NEW YORK—One of the best arguments for living in this city is the ability to hear, firsthand, American public intellectuals debate their country’s politics.

NEW YORK—One of the best arguments for living in this city is the ability to hear, firsthand, American public intellectuals debate their country’s politics. At least, it used to be. Apparently you can get that in Toronto now.

It’s great that Canada’s biggest names came out to support a policy discussion at last night’s Munk Debate. And it’s great that Canada’s biggest newspaper believes a policy debate merits twenty-eight photos on its website. In a country whose annual output of serious political essays can barely fill half a shelf at Chapters, intellectuals need all the help they can get. But does anybody find it odd that when Canada’s best and brightest get together, in Canada, to fête public thinkers and talk about their ideas, both the thinkers and their topic are American? (As a footnote, yes, Charles Krauthammer grew up in Montreal. But he left after university and never came back.)

Not that the topic in question, “The world is a safer place with a Republican in the White House,” isn’t a fun one. And not that the participants aren’t impressive. But this debate is old hat in the country that can actually do something about it; the arguments are established, the attacks and counterattacks well known. What’s the point of having this debate again in another country—a country that would overwhelmingly vote Democrat anyway, if it could—when it happens often enough in the United States?

Entertainment? Sure, but that’s not all of it. (Though Richard Holbrooke does have a lovely singing voice.) The stimulation of political engagement? Maybe, but it’s a stretch—the polis isn’t ours, and our engagement doesn’t have any greater significance than loyal fans in a stadium, who paint their bodies and unfurl colourful banners but still can’t score any goals.

There’s a cultural strain in Canada that automatically resents the perceived influence of American trends and ideas north of the border. It’s an ugly strain, and I don’t want to be confused with someone who supports it. But when was the last time Canadian luminaries put on their evening best and crowded into the ROM, or anywhere else, to listen to a debate over our own war in Afghanistan, or Arctic sovereignty, or our role in NATO?

Maybe that’s too much to ask—it’s a global village, after all, and you can’t fault us for peeking eagerly over the doorstep of the biggest hut. (Or even living in it.) But political voyeurism can be distracting. And if anyone can convince Canadians that their own country’s foreign policy is worth paying attention to, it probably has to start with the same people who were in the crowd last night.

To the credit of the series’ sponsor, the Aurea Foundation, the next debates sound like great topics. Here’s hoping they get the same high-watt crowd and blowout coverage.

More in Bright Lights | Email Christopher Flavelle <-->| Blogs Home | Current Issue | SUBSCRIBE »

Posted on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pm. Follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comment or trackback.