define us are as naive as they are insulting.rnNevertheless, it may be useful tornconsider what wc are not. Wc arc notrnAmerican, nor are we English or French.rnWe are not German or Iranian or Irish orrnJapanese, and all that is needed to provernthis assertion is to visit the countriesrnwhere those people live. They are different.rnThis is not to say that all Canadiansrnare the same. We are all different,rntoo, because each of us is unique.rnBut our several uniquenesses are overlaidrnby a common sense of belonging tornthe land we inhabit. As our forebearsrnshaped it, so did it shape them; so did arnCanadian culture evolve.rnIn that evolution, the land was thernfirst of two seminal elements. The secondrnwas the history and traditions of Europeanrncivilization in general and ofrnBritish parliamentary government andrnthe Common Law in particular. FromrnE^uropc we inherited the accumulationrnof arts and sciences that marked therngrowth of European civilization fromrnGreek and Roman times through thernRenaissance to and beyond the Age ofrnDiscovery. From Britain wc inherited arnstyle of government that embodied twornimportant principles: that it be electedrnby a free vote of the people and thatrnboth government and people owe allegiancernto a constitutional monarch whornsymbolizes the people’s enduring traditions.rnThe legal foundation for thoserntraditions is the Common Law. It consistsrnof laws and judgments that evolvedrnover the centuries into a framework ofrnsocial order to which everyone, high orrnlow, is subject: everyone is free to dornanything, except what the law forbids.rnSuch a style of government requires thatrnpeople assume responsibility for theirrnown actions, guided by a knowledgernboth of their inherent rights and of theirrnresponsibility to exercise them withinrnthe law of the land,rnOpposed to that style, however, andrnalso residual from European civilization,rnis one that docs not admit the inherentrnnature of rights. According to this style,rnthe state assumes the power to conferrnon its citizens certain rights that it thenrndefines and “guarantees.” Commonlyrnknown as the French style, this shifts authorityrnfrom the people to unclectedrnjudges who interpret the people’s claimsrnto various “rights” the state has conferredrnand ma’ re’oke. When Canada’srnstyle of government was changed to thernFrench style in 1982, Canadians witnessedrna remarkable event. A revolutionrnwas imposed on a free people who wererndenied a voice in the matter and whosernelected representatives had no electoralrnmandate to impose it.rnThe history of revolutions tells us twornthings: first, that they are set in motionrnby individuals who think, in their pride,rnthat they have all the answers; and second,rnthat after the revolution subsides,rnafter its excesses have yielded to thernpressures of time and chance, there occursrna resurgence of the one elementrnthat the revolution failed to eradicate—rnthe ethos of the people. That is beginningrnto happen in Canada.rnThe Canadian culture that defies definitionrnwill continue to evolve, and thernsynthetic culture the social engineersrntried so hard to impose will retreat beforernthe forces of common sense andrnprivate feeling.rn—Kenneth McDonaldrnLIBERAL ARTSrnCOMRADE CLINTONrnFrom a story headlined “Comrade Bill” in the August issue of // Sabato, the prestigious Catholic weekly publishedrnin Milan, Italy: “Asked the secret of Arkansas’ economic ‘miracle,’ Governor Clinton told an Italian journalist,rn’I went to learn in Italy.’… Is it perhaps a joke? Or might he have taken a course at Mediobanca or at the FondazionernAgnelli?rn”By no means. He went among the Tuscan and Emilian Communists, their workers’ associations, their cooperatives,rntheir co-op enterprises. . . . The year is 1987. . . . It appears that Arkansas’ economic miracle is derivedrnfrom here. The perplexed journalist asks again, ‘You’re not telling me that this is the economic recipe for thernU. S.?’ ‘Absolutely yes,’ responds Clinton seriously.”rnThe article goes on to detail Clinton’s contacts with members of the Communist and Socialist parties.rnCommunist Stefano Bellavcglia. manager of the workers’ associations in Siena, speaks grandly of his “associationism”rnas it is practiced in Cuba and says his organization already has its congratulatory postcard ready:rn”Congratulations, Mister President! Do you remember?”rnNOVEMBER 1992/7rnrnrn