A map of "the 51st and 52nd states". Posted on 06/07/2003 11:21:23 AM PDT by Mister Magoo
The 51st and 52nd states
Alberta is already more American than Canadian in some ways, while a left-leaning State of British Columbia would keep the Democrats happy
Lawrence Solomon Financial Post
Thursday, June 05, 2003
CREDIT: National Post
George Bush wants Alberta's oil but, if it were up for grabs, he'd want Alberta even more. With Alberta as America's 51st state, the U.S. would secure 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, more than exist in Saudi Arabia. U.S. oil imports would plummet and America's great dependence on foreign oil would vanish.
Whenever loose talk arises of Canada becoming the 51st state, as it does from time to time, wise heads scoff at the notion. Getting into the Union isn't easy. No one has made it in almost a half century: Hawaii and Alaska, the last two to win acceptance, had to work long and hard at it. More importantly, many doubt that the U.S. would even want Canada. The U.S. idealizes unbridled free enterprise, rugged individualism and a cultural melting pot; Canada more leans to public-private partnerships, a welfare state and multiculturalism. A United States that swallowed Canada, holus-bolus, would invite a host of problems.
But Alberta, on its own, holds none of Canada's liabilities for Americans. Canada's most conservative province -- anti-Kyoto, anti-gun control, hostile to national health care, receptive to plebiscites and Bible-belt Christians, free of provincial sales tax -- is in some ways more American than Canadian. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien turned his back on President Bush's plan to invade Iraq; Alberta Premier Ralph Klein forthrightly embraced it. A Crawford Ranch North would clash not at all with Republican values.
Because U.S. Democrats would balk at adding a Republican state to the Union, they would want a second, more left-leaning state to be added at the same time, to maintain a balance of power -- this was part of the bargain that had to be struck before Democratic Alaska and Republican Hawaii could be ushered into the Union. The likeliest running mate for Alberta is British Columbia -- a lush and largely liberal urbanized province that has much in common with the west coast states of Washington, Oregon and California. The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland economy is already so integrated that books extol "Cascadia," as the cross-border city-region is sometimes called. To add to America's receptivity to a State of British Columbia, B.C.'s Premier Gordon Campbell, like Premier Klein, also supported the U.S. after our federal politicians attacked it over Iraq.
With B.C. in the U.S. fold, Alaska would be linked to the lower 48 states and, more importantly, the U.S. would have uninterrupted control over the west coast, allowing it to control the border against terrorists and simplifying its desire for National Missile Defence. National defence figured in America's decision in the 1950s to admit both Hawaii and Alaska. The military imperative is no less great today. And behind all the practical reasons for the U.S. to welcome Alberta and B.C. into the Union lies Manifest Destiny, an almost Messianic conviction that all of North America is fated for America. Manifest Destiny, central to American thought from the nation's very foundation, would legitimize any movement to extend the American flag north into what are now Canada's Rocky Mountain provinces.
To Americans, making Alberta and B.C. the 51st and 52nd states would be a no-brainer: It would augment America's security and its economy and fulfill its destiny. To British Columbians and especially Albertans, switching to the U.S. rather than fighting Canada's federal government, though currently on no one's political agenda, could one day become compelling. Many Western Canadians covet the low U.S. taxes and the high U.S. standard of living -- in Canada, only the urban swath between Calgary and Edmonton achieves U.S. levels of affluence. Should the federal government or a central province outrage B.C. or Alberta through a policy or a slight that spins seriously out of control, the stage would be set for the breakup of Canada. Albertans and British Columbians may well reason that they could hardly lose in the bargain. Depending on the outrage -- say, another egregious resource grab such as the National Energy Program of the 1980s -- they may well be right.
But Canada would lose grievously should it lose either of these great provinces, making it imperative that events never be allowed to reach that stage. Keeping the provinces inside Canada by force is no longer an option -- the Supreme Court of Canada has already endorsed a province's departure if its citizens speak clearly on the matter. And neither can we keep Canada together by granting the provinces more powers, as Alberta demands through its proposal for a Triple-E Senate. Alberta's plan would give have-not provinces the great majority of votes, creating a block that would soon pillage the great wealth of wealthy provinces and hasten the day that they leave.
There is only one way to ensure that Alberta and B.C. stay within Canada: To make Canada worthy of Albertans and British Columbians. In my concluding column in this series, I will describe the road to worthiness.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.Urban-Renaissance.org Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com; Next: The True North Strong and Free
© Copyright 2003 National Post
Please please please tell me you are joking ....
Seems like a good trade to me, although I don't think the liberals would stand for it....far too many white people in Canada to suit their taste.
If this is true, why do we even bother with the middle east for our oil supplies? It's right next door, in a country that we now tolerate but usually like. Smaller shipping costs as well.
Something's fishy about this one.
Nope.
That could very well be. It's hard to think why they'd want to change the external tax collector if they could survive without one. Those provinces that can stand on their own probably will. Those that feel they need a sponsor or protector or benefactor, like the Maritimes or the other prarie provinces, will seek one. It's possible that "Canada" will survive its dissolution as a much looser federation, minus Quebec and the subsidies of the less prosperous provinces -- a "commonwealth of independent states" tied into NAFTA.
If the trend is towards smaller countries tied together in pacts, alliances and common markets it's hard to see why Albertans would make an exception just for us. If it were just a question of the US versus Canada, there might be some support for joining us, but the independence option is likely to be stronger, all other things (defense, trade, freedom of movement) being equal.
If anything, Alberta is probably more strongly opposed to joining the U.S. than any other Canadian province is.
Could be. Oil does tend to produce a desire for independence, as it did in Scotland and, in a different way, Norway. And you can't expect those whose sentiments make them critical of government intervention to fall in behind one of the world's largest and most powerful governments. You'd know more about it than I would, but they do seem much better disposed to American values than other provinces, so the temptation is to presume that they would like being in our club more than the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.