Canada’s love affair with Barack Obama

We like him more than Americans do, with some small concerns

by Charlie Gillis on Friday, February 13, 2009 9:30am - 184 Comments

Canada’s love affair with Barack Obama

We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism—it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we’ve been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street next week, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who’s the last American we can say that about?

When Angus Reid Strategies quizzed Canadians last week on behalf of Maclean’s, the lines practically glowed with excitement over a perceived new era in Canada-U.S. relations. More than half of respondents said they think Obama’s economic policies will be good for Canada—however bleak the outlook for the U.S. economy. Same went for his energy policy, while fully six out of 10 voiced support for his environmental program (remember that?), suggesting Stephen Harper got it right when he proposed a plan to coordinate the two countries’ climate change strategies.

The results spoke to the affinity Canadians have felt toward Obama since he burst onto the U.S. electoral scene, setting a fresh tone for a country a lot of us had given up trying to understand. After eight years of voicing diffidence, if not scorn toward the previous administration, 41 per cent of our respondents want greater ties with the U.S., compared to just nine per cent who think we should distance ourselves from our southern neighbours (44 per cent think we should maintain the same level). And it’s clear that Canadians are flattered by his decision to put us so near the top of his itinerary: 61 per cent of those polled say they plan to follow media coverage of the visit, which will last only half a day.

To describe this as a break with the recent past is near-sinful understatement. The last time Canadians were asked, we rated George W. Bush’s global leadership below that of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and we have consistently voiced hope to pollsters that better relations were around the corner. Even Americans aren’t as bullish as Canadians on Obama these days, giving him still-generous approval ratings between 64 and 73 per cent, depending on who’s doing the polling. In Washington, things have been downright tough: two of Obama’s key political appointees have been forced to withdraw due to tax irregularities, and his stimulus package has been subject to a wall of partisan opposition in Congress. He may be glad for five hours in a place where the honeymoon remains in full swing.

Still, we are Canadians, which means Obama will also get a taste of the old-time fatalism that runs just beneath our optimism. In recent weeks, talk of American protectionism—most notably the “buy American” requirement in the stimulus package—has stirred long-standing insecurities about Congress’s tendency to pull up the drawbridge when times get tough. Those fears were reflected in our poll results. When asked if Obama would be good for Canada on cross-border trade, or on the auto industry, the numbers dropped to 41 per cent, and 38 per cent, respectively. “Putting aside his popularity,” says Mario Canseco, Angus Reid’s vice-president of public affairs, “Democratic governments are always perceived as more protectionist.”

So the asterisk is important, more so for Canadian leaders than for Obama himself. Several old Washington hands told Maclean’s that the government is lucky for the chance to make its wishes known while the new President is still fresh in the job. “Those are the visits a leader tends to remember,” says Michael Kergin, Canada’s ambassador to Washington from 2000 until 2005. “After the first six months or a year it starts to become routine.” Given the Canadian inclination to blame our problems on our southern neighbours, Kergin adds, it is important to tackle the issues before the bloom is off the relationship: differences will almost certainly intervene, forcing both sides to put politics before friendship. Trade barriers, America’s thickening border, Arctic sovereignty, Obama’s promise to review NAFTA—these are just a few of the issues bound to test the countries’ mutual ties.

Walking that wire is a lot more difficult for prime ministers than it is for presidents. “Historically, there’s always been a price to be paid for being seen as too close to the United States,” notes Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School of International Relations at Carleton University. And while Bush’s departure reduces those risks, it also raises complications. Under Bush, a prime minister could score cheap political points by defying the White House, or boasting grandly when it extracted some small concession from the administration. That won’t work under a president Canadians happen to like, and with whom they want their government to co-operate. If you can’t strike deals with someone as constructive and diplomatic as Obama, voters might reasonably ask, what kind of negotiator are you?

The good news for Canadian leaders is that our expectations are surprisingly low. Fully 46 per cent of those polled expect the current U.S. government to be more protectionist than the last. Less than half think Washington’s stimulus package is likely to end the recession. In short, there’s nowhere to go but up. More importantly, we’ve made up our minds on what threatened to be the most divisive foreign policy question facing the country: when asked whether Canada should keep its troops in Afghanistan should Obama request it, 65 per cent said no while only 20 per cent said yes. “We paid at the office big time on Afghanistan, and this is starting to permeate the Canadian psyche,” says Kergin. “It’s not so much a question of being supportive to the Americans as whether the war should be waged. I’ll bet if you asked them, Canadians would tell you Obama shouldn’t be waging it, either.”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/ natasha

    From Wacko Jacko (J@ck M!tchell) – “Out of curiosity, are you guys from David Duke’s site, or what?”

    So, because some Canadians are not swooning for Obama or having wet dreams about him (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/sometimes-a-president-is-just-a-president/), according to Wacko Jacko we’re all white supremacists.

    Gee, thanks, I never would have recognized that NOT worshipping at the feet of “O” makes me a racist.

    I simply prefer to wait and see what accomplishments he’ll actually make, and I don’t consider signing into law the most massive spending package ever to be a “great” accomplishment.

    But you go on worshipping your hero if that makes all of you happy.

    “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” – Herbert Spencer, British philosopher (1820-1903)

  • cc

    i wish i would be interviewed when they take their polls. I haven’t agreed with one yet!

  • Whatever

    Liberals = children. Canadians = liberals.

    By the way, how’s tourism going up there these days?…

  • Ann

    I wanted to refute the notion that the American media is liberal, but after providing key evidence to state my case, I accidently killed my message, and, having a job that takes quite a bit of my time (in another popular field, politics) I was unable to post anything further until now. But I just ran across this story on a university research study that backs me up, if you care to read it. One of the study’s authors explained her take on it: “In attempting to account for the pattern of favoring Republicans in four consecutive election cycles (during both Democratic and Republican administrations), Maria Elizabeth Gabe, one of the study’s authors explained, “We don’t think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they’re just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage.” In other words, “working the refs” works.”

    The article, which follows, can be found at fair.org

    A side note: Did none of you doubters ever hear of the many instances of news media using material from shills paid under the table by republicans in high places? You have NEVER heard that happening on the liberal side.

    Adios, me amigos, it’s been fun.

    Liberal Bias Debunked (Again)
    Tuesday, February 24th, 2009
    More bad news for right-wingers longing to peddle the myth of liberal bias in the corporate media. Indiana University released a comprehensive study of the visuals used in presidential campaign coverage from 1992-2004, finding that the three major broadcast networks–NBC, CBS and ABC–all favored Republicans in each election.

    The study focused on the visual production of news: where each story was placed in the newscast, editing techniques and manipulations related to camera angles, shot lengths, eyewitness perspectives and zoom movement. Among the most negative visual representations or “image bytes” is the “lip-flap shot,” where a reporter’s narration is placed over a candidate talking, which the report calls a “violation of professional television news production standards.”

    “Not only is lip-flap unflattering for the candidate who appears,” the report notes, “but it also distracts from the reporter’s narration because viewers focus attention on making sense of what the lip flapper appears to be saying.” The technique was found to be used more often with Democratic candidates than with Republicans. A similar partisan bias was found in which candidates were given the last word, which were videotaped in flattering low-angle shots and which were given unflattering extreme close-ups and high angles.

    In attempting to account for the pattern of favoring Republicans in four consecutive election cycles (during both Democratic and Republican administrations), Maria Elizabeth Gabe, one of the study’s authors explained, “We don’t think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they’re just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage.” In other words, “working the refs” works.

  • Andrew Yu-Jen Wang

    Speaking of Barack Obama:

    Barack Obama is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.

    George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

    George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

    And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

    Many people know what Bush did.

    And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

    Bush was absolute evil.

    Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

    Bush is a psychological prisoner.

    Bush has a lot to worry about.

    Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

    In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

    Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA
    Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

    “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
    ______________________
    I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

  • Saywhatyouwant

    Hello, I am a resident from Barrie Ontario, Canada. I am in grade 10 currently and this is what Canada is being exposed to as far as Obama goes. When he was doing his speech at the White house, almost everybody in my school was watching him do the speech. Shortly after that, people were selling Obama T-shirts and they were popular at my school. Nobody really researches what he says or does, but Canada loves him because he's gone against racial boundaries. So as far as people in the age 14-15 range, most of us have no idea about Obama. :D I love him.

  • Sangai Doulmesh

    haha….a few of the posters predictions here are coming true…this guy has no integrity…like most liberals and neo cons.
    Liberals especially make me sick, and due to the fact they won't go away, i have to laugh them off. They look, sound and act so smart, but when faced with the harshness of reality they fail time and time again.

    Obama is a one termer. Canada ….you are exceptionally lame ( no, i am a canadian citizen), and have never fooled me for a minute. I would gladly hand over my canadian passport for an american one. No one can help where they are born of course.

    How many canadians move to the u.s per year again?????……50,000 or so…..! haha CANADUH SUCKS. to heck with all canadas propaganda and canadian b.s.

  • CR

    And the “Big Lie” is exactly what Bush/Cheney laid on the American people, again, and again, and again.

    Out of fear, perhaps, Americans said, “Enough, already!” to Bush/Cheney, and rejected a person who was (in all likelihood) going to continue the Bush/Cheney version of “politics as usual.” That may not have been the only reason for rejecting McCain as a person; there may have been other considerations which this Canadian did not fully uderstand. Nonetheless, fear can move people in strange ways.

  • cc

    Charliehorse..

    Well said..pay no mind to the programed regurgitated messages from the media. Bush was hardly evil. And frankly I had no trouble understanding his speech. I do have trouble with Obama’s, He does read well, I will give him that, but as for spontaneous speech, give me a break..

    Many Canadians travel to Cuba, and wouldn’t want to live that way, but that is the way we are heading. That or the Swedish economic program.. Aside from the actual wealthy, if you work and make say, 21000 kroner, after taxes you would be left with 14000. the lad that makes 7000 kroner, is then given through entitlements, a further 7000 and they both end up with 21000. I just wonder how many people would really want to be the guy earning 21, donating 7 and getting what the other guy gets merely for breathing., Crazy. and that is sadly the way Obama thinks.
    That and the socialized medicine, same as Canada, its for the people, the masses, and not for those running the masses….Keep the people down, and controllable, for if you let them have the freedom to earn to their own potential, the government loses control..It just makes me crazy,,, i hope you Americans are going to stand up to this government before it is too late. Canada has no method to getting away from socialism, except complete collapse.

From Macleans