Satellites or allies?: A response to New Sisyphus

New Sysiphus is mistaken in his analysis that the differences between the presidential and parlimentary systems will tear the Anglopshere apart. The crisis of anti-Americanism is far more fumdanetal than variations of organizing a polity. Indeed the real questions are: First, does the current American political elite want satellites or allies?

Satellites are those countries that carry out the dominant power's policies even to because the former's has no real national interests. Allies are those countries works in concert with the dominant power but still pursue their own national interests. Second, whow do we undo the societal legacy that the boomers/soixtante-huitards have bequeathed to future generations?.

As to the first question, deep down, The American political elite is conflicted: on the one hand anti-Americanism detracts Europe and Canada from working in concert with America to defeat a common threat that is islamojihadism. On the other, the current American political elite treat any decision by Canada or Europe to purse their foreign policies in accordance with their respective interests, as unacceptable affronts to America's primacy and must be undermined.

At the same time, the Canadians and Europeans have to also reflect if they want really to incorporate anti-Americanism in their foreign policies. I regard it as a mistake; not so much because of the shared values that Europe, Canada and the U.S. share but because sucessive American officialdom will always link anti-Americanism as sufficent reason not to negotiate let alone agree on anything.

As to the second question, the real cleavage within the advanced industralized countries isn't between America, Europe and Canada nor the presidential and parlimentary systems but between the boomers/soixante-huitards and the subsequent generations, especially Gen X. The boomers as a demographic phenomeon have completely transformed the Western countries and not always positively. Further, they have increased the trans-Atlantic tensions by attempting to perpetuate themselves through legislation onto a population that is either hostile or uninterested to the boomer world view. In fact, Gen X and the subsequent generations want to rollback the Boomer's legacy legislation.

Consequently, I flatly disagree with Sisphysis' claims that under the American presidential system sheltered the country from the social upheaveals of the 60s. America has been no immune from the boomer's dilapidating the prosperity of the Trentes glorieuses to finance their utopias, aborting their babies to underscore the cult of irrepressible youth; depredating the public pension plans to finance their self-inflation that they're owed for having transformed the world.

Finally turning to Canadian matters, I was quite bemused to read the breathless comments- especially from ET-which blame Quebec and its separtist threat for causing the country's decline. Actually the blame goes to Trudeau who nationalized a provincial conflict. Indeed, there was something of a Trotskeist about him. He loathed nationalism in one province and so invented Canadian nationalism/the cult of multicultralism to dilute the nascent Quebec nationalism.

It failed.

It failed because Trudeau for all his brilliance was truly obtuse and politically hostile to the balances and unwritten guidelines that allowed Canada to function as a relatively stable polity. Trudeau was simply implementing what the original founders intended but that the JCPC (Judicial committee of the Privy council) and Quebec warniess thwarted: a highly centralized state with the federal government in charge of all important matters while the provinces would be overglorified muncipalities.

Trudeau and other centralists were exasperated by the unintended development of Canadian federalism. They sought to reverse it. Both World wars and the Depression in between both changed the balance of power in favour of Ottawa. The abolition of appeals to the JCPC in 1949, the country had finally trended towards an even more pro-centralized governance thanks to numerous Supreme Court decisions which have expanded the federal government's competency while diminishing the provinces.' Thus the expansion of healthcare and other social policies as well as the near constant constitutional crises served to cement the federal government's unassailable position in Canadian politics. That's source of our maliase.