Call Him A (White) Nationalist

Trump said some words, not the 14, but getting closer all the time--that he is a nationalist.  What does that mean?  Well, if he hadn't prefaced it by saying that he isn't supposed to calling himself this, then one could interpret this as Trump being an American nationalist--proud of being an American, whatever that means.  But since he prefaced it as something that he should not say, well, it is easy to suggest that he was really saying he is a white nationalist even if he denied it today.

Let's step back and think about nationalism.  It is generally referred to a belief or desire or a movement that seeks to have a particular nation have its own government.  That, by itself, may be neither good nor bad (although I am a fan of multi-national states), but the key is this: nationalism is also about defining who is a suitable member of the nation and who is not.  Much of it is not just the aspiration to have a country for the nation but who should be in that country as a citizen, who is not as suitable and how these "Others" should be treated. 

And that is where Trump and his statement come in.  Trump and his allies want to define the American nation very specifically--that brown folks, that those not born in the US, that transgender don't count as real/true Americans.  Sarah Palin's stuff on Real America also defined American cities as not being part of Real America, but Trump as a New Yorker does not quite go there.  To be clear, within the far right (and far left), there will be differences and fights over who really counts and who should be excluded, but they generally agree that the US is a white Christian (narrowly defined) nation, and those who do not fit that combination of categories are not really American. 

Seems strange for Trump to be on board with this given that he has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren, right?  Not really since Trump has long had anti-semitic views even if he thinks he can love specific ones--remember, he wanted Jewish accountants, not African-American ones, because Jews are good with money: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day..."  Trump may not be a Nazi, but he does not mind hanging around with such folks--"there are fine people on both sides." 

As Trump panics about the midterms, he needs to get his base to the polls.  Who are his base?  Who were the key folks who helped him win the primaries?  Yeah, he knows.  So, this "I am a nationalist" is an appeal to those folks.  Is he sincere?  Well, Trump isn't sincere about much, but he is consistent about a few things, and his white supremacy (and its frequent companion--misogyny) is one of them.

So, yeah, Trump is a white nationalist, although I prefer white supremacist. His focus on the folks caravaning to the US, his mostly outdated concern about crime in inner cities, his empowering Sessions, Miller and Kelly, his attempts at a Muslim ban, and all of that is a part of a larger pattern.  He is fomenting a nationalism in the US that excludes much of America, and we should find it deeply disturbing. 

I do think it was a mark of desperation that Trump said what he said, but I don't expect him to stop if his party wins  or if it loses the midterms. Either he will be empowered or deeply angry.  It is going to get worse before it gets better.  And, yes, it can get worse.

A Rose By Any Other Name

I resisted calling Trump a fascist during the campaign because I never really thought he was all that coherent ideologically.  However, I have felt quite comfy calling Alt Right folks either white supremacists or neo-nazis or just to keep it short: Nazis.  The recent meeting in DC gets most of the attention for the Hail Trump and raised arms in the Nazi salute, but this glosses over the speech that was chock full of white supremacy.

On my twitter feed, I am getting some push back from people who say that these Spencer folks are just one flavor of the Alt Right.  Sure.  Whatever you say.  But the stream of hate (identity politics, anyone?) that Breitbart publishes, that Steve Bannon (its head and soon to be the White House Counselor/Strategist) has promoted fits very well into the label of white supremacist.

Why not use white nationalist?  As a scholar of nationalism and ethnic conflict, I have to admit that white nationalism might fit the bill.  Why? Well, nationalism is usually described as a political movement and identity that aims to have its own state.  And these people want the US to be a white nation, seeking either the expulsion of those who are not white, hence the calls for non-whites to go back where they came from, or the domination of whites over non-whites.

Oh, but it is more than just white nationalism since it is also anti-semitic and anti-Muslims.  So, it is also about religion.   While Muslims can be non-white, they are many who are not.  Jews tend to be viewed as belonging to the non-white category by people who care about religious purity.  Wait, there is also much hate directed towards the LGBTQ community who can be of any color or religion.  Which means that focusing on white nationalism or white supremacy is not enough.  These haters want to reverse the progress made by these various groups, to create intolerance of these differences, and mobilize the "majority" against them.  Does this make them Nazis?  Given their desire for the use of the state against racial, religious and other minorities, seems close enough to me.

The false equivalence machine online was raising Black Panthers, Farrakhan and other "parallels", but whatever else is out there, Nazis are Nazis and deserve our condemnation and contempt and our best efforts to organize against them and put them back under the rocks from whence they came.

Oh, and insisting on calling themselves Alt Right is a handy way to have it both ways--to appeal to their like-minded friends and deny their Nazi stances to the broader public.  I refuse to go along.  Which is why I am mighty fond if this new meme that is going around:

 

While racism is built into American history via slavery, Jim Crow, #voterfraudfraud, and all the rest, supporting Nazis is definitely unAmerican.  Fighting them?  An American Tradition since 1940-ish (when US started its undeclared anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic). 

Keeing Japanese Nationalism Alive

I had to visit the Yasukuni Shrine during my month here.  It is the place where Japan's war dead are enshrined (their names are written down, so their spirits are essentially here).  Kind of like Japan's Arlington, except it got more controversial in the late 1970s when the names of several war criminals were added.  This meant that every visit by politicians now carries much more weight--that they are seen by the neighbors as paying respect to those who committed war crimes.  Not good. 

To make matters a wee bit more complicated, next to the shrine is a museum that is dedicated ostensibly to Japan's war dead.  What is it actually?  Well, its content has varied over time from being very nationalist, blaming FDR for luring Japan into the war, to being merely quite nationalist.  The challenge of documenting this is that one is not allowed to take pictures inside the museum (except right before the entrace--see below).  This is strange, since it is the only war museum I can remember with such a restriction.  It is not like there are pieces of art or artifacts that would be damaged.  So, I took extensive notes.

What did I note?

• That the text that came with the Zero here was a bit much--best carrier fighter?  Maybe at the outset, but not by the middle/end of the war.

• The museum featured a locomotive engine from Thailand/Burma.  I could not help but think that the museum was referencing The Bridge Over The River Kwai.

•   Next to the locomotive was a howitzer that had served in a variety of places including the Philippines where this particular regiment "surpassed all expectations in the battles of Bataan and Corregidor." Uh huh. 
• The texts in the first part of the museum mentioned unequal treaties (yep) and referred to the war as the "Greater East Asia War" which is like calling the US Civil War the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.  The Pacific War is what less nationalist types call it. 
• The war with China: an incident.  The Nanking Campaign/Incident was sanitized.  
• The oil embargo was considered to be the cause of the war.  Almost fair, except the context for the embargo seemed a smidge off. 
• Pearl Harbor?  Admitted it was a surprise attack that "succeeded in destroying the US fleet."  Oh really?  Guess aircraft carriers don't count.  Nor did the attack destroy the vital logistics features that led to a rapid rebound of the surface fleet and supported the submarine campaign that would destroy the Japanese fleet (the US subs get no credit in any Japanese exhibit I saw this month).
• The discussion of the Special Attack Corps--the Kamikazes--was also presented in a way that was disturbing.  As was the pride in how the last remaining big battleship, the Yamato, went on a suicide mission with no chance of success to Okinawa.  Likewise, the text concerning the human torpedo project was just a bit off-putting. 

Outside the museum, there was some memorials:
 

To the merchant marine, lost in the war, I think.

To the widows and orphans

At other sites in Japan, I felt a fair amount of guilt--the various shrines and other buildings that had to be re-built after the firebombing of March 1945.  Here, not so much, as the attitude presented here was that the war was something that happened to Japan, rather than something that Japan had a great deal of responsibility in instigating.  Plus the major war crimes are entirely omitted--the Nanking "incident," Bataan, and on and on. The war was especially cruel, and both Japan and the US engaged in barbaric strategies and tactics.  I have to go to the WWII Museum in New Orleans one of these days to see how stuff is portrayed there.  I may not be entirely fair, but, to be clear, a fair amount of Japanese are bothered by how the stuff at this museum depicts the war.

Perhaps I would not have noticed some of the omissions and biased portrayals had I not been expecting it, as I was warned that this museum is fairly nationalist.  On the other hand, I noticed quite quickly at the Hungarian House of Terror the map of irredentism at the beginning. One thing is clear--I did not see anything like this in Germany, where only the fringe views World War II with any sense of pride.  Here, it is not so fringe.  And for the neighbors, China and South Korea in particular, any reverence for the past gives them carte blanche to harp on it rather than moving forward.  Europe and East Asia are so very different when it comes to how countries who were enemies in World War II view each other today (with US-Japan as the main and vital exception).

Xenophobic Squirrel Says ...

Yep, I am going there.  But now that the PQ is extending the Charter of Values to cover students--that they would not be able to wear niqabs if they go to school in Quebec--it is time to meme these xenophobic folks.  The desperation is palpable as the PQ sees its lead slipping away.  Apparently, they need hate and fear to defeat a rookie leader and a lame Liberal Party.

Why squirrel? 


I have long considered distraction sauce to be squirrel flavored.

Without Mercy!

Is it without mercy or without merci?  Not sure, but these statements from the PQ language minister on what the party would do with a majority suggests that they would, indeed, have no mercy:

De Courcy said she thinks it’s great if individuals want to learn different languages like English, Spanish, Mandarin or Arabic in their private lives, but institutions and businesses must function strictly in French.
“There is a difference with what is institutional and it must be without mercy,” she said.

What upsets her so?  That when you shop in Montreal, the clerk says "bonjour-hi" and then then conversation goes into whatever language the customer wants--French or English--because you want to make the sale.  Customer is king, right?  Nay, nay, non!  It is more important to crush the use of non-French--without mercy!

De Courcy is "pained that some business owners do not seem very enthusiastic about protecting French."  Sucks to be her.  And, of course, she wants to move the pain back to where it belongs--on those who want to operate in one of Canada's two official languages.  Deny that reality, but Quebec still is in Canada, and heaps of folks who move to Quebec have moved there thinking that it is just an interesting part of Canada and not a special place where the local majority gets to repress the local minority.  The hypocrisy, as always, is stunning.

More unintentional comedy:
“Reinforcing the French character of Montreal is essential to facilitate integration (of immigrants),”

Ah, integration of immigrants is so important to the PQ as long as they give up observing their religion if they happen to work for their government or if they prefer to use another language other than French when they shop.

One of the joys of living in Quebec was going to the barbershop where the conversations moved between French, English and Italian.  The comfort those guys had with themselves and their clients--what is the problem here that the PQ needs to fix?

Yves-Thomas Dorval, president of Conseil du Patronat: “When it comes to the perception of bilingualism in the workforce as a threat, on the contrary, since around the world the international language of business is English, we have to be careful not to ghettoize ourselves."

Actually, I am pretty sure that is the intent. If the people of Quebec are alienated from the rest of Canada and cannot partake in the workforce outside of Quebec, then ignorance will be bliss for the PQ.

Montrealers do not deserve this party.  Oh well, glad I got out while the getting out was good.

Nationalism Test Du Jour

The Olympics have been heaps of fun for talking about nationalism.  Now here is a test:

Take a look at this image and ponder who is more upset:

a)  Russians
b)  Canadians
c)  A tie that requires a shootout



No, Americans is not one of the choices--we/they just laugh.



What say you?

We Are All Nationalists

Perhaps only the Brits can be smug (but they have to cover other countries, as they don't do well at winter games), as the Canadian coverage of the Winter Olympics is just about as Canadian centric as the American coverage is American-centric:

So, let's just keep embracing our nationalism, ok?

H/T to Deadspin.

Nope, No Nationalism Here.

When I saw the new cover of Macleans (Canada's premiere national news magazine), I could only tweet thusly:

No nationalism here... MT @MacleansMag: Why Canada rules the new Olympics. The latest issue of #macleans, pic.twitter.com/IMq7HeVIec
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) February 13, 2014

Such great timing after my post at CIC.  Thanks for proving my point, Macleans!

Nationalism and the Olympics

I didn't post here this morning because I was too busy writing up something for CIC: what nationalism tells us about the Olympics and vice versa.  Check it out.

Quebec's Identity Politics Explained Articulately

No, not by me.  When you want a sharp, erudite, articulate take on identity politics, go to Jacob Levy, my former colleague (we fight about who is the other older brother in our relation of chain-pulling/teasing):



Jacob really says it so very well--that the PQ's strategy is to polarize the public and split the CAQ's voters.  The anchor was shocked that this is so calculated, and I guess I am, too.  Not that identity politics is a rational game of using identity cynically to stay in power and get more power (I have been believing that since I started my dissertation).  No, that the PQ is doing it well.  Recently, the party seemed to be incredibly inept.  But, aside from that whole "we cannot govern" thing, the party seems to have figured out how to put its opposition in a difficult spot.  And may win a majority soon.

So, this really is my morning of being thankful I left Quebec.

Look! A Non-Squirrel!

One of the biggest problems with Quebec's Charter of Values is that it is addressing a non-problem: accommodating the religious folks who feel obligated to wear various symbols and clothing is not causing anyone any real issues.  This letter by a head of company that not only employs Quebeckers but handles employment problems illustrates this quite well.

We hear it all – from day-to-day relationship challenges to workplace problems to real crises. What we don’t hear are questions or problems about religious or cultural issues. They literally do not make the list of employee concerns. Of the 75,000 calls we received from Quebeckers last year, the top three issues were personal relationships, personal stress and mental-health issues, consistent with our statistics from the rest of Canada. Our diverse work places are working, but the pace of life, and business, is changing. Canadians, including Quebeckers, are finding ways to work together harmoniously, notwithstanding their differences.

Rights should only be infringed when there is a real risk posed to the rights of others.  Lots of rights can come into conflict, but I don't think the need for the state to be neutral is so threatened by a small percentage (hey, we have no stats collected by QC government to make their case) that infringing on the rights of minorities makes sense.

Unless you think tyranny of the majority is a good idea.

Again, there is no problem here, and so the Charter of Values proposal is lousy distraction sauce--most folks see it for what it is--a non-solution to a non-problem because governance is too damned hard for the PQ.

When a Xenophobe Complains

Parti Quebecois defenders have been asserting that the Anglophone media does not know what it is talking about, that their stance is not xenophobic.  "Xenophobia is the irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange (wikipedia)."  Perhaps the PQ and its supporters are not xenophobic, as their fear could be rational or they are fearing stuff that they think is familiar.  So, perhaps we should just call them fear-mongerers or the religious equivalent of race-baiters?  Would that be better?

When a party seeks to discriminate against minorities, it better have a good reason.  Actually, it rarely has a good reason, and here there is the Quebec specialty: the non-crisis crisis.  There is no crisis that this law is supposed to address. It is about mobilizing a base, distracting a public, and developing more divides with the Rest of Canada.  It is not about justice, and it is not about "values."  Well, it might be about values if intolerance is a value.  

So, the PQ can push back and claim they are being oppressed for their political stances, which is mighty rich, of course, given that they are seeking to repress those who follow religious injunctions closely.  As a non-religious person, I have no crucifix/turban/kipa/whatever in this fight.  As a scholar of nationalism and of xenophobia, I have a pretty good idea of what is going on: marginalizing minorities for political gain.  People have been calling it xenophobia, but we can just call it .... wrong.

Happy Identity Day!

Blogging has been light as I have been traveling back from Budapest.  In a post later today, I will discuss what I learned in that very beautiful city.  In this post, I just a few brief thoughts on yet another Fourth of July viewed from my perch north of the Wall.

It was a good thing that I was not in Canada when this list of the 99 ways Canada is better than the US was published.  Luckily, the first I learned of this is when I read Andrew Cohen's column this morning that does a nice job putting things into perspective.  Now, I don't have to come up with 100 ways the US is better than Canada.

Instead, I will focus on just one for this Independence Day.  Every identity includes multiple aspects about who one is, but a key part of that is by defining who one is not.  Canada, because of its proximity and relative size, absolutely has to define its nationalism in large part by what it is not--the US.  Which leads to various stuff that can be good and bad.  I have been less than thrilled with "Americanized" as an insult up here--that Hillier was Americanized, the Harper is Americanized, which explains how they could be so unCanadian. 

One of the things that makes the U.S. "great" in my humble opinion is that there is no single Other that defines the U.S.  While the US has been in opposition to the British early on and then the Germans twice (and Japanese once) and the Soviets for quite some time, to be an American is not so clearly defined by not being like country x, y or z.  To be unAmerican does not mean acting like a Canadian or a Russian or a Chinese person.  It did mean, for quite awhile and with some nasty consequences, being Communist or seen as a sympathizer to communism.

The U.S., for all of its problems, tends to have loftier targets for what defines it than other countries--the ideas that it represents and the ideas that it opposes.  So, all the goodness in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (leaving out the ugly bits, like condoning slavery for more than four score years) are key bits of the content in the American identity that resonate, and the Others that have defined the U.S. and American identity have been colonialism/empire (that would be mostly of the British kind, admittedly), fascism (too many Germans in the US to hate Germans for very long?), and Communism.

The problem today is that Terrorism has much less content than the ideologies of the past, so the Other is really a strategic or a tactic, which means the US ends up defining itself by the strategies it chooses to fight Terrorism.  Alas, the strategies that now definite American identity include rendition, torture, and drone strikes.  Of course, this affects more how others see Americans than how Americans see themselves, but identity is, as academics say, intersubjective.  Our identities are products not just of how we see ourselves but how others see us. 

My American identity is probably a bit more complex than it was before 2002, as I see more clearly (although I am often quite confused) how others perceive Americans, including as The Other.  With Great Power not only comes Great Responsibility but also a Great role in how others construct their identities and nationalisms. 

I am pretty ambivalent these days about the State of the Union and the place of the U.S. in the world.  I have a column coming out later today at OpenCanada.org that addresses this.  But I wanted to just address some identity dynamics as I am too tired from my air travels to come up with one hundred reasons why the US rocks.  Not why the US is better than Canada but why the US just rocks (thanks again, Andrew Cohen!).  Maybe next year.  In the meantime, enjoy Independence Day, which marks the anniversary of an incredible document that mattered not just then and there but since then pretty much everywhere.  Indeed, despite the flaws of the founders, their hopes and ambitions for what this country would become, this imagined potential, is pretty damned terrific and is worth more than a few fireworks and excessive blogposts.

And, yes, this speech still gives me chills.

House of Terror Again

I visited the House of Terror in 2003, I believe, when I was doing research in Budapest for the Irredentism book.  I was struck then by how the Hungarian experience of World War II and of Communism was displayed.  Unlike most other remembrance museums I have been to, this one is clearly produced by politics.  The right wing parties established the building in early Aughts and some of the displays do seem to tie the left wing parties of today, the Socialists, with their predecessors of the Communist period--the Hungarian Communist Party.

This time, I noticed even more that the Arrow Cross (the Hungarian fascists of World War II) and the Communists of the Cold War era were somewhat conflated.  There was even a video of people taking one set of clothes off and putting another one--that the society at large put on whatever clothes required of the time.  Maybe I am reading too much in this, but it seemed as if this identification of Fascists with Communists might have been aimed to remove/display the taint that the contemporary right wing might otherwise wear from history. 

My favorite part was altered somewhat but still very much intact in spirit.  The very first part of the exhibition is a map of Hungary that shrinks in 1920 as the Treaty of Trianon (a product of choosing the losing side in World War I) created Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia at the expense of Hungary plus Transylvania went to Romania.  The map then grows during World War II as Hungary re-annexed the lost territories, and then Hungary shrinks to its current size at the end of WWII.  So, it is a map of irredentism. 

The "new" surprise is how little of the space is dedicated to post 1956 Hungary, after the Soviet crackdown.  From my interviews after my first visit to the Museum, I learned how central the shared experience of post 56 Hungary was to Hungarian identity and nationalism, yet it is not reflected here at all.  

Note: Wifi at hotel is not letting me post picture.  Maybe tomorrow ....

The Worst Union of Them All?

Would you believe that there are public servants who have contempt for the public they serve?  Ok, not so hard to believe.  And given that unions often exaggerate the worst tendencies/preferences of a minority of a group, we perhaps should not be surprised when the Quebec civil servants union displays much contempt for the Angophone minority.  The QC union representing those working in government want essentially to eliminate any obligation/instinct to assist the Anglophones dealing with tax problems or otherwise work in English with those who are not comfortable in French. 

“What emerges from these few testimonials is the obligation for frontline staff to provide services in English under pressure from citizens,” the union wrote.  “While they should feel supported by their immediate superiors [in insisting on working in French], employees fear the warnings and penalties that could follow.”  As the union sees it, a “shameful bilingualism” is invading the civil service, and union president Lucie Martineau said the Parti Québécois government’s Bill 14, which updates the language charter known as Bill 101, does not go nearly far enough to correct things. ...
What is remarkable is that the union representing civil service workers has enthusiastically joined a campaign aimed explicitly at reducing service to citizens.
“We must repair the gaping holes left by Bill 101 that allowed rampant bilingualism to infiltrate the public administration,” the union wrote.

WTF?  Oh, the joy of tyranny of the majority.  The people who serve the public do not want to serve a chunk of the public.  Lovely.   It is one thing to ask a public service to start learning a language to catch up to a new group of people who have moved into the country.  It is another to say: you know the folks who have lived here for centuries?  Screw them.

The funny thing is that Quebec's bilingualism always seemed quite selective to me--very bilingual when it wanted my money (tax forms, parking/speeding tickets) and very unilingual when it came to grant applications and the like.  Why would Quebec want to make it harder for Anglophones to pay their taxes?  

To lobby to deny Anglophones from getting government services?   Just awful.  Democracy is such a wonderful thing, but we need basic protections to protect the minority from the majority.  Quebec does not seem to care about tyranny of the majority when they are the relative majority. 

Olympic Nationalism

One reason I blogged less in August is that I owed a bunch of folks a bunch of posts.  Here is my quarterly piece at Current Intelligence, where I opine about the nationalism we saw at the Olympics. 

Hint, if you are a big fan of Greece and its obsession with Macedonia, you might want to skip this one.

The Best Thing About Nationalists

Is that they often cannot stand each other.  As best illustrated here (NSFW):


Seriously, Jacques Parizeau, the man who nearly led Quebec to independence in 1995 and then blamed the Jews and the other ethnic types for the failure, has often had problems with his successors.  Well, the joy now is that he has endorsed Option Nationale (see this as well), the holier than thou separatists who see the Parti Quebecois as poseurs.  I have been hoping that the various separatist types split their votes among the parties all claiming to be the best sovereigntists--the PQ, Quebec Solidaire (whose leader rocked the first debate), and the Option Nationale folks.  With the PQ ahead in the polls, it is now safe for the nationalists to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As someone tweeted today (cannot find it now), if it were not for the concern about the PQ, the Liberals would be polling in the single digits with all of the corruption scandals and the fatigue after nearly ten years.  So, our best hope is for the PQ to self-destruct.  Not a bad bet, given history, given the dynamics of nationalist movements, and given Parizeau's raging narcissism.

Option Sucketh

For some reason, an advocate of the Option Nationale Party engaged in me a twitter conversation this evening.  He argued that independence would help un-freeze the currently lousy status quo.  Certainly.  But a quick look at the program of the party, which he said I should consider, tells me that the Option Nationale is no option at all for the Anglophones and other minorities in Quebec.

It would do much of what the PQ promises to do without the hedging.  CEGEPS would be restricted to French for Francophones and immigrants.  Funding of universities would be more proportionate, which would mean cutting McGill, Concordia and Bishop's.  Those who partook of free education would have to contribute back to society--suggesting prevention of emigration to Canada/elsewhere, right?  Free higher ed?  How to pay for that?  Who gets it?

The program is quite clearly not interested in making non-Francophones feel comfortable or even equal, so why bother appeal to them?  Yes, Anglophones are sick of the Liberals who have been in power for ten years and are quite corrupt.  But this platform of the O.N. is not about public service and good governance.  It is about inflicting nationalism on all institutions--why would a minority want that.  Is there anything in this that would make a minority feel as if they have a stake in the system?  That their rights would be protected and their interests influential?  No.

Yes, the nationalist discourse is a tremendous distraction from focusing on good governance, but it not clear how a nationalist party would be the right choice.  And, yes, I have full confidence that an independent Quebec would still have parties competing with each other about how best to deprive the minorities rather than focus on good governance.

Thus, I am only confused by one thing--why should a sovereigntist like this engage me?  I am absolutely everything that such folks stand against.  Except I left.   Hmmm.

The nationalist did ask me the right question: what is the resolution?  My answer is demographic change.  The more the old nationalists fade away, the more immigrants gain citizenship, the less relevance the nationalist cause will have at election time.  Some party may eventually emerge and promise good governance. The CAQ might be it.  The NDP farm team might be it.  The Liberals might find defeat to be what they need to reconstitute.  But much of Quebec is tired of the nationalist discourse.  The Francophones have won every battle except independence.  And if they become independent, Quebec will lose.  It will lose the subsidies that Canada provides, it will lose cache in the rest of the world, since no one really cares about Quebec that much besides some old nationalists in France.  It will be marginal, except for producing some electricity for NY and New England.  Oh, and asbestos for India.

Perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part.  I do expect Quebec to be stuck in this rut for quite a while.  But eventually a party/leader will emerge that will persuade enough people to focus on good governance rather than on identity divisions.  Hopefully, that will not take too long and that non-nationalist will be the best thing for the distinct society.

Running Against the Wind

The PQ has a great chance to gain power again with an exhausted set of incumbents who inevitably presided over a heap of corruption scandals (not that the PQ would be any less corrupt).  But, imitating perhaps the Republicans to the south, the focus ends up being on symbolic politics rather than substance.  The PQ is promising a harsher version of Bill 101, the law that regulates languages.  Not satisfied with denying immigrants and Francophones access to English K-11 (there is no 12th grade in Quebec), the proposal aims to restrict CEGEPs (the semi-junior colleges between high school and university) along the same lines. 

This law is clearly aimed at the nationalist base. In a three-way battle (or five way with two other separatist parties in the mix as well, this makes more sense than the GOP shifting even further rightward since there is less of a need to get any votes in the center and more of a need to cement the base.

The announcements always aim at the shocking disuse of French in Montreal, where the vast majority of the population do speak French.  However, the challenge is that Montreal is chock full of people for whom French is their second language, that their mother tongue is something else.  This allows the PQ to focus its ire on two targets in one shot: Montreal and immigrants.  Running against Montreal is a grand tradition, as it presents the "other" to the rest of Quebec, whether that other is urban, Anglophone, immigrant, gay, educated, or whatever.  Montreal is the economic engine for the province, but the disproportionate distribution of seats (Montreal is under-represented) combined with the usually politicially irrelevant Anglophone community means that it is politically rational to run against the city.  The realities of underinvestment in infrastructure and social services emanate from this--why send resources to Montreal when voters elsewhere matter more?  Why not blast the city for its cosmopolitan-ness even if it does not threaten the rest of Quebec and might even be good as it helps to feed the economy?

The immigrants are the second target.  The PQ has learned some lessons:

1. appealing to immigrants allows other parties to be better xenophobes (ADQ a few years ago);
2. immigrants will learn French (so many speak three or more languages) but learning French does not convert them into either PQ voters or separatists.  So, some proposals of Quebec citizenship are explictly aimed now at immigrants.
3. xenophobia plays well outside of Montreal.

So, what the PQ does makes sense, but once again, what is good for electoral politics in the short-run is bad for Quebec in the long run.  This election can still be about corruption and good governance, but the more the PQ plays up the language stuff, the more Anglophones and Allophones will vote for the corrupt Liberals.  They fear more the certain consequences of an anti-Anglophone/anti-immigrant government and the disruptions that another referendum would bring than the uneven impact of corruption.  Hence Charest's instance that the PQ will hold a referendum and that the new party, the CAQ, may be closet separatists.

Heaps of distraction sauce abound for the Liberals with the PQ playing to its base.  We shall see if corruption becomes the key issue or not of this election.  If the PQ wins because corruption harmed the Liberals, we might not see any improvement in good governance.  Why? Because the PQ does not really care about it.

Yes, I am so very glad I am out out of Quebec.  Ontario may not be paradise, but at least the parties do not seem focused on the threat I pose as an Anglophone and as an immigrant.

What Is In A Name?

I revised slightly my piece on the Opening Ceremonies and Macedonia vs. FYROM for the Canadian International Council.  Check it out.