From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Fragments
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:57:56 GMT

Mike Morris writes:

>In the first year I lived in Canada, I met an expatriot-American
professor                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		Hee, hee Mike.
					
>from the University of Guelph who explained to me that the first
>thing I should learn about Canadians is that every Canadian keeps a
>sacred flame lit at a little shrine over his bed where
>the words are emblazoned, ``I am not an American.'' I haven't
>really visited any Canadian bedrooms to check up on this, but I
>believe it to be true.

It's actually part of the Canuck bedtime prayer: "Our father who art
in heaven, please do not make me an American."

>And that's my point. That Canadian society is in fragments. And not
>so much because of the strong regionalism. But philosophically
>in fragments. And that's my other point. That American society is
>just as much philosophically fragmented. Basically, I think there's this
>institutional legacy in the States from the period of the Founding,
>and that that legacy keeps things going. But, pop society is almost
>completely uprooted and disconnected from that legacy. I think
>if Americans had to try to redraft a constitution like Canadians do,
>it'd be as hopeless for Americans as it appears to be here.

Absolutely! As everyone is now a member of some hyphenated minority 
agreement on any common principles would be impossible. The Canadian
Accord did more than give extra rights to groups, it awarded rights to
abstract material circumstances - the right to housing. 

>		 You see, you can complain all you like about the
>American Founding Fathers being slave-owners, rich, not women, etc. but
>it does seem to me they had a life independent of politics---they farmed,
>or practiced law, or were merchants, when Congress wasn't in session. That
>is, in some sense they were quite ordinary men who were politicians
>as a matter of public service and for the sake of the public honour
>that might accrue to them. I would suggest that the case is very
>different now. Government is very big and big government is run by
>a class of professional politicians---men (and women now) who do
>not have an ordinary life outside of politics. Politicians themselves
>are a special-interest group. 

I am reminded of Paul Johnson's comment in his magnificent history of
the twentieth-century, *Modern Times*, that this century is
characterized by one especially baneful development:  the
professionalization of politics. In a "Voter's Guide" published just
before the U.S. election candidates listed their education and
experience.It was appalling how many listed Congress as their ONLY
experience. Example: Rep. Joe Kennedy is B.A., U. Mass and Congressman. His
only other experience was working on Uncle Teddy's campaign!

A book on the particular effects on this professionalization, and one
I have recommended before, is Alan Ehrenhalt's *The United States of
Ambition*. What's charted there is the loss of party loyalty and the
rise of an attitude of singular dependence. This, of course, makes
the politician even more vulnerable to the overtures of special
interests.

Keith

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Morgan		 	|In literature, as in love, we are 
kamorgan@athena.mit.edu  	|astonished at what is chosen by others.
		         	|	        Andre Maurois
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books