The Moral Equivalent of “Don Cherry”

Abstract

Hockey pundit Don Cherry stands as one of Canada’s most polarizing figures. His viewpoints tend to elicit reactions of either dogmatic support or outright dismissal in Canada. Supporters view Cherry as a defender of “their game,” and ultimately their country. Critics view him as a simplistic, loud-mouthed, and uninformed sport personality contributing little to Canadian society, or at worst, serving as a socially destructive force. This essay explores the ways that the more complex idea of Don Cherry potentially influences Canadian democratic discourse both positively and negatively. Appropriating Willaim James’s essay on war, Richard Rorty’s ideas about hope and pride in a nationalistic sense, as well as John Ralston Saul’s notions of positive and negative nationalism, the essay contends that while Don Cherry engages Canadians in important moral dialogue and exhibits necessary national pride, he does so in a hopeless and “negative” fashion. The essay concludes that Canadian democracy requires the search for “moral equivalents of Don Cherry.”