The Golden Age

Abstract

We have under-rated Canada's quality in the past.... believe that the strength and wisdom of her contribution in international discussions and actions after the war will likewise surprise us. The fact is that Canada 'grown up' in the last few years, despite all her internal difficulties; she found herself. Some of her Ministers have marked ability. There is also in Ottawa a group of high officials who are still comparatively young - mostly in their early or mid forties - and whose influence over Canadian policy is and will continue to be at least as important as that of Ministers, whose tenure of office is more precarious. They are the heads of Government Departments and other official bodies. They are able, enlightened and forceful. If we do not discourage them, but on the contrary encourage them as well as their Ministers to be our colleagues in affairs, we shall find them good allies.1In 2OO3's While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World, author Andrew Cohen bemoaned the decline of a once-great nation. During what he described as the of foreign policy (the 19405 and 19505), Canada punched above its weight in global affairs and received remarkable international recognition for doing so. Having entered the 2 ist century, Ottawa had lost its focus, and commitment, to the world around it.The deliberately provocative book - which included a series of policy prescriptions aimed at reinvig orating Canada's global presence - was largely well received, making the one prominent critical review all the more notable. Political scientist Don Munton disputed the extent of Canada's supposed decline vigorously, noting that the was, in relative and quantifiable terms, not as lustrous as While Canada Slepthad claimed. Cohen responded, and Munton issued a further rebuttal that offered insight into the basis of their passionate disagreement: I suspect that what some observers find remarkable about the 'Golden Age,' he wrote, has less to do with the resources and dollars and more to do with the character and premises and ideals of the policies then pursued.2 The issue, it seems, was not just whether there had been a period of enlightenment, but what its existence would, or should, imply.The Cohen-Munton dialogue revisited a long-standing issue of contention in the writing and understanding of Canada's national history. The term age, first formally referred to in 1967 by the inaugural principal of York University's Glendon College, Escort Reid, (he originally called it both the golden age and the golden decade) typically been invoked rhetorically by scholars, journalists, and policy practitioners in efforts to challenge Canadians to reinvest and reengage in world affairs. Its literal meaning evolved over time, as have its implications and related recommendations for action. Understanding the historiography of the is crucial to making sense of the divergences and discrepancies that have emerged over the last 40 years. If restoring the aura of the 19405 and 19505 is indeed a long-standing national aspiration, and not all of the evidence suggests that it is or even should be, Canada will be faced with a number of significant challenges. Not all of them are within the government's control, nor are they all politically appealing.To summarize, during the age, international circumstances, the domestic political environment, and popular attitudes at home were all compatible with the pursuit of a Canadian foreign policy that served a widely accepted definition of the national interest to an unprecedented, exceptional (and likely unrepeatable) extent.3 Public support for engaged internationalism - the decline of which been lamented repeatedly by national commentators - was certainly a factor, but paradoxically, the era was also profoundly elitist in spirit: Canadians were relatively passive supporters of their government's worldly activities. …