No, really, this won't work

Matthew Yglesias sadly reiterates his belief that my country shouldn't exist:

But the case for US-Canadian political union is pretty clear. As things stand, Canadian citizens are intensely impacted by decisions taken in Washington but have no real ability to influence them. Political union would give residents of Vancouver and Toronto an opportunity to have a say in decisions that are important to their lives. What’s more, the politics of AmeriCan would be more sensible than current US politics. There’d be a lot of microeconomic efficiency gains, and bringing America’s higher per capita income together with Canada’s vast natural resources could be beneficial for everyone.

Let's take these in turn:

• Canadians actually more or less get along fine without a direct voice in American policy-making -- as do residents of Washington, DC. We make our wishes known, and we are either listened to or ignored depending on domestic US concerns. When things are going well, we do alright. When not, not. You know what really protects us from the downside of US decision making? Being a sovereign country.
• The politics of the US would, if anything, become only marginally more sane if we all started voting in your elections. Marginally, as in "margin of error". Canada has only 10% of the US population. This means, if you can do the arithmetic, that even in 2008, as his Presidency was an increasingly bitter joke, that there were twice as many Americans who believed that George W. Bush was doing a good job as there were Canadians, period. An influx of Canadian voters would shift the bars only slightly.
• America is already going to have access to Canadian natural resources, by an obscure and complicated mechanism called "paying for them". This is particularly strange, because unlike the median American voter, Matt usually seems to understand that resources can be bought and paid for on the open market, and that we don't necessarily need to use political means (including massive firepower) to secure economic goods like oil. So WTF?

Let me propose an equally logical act on Yglesias' part: he should join the Republican party. For most of his life, Republicans have dominated either the Congress or Presidency, or both. The GOP, then, is an institution of incredible political importance and as a Democrat, he has no real input on their policy-making decisions. I think we can all agree that he's unlikely to join the Party of No anytime soon, though. If he thinks about the reasons for why that's so, he might stumble upon the reason why Canadians might view the idea of a political union with the US as a bad idea.

Comments

[Sir Charles]

Well said, eh.

[Steve Balboni]

I've been wondering if Yglesias isn't just trolling his own readers for his own personal bemusement. The amount of stupid that comes off of that guys keyboard is really appalling. He's wickedly smart but sometimes he just seems utterly clueless and naive.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I would agree with Steve, at least in his description of Yglesias, at least from my admittedly few readings of him. He's not awful, I'd rank him in the middle of the second rank of political bloggers, but comparing him to a Steve Benen, a Dave Neiwert, a Hilzoy or -- observation, not flattery -- almost any of the regulars here, is hardly flattering to him.

But this is idiocy, from both an American and a Canadian viewpoint. Those specific advantages Canada has politically that might make such a Union desireable from our point of view would simply disappear in the union. (There ARE more of us than there are of them.)

But, from my perspective, there is one even greater drawback. Canada has been, since Vietnam, an 'escape hatch.' True, maybe one out of a hundred people who think about 'moving to Canada if things get worse' actually do it. But the possibility does exist, and knowing it is there helps us 'grit our teeth and hold on' during our own periodic explosions of idiocy.

If Canada is just 'another group of states' in a unified Federal government, that disappears.

[Sir Charles]

I think Jim's point could be looked at even more broadly -- Canada presents us with an alternative model in a number of ways that are healthy for Americans to be able to say up close. It's too bad not too many pay attention.

I was at a bar in Las Vegas one time sitting next to a Canadian couple and in the course of our conversation I was able to demonstrate familiarity with the Meech Lake Accord, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, Bob Rae (the "silver-spooned socialist") and a couple of other matter maple leafish -- they were actually astonished (and bought me several drinks God bless them). They found that most Americans knew precisiely zero about their politics and their form of governance, which made my mediocre familiarity look like genius.

Yglesias throws a lot of content up there and I don't think he agonizes much about it. I think to have a good solo blog you have to be willing to do that. He's a very smart guy but in certain areas doesn't know all that much. (Which is hardly shocking given his age and experience.) But I am actually a big fan -- he also seems like a very nice guy in my limited interactions with him.

[Sir Charles]

That's "see" not "say" -- how yglesian of me.

[ari]

I'm with Sir C. I think Yglesias's greatest strength -- an increasingly rare willingness to be a generalist -- is also his biggest weakness. Anyway, a friend of mine once suggested that Yglesias spends his days slurping up information from lots of different fields and then burping up blog posts. That seems about right to me.

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

Steve:
What would you expect of someone who thinks of McMegan as more than comic relief? Remember, he was for the Iraq mis-adventure. I remember someone labeling MY, correctly I think, as a DLC type Democrat. At the very least, he has a very poor bullshit detector.

[Sir Charles]

Calvin,

I think Yglesias would be the first to admit he was wrong on Iraq. The McMegan thing I will chalk up to friendship or some such thing. (Ezra suffers too.)

But I think Yglesias is actually pretty comfortable with a hefty dose of social democracy and is definitely not a DLC type. Whatever his flaws -- and he is sometimes succeptible to facile market reasoning by the likes of Tyler Cowen -- he retains a very healthy skepticism about corporate power.

[big bad wolf]

i like ygelsias a lot, typos included, of course. i see in his typos his racing, curious mind, and am envious. my typos are those of a failing, semi-addled mind.

matt ventures things---including, i agree with steve, things that appear to be mostly for his amusement, or perhaps they are a subtle way of ensuring that blogs don't acquire too much authority over their readers's minds. venturing things and being, as ari says, a generalist, leave matt open to easy criticism sometimes, but it also stimulate more thought in the reader than many other blogs, becuase he is acknowledging what the niches of the net often ignore: the real world is integrated and people don't painstakingly adhere to either method or ideology. fuller general discussion, with links to and reliance on persons with deeper specialized knowledge is useful, i think. sure he's prone to being swept up by ideas from iraq to stats as the answer to every sports question, but he shows a rare, for the internet, ability to reconsider issues and to admit fault. as to mcardle, you know what, i think standing by your friends and defending them as people, is not such a bad trait. life is about people mediating and muddling ideas, not purity.

[DymaxionWorldJohn]

Been away from the computer, but want to throw my lot in with the Yglesias fans. That's why the manifest destiny stuff is "sad", as I put it in the beginning to this post.

Matt's occasional lapses need to be corrected, but I wouldn't be half as interested in blogging if he weren't around.

[Steve Balboni]

I read him every day, have for years so and across many different urls so I'm a supporter in general. He's obviously really bright, I just get frustrated when his obviously limited life experiences shine through. He and I are almost the same age so I don't think that's actually an excuse.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I'm wondering about the 'small Canadian population' point. Add Canada to the US, and I'm guessing that Bush loses in 2000 and 2004. Of course, the Republican Party might adjust its platform to deal with the situation.

I don't think anybody in blogging writes up as many good ideas per day as Matt Yglesias. It's partly because he writes a lot, and most of the good ideas are from other people in the lefty infrastructure. But if I had to read only one blogger, it'd be him.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Interesting. It might be fun to start a discussion of which five to ten blogs/bloggers each of us consider as 'essential reading' (other than this one, of course).

I'll start it off, and I am not being 'bloody-minded' by skipping many 'big names.' I don't read even John Marshall, or MY, or Digby, or Atrios, or other 'obvious choices' unless I am specifically led there, or unless I've exhausted my main list and still have spare time. And others, like Pam Spaulding, I tend to ignore because I simply find her letting her hopes get in the way of facts too often.

My list, with -- very brief -- explanations:

Steve Benen -- absolutely essential, 'writing the Political history of 21st Century America, 15 posts at a time'
Ed Brayton -- essential on First Amendment issues, great, intelligent commentary
Orac -- the essential Skeptical blogger, not just on medicine, and a great writer
PFAW's Right Wing Watch -- essential for keeping up with the crazies
TFNInsider -- ditto
Dave Neiwert (not others on C&L) -- understands where the crazy comes from better than anyone
Morialekafa -- addicted to his style and sense
Findlaw's Writ -- especiall the Dean and Buchanan columns
MMA's County Fair -- topic over style here

(I would have included OBSIDIAN WINGS if Hilzoy and Publius were still there)

I have no idea why -- and didn't realize that -- the list is almost exclusively white and male. Certainly it was not deliberate -- I even regret it -- but I wasn't going to attempt to lie to give balance. And while I could have included a specifically gay blog, the candidates (Law Dork, Good as You, Joe My God) just missed the cut for various reasons.

[oddjob]

The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan)
Talking Points Memo
The Plum Line (Greg Sargent)
Pam's House Blend (Pam Spaulding, on weekends)
Towleroad (on weekends)

[big bad wolf]

Ta-Nehesi Coates. an excellent writer whose tenacious in the best way, he works through things over multiple posts, teasing out implications and contradictions.

paul krugman. i understand almost enough of his charts to feel informed

and, for fun, powerpop and burning wood

[big bad wolf]

who's. god, some typos offend even me.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

As does my "John" for "Josh" Marshall

Okay, so i was arguing the Constitution on another blog, still no excuse.

[big bad wolf]

arguing the constitution! i hope you are more successful than i am :)

[Sir Charles]

I have to list eight. I remain eternally loyal to Duncan Black.

Then it's

2. TPM
3. Alicublog (best writer on the internet)
4. Yglesias
5. Pandagon
6. Edge of the American West (hi ari)
7. Sadly, No!
8. Whiskey Fire

[Sir Charles]

I forgot Steve Benen.