"Canadians overwhelmingly prefer Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, to John McCain, the Republicans' choice, as the next president of the United States," John Ibbitson noted Saturday in his Globe essay The U.S. candidates in Canadian eyes
"If Canadians were allowed to vote in the U.S. presidential election, according to a Harris-Decima poll, 55 per cent would mark their ballot for Mr. Obama, while only 15 per cent would support Mr. McCain.
"On the face of it, this makes no sense. Self-interested Canadians should probably be backing Mr. McCain. He defends and supports free trade while Barack Obama is protectionist. Mr. McCain came to Canada in the middle of an election campaign to make exactly that point to American voters.
"That Canadians themselves have no time for his message, that they support a Democratic candidate who vows to rip up NAFTA if it can't be renegotiated, might be a sign of Canadian foolhardiness. It might also, however, reveal a deeper wisdom.
"Canadians may see Barack Obama as the prime minister they never had."
Mr. Ibbitson argues that Canada's interests strongly coincide with the campaign platform of Senator McCain.
But he writes: "Mr. Obama epitomizes the multicultural present that Canada celebrates. While we are stuck with an uninspiring assortment of mostly middle-aged white males to lead our nation, Americans are contemplating electing a Kenyan-American who has an Indonesian-American half sister who is herself married to a Chinese-Canadian doctor. Barack Obama shouldn't belong to the United States. He should belong to us."
Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative argument. So we're pleased that Mr. Ibbitson was online Monday to take your questions on his essay and on the U.S. election in general.
Your questions and Mr. Ibbitson's answers appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion.
Mr. Ibbitson has lived numerous writing lives, including those of playwright, novelist and journalist.
He graduated from the University of Western Ontario with a masters degree in journalism, then joined The Ottawa Citizen as a rather aged cub reporter. He worked as a reporter, columnist and Queen's Park correspondent for Southam papers until 1999, when he joined The Globe and Mail as Queen's Park columnist, subsequently serving as the paper's Washington Bureau Chief and political affairs columnist, based in Ottawa. He has since returned to Washington, where he ranges far and wide surveying the American landscape.
Outside journalism, his recent writing has focused on political analysis, with Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution (Prentice Hall, 1997) and Loyal No More: Ontario's Struggle for a Separate Destiny (HarperCollins, 2001).
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Estanislao (Stan) Oziewicz, globeandmail.com Foreign Editor: John, your essay has certainly been well read and it has sparked lots of questions. Thank you for taking the time to respond to them today. Here is the first one.
Brad Meredith, from Kingston, Ontario: Mr. Ibbitson, Do you think it's possible that Canadians support Senator Obama over Senator McCain in such overwhelming numbers because they rightly believe he would bring more benefit than harm to Canada? Changes to NAFTA could pose some economic threats, granted. But, what about environmental changes? Might the air quality in southwestern Ontario improve with lowered American emissions? What about safety? Could international peace improve under a president who doesn't start unnecessary wars for specious reasons? Wouldn't Canada benefit from having a neighbour which actively shares our values of social welfare and public health care? Is it not possible or likely that Canadians have some very grounded and pragmatic reasons to support Mr. Obama?
Mr. Ibbitson: I do believe that many Canadians believe Mr. Obama shares more of their values than Senator McCain. How successful he would be in actually implementing environmental, health and other policies in the face of Congressional opposition is another thing, of course. And, of course, Mr. Obama's less confrontational approach to the war on terror might lead to greater international harmony, or renewed terrorist attack. There are hopes and risks to an Obama administration.
Miles Lunn, from Toronto: Hello John. Frank McKenna not too long ago stated that while the Republicans would be better for Canada on trade issues, the Democrats are better on border security issues, so couldn't it be argued both parties have their advantages and disadvantages? Also, Canadians tend to be very internationalist as many have family living outside the country and most have travelled abroad besides the United States, so we might support Mr. Obama since we believe he is better for the world, even if he is worse for Canada. Do you agree or disagree with the above statements?
Mr. Ibbitson: I think Mr. McKenna makes an interesting point. Homeland Security is driving border issues right now, and in ways that are emphatically not beneficial to Canada. (Think passports.) Would a Democratic government successfully reign in that department? It's a good question. To my mind, what is more important is for the Canadian government to work out a coherent approach to improving continental security and a more porous border, and to present that proposal to the new administration.
Donald Steadman, from Seguin Township, Ontario: Does it really matter what either candidate says before the election? The winner will be faced with reality post-inauguration and will respond as, one hopes, will our government, in the best interests of his country. The important thing for us is to defend our interests and that means a strong prime minister, foreign affairs minister and ambassador. We have Mike Wilson and that's one of three. Should we have a minister for U.S. relations, given our possibly unique position vis-a-vis the United States?
Mr. Ibbitson: A minister for U.S. relations would be politically unsellable in Canada and should be unnecessary. Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister's office should be able to handle the file, if they give it sufficient attention.
Brian Lowry, from Frederiction, New Brunswick: Hi John. Isn't it better for Canada to face a U.S president who respects not only the letter of international law, but also the spirit that prevents large powers from arbitrarily invading smaller nations? What use is support for NAFTA that comes with the view that the United States has the right to unilaterally arbitrate international disputes - even to the extent of invading Iraq - based solely on its own national interests?
Mr. Ibbitson: The United States, under any administration, will always intervene unilaterally, if necessary, to protect its perceived national interests, to the extent that it is capable of doing so. Canada would do the same, if it could.
Lawrence Chanin, from Canada: Today's Globe and Mail poll shows more Canadians believe John McCain would be better for Canada than Barack Obama. In their hearts, Canadians know that Mr. Obama would be more likely to change the United States for the betterment of more Americans and people around the world. But their hard-headed choice for who would be better for Canada is Mr. McCain. This seems to confirm my belief that most Canadians are closet Republicans who make their important decisions based on ever more conservative fiscal policies. Do you agree, Mr. Ibbitson?
Mr. Ibbitson: Mr. Chanin, most polling shows that most Canadians prefer Mr. Obama, by a wide margin. Generally speaking, Canadians are closer to the values of the Democratic than the Republican Party. After all, even Mr. Obama doesn't believe in universal public health care. And he wants to increase the size of what is already by far the world's largest military. Though Canadians do place a stronger emphasis of fiscal responsibility from their governments than do Americans, that is true.
Mr. Oziewicz, Foreign Editor, globeandmail.com: John, we've come to the end of our allotted time. Any final thoughts?
Mr. Ibbitson: What I find particularly fascinating is the intense level of interest among Globe readers and other Canadians in the American election. It almost seems as though this election campaign has eclipsed anything going on in Canadian politics. It is a joy and a privilege to be able to cover it.