Is Globalization Good for Canada?
Essay Preview: Is Globalization Good for Canada?
Report this essay
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Authors
Similar Views
Opposing Views
Conclusion
References
Introduction
Is globalization good for Canada? There are two articles that represent opposing sides of this issue quite well. The first article is titled “Is Globalization Good for Canada? Yes” by Michael Taube (2007). It speaks briefly about the positive effects of globalization, and why Canadians should enthusiastically embrace the concept. The second article is “Globalization is Killing Canada: Fight for Your Freedom” by Paul Hellyer (2000). As evidenced in the title of the article, it touches on a variety of issues that globalization brings to Canadians. Most notably, Taube and Hellyer differ in their beliefs on globalization , yet the two seem to agree on Canadians’ compassion.
The Authors
Both writers are well versed and respected within their respective political parties and followings. How then do their opinions differ so? Michael Taube is a self-proclaimed Conservative while Paul Hellyer served in the Liberal Party of Canada for many years; perhaps that is a good place to start.âś“
Michael Taube is a political commentator and public affairs analyst. He was in the employ of former Prime Minister, and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Stephen Harper, as a speechwriter. His articles have been published in many well respected magazines and journals within Canada and the United States. Michael has an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in political studies and a Master of Science in comparative politics (Opinion – Columnists, n.d.). As a Conservative supporter, he would have allegiances to a more competitive, laisse-faire, system as is the platform of the Conservative Party of Canada (Young, 2015).✓
Paul Hellyer is a politician who held several senior cabinet positions within the Liberal Party of Canada. He is also an accomplished writer having released ten books that focus almost primarily on the economy, money, and the ill effects of globalization.âś“ He later went on to lead the Canada Action Party, which was established in 1997 to lead Canada with a nationalist, anti-globalization agenda (Canadian Action Party, 2014).
Hellyer and Taube are both experts in their own right. What sets them apart is their fundamental beliefs, as demonstrated by their allegiances to opposing political parties .âś“
Similar Views
Taube and Hellyer had very differing views on most issues. One point that they seemed to agree on was altruism or the greater good, and Canadians’’s position on it.
I should make a distinction between those areas where global cooperation is both good and essential, and those areas where it is harmful. We must cooperate globally to protect our oceans, the ozone layer and prevent global warming. International cooperation is also required to protect endangered species, fight international crime and in other areas of mutual concern. (Hellyer, 2000, para . __)
Yet, one could argue that Canadians are actually compassionate capitalists. You will find few voices on the left or the right opposed to basic social services, the implementation of basic health care, or even basic human rights. Getting from A to B might be different, but the general feeling of compassion exists. (Taube, 2007, p. 379)âś“
The above quotes, while on the surface, are about two different issues, they do take both authors out of their original position. Hellyer is acknowledging the value of safety and the well-being of the world over that of Canadians. Taube steps entirely out of his capitalist views and acknowledges the value of basic health and social services for all Canadians.âś“ The other option here is that they are both trying to attract more people to their perspective by showing that their views are not closed off.âś“ Although not exactly an appeal to good character, the similarities can be seen .
Opposing Views
Both