Does Canada's right need rescuing?
There's a new book out this week called Rescuing Canada's Right which attempts to lay out a blueprint for conservative success in Canada. I haven't read the book, but from what I've gathered, I agree with certain ideas put forth while not accepting the premise on which other ideas are put forth. The main focus of the book seems to be that the Canada needs a conservative infrastructure. Right-leaning journalists, think-tanks, media, etc. are needed in order to make conservatism more mainstream in Canada. I agree with that. The presumption of leftism when people bring up politics in discussion with me is frustrating, to say the least.
Having said that, there are a number of assumptions in the book that seem off-base to me. Firstly, when I look at Canada and the state of conservatism, I first look at the world in order to find examples of small-government success stories. There aren't many. The world loves statism. The ENTIRE world it seems, at this juncture in time, when given the option between small and big government, picks big government. I can't think of any exceptions at the moment. Small-government reforms only seem to be made in the most dire of circumstances.
Humans seem instinctively tied to having a state that will make decisions for them. Government is no longer universally about 1) keeping people safe and 2) creating favourable economic conditions. It's about so much more. And that certainly isn't limited to Canada. Having said that, let's look at right-leaning parties throughout the world. Right-leaning parties in most African and Asian countries are usually more about nationalism than they are about free market-ness. Western Europe? They're slightly less statist than their leftist counterparts, but they have no real desire to scale back government in any significant way. Eastern Europe? The jury is still out on Eastern Europe. Lastly - America. America's current federal adminstration is both statist and free-market oriented, which is weird. They're anti-tax but pro-spending (although that's partially the fault of the congress). America's deficit could be cut significantly if enough Republican congressmen had the will to cut "social spending", but they don't. America had Reagan during the 1980s, but he wasn't as radical when it came to social spending as most people paint him to be today. He had a Democratic Congress to deal with, and thus was unable to cut spending that much.
As for conservative infrastructure throughout the world, I believe it only exists in the way we in North America view the right-left divide, in the United States and to a much lesser extent in England. Even here, the success that is painted by the authors of Rescuing Canada's Right is overstated. There's the National Review and other conservative magazines in America, but none of these are that mainstream. Most people in America who vote for Conservative candidates don't do so for fiscally conservative (or "movement" conservative) reasons as much as they do so for social reasons, like gun-rights, opposition to gay-stuff and abortion - or simply because of identity politics - wanting a strong leader instead of a waffling one (Bush v. Kerry).
Basically, the right-left divide as seen today has only been manifested in political parties for the past few decades. Before that, it was largely anyone's guess on the question of which political party was for small or big government (that goes for Canada, America and England). America had Goldwater (who was trounced), and then Reagan (who came to office by defeating the most pathetic US president in history), and since then, they've rarely shown any meaningful small-government tendencies. England had Thatcher for 11 years until she was defeated by her own party. England's Conservative Party hasn't really been all that small-government oriented since. In Canada, we didn't have a Goldwater, a Reagan or a Thatcher. That was the problem.
Canada's right needed rescuing around 30 years ago, when a leader could've came in, in order to clean house and establish Canada's Conservative Party as truly separate from the statist policies of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Instead? When England was picking Thatcher and when America was picking Reagan (almost in 1976, then successfully in 1980), Canada chose... Joe Clark. (and then, to be fair, a few years later, Canada did better, but did not hit a home run with Brian Mulroney) Instead of picking a leader who could sharply draw a contrast with the paleo-liberal ideas of Trudeau, Canada's conservatives picked Trudeau-lite. No sharp contrast was drawn, and therefore no infrastructure really popped up. Today, drawing a sharp contrast is harder, considering that today's Liberal Party isn't as hard-line left-wing as it was under Trudeau.
My basic point? It was the PC Party of the 70s and 80s that is the cause of conservative troubles in Canada today. Instead of being taken over by actual conservatives, which was happening in England and in America, the PC party did not allow ACTUAL conservatives to have a voice. What happened then? We all know - Preston Manning founded the Reform Party and Conservatives have been in the wilderness ever since. Finally, the two parties united, and Canada's current Conservative Party is less than 2 years old... but let's look at the party itself.
Canada might lack a conservative infrastructure, but it certainly doesn't lack an ideologically right-of-centre party (on this point I seem to disagree strongly with the authors of the book) It is my humble submission that Canada's Conservative Party is the most small-government oriented political party in the entire world. Conservatives who were aliented by the rigidity of the PC party are now in control of today's party apparatus.
Based on my research, I can't think of any mainstream political party (that has the possibility of attaining power) that has more genuinely conservative policies than Canada's Conservative Party, at least in the way I personally view conservatism. Read the Conservative Party's policy declaration - it isn't perfect, but much of it is on the right track. Look at the Conservative Party's leader - Stephen Harper. Besides Reagan and Thatcher (and arguably W. Bush) there haven't been many supply-siders (economic theorists) who have been elected to executive political power in the world. If Harper becomes PM, he will be one of the few. The Conservative Party is also incredibly reform-oriented, when it comes to transparency and things of that nature - whether these items actually become reality upon election is something we'll have to wait for.
In summary - yes, a conservative infrastructure would be good... but let's not lose site of the fact that a) conservative success is hardly commonplace and b) Canada's Conservative Party compares relatively well with right-wing parties from around the world. It's just about getting elected now, which is where the infrastructure comes in. One last thing - the Conservative Party of Canada hasn't really had a chance to fight a proper campaign yet. It fought one campaign in June of 2004, but that was less than a year after the merger. Things were still a bit shaky back then. The results of the next campaign will tell us a lot more about the state of conservatism in Canada.
Having said that, there are a number of assumptions in the book that seem off-base to me. Firstly, when I look at Canada and the state of conservatism, I first look at the world in order to find examples of small-government success stories. There aren't many. The world loves statism. The ENTIRE world it seems, at this juncture in time, when given the option between small and big government, picks big government. I can't think of any exceptions at the moment. Small-government reforms only seem to be made in the most dire of circumstances.
Humans seem instinctively tied to having a state that will make decisions for them. Government is no longer universally about 1) keeping people safe and 2) creating favourable economic conditions. It's about so much more. And that certainly isn't limited to Canada. Having said that, let's look at right-leaning parties throughout the world. Right-leaning parties in most African and Asian countries are usually more about nationalism than they are about free market-ness. Western Europe? They're slightly less statist than their leftist counterparts, but they have no real desire to scale back government in any significant way. Eastern Europe? The jury is still out on Eastern Europe. Lastly - America. America's current federal adminstration is both statist and free-market oriented, which is weird. They're anti-tax but pro-spending (although that's partially the fault of the congress). America's deficit could be cut significantly if enough Republican congressmen had the will to cut "social spending", but they don't. America had Reagan during the 1980s, but he wasn't as radical when it came to social spending as most people paint him to be today. He had a Democratic Congress to deal with, and thus was unable to cut spending that much.
As for conservative infrastructure throughout the world, I believe it only exists in the way we in North America view the right-left divide, in the United States and to a much lesser extent in England. Even here, the success that is painted by the authors of Rescuing Canada's Right is overstated. There's the National Review and other conservative magazines in America, but none of these are that mainstream. Most people in America who vote for Conservative candidates don't do so for fiscally conservative (or "movement" conservative) reasons as much as they do so for social reasons, like gun-rights, opposition to gay-stuff and abortion - or simply because of identity politics - wanting a strong leader instead of a waffling one (Bush v. Kerry).
Basically, the right-left divide as seen today has only been manifested in political parties for the past few decades. Before that, it was largely anyone's guess on the question of which political party was for small or big government (that goes for Canada, America and England). America had Goldwater (who was trounced), and then Reagan (who came to office by defeating the most pathetic US president in history), and since then, they've rarely shown any meaningful small-government tendencies. England had Thatcher for 11 years until she was defeated by her own party. England's Conservative Party hasn't really been all that small-government oriented since. In Canada, we didn't have a Goldwater, a Reagan or a Thatcher. That was the problem.
Canada's right needed rescuing around 30 years ago, when a leader could've came in, in order to clean house and establish Canada's Conservative Party as truly separate from the statist policies of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Instead? When England was picking Thatcher and when America was picking Reagan (almost in 1976, then successfully in 1980), Canada chose... Joe Clark. (and then, to be fair, a few years later, Canada did better, but did not hit a home run with Brian Mulroney) Instead of picking a leader who could sharply draw a contrast with the paleo-liberal ideas of Trudeau, Canada's conservatives picked Trudeau-lite. No sharp contrast was drawn, and therefore no infrastructure really popped up. Today, drawing a sharp contrast is harder, considering that today's Liberal Party isn't as hard-line left-wing as it was under Trudeau.
My basic point? It was the PC Party of the 70s and 80s that is the cause of conservative troubles in Canada today. Instead of being taken over by actual conservatives, which was happening in England and in America, the PC party did not allow ACTUAL conservatives to have a voice. What happened then? We all know - Preston Manning founded the Reform Party and Conservatives have been in the wilderness ever since. Finally, the two parties united, and Canada's current Conservative Party is less than 2 years old... but let's look at the party itself.
Canada might lack a conservative infrastructure, but it certainly doesn't lack an ideologically right-of-centre party (on this point I seem to disagree strongly with the authors of the book) It is my humble submission that Canada's Conservative Party is the most small-government oriented political party in the entire world. Conservatives who were aliented by the rigidity of the PC party are now in control of today's party apparatus.
Based on my research, I can't think of any mainstream political party (that has the possibility of attaining power) that has more genuinely conservative policies than Canada's Conservative Party, at least in the way I personally view conservatism. Read the Conservative Party's policy declaration - it isn't perfect, but much of it is on the right track. Look at the Conservative Party's leader - Stephen Harper. Besides Reagan and Thatcher (and arguably W. Bush) there haven't been many supply-siders (economic theorists) who have been elected to executive political power in the world. If Harper becomes PM, he will be one of the few. The Conservative Party is also incredibly reform-oriented, when it comes to transparency and things of that nature - whether these items actually become reality upon election is something we'll have to wait for.
In summary - yes, a conservative infrastructure would be good... but let's not lose site of the fact that a) conservative success is hardly commonplace and b) Canada's Conservative Party compares relatively well with right-wing parties from around the world. It's just about getting elected now, which is where the infrastructure comes in. One last thing - the Conservative Party of Canada hasn't really had a chance to fight a proper campaign yet. It fought one campaign in June of 2004, but that was less than a year after the merger. Things were still a bit shaky back then. The results of the next campaign will tell us a lot more about the state of conservatism in Canada.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
7:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home