I am ... nationalistic

Jonathan Kay

National Post

Assuming that you are not a lumberjack, or a fur trader, and that you are not a blubber-eater who lives in an igloo, you have probably seen Molson Canadian's I am commercial, which contains a fine oration on the theme of Canadian identity. The ad has been an enormous success, cheered raucously in bars and discussed endlessly at dinner parties. Journalists have declared it a "phenomenon." Which means that, like all bona fide phenomena, it must be scrutinized to determine its "significance."

But I'm not sure there is much. Where Canadians' self-image is concerned, Joe (that's the orator's name) is old school. He is not on stage for the vulgar (American) task of propagandizing, but for the proper (Canadian) task of "educating." "I have a prime minister, not a president," he explains politely. "The tuque is a hat. The chesterfield is a couch ... I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzie from Canada -- although I'm certain they're all really, really nice." Only toward the end, as he gets carried away by his own words, does Joe start boasting outright: "Canada is the second largest land mass, the first nation of hockey ... and the ... best ... part ... of North America!" But then he recovers his good manners and retreats awkwardly from the microphone.

Jingoism is still outre in Canada. I am hasn't changed that. Joe's chest-thumping is palatable to our Canadian ears only because his latter outburst is presented as a sort of involuntary and slightly shameful verbal spasm. The sub-text -- that Canadians do not eschew chest-thumping and jingoism for lack of underlying sentiment, but because chest-thumping and jingoism offend our good manners -- is uplifting, but it has long been part of received Canuck wisdom.

What significance I am has is commercial, not cultural: A Canadian advertiser has finally figured out how to tap into our nationalism: by couching it in a plush layer of irony. Who is Joe and why doesn't he tell us his last name? What is he doing on stage giving a free-form lecture about Canada? Why isn't he wearing a suit? And what's up with the slide show? If the context were any less absurd, Joe's speech would be a self-righteous embarrassment. We would interpret his performance as nationalistic rather than "nationalistic."

In the United States on the other hand -- and yes, I am playing at that trite exercise of defining Canada by contrasts -- jingoism can be presented at face value and still taken seriously. Joe's performance reminds me of the melodramatic speech delivered by the U.S. president (Bill Pullman) at the climax of Independence Day. The first time I saw that film, in Washington, D.C., the crowd answered the hackneyed monologue with riotous applause. (A guy behind me actually yelled out "Go kick their asses!") When I saw the movie in Montreal two months later, the same scene inspired laughter. In Canada, nationalism is kitsch, like a velvet painting of a teary-eyed clown.

And that's the way Joe likes it.

As for me, I am ... in agreement.