Navigating Canadian Identity: Dr. Jeremy Geddert on George Grant ‘s Legacy

Donald Trump revived George Grant.

Grant was a rare academic to win name recognition outside the university, especially for a Canadian. His Lament for a Nation launched a 1960’s version of Canadian nationalism, while also birthing Canada’s New Left.

The current fad of anti-American, Canadian nationalism is anemic gruel compared to Grant’s. But as they say in publishing, ‘There’s no such thing as bad press.’

It’s worth knowing about George Grant. If you lack time to read his prolific output, this episode with Professor Geddert offers a summary.

Thanks for taking a look!


AI summary:

In a recent interview on our podcast, we delved into the complex philosophical terrain of Canadian nationalism and identity with Dr. Jeremy Geddert, an associate professor of political science at Assumption College, renowned for his expertise on the thought of George Grant — considered one of Canada’s most significant political philosophers.

Understanding George Grant’s Historical Impact

We began by discussing George Grant’s critical views of the Laurentian elite and his influential work “Lament for a Nation,” where he decried the erosion of Canadian identity by American influence. Grant’s philosophy, as explained by Dr. Geddert, warned against forgetting Canada’s distinctive roots and highlighted the risks of becoming culturally subsumed by the United States.

The Notion of Canadian Nationalism

Dr. Geddert reflected on the resurgence of Canadian nationalism, particularly in how it juxtaposes with American influence. He noted that Grant’s conservative thought provides a framework for a distinct Canadian identity, one that isn’t merely defined by what it is not (i.e., non-American), but by its own intrinsic values and traditions.

The Conservative Vision for Canada

The discussion also veered into the complexities of conservatism and its application to Canadian politics. Grant’s ideas challenge both modern libertarianism and progressive liberalism by emphasizing an eternal moral order that transcends mere politics. This ties into the broader question of how political governance should respect inherited cultural and moral traditions without slipping into oppressive authoritarianism.

Economic Reflections and Capitalism Critique

Additionally, the conversation touched upon Grant’s critique of corporate capitalism, arguing that profit-driven enterprises often lack a commitment to national interests. This prompts a broader discussion on the relationship between capitalism and national identity, which, as Grant critiqued, often privileges economic efficiency over cultural preservation.

Philosophical Underpinnings: Hegelian Thought

Dr. Geddert also provided insights into Grant’s philosophical grounding, particularly his divergence from Hegelian historicism. Unlike Hegelians who see history as an inevitable march towards a universal state, Grant insists on maintaining particular national identities. This philosophical stance encourages a reflection on the very purpose of a nation beyond mere economic prosperity or political stability.

Conclusion: A Call for Authentic Canadian Identity

The dialogue with Dr. Geddert concluded with a compelling call to action: to develop a Canadian identity that stands on its own, not simply as a counterpoint to American cultural dominance. By drawing on Grant’s philosophies, Canadian conservatism potentially offers a rich tapestry of values that affirm Canada’s unique place in the world. As we grapple with the future of Canadian politics and identity, George Grant’s legacy offers a beacon of thoughtful contemplation, urging us to ask who we are as a nation and where we want to go. This inquiry remains as relevant today as it was in Grant’s time, inviting all Canadians to engage deeply with their heritage to form a cohesive national identity. Engage with us in this conversation by subscribing to our podcast and sharing your thoughts on what Canadian identity means to you in today’s world.

Revolution, liberalism vs conservatism, and the quest for a better life

 

Welcome to my new podcast!

Why go through all the bother to create a podcast?

What problem are you trying to address?

What answers are you trying to find?

The short video and essay offer answers below. (Different content in each)

Warning: some of the episodes get deep into political theory. We need to go beyond what retail media can sell, if we hope to understand our times. As Hamlet said,

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Here’s the essay from my Substack – please like and share!


Times always change, but our time is changing faster than usual. We live in a rare moment of revolution — a paradigm shift in culture, politics, economics … everything. As Ginny Roth said in episode #3, “Nothing is settled.”

Since World War II, western countries have held a shared set of principles — a common operating system, if you will. Most people call it ‘liberal democracy’. It includes a long list of assumptions about freedom, the individual, rule of law, deference to reason and evidence, trust in science, respect for experts, and much more.

Those ideas are no longer assumed or shared. Many academics abandoned them long before I was born, but regular people never doubted them until recently. The 2008 financial crisis shook many people’s faith in liberal principles, but we hoped it was a blip, a black-swan event.

In hindsight, 2008 was one car on an accelerating train. Trump’s ride down the escalator in 2015, Brexit in June 2016, and then Trump’s first victory in November 2016 are all connected. Even so, diehards refused to doubt their faith in liberal first principles, while the train kept gaining speed.

In late 2019-early 2020, China welded doors shut on apartment buildings to contain a novel infection. Western countries soon declared a state of emergency for a new SARS virus. Borders closed. Police arrested families out walking in the park. By the summer, we had George Floyd, Black Lives Matters, Capital Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, and more.

Canada’ s Freedom Convoy in 2022 sparked similar events around the world. Prime Minister Trudeau’s Emergency Measures’ Act solidified his notoriety with citizens’ bank accounts frozen for donating $50, mounted policed trampling a disabled woman, and more.

All due to COVID, right?

But the train hasn’t slowed. Today, 98% of academic job postings discriminate based on DEI criteria. America has started to abandon identity-based employment discrimination, but Canada remains committed. Doctors must not question a teenager’s gender dysphoria to avoid breaking new law that bans ‘conversion therapy.’ Medical Assistance in Dying is now the 5th leading cause of death in Canada, in which most patients choose voluntary euthanasia with only a few choosing physician-assisted suicide.

It goes on with the Russia-Ukraine war. Hamas attacked a music event killing and kidnapping the old and very young. Canadian citizens celebrate Hamas with parties in the street. Students shut down universities in solidarity.

This long list is too short, of course. In isolation, each event might elicit a proper, liberal explanation. Citizens misunderstand freedom. Prime Minister Trudeau needs lessons on parliamentary democracy. Students mistake their own privilege. Conflict in the middle east would stop if we abandoned tribalism and historical grievances. Faith in the western liberal order need not waver. Except it does, and it should.

Leave aside the long list of events. The Israel-Hamas war by itself forces us to question our principled support for pluralism (see Sean Speer in episode #5). Given a decade of remarkable events, October 7 demands we reassess our assumptions about western liberal democracy.

Do our core assumptions still hold?

In a way, our revolutionary moment makes up for the unique, relative stability of the post-WWII liberal era. We are returning to a state more typical of modern human history: one that involves continual contest interspersed with moments of social order rarely enduring long enough to be taken for granted.

Revolutions awaken a search for ways to speak about things that most people already know to be true. Since the start of human history, children grow up, gain skills, develop interests, find mates, build homes, and raise families. This only sounds radical to modern, liberal minds — a tiny minority in human history.

Most Conservative parties and spokespeople have been, until now, essentially liberals (as many guests have noted on this show). But Conservative parties are changing. ‘Conservative’ political theory is shifting away from the basically liberal framework shared by other political parties. It is rediscovering a new conservatism (or a new, new-conservatism).

Roger Scruton, the late British philosopher, called conservatism a “work of rescue.” Many writers have noted how conservative ideas revive in times of crisis. People grow tired of a world that makes their heads spin. They abandon simple, ‘self-evident’ ideologies in favour of simple living. Regular people hunt for old habits and ideas that they can use to improve modern life. They rediscover meaning in a quest for a truly good life — a life well lived — instead of the limitless frenzy of late-stage liberalism.

Conservatism has no holy book. It has no prophet — no Oracle at Delphi. Instead it offers a messy library of trial and error.

Just to be clear, liberty predates liberalism by more than a thousand years. The rule of law, trial by jury, habeas corpus, private property, stable government and all the other key features of western civilization came about centuries before liberalism. Several thousand years of failures help us identify rare success. Things that work well almost never come de novo by genius and invention. The best ideas often appear to come by chance, after centuries of failure.

I created this podcast to tackle the massive shift we are experiencing in political theory, public policy, and modern culture. My starting hypothesis is that conservatism and liberalism are not the same thing. I hope to rediscover the differences between conservatism and liberalism in politics, culture, education, philosophy, economics, religion, history, and more. I think it holds the answer to a better life. I hope you will join me in the search!

Can Conservatism Save Healthcare?

I roamed the limits of libertarianism and found a bunch of guys having a party on a cruise ship.

It was fun. It was free. But no one could explain how the ship got there.

I started asking, Who made the boat? Where should we sail? And what should we do when we get there?

These are dangerous questions. Anything with ‘we’ in it can trigger a libertarian. (I have even been called a communist recently!)

What exists beyond the libertarian party ship?

Panem’s Peacekeepers stand guard back on shore. (If not Hunger Games, insert Stormtroopers or some other symbol of authoritarianism.)

Does anything exist beyond ship or shore?

Conservatism in Healthcare

I wish we had a better word.

Conservatism is so old and plastered with bad ideas promoted by bad actors, many find it useless. One friend spit out his coffee and teased about his smoking jacket and corduroy slippers. Point taken.

If we can get over the goofy images associated with the word, conservatism offers ways to think which will sound radical to our liberal ears.

As I argued in How to Get Canada of the Healthcare Teeter Totter, we need to start looking beyond liberalism.

The Accad-Koka Report picked up the article and had me on the show to discuss how political conservatism might help healthcare.

If you prefer podcasts, you can listen below:

Or you can watch the interview:

More work …

I realise this falls outside the training and comfort of most doctors. But nothing changes in healthcare unless doctors help lead it. As such, we need to spend time with political philosophy.

Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics will not take an interest in you.

Pericles, 430 B.C.

Thanks for checking it out!

 Photo credit: Cruise Deals Expert