| Chapter 1: | Serial Monogamy or Constructive Bigamy |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
viewed as a cultural occurrence. There were all kinds of imperialists. The Gooderhams and Achesons were the conservative kind, celebrating imperial power of a material and forceful variety, whereas people like the King family were liberal imperialists, believing that British power was merely the outward sign of British values. Today this conception of the supremacy or even universality of British values might travel under the title soft power, and in 1900 (as later in the century and even today) it was an idea that attracted the scorn of realists like Acheson.
As Acheson made plain to Mackenzie King, the Americans knew they were Britain’s strategic heirs. The spread of the American economic model and the drawing power of American culture in some senses replicated the penumbra of the British Empire in its heyday. In Canada American management techniques, American assembly lines, and American designs had proved their utility and desirability during the war. The phenomenon was familiar even if the focus had changed from London to points south. Cultural links of all kinds were enhanced; nevertheless, Britain retained some of its drawing power and intellectual prestige, and some Canadians were moved and inspired by the Labour government’s nationalization programs, especially its implementation of universal free access to health care.
Soft power is messy, blurring at the edges, failing to maintain the boundaries that make a society unique or exceptional and therefore worthy of the allegiance or adoration of its members. Such a matrix fits Anglo-Canadian, Canadian-American, and, for that matter, Anglo-American relations. It describes what J. B. Brebner long ago labeled the North Atlantic triangle, but in keeping with our marital metaphor, it may be appropriate to call it “constructive bigamy.” For where Canada is concerned, fidelity is lost or gained, and that loyalty characterizes elements of the relationship. And with fidelity lost, there is reproach of the kind that enlivened the abusive elections of 1891 and 1911.
There is one other factor that needs to be noted, if not stressed. In terms of size and power, Canada was much smaller (1:10 or less in population compared to the United States) than the other two members of the bigamous triad. Size is a significant factor, especially when dealing with