During the past few years, many readers have shared with me their dismay about the state of American politics. The sentiment is hardly unique to Monitor readers. No small amount of media punditry bemoans a broken, hyperpolarized Washington.
On some levels, I find that odd. A democratic republic has no magical powers to override the will of its voters. And the fact is, America is as politically divided as it has been for at least a century. Generally speaking, Americans in blue states have significantly different views on race, immigration, and religion from those in red states. That makes it natural – and in a way, even good – that Washington is divided. America has to work through these differences, and, short of resorting to violence or autocracy, that will be hard.
The question then becomes: Is a broader sense of shared purpose even possible anymore? This is the question addressed in this week’s cover story about Canada’s lack of populist anger. One tendency might be to see the story as lauding Canada and criticizing other Western nations, which are in greater political turmoil. To me, though, it points to how different choices and priorities lead to different outcomes. That equips us to understand how we can change outcomes, and at what cost.
Three things jump out at me from Sara Miller Llana’s story:
• Canada’s founding principles are rooted in anti-
revolutionary values such as “peace, order and good governance,” Sara writes. Those lead to a calmer political discourse than America’s revolutionary fervor for individual liberties.
• Canada’s biggest cultural divide – between English- and French-speakers – nearly led to the breakup of the nation. The country avoided that prospect only recently, and only through aggressive accommodation and compromise, so that spirit lingers.
• Canada’s immigration is tightly controlled. There’s very little sense that the government does not have a handle on illegal immigration.
None of these observations reveal a “right way” or “wrong way.” For instance, tighter controls on illegal immigration might help tamp down populist worries, but they could also change a nation’s identity as a haven for those facing oppression and hardship. The immigration debate today is about where countries want to place themselves on that spectrum. And the two extremes of that spectrum have very different opinions.
But here’s a thought. In the toxic wasteland of umbrage that is the comment section of many websites, there is one shining beacon. The website of The New York Times’s Cooking page is famous for its remarkable and at times oddly uplifting comments section. That’s because of one thing: “The call to action was to leave a note on the recipe that helps make it better,” editor Sam Sifton tells The Ringer website. “That’s very different from ‘Leave a comment on a recipe.’ ”
Every country is a constantly changing recipe, infused with new ideas and ingredients. No one person can control the recipe of their country. But everyone can contribute to making it better. As one Canadian mayor tells Sara: “This moment is calling for the best of us.”