Jonathan Gatehouse, Macleans.ca wrote:Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh
According to a new poll, only 15 per cent of us would vote for the President
JONATHON GATEHOUSE
MAYBE IT'S THAT SMUG LITTLE SMILE. His penchant for fantastically expensive military
photo-ops. Or the swaggering, belt-hitching walk that cries out for a pair of swinging
saloon doors. And though, God knows, we have too many of our own syntactically
challenged politicians to be casting stones, shouldn't the leader of the free world know
that "misunderestimate" isn't a word? Yes, we're cavilling, but clearly there is something
about George W. Bush that gets under the skin of Canadians. After all, vehemently
disagreeing with the policies of American presidents is almost a national pastime. There
has to be another explanation for our extreme reaction, the desire afoot in the land to
see him turfed from office. That and the unprintable sentiment about him and the horse
he rode in on. Even before we know whom he will be running against this fall, Canadians
have made their decision. Only 15 per cent, according to an exclusive new Maclean's
poll, would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity. And if Americans
remain almost evenly divided -- some 50 per cent approve of his performance in the
White House and he's running neck and neck with his likely Democratic challengers --
there is no such dithering on this side of the border. Just 12 per cent of us feel Canada
is better off since he took office, and only a third of respondents will admit to liking the
world's most powerful man, even just a little bit.
It's an antipathy that appears to extend far beyond our traditional coolness towards
Republicans, says Michael Marzolini, chairman of Pollara Inc., the Toronto-based opinion
research firm that conducted the national survey. With a political spectrum that skews
to the left of America's -- legalized same-sex marriage and the promise of looser
marijuana laws being the most recent, and in some quarters, celebrated examples --
we've generally perceived Democratic presidents as being more in tune with our values.
But where Ronald Reagan and Bush the elder were at least grudgingly respected,
Dubya is decidedly not. Despite a spate of polls showing a broad desire for improved
relations with the United States after the often rocky Chrétien years, there is a sense
that this administration isn't one we want to do business with. "These numbers really
show the difficulty for Paul Martin," says Marzolini, the long-time pollster for the federal
Liberal party. "He has to get closer to the Americans, but he can't get too close to
George Bush. It's a fine balance." The intense sympathy Canadians felt following the
attacks of 9/11 -- something that manifested itself not just in acts of mourning and
charity, but in a willingness to support whatever actions the U.S. deemed necessary --
has dissipated. In its place is a deep dislike of the bellicose new global reality, and a
lingering distrust of Bush's motives.
It's evident even within sight of the frontier. Stopping to take a picture of icy Niagara
Falls on a recent frigid day, Mike Mitreveski tried to explain why he's uneasy about
Bush. "I get a sense that he's in it for himself first and then the country," said the
Windsor, Ont., graduate student. "And I worry that he's doing all of this stuff in Iraq for
the oil industry. He used to be part of it and has lots of high-ranking friends." David
Kowalewski, an engineering consultant from Niagara Falls, Ont., says he initially
supported Bush's foreign policy, but now has grave doubts. "I thought it was noble at
first, but now they've gone security crazy." Life has changed for the worse in his
community, said Kowalewski, citing long delays at the border, and the fallout for local
businesses that depend on tourism.
A trio of physicians taking in the sights on a day off were no kinder to Bush. On sober
reflection, all asked that their names not be used. "Please, someone, teach him how to
pronounce nuclear," said one, a Toronto pediatrician. Another, an American who has
lived on this side of the border for the past 14 years, said she understands why
Canadians dislike so many of Bush's stances, even though she is troubled by the tone of
the debate. A doctor friend from the Netherlands provided a reminder that opinions of
the President are often even harsher abroad. "In Amsterdam," she said, "we think he is
kind of stupid."
ON THE HUMID night in August 2000 when George W. Bush officially became the
Republican nominee for president, the thousands of delegates and reporters packed
into a Philadelphia arena were given a peek at what party strategists planned to sell to
the American people. The beautifully realized infomercial was mostly shots of Bush at his
Crawford, Tex., ranch, tending stock, mending fences, driving a vintage pickup truck
with his spaniel perched on his lap, all the while talking about his vision of a big country
with small-town values. It was a persona lifted straight from a Hollywood Western. The
likeable, soft-talking cowpoke who knows the value of an honest day's work and isn't
afraid to take on the guys in the black hats when the town's in trouble. Reagan
successfully mined the same vein for eight years. And it's an image that continues to
pay dividends for Bush, playing off his folksy, good-natured strengths, and positioning
him as someone who might reasonably be excused for not reading newspapers or
knowing the names of his foreign counterparts. Clearing brush on the back forty is a lot
more man-of-the-people than weekending at the palatial family compound in
Kennebunkport, Me.
But Canadians have never been that comfortable with the type of cowboys who take
the law into their own hands. Our frontier heroes were the scarlet-clad North West
Mounted Police, not lone gunslingers. In a pre-9/11 world, when Bush was vowing to be
a domestic-policy president, it didn't seem to matter that much. But over the past 2 1/2
years, his muscular commitment to protecting and advancing U.S. interests abroad --
unilaterally if allies and international bodies such as the UN fail to sign on -- has
unsettled many around the world. There is a burgeoning cottage industry of writers and
analysts exploring the underpinnings and fallout of this new American "imperialism." In
Canada, a country that has always fretted about being swallowed up, either territorially
or culturally, by the behemoth to the south, the spectre of an expanding American
Empire feeds a deep-seated paranoia. At least for some.
David Frum, the Canadian author and pundit who spent 13 months working as a speech
writer for Bush -- he is credited with co-authorship of the infamous "axis of evil" line --
says he doesn't believe polls that suggest a yawning chasm between American and
Canadian perceptions of the President. "My contention is that the differences are much
less dramatic than they are usually made out to be," he says. And if Bush is held in less
esteem north of the border, adds Frum, it is largely because of the distorted lens the
public sees him through. "The Canadian media have generally taken a very belittling
approach to him. By and large, they do not take the terror problem very seriously, and
they communicate that to public opinion." Canadians might understandably prefer
presidents who are reluctant to flex their global political power, either economically or
militarily, says Frum, but when it comes to things that really matter, we should have the
good grace to at least not stand in the way. "There's no expectation in Washington that
Canada and the U.S. should agree on every issue. But they do, as a friend, expect to
be given the benefit of the doubt on issues that they regard as essential to their
security."
It's a point of view that many Canadians find difficult to swallow, given the dubious
claims of weapons of mass destruction and hostile intentions that fuelled America's foray
into Iraq. (The Maclean's annual year-end poll found that 75 per cent of Canadians
believe Ottawa was right to refuse to commit troops to Iraq, even if it annoyed our
closest trading partner.) Yes, we're friends and neighbours, but with feelings running so
high, there is a danger that our distaste for the leader will spill over to the people he
represents. Clifford Krauss, Canadian correspondent for the New York Times, recently
encountered two young boys on the street outside his Toronto home, holding a sign
that read Honk if you hate President Bush! (This is a school project.) "I was shocked
because of the word hate," says Krauss. "You'd never see a sign like that about Saddam
Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic." It's a virulent strain of anti-Americanism that the Times
reporter says he encounters more and more frequently. "I've experienced rude and
prejudiced behaviour, just because I'm an American," says Krauss. "I've lived in
countries in Latin America that have tricky relationships with the U.S., but I didn't expect
that sort of thing here."
Truth is, we might well be the ones in need of a dose of perspective. With the Canadian
political landscape now virtually emptied of leaders we feel passionately about -- either
negatively or positively -- we might be guilty of transference. Our growing distaste for
Bush is smug and more than a bit juvenile, argues Reginald Stuart, a Mount Saint
Vincent University expert on U.S.-Canada relations, now in residence at Washington's
Woodrow Wilson International Center. "When the Communists were in power, we dealt
with Russian leaders that we disagreed vehemently with on some very fundamental
issues," he notes. Our worries that the Bush administration, viewed by the bulk of the
Canadian public as overly religious and conservative, will somehow interfere with
progressive social policies in this country (the Maclean's year-end poll identified same-
sex marriage and proposals to relax marijuana laws as new "wellsprings of national
pride") are overblown, says Stuart. In Canada, there is still no surer kiss of death for a
politician than caving into American pressure.
For decades now, we have alternately railed against, and revelled in, the generalized
American ignorance of Canada. At the same time, we have prided ourselves on being
one of our neighbour's harshest critics. At the centre of our relationship is the conceit
that so much of what we produce -- resources, goods, culture, people -- flows south,
that America must really need us. Now, with the U.S. showing a willingness to stand
alone and demand the obeisance due to the last remaining superpower, Canada, like the
rest of the world, is caught up in an uncomfortable new reality. Bush's repeated "with us
or against us" declarations have made it clear that there are new, tougher requirements
for being America's ally. And as long as he remains well-positioned for another four
years in the White House, we may have to do our share of puckering up. Canadians
know that. We just don't have to like it.
Maclean's Article 
*takes a Crayola washable marker and draws a swastika-looking thing on her cheek, puts an orange up each sleeve, flexes and gives Bethy a big grin* Now, tell me I'm not tough... lol
