The term ‘nationalism’ doesn’t seem to have a bad rap in the Great White North. Read why.
Survey shows term not seen as negative, but as being patriotic
OTTAWA — On a historic Remembrance Day, a century after the end of the First World War, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a Paris crowd that decaying trust in public institutions will lead citizens to look for easy answers “in populism, in nationalism, in closing borders, in shutting down trade, in xenophobia.”
The implication was clear: if nations turn in on themselves and treat outsiders as threats, we might again find ourselves in a bloody conflict with fronts all over the world.
But a series of surveys suggest the idea of being a nationalist, and nationalism in general, are viewed fairly positively by most Canadians.
What the data suggest is that Canadians don’t see the concept of nationalism the way people do in the United States, where the term is often linked with whitenationalist groups, and then with white supremacy and racism.
Rather, Canadians appear to have constructed their view of nationalism on the idea of feeling connected to our country and ensuring that others feel connected as well — even as we watch the term pilloried globally.
“It is used in different ways — when people are talking about the Trump nationalism, they would say (it’s) bad. But in Canada, they accept it because it is equated with certain communities and they see it as a way it’s helping vulnerable populations find their place in Canada,” said Kathy Brock, a political-studies professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. “Canadians have just acclimatized to this dual view of nationalism.”
In the 1950s and 1960s, Canadians often reported feeling greater attachments to their particular communities or ethnic groups than they did to the country. In the intervening years, connection to country has strengthened while connection to community has faded, said Frank Graves, president of EKOS Research Associates, a polling and marketresearch firm. The opposite has happened in Europe, he said.
Research suggests Canadians’ attachments to their ethnic groups have weakened over the past 20 years in favour of attachment to country, even as census data shows our population is becoming ever more diverse.
“In Canada, national identity has been created through a dialogue between citizens and the state and the public institutions — medicare, the Mounties, Parliament Hill. It isn’t as much steeped in history or common race and identity, which probably inoculates it from some of the more disturbing expressions of nationalism.”
Newly released survey data from the Association of Canadian Studies says that 60 per cent of respondents hold a somewhat or very positive view of nationalism, compared with about 45 per cent in the United States. The results were similar in both English and French Canada.
There also appears to be an association between Canadians’ views on nationalism and their views on multiculturalism.
“In contrast to the European idea of nationalism, having that ethnic component to it, most Canadians don’t see nationalism as ethnically driven. They see it more as a form of patriotism,” said Jack Jedwab, the association’s president. “It doesn’t intersect as much as it does in the European context with antiimmigrant sentiment, or a sentiment against diversity.”
The Leger Marketing survey of 1,519 Canadians on a web panel was conducted for the association the week of Nov. 12. Online surveys traditionally are not given a margin of error because they are not random and therefore are not necessarily representative of the whole population.
A day after his Nov. 11 comments, Trudeau was asked how he defined nationalism and where he saw it in Canada.
“In Canada, we’ve demonstrated many times that identities are complimentary,” he said. “I’m an extremely proud Quebecer, I’m an extremely proud Canadian and like most Canadians, they don’t see a contradiction in that.”
Experts say the more negative forms of nationalism are nevertheless simmering in Canada. Jedwab’s survey data suggest that respondents who have positive views of nationalism are somewhat more worried about immigration and security along the U.S. border than those who have negative views of nationalism. WASHINGTON — The 2020 Democratic presidential primary, already expected to be the party’s most wide open in decades, has been jostled on the eve of many long-plotted campaign announcements by a political threat that few contenders bothered considering until recently:
Will a soon-to-be-former congressman, with an unremarkable legislative record and a Senate loss, upend their plans?
Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas has emerged as the wild card of the presidential campaign-inwaiting for a Democratic Party that lacks a clear 2020 front-runner. After a star-making turn in his close race against Sen. Ted Cruz, O’Rourke is increasingly serious about a 2020 run — a development that is rousing activists in early-voting states, leading veterans of former president Barack Obama’s political operation (and Obama himself ) to offer their counsel and hampering would-be rivals who are scrambling to lock down influential supporters and strategists as future campaign staff.
Advisers to other prospective Democratic candidates for 2020 acknowledge that O’Rourke is worthy of their concern. His record-setting success with small donors would test the grassroots strength of progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. His sometimes saccharine call to summon the nation’s better angels would compete with the likely pitch of Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey.
And his appeal to some former Obama advisers — and, potentially, his electoral coalition of young people, women and often infrequent voters — could complicate a possible run for former vice-president Joe Biden, who would aim to win back many of his former boss’ constituencies.
O’Rourke would surely have vulnerabilities in a primary, including an absence of signature policy feats or a centrepiece issue to date. In his Senate race, he was often disinclined to go negative, frustrating some Democrats who believe he wasted a chance to defeat Cruz, and he struggled at times in some traditional formats like televised debates. He is, by admission and design, not the political brawler some Democrats might crave against a president they loathe. And his candidacy would not be history-making like Obama’s nor many of his likely peers’ in the field, in an election when many activists may want a female or non-white nominee.
But the fact that O’Rourke is even considering a run speaks to uncertainty in the party, as simmering opposition to President Trump is colliding with crosscurrents of gender, race, ideology and age within its ranks.
With some three dozen Democrats considering presidential campaigns, the field could end up so crowded that the vote gets diluted — a phenomenon that helped Trump edge ahead of the Republican pack in 2016.