Here is a curious note on behalf of two former residents of these United States (David and Ms. Drucker) who, in 2004, put their passports where their mouths were and got the Hell out of Dodge. From the LATimes:
I'm sure a lot of other dyed-in-the-organic-wool liberals muttered something similar that dark morning in 2004, but unlike most of them, we meant it. Plan A: John Kerry wins, we build that dream ski house in Vermont. Plan B: Move to Vancouver, Canada.
So, Plan B it was. We'd had enough of Bush, the direction the United States was going, and this was the last straw. Never mind that we lived in Cambridge, Mass., arguably the most liberal city in the bluest of the blue states. We were packing our bulk granola into our diesel Beetle and heading out.
Now I have nothing against Canada (other than North Dakota). Some of my best friends are Canadian. And I am sure there are lots of good reasons to move to Canada, though just right now I can't think of any. To be sure, Mr. Drucker is right about those "dyed-in-the-organic-wool liberals". A lot of them promised to leave the country after Bush was re-elected, but to judge by recent election returns, most of them were all travel brochure and no plane tickets.
But one cheer is all I can muster for Mr. Drucker. Leaving the country just because your side lost an election is perilously close to agreeing to a coin toss and then backing out after you make a bad call. That might be justified if you thought that the other side was acting in bad faith, and would cancel the next election if there were any danger they might be thrown out of power. But 2006 proves that the Republicans can lose an election, and will leave office because they have to. So what keeps the Druckers among the cold Canadian pines?
It turns out that Canadian conservatism can look awfully liberal. So far, Harper — derided as "Bush lite" — has, for instance, introduced a partial tax credit for monthly transit passes. The Conservatives have proposed a Clean Air Act for Canada, and although it's not ideal, it's still something. Harper said that these new laws would "institute a holistic approach that doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation." When was the last time you heard any U.S. politician utter the word "holistic"? Did I mention universal healthcare? Even Harper seems committed to keeping that.
We've come to the conclusion that the United States has drifted so far to the right that any self-respecting Canadian Conservative would be considered a raving liberal in Washington. Stephen Harper is no George W. Bush. We may not agree with him, but we don't feel ashamed every time he opens his mouth. We might yawn, though.
The Druckers do not wish to live in a country where anyone disagrees with them on anything they consider important. It is not conservatives in power, or insufficiently liberal policies, that annoy them; they cannot abide the mere existence of genuine conservatives. They refuse to live among folks who do not use the right kind of vocabulary.
I am as content with the Druckers's decision as they are. If their testimony is reliable, their immigration has made the United States a little more of what it already was: a place where genuine diversity of thought is real and respected. That is not the sort of place that the Druckers want to live in. They are wealthy, privileged people, who can afford to chose between a "dream ski house in Vermont" and Vancouver, Canada. They suppose they are entitled to a environment where they need never confront anything out of their comfort zone. The U.S. is not a good place for someone who feels so special.
Recent Comments