Martin Short

is a writer in Toronto, Canada. `Iam not going to be dictated to as to the subjects that I should raise," thumped Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin on December 14. Speaking from the floor of a British Columbia sawmill, an emblem of an industry that has been damaged by illegal U.S. tariffs on softwood, Martin's message was clear: Only his Liberal Party can safeguard Canadians from U.S. bullying. "I will make sure that Canada speaks with an independent voice now, tomorrow, and always, and you should demand nothing less from your prime minister."Heading into an election campaign at the start of December, Martin's Liberals were in deep trouble. Over the last two years, Canadians had been treated to extensive press coverage of the Liberal "sponsorship scandal," which involved a government p.r. program in Quebec that, over the past decade, had evolved into a multimillion-dollar slush fund for the Liberal Party and its friends. Although Martin and his inner circle were cleared of any wrongdoing (most of the kickbacks were paid during the previous government), the Liberals were nonetheless tarred as the politicians who helped themselves. To distract from the scandal, Martin chose to make anti-Americanism a hallmark of his campaign. Anti-American sentiment is common these days in Canada, which has broken with the United States over a variety of key policies, from the Kyoto Protocol to the creation of the International Criminal Court to the war in Iraq. Disputes over trade-- including the softwood fight and border security--have further alienated Canadians from their southern neighbor. Martin openly chastised the Bush administration's environmental commitment at a U.N.- sponsored climate-change conference in Montreal on December 7. The next day, Martin's lead in the polls over his Conservative Party rival, Stephen Harper, widened to 15 points, the largest of the campaign. That advantage promised to persist when, days later, American Ambassador David Wilkins warned Martin against using nationalist rhetoric to attract voters. "The last time I looked, the United States was not on the ballot for the January 23 election," said Wilkins at a speech in Ottawa. "It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your number-one trading partner constantly, but it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship." Canadian newspaper columnists went ballistic, warning of U.S. interference in the Canadian vote. Theories abounded that the White House was trying to discredit Martin because it favored Harper. The Liberals reaped a windfall of support from the tiff, which recast Martin's party as staunch defenders of Canada's interests. Yet what seemed at the time to be a tailor-made scenario for a Liberal victory quickly fell flat. Since the new year, the Liberals have seen their support eaten up by the Conservatives. Fresh allegations of corruption and a new investigation into possible stock-market manipulation turned the focus back onto Liberal credibility. The cross-border rhetoric has been all but forgotten. As The New Republic goes to press, polls show the Conservatives headed for a near-certain victory in Monday's vote, roughly ten points ahead of the Liberals. And that means Harper, the most pro-American leader in decades, is on track to become prime minister. Martin's failure points to the limits of anti- Americanism in Canadian politics. Differences aside, most Canadians want good relations with their neighbors. And, as prime minister, Harper will likely put an end to the darkest period in Canada-U.S. relations in recent history--to the benefit of both countries. Martin isn't the first Canadian prime minister to use anti-American rhetoric for political gain. His Liberal Party predecessor, Jean Chretien, also resorted to name-calling and vocalizing a smug European sense of moral superiority whenever conflicts with the United States arose. In doing so, Chretien and Martin tapped into a genuine resentment many Canadians feel toward their southern neighbor. "Today, Canadians consistently tell pollsters that they are more tolerant, more respected by others, better educated and friendlier than Americans," wrote journalist Dan Dunsky in The Toronto Star newspaper last week. Many Canadians perceive their national identity in opposition to the United States--i.e., the less American you are, the more Canadian you become. A 2003 SES Canada Research poll found only 13 percent wanted Canada to be more like the United States. With the vast majority of Canadians taking a dislike to President Bush (82 percent of Canadians don't see him as a friend of Canada, according to a 2004 Ipsos-Reid survey), the not-so-subtle anti-Americanism the Liberals pursued had seemed politically risk-free. But what the Liberals failed to realize is that, while anti-Americanism in Canada may be broad, it isn't deep. A majority of Canadians want closer relations on issues like security, antiterrorism, and energy policy, according to a 2005 survey conducted by SES in conjunction with the University at Buffalo. However much they may dislike Bush personally, most voters realize that Canada's relationship with the United States is vital. The Canadian economy relies on trade with the United States, which consumes 85 percent of Canadian exports and generates the bulk of Canada's GDP. With China on track to replace Canada as America's largest source of imports, and with developing-world agricultural producers like Brazil cutting into Canadian food sales, Canada's economic future appears increasingly uncertain--and continued trade with the United States ever more important. And, yet, the Liberals' anti-American rhetoric has done serious damage to U. S.-Canadian relations. Each time a Liberal politician made a snide remark, calling Bush a "moron" or the Americans "bastards," Washington noticed. When the Liberals backed out of Iraq and continental missile defense, the White House was openly disappointed. In return, the United States has simply closed its ears to Canadian concerns, canceling and scaling back presidential and cabinet-level visits. By 2008, new Homeland Security regulations in the United States will require everyone entering the country to hold a valid passport, a change that may affect the 40,000 truckers who cross the northern border daily. Keeping the goods flowing will require Canada's politicians and diplomats to work exemptions and compromises into the scheme. That, in turn, will require cashing in a lot of goodwill down in Washington, and, right now, there is little to go around. The feeling among Canadian voters is that Harper will bring some to the table. In many ways, Harper would fit in well in GOP D.C. He is a devout Christian who spent a portion of his adult life around the oil industry in Alberta. Openly opposed to same-sex marriage, he disapproves of abortion and believes strongly in putting money back into the hands of taxpayers. The Conservatives favor increased criminal sentencing and oppose the lenient drug laws Liberals have pursued. Harper argued for Canada's participation in the Iraq war and in the Pentagon's missile-defense shield. He adamantly supports Israel, and he pledges to greatly increase spending for Canada's ill-equipped military. Up until now, these positions prevented Harper from winning. He was perceived as a Northern neocon and a Bible-thumping admirer of Bush, too rural and too Western for voters in the political heartland around Toronto and Montreal. In the 2004 election, voters rejected Harper over fears that he would turn Canada into one big red state. Martin certainly played up those fears during this campaign: One of the most recent Liberal TV spots wonders openly whether Harper is a pawn of secretive right-wing forces from down south. But, this time around, Harper has blunted Martin's attacks by moving toward the center. His campaign has promised not to cut social programs, focusing instead on promoting measures to increase government accountability, while driving home the point on Liberal vice. His proposals are relatively modest: cutting the sales tax, switching to an elected senate, increasing at-home child- care payments, and shortening wait times for surgery. Harper also tactfully distanced himself from Bush. When a December op-ed in The Washington Times painted a Harper-led government as "Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader," Harper fired off a response, playing down many of the affinities. He talked tough about the U.S. failure to honor its nafta commitments and pay back the roughly $5 billion in illegal tariffs it has collected on Canadian lumber. And he praised the work the United States was doing for democracy in Iraq but pledged that he wouldn't commit Canadian troops. Harper's strategy seems to be paying off, with polls showing support for his party now surging in the usual Liberal bastions of Ontario and Quebec. A Harper victory, and a Martin loss, may be a watershed moment in Canada-U.S. relations, marking the moment when anti-Americanism fades from the halls of parliament. "As a cultural phenomenon, anti-Americanism is the patriotism of fools," says Michael Ignatieff, the Harvard professor of human rights and a noted intellectual who is now running as a Liberal candidate in suburban Toronto. A supporter of the Iraq war, continental missile defense, and a beefed-up role for Canada's military, Ignatieff has been criticized as too pro-American for the Liberals. But, as a potential future Liberal leader, he could be a strong voice for reconciliation in a rebuilt party. "There's no question that Canadians feel, and with good reason, that the Americans make the rules and then break them," he says. "[But] we mustn't make the mistake of mortgaging comprehensive security, military, economic, and border relationships for one or two files giving us a problem. We have to see the whole thing in the round." It looks likely that Martin and his Liberal predecessors will learn that lesson the hard way.

By david sax