‘Lament for a Nation’ called Canada to seek a higher purpose
George Grant’s 1965 essay echoes today as Canada again struggles against American domination
George Grant’s long essay on the 1963 federal election, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, is frequently presented as a defence of John Diefenbaker and a critique of the continentalism of the Canadian establishment. It surely is those things, although Grant’s defence of Diefenbaker is ultimately tepid and his critique of liberalism bone-rattling.
Lament for a Nation was published 60 years ago after an election in which Canada-US relations were the centrepiece. We had another such election in 1988 and are now in the midst of a third. Grant wrote an angry screed incensed at the national elites who lampooned Dief and who had nary a whit of concern for our country’s sovereignty.
Today, the defence of our sovereignty is a matter of utmost urgency to our major political parties and most citizens. There is no room for shilly-shallying. However, in Grant’s view, the Liberal Minister of Everything C.D. Howe spent the years from 1940 to the Conservative victory of 1957 attempting to rapidly and thoroughly integrate Canada into the United States. When Lester Pearson’s Liberals in 1963 agreed to accept nuclear warheads on the Bomarc missiles already stationed in Canada, it was simply a matter of playing “Taps” while the body was buried.
“Canada has ceased to be a nation, but its formal political existence will not end quickly,” Grant wrote. Well, Canada’s formal political existence not only remains today, but Canadians are strongly defending it. This suggests that Grant missed something of importance in his analysis.
We should ask why Grant pronounced the last rites on Canada. For him, Canada was both a political entity and a moral one. What made Canada a nation was its commitment to traditional conservatism, prioritizing virtue and responsibility over progress and freedom. Where rapidly evolving technology reigns supreme, nothing can be conserved for long.
Today, Grant’s version of conservatism is nearly extinct. It exists neither in the upper realms of any political party nor the mainstream media. What is called conservative is often the supposed right of corporations and individuals to do as they please. Or it is the claim of some that the common good does not require them to be vaccinated amidst a pandemic. For Grant, this is faux conservatism, merely a variant of the desire for unrestrained freedom.
“The impossibility of conservatism in our era is the impossibility of Canada,” Grant wrote. “As Canadians we attempted a ridiculous task in trying to build a conservative nation in the age of progress on a continent we share with the most dynamic nation on earth.”
A keen adherent of pre-modern philosophy, Grant was a high-church Anglican who saw Quebec Catholicism as an ally in his battle against the homogenizing tendencies of modernity. Yet, in the final paragraph of his essay, he concedes that his lament is based not on philosophy but on tradition. “Tradition is the best basis for the practical life,” he says. You can almost hear the kneelers creaking in the Anglican church of his childhood.
To be sure, tradition should not be casually tossed aside. However, one person’s tradition can be the source of repression for others. It is telling that Grant makes no mention of Indigenous peoples in his account of Canada. Canadians thoroughly repressed Indigenous traditions so the traditions of Europeans could hold sway. Today, Canada bears the tragic consequences of this cultural imperialism.
Nor does he give more than passing notice to the benefits of technology – longer lifespans, massive reductions in the incidence of many diseases, public education, global travel and communication, and increased prosperity for many. These benefits also have substantial shadow sides. Modernity is a mixed blessing, but it has not been the unalloyed disaster that Grant makes it out to be.
Canadian sovereignty remains, even if it too is sometimes compromised or threatened. Most Canadians insist that we don’t want all the excesses of American consumerism and militarism. We don’t see outsiders as the enemy but as potential friends. Nor do we want the ravages of unrestricted free enterprise. We are slowly, haltingly attempting to build equitable relations with Indigenous people.
This election campaign should be an occasion for political leaders to articulate what makes Canada unique and how they will enhance those qualities. Sadly, that is not happening. Ask yourself, “Are we content to be a quiet nation that loves prosperity and seeks little more out of life? Or do we have a higher purpose?” Canada is not dead. But do we have a reason for living?