Fairness and equality are cultural notions. E.g. - what groups should benefit from affirmative action? This is a subjective idea *As values and beliefs change, a society’s notion of what is fair may be transformed * Value shifts are almost certain to be accompanied and influenced by political struggles. * E.g.- The Charter of Rights and freedoms in constitution has had an enormous impact on the prominence of equality rights issues, the strategies that groups use to achieve their goals and treatment of certain groups * Quality of Life- look at the U.S – being the wealthiest nation in the world, still has highest rates of homicide, drug problems, alcoholism, homeless people, divorce rates, etc * Canadians are proud that they are less afflicted with these problems * But high rates of standard of liking, like the US is also tarnished by problems that undermine the quality of life * Compared to other advanced industrial counties, Canada does relatively well on all of these measures * The surrogate measures of the QOL we have examined suggest that the United Nations is certainly right in rating Canada as one of the world’s best countries to live * Independence- a democracy requires self government * This is done through * The power to enter foreign treaties: The BNA act gave this responsibility to Britain until 1931 * The power to amend constitution- this also remained in the hands of Britain but changed in 1981 after the amendment formula * The power to interpret Constitution- in 1949, the supreme court of Canada became the final appellate court for Canadian and its constitutional umpire * Step by step Canada received full powers of self government that it exercises today * Some say that the previous limitations of Canadian power was caused by economic dependence on Great Britain * But in the real world, no self governing democracy is totally independent of external influences * Canada still has enormous dependence on foreign sources of investment capital, imports and markets for Canadian exports. * Nevertheless, one may fairly say that these influences are felt somewhat more powerfully in Canada than in most countries. * More importantly, the nationalist arguments are based on an outdated ideal of national autonomy that bears increasingly little resemblance to today’s world of interdependent states. POL214 Lecture 4 Readings “Canadian Democracy” – Chapter 4: Regionalism and Canadian Politics -“Canada has too much geography” – PM Mackenzie King -vastness of Can + diversity in the natural endowments and interests of its regions produced conflicts that wouldn’t exist in a more compact country or whose resolution would be less difficult ▯ challenges of regionalism and inter-regional conflict = central part of the Can story -regionalism = 1 of 3 fundamental axes of Can politics (Donald Smiley) -source of major political divisions and controversies throughout Can’s history + continues to be 1 of defining features of Can’s political landscape today -most have viewed regionalism as a problem -aside from occasional patriotic celebrations of Can’s regional diversity and sheer size, few have argued that size + regional diversity = positive attributes in pol life -some of founders of US believes these attributes to be positive, perhaps even necessary, characteristics of a pol system respectful of freedom -in Federalist Papers, James Madison: larger territory encompassing a greater diversity of regional interests = more likely to provide protection for personal freedoms, group rights, and sectional interests than would a smaller, more homogeneous country -as the physical size of a country increased + scope of its social and esp economic interests was enlarged, the likelihood of any particular group being able to dominate others or of being able to from a coalition w/ other interests to achieve such domination would decline -small countries w/ comparatively homogeneous pops = incapable of maintain respect for individual + minority rights; majority would inevitably exercise a sort of tyranny, using their superior #s to oppress the rights of others ▯ this less likely to happen in a larger, more diverse country -Madison’s arguments never resonated very positively in Can, w/ exception of some supporters of this view in western Can -debates on Confederation contain no echoes of this argument for a vast republic to ensure the protection of rights -expansion of Can = seen by most as necessary pre-emptive action to reduce possibility of the vast western territories being annexed by a US where idea of Manifest Destiny + fact of territorial expansion = riding high -surprisingly, perhaps, 1 of few Cans to theorize about the consequences of regionalism in the style of Madison = Trudeau, usually thought of as being a PM w/ strong preference for centralized fed power -his thoughts on pol virtue of regionalism were, however, formulated before he entered fed politics -aside from early Trudeau and some disgruntled westerners, few Cans have disagreed w/ King’s assessment that regionalism = primarily a burden on back of Can politics The Unexpected Persistence of Regionalism -last few decades have seen upsurge in regionalism in Can (trend mirrored in other parts of world) -signs seen in the party system, western alienation, regional economic disparities, and intergovernmental conflict -The party system -for most of Can’s history, 2 historically dominant parties (the Liberals + Conservatives) competed w/ each other across Can -though they didn’t draw equally well from all regional segments of the electorate (the Liberals did much better in QC for most of 20 C and the Conservatives much stronger in the West for most of 2 half of 20 th C), both = very clearly national pol parties w/ significant support across Can -since 1993 general election, the character of Can’s party system = more regionally than nationally based -most obvious in case of the Bloc Quebecois, which only runs candidates in QC + which elected more MPs from QC than any other party in 1993, 1997, 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections + ran strong 2 to the Liberals in the 2000 election -the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party) won almost all its seats west of ON + received greatest share of the pop vote of any party in combined 4 western provs during 1993, 1997, and 2000 fed elections -the Progressive Conservative Party (long a truly national party I terms of regional breadth of its support) elected more of its MPs from theAtlantic provs in these 3 elections than from any other part of Can -theAlliance + the Progressive Conservatives merged into the Conservative Party of Can before the 2004 election, a union that delivered less than a handful of seats in ON and none from QC in that election -only the Liberal Party appeared capable of claiming significant support in all regions of the country over these 4 national elections, although even its regional levels of support = very uneven -the 2006 and 2008 elections saw a continuation of very weak Liberal support west of ON, but a resurgence of Conservative support in ON and even QC -nevertheless, recent elections have produced party rep in Parliament that’s strikingly fragment along regional lines -Western alienation -Western grievances against Ottawa + the ON-QC axis that has dominated the national pol scene = existed for as long as these provs have been part of Can -but in the 70s, there was a sharp upward ratcheting in the rhetoric associated w/ these grievances [email protected] this point, the term “western alienation” entered the lexicon of Can politics -as has always been the case, economics = @ root of this discontent -spokespersons for the western provs argued that Ottawa treated the resources w/ which the West was well endowed + which formed the basis for western prosperity, differently and less favourably than those located primarily in provs like ON and QC -though Albertans = most vocal in making this case, politicians and industry leaders in BC and SK provided a supportive chorus -Economic disparities -gap between real prosperity of the richest and poorest provs of Can hasn’t grown narrower -indeed, if you exclude the fed gov’t transfers intended to narrow this gap, the disparity = increased between wealthy provs (Ex. AB and ON) + less affluent provs (Ex. NB and Nova Scotia) -by itself, such disparity doesn’t necessarily mean greater inter-regional conflict if the central gov’t = able to subsidize incomes + public services in the poorer regions and if taxpayers in the wealthier regions = willing to pay for this regional redistribution of wealth ▯ these conditions have been eroded; the last 2 decades have shown that the political will to maintain these redistributive transfers = weaker -intergovernmental conflict -fed-prov power has swung from Ottawa to the provs and back again several times since Confederation -Sir JohnA. Macdonald’s hope and expectation that prov gov’ts would become little more than “glorified municipalities”, deferring to Ottawa on all matters of national importance, = stymied from the beginning by prov politicians who had other ideas + by judges whose interpretation of the division of powers in Can’s Const didn’t accord w/ Macdonald’s -today, intergovernmental conflict = alive + intense on a # of fronts (ex. enviro policy, health care, taxation, cities, and post-secondary education) -judging from these conflicts, regionalism continues to mark the Can political landscape -the persistence and even resurgence of regionalism, in Can and elsewhere, took many by surprise -1 of few points of agreement among most 20 -C social and pol observers = as the conditions of pp’s existence became more alike, their values, beliefs, and behaviour would converge -as modern transportation, mass media, public education, and consumer lifestyle habits broke down the barriers that previously separated regional communities and nurtured their distinctiveness, regionalism would become weaker force in social and pol life -those on left predicated that region (like religion and ethnicity) eventually would be replaced by class as the fault line in the politics of modernized societies -indeed, some went so far as to argue that only the obfuscations and manipulations of the dominant class, exercised through their control of the mass media, pol parties, and such agents of cultural learning as the schools and the churches, kept alive the fiction that region, and not class, = more important in shaping the interests and identities of average ppl -contrary to these expectations + despite undeniable fact that in many important ways, the lives of ppl across the rich industrialized societies of world = more alike today than a gen or 2 ago, regionalism and its even more robust cousin – nationalism – continue to be important forces in pol life -certainly true in Can, as the signs of the vitality of regionalism listed earlier attest + as persistence of a significant nationalist movement in QC demonstrates -3 principal factors help to explain the attraction + persistence of regionalism: -1) traditional thinking underestimated the degree to which regionally based states and elites may invest in regionalism – and regionally based nationalism, too, as in case of QC – when this investment either serves their own interests or, more charitably, promotes their vision of what is in the best interests of the regional community that they purport to represent -during the 70s, Can pol scientists began to use the term province-building to describe the phenomenon of powerful prov gov’ts using the various const, legal, and taxation levers available to them to increase their control over activities and interests w/in their prov borders + in consequence, their stature vis-à-vis Ottawa -AB and ON = 2 provs most often cited as illustrations of this drive on the part of prov state elites to extend the scope of their authority -phenomenon not limited to just these 2 provs;Alan Cairns argued that strength of regionalism in Can was primarily due to a Const that gave Can’s prov gov’ts considerable law-making and revenue-raising powers, reinforced by what he saw as the natural tendency of those who controlled, worked for, or depended on prov states to protect, and extend their turf -2) the failure of national institutions – political, cultural, and economic – to produce levels of national integration and identity that would overcome regionally based ways of thinking and acting in Can politics (this wasn’t anticipated by those who predicted demise of regionalism) -many Cans, esp in QC and in the west, have remained unconvinced that the institutions of the national gov’t + its policies have their best interests in mind -distinction between inter-state federalism (where conflict + co-operation are played out between the national + regional gov’ts) and intra-state federalism (where these forces = contained w/in the institutions of the national state) -certainly hasn’t been any shortage of national structures and policies intended to accommodate regional interests and perspectives -Examples of past and present structures: -the Senate incorporates the principle of regional rep, w/ ON, QC, the 4 western provs, and 3 Maritime provs all being assigned same # of seats -the Supreme CourtAct ▯ at least 3/9 justices = members of the QC bar + expected that 3 be from ON + 1 come from each of western and eastern regions of Can -the fed cabinet = always been @ centre of attempts to ensure regional rep in fed decision- making; every PM carefully considers the rep of each region +, insofar as it’s possible, each prov in putting together his/her cabinet -s. 36 of the CA, 1982 commits the fed gov’t to principle of “making equalization payments to ensure that prov gov’ts have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of taxation” ▯ though practical significance far from clear, the spirit of this const commitment clearly involves a fed obligation to assist the less affluent prov gov’ts in paying their bills -Examples of past and present policies: -for about 2 decades, and in response to criticism that the Can media system + fed cultural policy = strongly biased towards central Can, Ottawa has attempted to “regionalize” its cultural activities in various ways -1 involves regional programming through the CBC + conscious policy of ensuring that regional points of view = expressed in its national programming -another involves the programs and spending activities of the Department of Can Heritage, which like the CBC, has mandate to express the diversity of Can -fed support for regional economic development = long + much-criticized history in Can -these activities = given an organizational focus + major spending boost through 1968 creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which has morphed into departments and agencies by other names over the years -today, Ottawa’s support fro the economies of the less affluent provs = channeled mainly through theAtlantic Canada OpportunitiesAgency + Western Economic Diversification Canada, both under Department of Industry -when making decision that have important regional spending + employment implications (ex. awarding of contracts, location of gov’t offices), Ottawa = always sensitive to the probable reactions of citizens and their spokespersons in regions competing for a share of the fed pie -although it’d be unfair to write off these structures and policies as amounting to a more complete and abject failure, it’s nevertheless clear that they haven’t succeeded in neutralizing regionalism -always possible, of course, that regional grievances + acrimony that often accompanies intergov’tal relations in Can might have been worse in absence of these efforts as intrastate federalism -3) the persistence of diffs in the economic interests + social characteristics of regions (importance of this = overlooked by those who anticipated decline of regionalism) -true that, in many respects, how ppl in ON and SK live, the sorts of jobs they’re likely to do, the things they watch on TV, and cultural milieu in which they live = more alike today than 2 gens ago -but diffs persist + their pol importance (often fanned by politics or other regional spokespersons) = considerable -Ex. about ¼ ofAB’s GDP = accounted for by the petrochemical industry, a level of dependence on this particular industry that’s unrivalled in Can -ON’s economy = far more dependent than any other prov on the automobile industry, w/ close to 40% of all provincial exports rep about 12% of ON’s GDP, accounted for by automotive vehicles and parts (almost all of this goes tot eh US, a fact that injects a great deal of urgency into the uncertainty associated w/ the future of the industry in ON) -shifting to demography; on the whole, and w/ one major exception, the pol impact of these demographic diffs tends to be considerably les than that of diff economic interests of Can’s regions -major exception: QC; only majority francophone prov, w/ over 80% of the prov pop clamining French as mother tongue + majority having French ancestry -Nunavut, where about 85% of pop =Abo, reps another case of a region whose ethnic character = dramatically diff from rest of Can -course, there’s also enormous diffs in the demographic character of provs like BC, which has been a magnet in recent decades for non-European immigrants (most fromAsia) and Nova Scotia, where predominance of ppl whose ancestry is from British Isles remains undiminished ▯ but pol significance of these demographic diffs = less than in case of QC or Nunavut -ethnic character of Nova Scotia doesn’t get expressed in Can politics in way that QC’s francophone character does Mapping Regionalism in Canada -# of regions in Can depends on our definition of region -a map w/ boundaries drawn along economic lines = looks diff from 1 drawn along lines of demography or history -some have argued that the only sensible way to conceive of regions in Can = along prov lines, such that each prov constitutes a separate region -more commonly, however, pol observers have tended to combine certain provs into same region, particularly the western and easternmost provs -but, there are still difficulties here -the justification for lumping Manitoba and BC into a common region designated the “West” = not obvious; aside from both being west of ON, they may appear to have no more in common than Manitoba and Nova Scotia -difficulties aside, it has been common to speak of 4 or 5 main regions in Can: -the West (or BC and the Prairies) -ON -QC -theAtlantic provs -from the point of view of both physical and cultural geography, as well as economics, the Can North comprises another significant region -3 principal ways of determining the boundaries of regions, all of them useful. They involve: -economics -values -identity Canada’s Economic Regions -common economic interests, often linked to physical geography, may provide basis for the classification of regions -Atlantic Can’s greater dependence on fisheries, ON and QC’s greater manufacturing base, and the West’s comparatively greater reliance on grain production and natural resources = economic interests that have provided a basis for thinking of these parts of Can as constituting distinctive regions ▯ the economic characteristics of the provs vary considerably -the regional variation that exists in Can’s industrial structure = often been @ root of major pol conflicts between regions of Can + between Ottawa and the provs -the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which requires policies that would reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, pitted Ottawa againstAB for about a decade -Albertans + their gov’t knew that the enviro gains envisaged by advocates of the Kyoto Protocol would be achieved @ expense of the industry that’s central to their prov’s economic well-being -fed gov’t was able to point to public opinion polls showing that clear majority of Cans favoured the ratification of the Kyoto agreement -as it turned out, the victory of the Conservative Party in the 2006 national election rendered the issue moot, given the party’s lack of sympathy for the Kyoto guidelines + diff approach to dealing w/ global warming -historically, the fed gov’t’s major economic policies = slanted towards the interests of central Can -on occasion, the discrimination against and even exploitation of other regions of the country, particularly the West, = egregious -examples: -Tariffs -for most of Can’s history, a cornerstone of economic policy = high tariffs on manufactured imports, the costs and benefits of which = distributed unequally between Can’s regions -the cost for western farmers to ship grain by rail to the Fort William railhead (today’s Thunder bay), despite fed subsidies, always seemed greater than it should have been to those in the West, and shipment of eastern manufactures to the West made prices higher than they might have been if trade, protected by the high tariffs of the National Policy beginning in 1879, could have followed more natural north-south lines to contiguousAmerican states and regions -the extensive prime lands controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway as part of its original agreement w/ the gov’t in the 19 C also rankled western sensitivities -1 study of tariff impacts prior to the Canada-US Free TradeAgreement concluded that the per capita benefits for ON = about equal to the per capita costs in the West andAtlantic Can -Quebecers = also net beneficiaries, but eh decline of QC’s manufacturing base by the 1980s reduced the level of these benefits from what it had been for most of the previous century -Terms of entry into Confederation -outside of AB and SK, few Cans know that when these provs entered Can in 1905, they didn’t immediately receive all of the law-making powers held by the other provs (specifically, control over natural resources w/in prov borders .. a power that ss. 92 and 109 of the CA, 1867 assigns exclusively to the provs) -reason: Ottawa’s desire to retain control over the economic development of the Prairies, a part of the country that was being settled rapidly in the early 1900s + whose expansion = essential to the National Policy goal of building a larger domestic market for the manufacturers of ON and QC -The National Energy Policy (1981) -a gen after it was abolished by the Conservative gov’t of Mulroney in 1984, the National Energy Policy (NEP) remains vivid in memory ofAlbertans -it involved, they reasonably believed, an enormous transfer of wealth fromAB to the rest of Can, + chiefly to the consumers and industries of Can’s industrial heartland, perpetrated by a Liberal gov’t that they saw as being hostile to western, and espAB’s, interests -the NEP placed a limit on the price that could be charged in Can for oil and gas from Can sources ▯ price considerably below the going world price -Can producers’ ability to export their petroleum @ higher world price = limited by fact that any energy exports had to be approved by the National Energy Board -Albertans saw the NEP as a thinly disguised subsidy that their prov was made to pay to central Can -these fears = rekindled when the price of oil and gas rose dramatically in 2005, leading to proposals from some eastern Can politicians thatAB’s energy “windfall” be shared more equitably w/ rest of Can -when world oil prices doubled in 2007-8, there was somewhat less talk about rest of Can getting a slice of AB’s growing revenue pie -why? Partly because of Conservative gov’t in power (holding all 28 ofAB’s seats in the H of C) and PM from that province. -Also, the issue of energy costs = now framed largely in environmental terms. How to wean consumers and industry from dependence on fossil fuels and reduce CO 2 emissions = become far more prominent issue than whether the good fortune of some provs meant that they should be expected to share the wealth Canada’s Cultural Regions -Richard Simeon and David Elkins conclude that there are strong diffs among the citizens of Can provs + those of diff language groups in some basic orientations to politics -argue that these regional variations can’t be totally explained by demographic and socio-economic diffs between Can’s regions -sources of these diffs in basic political orientations = unclear.. but their existence = undeniable -other researchers have arrived @ very diff conclusions about the nature and extent of regional pol cultures in Can -indeed, if there’s anything approaching a consensus on this question (and it’s shaky at best) it’s that regional variations in basic and enduring pol values and beliefs = not every great in English-speaking Can, and while the diffs between French-speaking QC + rest of Can appear to be more significant, they’re not enormous -survey conducted in 2002 by Environics Research Group appears to support this consensus -based on Cans’ attitudes towards the Charter ▯ lack of any significant regional diffs of opinion on the Charter’s legitimacy or the relationship between Parliament and the courts -moreover, doesn’t appear to be any diff across regions of Can in support for such Charter principles and values as bilingualism and minority language, education rights, multiculturalism, the appropriateness of “reasonable limits” on freedom of express, and the rights of the accuses -however, there’s 1 outlier: QC -while sharing w/ other Can regions support for the Charter and its general principles, Quebecers = considerably more likely to value equality over personal freedom + consistently more likely to support the extension of equality rights to disadvantaged groups -findings seem to confirm the widely held view of QC as being a more collectivist society than other regions of Can -further confirmation provided by those aspects of personal freedom where Quebecers = more supportive: -when it comes to restricting police powers + guaranteeing the legal rights to vulnerable groups, Quebecers = somewhat more likely to come down on the side of civil liberties -Ex. 2002 survey; 71% said that police shouldn’t be allowed to enter and search a criminal suspect’s home or office w/out a search warrant, compared to 63% in the rest of Can -Ex. only 61% of Quebecers expressed view that police and courts have to spend too much time worrying about the rights of criminals, compared to 72% of rest of Cans -Ex. in terms of protecting rights of refugee claimants; QC for it more than other Cans (85% vs. 75%) -arguably, all these items tap support for “underdogs” and the vulnerable (those accused of crimes, refugees, etc.) and so Quebecer’s greater support for civil liberties intended to protect those who fall into these groups may reasonably be interpreted as consistent w/ characterization of QC as more collectivist society -1 of most thorough exams of popular ideology in Can corroborates the conclusion that, QC aside, the regional variations in pol culture that exist in the rest of Can = not very great -based on large national survey, Michael Ornstein and Michael Stevenson measure Can’s support for social programs, redistributive policies, foreign investment, labour unions, and large corporations -diffs in ideological profiles of provs = small for the most part + QC stands out as the 1 prov that’s clear to the left of others -moreover, contrary to findings of Simeon and Elkins 20 years earlier, they don’t find any significant variation between provs, QC included, in levels of political efficacy or pol participation -the case for the existence of several regional pol cultures in English-speaking Can looks somewhat stronger if, instead of ideological values, one looks @ how regional pops view Ottawa, its treatment of their region, and policies intended to redistribute wealth between regions of the country -Albertans stand out as those least likely to believe that the fed gov’t deserves their trust and confidence or that Ottawa gives them value for their tax money -also appear to be less committed to the long-standing policy of equalization, whereby money = transferred by Ottawa from the richer to the poorer provs -among those least likely to believe that their prov = treated w/ respect it deserves -Atlantic Can, on other hand, displays greater trust and confidence in fed gov’t than other regions + is only part of Can where citizens = more likely to name Ottawa than their prov gov’t as providing them w/ value for their money ▯ these findings corroborate those of Ornstein and Stevenson, who found dramatic variation between prov pops in their responses to the question of whether the fed gov’t treated their prov fairly + whether either Ottawa or their prov gov’t should have more power -Ex. 64% of Ontarians agreed that Ottawa treated their prov fairly and only 22% expressed view that their prov gov’t should have more power. Percentages of PEI = almost identical. ButAB, SK, and Newfoundland offered a mirror image of this picture Cross-Border Regions -more recent method of mapping regions is suggested by Debora VanNijnatten + colleagues in their work on cross- border regions (CBRs) -define CBR as a distinct grouping of neighbouring and nearby provs and states whose economic, cultural, and institutional linkages create commonalities between the members of this binational (Can-US) grouping and set it apart from other regions -dense ties of trade and investment between the provs and states that comprise a CBR = fundamental characteristic of such regions ▯ give rise to physical infrastructure (ex. roads, rail lines, bridges, tunnels, and shared water routes) ▯ also provide the impetus for cross-border institutions and process (both public, between subnational gov’ts, and between non-gov’tal groups) whose functions are to co-ordinate, plan, promote, and resolve conflicts related to the economic linkages between the members of a CBR -significant degree of shared values + even sense of regional identity characterize some of the CBRs that span the Can-US border -based on an analysis of the density of economic, institutional, and socio-cultural ties between adjacent and nearby provs and states, VanNijnatten and her colleagues propose a rather diff map of regionalism ; it includes: -The West -this CBR consists of BC,AB, Yukon,Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana -characterized by a feeling of remoteness from the central gov’ts of each country + strong sense of regional identity, such that residents of this CBR may be more alike in their values than they are w/ their compatriots in other regions of their respective countries -dense network of private and public institutional linkages spans the Can-US border + more emphasis = placed on shared environmental issues than characterizes other regions -The Prairie-Great Plains -includesAB, SK, and Manitoba on Can sides, and Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota on the US side (AB and Montana = identified as belonging to both this CBR and the West) -though institutional linkages between these relatively sparsely populated and natural resource- dependent provs and states = less deeply entrenched than is true of the other CBRs, the economic ties between them = extensive + strong linkages exist based on shared management of common watersheds -The Great Lakes-Heartland -shared waters of the Great Lakes + enormous volume of trade and daily flow of vehicles and ppl across Can-US border = most obvious features -dense network of cross-border institutions, public and private, link these states and provs -but unlike the West, there’s no strong sense of shared regional identity -The East -although QC and Can’sAtlantic provs have some significant trade and institutional linkages, their ties to adjacent and nearby American states = rather diff -QC part of a CBR that includes Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, while the Atlantic provs belong to a CBR that includes Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut -the QC/New England CBR = characterized by strong ties of history, trade, transportation, and institutions, but nothing much in the way of shared regional identity -theAtlantic/New England grouping w/in the East = based on ties of history, trade, environmental and energy co-operation, a rich network of institutional linkages, and strong sense of regional identity -thinking about Can regions in a way that takes into account these cross-border linkages = useful in various ways: -1) enables us to better understand the causes + nature of integration between Can and the US, much of which has taken place through regionalized networks -Can-US economic integration = perhaps more accurately described as integration between states + provs of each of these 4 CBRs -NorthAmerican integration = bottom-up phenomenon (VanNijnatten) -2) the significant powers held by prov, state, and local gov’ts on both sides of the border, + fact that transportation, environmental, security, energy supply and distribution, and many other matters tend to be regional in nature, ensure that these subnational gov’ts + private regional organizations and institutions will be important players in the management of cross-border issues -this is nowhere more apparent than in the case of environmental issues; several recent studies of the cross-border management of issues, ranging from the regulation of river flows to schemes for the promotion of renewable energy sources for regional electricity grids, highlight the key role played by subnational gov’ts and organizations Regional Identities and WesternAlienation -if, instead of looking for significant and enduring regional diffs in fundamental political values and beliefs (the sorts of orientations that Ornstein and Stevenson look for and don’t find, except in case of QC) we ask whether citizens of Can’s regions view their history in diff ways + hold diff aspirations for their country and their region’s role in it, we then find rather compelling evidence for the existence of what, arguably, deserve to be called regional political cultures -in particular, we find that the West has long been characterized by sentiments of resentment towards + alienation from Ottawa + what westerners perceive to be the political preoccupations w/ central Can ▯ these sentiments vary in intensity across the western provs + also fluctuate in response to specific circumstances and events -Gibbins andArrison argue that it’s reasonable to speak of “national visions” in the West that address not simply the place of the West w/in the Can fed state, but also the nature of Canada as a political community -these visions aren’t merely reactions to citizens’ sense of being unfairly treated and marginalized w/in Can politics but are deeply rooted in regional histories that have forged a collective consciousness + memories that aren’t the same as those of central and eastern Can -starting in major way in the 50s w/ W.L. Morton, western Can historians began to react against what they saw as a narrative of Can history told from a central Can perspective, w/ little allowance for the distinctive experiences + cultures of the West -Morton: perspective failed to take account of regional experience and history + makes coherent Can history seem an “imperialist creed”, an imposition on Maritime, French-Can, Western, and British Columbian history of an interpretation which distorted local history + confirmed the feeling that union w/ Can has been carried out against local sentiment and interest -Morton and many others have attempted to counter the centralist bias of can history writing, but the belief lives on that the West’s stories = not given fair weight by a Can academic and cultural establishment whose centre of gravity is in the Toronto-Ottawa-Mtl triangle -writing during the height of the struggle between Trudeau, championing a bilingual vision of Can, and Levesque, who advocated QC independence, George Woodcock fulminated about the “betrayal” of Confederation, which he argued was based on the long campaign of the centralists in Ottawa to recover the power than in recent decades as rightfully flowed to the regions -he accused “centralizers” like Trudeau of having no appreciation or sympathy for the distinctive history + consciousness of the West -in broadly similar vein, Barry Cooper (Calgary-based pol scientist) argues that a distinctive pol tradition exists in western Can, the roots of which lie in the history of that region -dualism = not the pol issue in the West that it is in central Can -moreover, multiculturalism doesn’t mean the same thing to a 3 or 4 gen non-French, non-Brit Westerner as it does to someone from theAzores or Calabria living on College Street in Toronto -what is referred to as western alienation = not in fact a psychological, sociological, or economic condition experienced by those in West, bur rather the awareness that the public realm (whose voices are heard + what counts as legit pol discourse) belongs to others -these others = citizens of central Can + elites who purport to speak on their behalf -of course, the history of the West + pol traditions that have evolved in western Can = not disconnected from those of rest of Can -likewise, as Gibbins andArrison observe, “western visions” of the nature of Can pol community + their region’s place in it = not restricted to the West -they identify a set of core values that they believe = more solidly anchored in the West than in other regions of Can, but the same values also find support among Cans in other regions, including French- speaking QC -the diff = one of degree -Western visions of Can = more likely to embrace the 1) individual equality of all Cans, 2) the equal status of all provs, and 3) a populist style of doing pol business -regarding the 1 of these values – individual equality – G andArightly note that opposition to the official recognition + even constitutionalization of multiculturalism and a group rights concept of Can has come largely from such popular western spokespersons as John Diefenbaker, Preston Manning, and Stephen Harper -the election of ideologically conservative prov gov’ts (ex. Ralph Klein, followed by Ed Stelmach, inAB and Gordon Campbell in BC) + impressive support in western Can for Reform/Alliance and now the Conservative Party, in fed elections appear to corroborate this argument that westerners = more receptive to what might be characterized as a classicallyAmerican concept of equality -this involves the equal treatment of all individuals, w/out taking group membership into account, + formal equality of opportunity -on the other hand, it must be said that there’s little in the way of survey evidence to support the claim that westerners = significantly diff from their compatriots in other regions when it comes to what they think about equality -moreover, the quite diff histories of SK andAB should give pause to anyone who wishes to generalize about a western conception of equality nd -2 core value of the western vision = provincial equality -2 components: -1) sense that Can federalism would operate more fairly if the West had more influence on decisions taken by Ottawa -the idea of an elected Senate in which each prov has an equal # of senators = one that has been spearheaded by western spokespersons since the 80s -2) opposition to any arrangement that appears to treat QC differently from and more favourably than the western provs -opposition to the CharlottetownAccord in the 1992 referendum = significantly higher in the 4 western provs than in rest of English-speaking Can -const recognition of QC as a distinct society + other provisions that many well have been interpreted as providing special status for QC were = among most controversial sections of the CharlottetownAccord -westerners have often felt resentment against QC, believing it to be the “spoiled child” of Confederation -the West’s enthusiasm for the idea that provs are all equal in their rights and power clashes w/ Quebecers’ preference for a binational vision of Can in which QC, as home of 90% of French-speaking Cans, + rest of Can = equal partners rd -3 component of the western vision involves a populist style of politics -populism arose in theAmerican West and Midwest in the late 1800s out of the perception that economic and political elites, often far from where the ppl affected by their decisions lived, = too power
More Less

Related notes for POL214Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.