group, they had great influence, and itnis from them that we can date thenbeginning of the resentment of America.nFar worse, most of them, especiallynthe influential ones, were genteel, notnthe kind of tough folks best at buildingnup a new, raw country. They were toongood for that, preferring to spend theirntime looking down their noses at thosenvulgar, upstart Yankees in their bumptiousnrepublic and complain about thenservant problem — which may explainnwhy it took so long to settle thencountry.nThe patterns persist, as in the deferencenthe genteel show to Britishers,neven to cultivating English accents. Sonthe resentment is evergreen, not onlynamong descendants of Loyalists butnalso among the educated middle class:njournalists, academics, welfare statenbureaucrats — in a phrase, the hive.nBelow that level, Canadians have nonsocial or political influence because thenold pattern of a genteel upper class andnan unwashed lower class rabble is stillnin place, maintained by the incrediblenofEciousness that permeates Canadiannlife.nWithin the educated middle class,nonly one opinion is ever publicly expressed:n60’sism, the advocacy of anarchismnat home and Communismnabroad. All right-thinking people in thenU.S. — journalists, academics, ACLUndirectors, i.e., the hive again — wouldndearly like to secure a similar unanimitynof expression, but so far they havenbeen able to establish censorship onlynat the centers of free inquiry—ncolleges and universities — the vibrancynof opinion elsewhere is too strong tonsubmit to intimidation. But in Canadanthe question never arises because nonone in the educated middle class evernexpresses any opinions that differ fromnthose of the hive. It is as if the onlynpublications in the U.S. were amateurishnversions of The Nation, the WashingtonnPost, or Boston Globe, the onlynradio and TV PBS at its most leftist.nOrdinary Canadians do not sharenthese views, but they are poweriess tonadvance their own. When the presentnconservative government was electednwith an overwhelming mandate, it wasnclear that the great majority wouldnhave supported conservative policies;nafter all, that was what they had votednfor. But in the face of unanimous,nvociferous disapproval from the hive.norchestrated by major media, the governmentnquickly abandoned any attemptnto enact conservative reform. Itnhas been hunkered down in its foxholenever since.nThe Tory leader thought that henmight fulfill his mandate indirectly by anfree trade pact with the U.S. ThenCanadian economy is in a bad wayn(there are areas, as where I live, wherenthe unemployment rate is 40-50 percent),nand the incredible welfare statensystem makes it worse. The officiallynrespectable genteel answer is morensubsidies, more “job creation” byngovernment — that is, more stagnation.nSince a regime of free tradenwould quicken competition and developna sense of efficiency and realismnthroughout Canadian society, it wasnobviously the expectation of the Toriesnthat some of the most egregious practicesnencouraged by the welfare statenwould die away. But it is unlikely thatnfree trade will come to pass because itnis violenfly opposed by the same forcesnthat frightened the government into itsnfoxhole in the first place, for the veryngood reason that they are the principalnbeneficiaries of the welfare state.nTheoretically, the welfare state benefitsnare available to everyone, but innfact they are strictly class-determined.nThe working class gets unemploymentnbenefits (called UIC: 70 percent ofnyour wage): work for 10 weeks, quit,nand go on UIC for a year. The 10weeknjob is often a government makeworknproject, always a farcical boondoggle.nYou do not need CharlesnMurray to tell you what a program likenthat does to ambition and work habits.nFor too many Canadians, this is anretirement home for those youngnenough to work.nAlthough anyone is eligible fornUIC, the genteel really count onngrants and subsidies and similar deals,nas well as posh administrative jobs, fornthe big pickings. An example: an applicationnto the federal government for anmake-work grant implies certain skillsnand attitudes uncommon among ordinarynworking-class Canadians — annease in dealing with questionnaires,nbureaucratic procedures, and officials;nability to conceive and write a coherentnand convincing grant proposal; thenself-confidence to deal with officials innthe first place. Unsurprisingly, the applicantnis almost always a local middle-nnnclass spark who, once the grant isnapproved, becomes the well-paid managernwho hires the local unemployed atnthe minimum wage for the life of thengrant, usually 10 weeks. So everyone isnhappy, each in his own way. But whilenthe government ouflay has been greatestnfor the actual workers, it is thenmiddle-class manager who has madenthe most, and during the rest of thenyear, while the proles are drawing theirnUIC, he will be enjoying the fruits ofnother grants and subsidies, of a bewilderingnvariety and extent.nIf the big winners in the welfarenstate are the genteel, it is ordinarynCanadians who are its most immediatenvictims. UIC is scant compensation fornthe demoralizing effects of the layaboutnregime, with its abandonment ofnambition and an assumption of a sortnof modern serfdom. It is the genteelnwho, in the name of a compassion thatnprotects them from criticism and befuddlesnthe working class, perpetuatenthe welfare state, and it is their controlnof the media, the academic establishment,nand the government bureaucracynthat enables them to meet anynthreat, no matter how trivial, with ansmothering barrage of indignation. So,nwhen a recent government-sponsorednstudy of UIC recommended somenslight reforms, the hive attacks were sonviolent that the study was withdrawn.nThe genteel are the ones who haventhe most to gain by the maintenance ofnthe Stagnant State — a society innwhich the condition of contract isngiving way to that of status. Competitionnwould upset their cozy arrangements;nnew, vulgar people would rise,nand the diminution, perhaps evennabandonment of subsidies and grantsnwould be devastating. As in the days ofnthe Loyalists, leading roles in genteelngroups are often taken by expatriatenYanks, America-haters all, the dregs ofnthe dregs that came up here in the 60’snand 70’s. Because they are livelier thannCanadians, takers of initiative, Americansnquickly become prominent inncertain groups and occupations:nenvironmentalism, journalism, education,nculture, radicalism. In these situationsnthey engender, against no oppositionnwhatever, a steady output ofnvirulent anti-Americanism and sickeningnpro-Communism.nFor example, the “program coordinator,”nan American, of the Center fornAUGUST 1988 / 45n