« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A conservative transformation in Canada

Watching a conservative consensus emerge in a \"progressive\" country

On Monday, the Conservative Party of Canada took its first majority in its history. This was a victory on several levels. First, after a disastrous 1993 election in which the Progressive Conservative party was reduced to two seats after its base split off in the west into the Reform Party and rise of the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. Now a reconstituted Conservative Party (note the absence of the word “progressive”) with a different geographic base and electoral logic is dominant. Second, the regionalism that marked that 1993, has been replaced by what could come to be a two party system. The “natural governing”, center-left Liberal Party has been reduced to little more than 10% of Parliament. The Bloc Quebecois Quebec nationalist party has been reduced to 4 seats, the minimum necessary to be recognized as a party. And now, for the first time in Canadian history, the New Democratic Party, a leftist social democratic party will be the Opposition party.

There are several lessons for American conservatives.

The first is something that I have been banging away at for a while. The left has lost the political debate throughout the industrial world. Austerity has won in Europe. Economic stability has won in Canada. In this election, the NDP called for raising the corporate tax rate to 19% from 15%, while the “centrist” Liberals only wanted to raise it to 18%. (recall that it is 35% in the US) The gains on the left in this election were about consolidating the vote of the left into more radical positions. The gains on the right were about winning an ideological and polarizing argument in the eyes of mainstream voters. Once again, in another industrial country, in a political battle of ideas, the right won decisively.

Second, polarization and ideological clarity can be a good thing, and we should welcome it. As it became clear that the NDP was going to be the Opposition party in Canada, things became simpler for the Conservatives, and their numbers started to grow. Prime Minister Stephen Harper could argue that there was a clear ideological choice. The NDP wanted to raise taxes and increase spending. And the Conservatives wanted smaller government and restraint. The voters of Canada went with smaller government and restraint. People on the right of the Liberal party fled to Conservatives fled to stop the possibility of a left-wing government.

Third, and this will be harder for many American conservatives: immigrants. The conservatives made an unprecedented effort to reach out to “ethnic” voters. Go watch the ads. Each one ends with “finally vote your values.” And they worked. The Conservatives won 60% of the Chinese vote. They won 7 of the 10 targeted “ethnic” ridings. This message of “finally vote your values” was a critical message in getting Indo-Canadian voters, Chinese voters, Italian voters, etc. It was also an important message for driving turnout among more religious voters in places like rural Ontario, where my family is from. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is getting a tremendous amount of credit for this success as a critical component to the overall victory.

At this point, the key question will be how and when the Bloc and the Liberals disappear and how the Conservatives will benefit from that. One of the things that Harper campaigned on was ending public funding for elections. It is likely that both the Liberal Party and the Bloc disappear into bankruptcy: political, ideological, and, indeed, financial. In this election, the Conservatives got approximately 40% of the vote, the NDP got approximately 30%, the Liberals 20%, with minor parties getting the rest. Strategically, Conservatives have four years to turn that 40% to 50% by a variety of mechanisms.

Harper himself is acutely aware of that. Among his election night statements, was one that jumped out at me, “”And we accept that we have a lot more work to do to gain the true confidence of Quebecers. And we’re dedicated to doing that.” This is a plodding but ultimately effective strategy to building a national coalition on ideological terms.

Here, Canadians may be learning a lesson from the United States. On April 18th, the Sun News Network launched. Sun News Network claims to be a populist, small-c conservative media outlet, owned by the Quebec-based media company Quebecor which has a populist separatist/nationalist stance in Quebec. It has been compared to Fox, the New York Post, etc. Sun News can give some cultural coherence to Canadian little-c conservatism, helping to overcome significant regional and ethnic differences. This can help bring Conservatives, so-called Blue Liberals (Liberals on the right end of their party), and Quebec nationalists into a more coherent cultural and narrative alignment. We should never forget that culture, narratives, and ideology are strongly related.

I urge American conservatives to watch Canada over the next four years. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have much to teach us about building conservative majorities and consensus in a country that seems and sees itself as much more progressive than it really is.

COMMENTS

  • davidleigh

    There will be momentum in the US for conservatives as well, and it is going to be very big regardless of events in the past few days with Osama’s demise. Our challenge though on the presidential front is to field a decent candidate. I live in South Carolina and the republicans are to have their first debate this week in Greenville, SC, where I live, the most conservative county in this state. So far interest is poor among candidates and this has South Carolinians furious with the apparent SNUB. Talk-show hosts are telling the no-shows we won’t forget you when the campaign heats up. You’re going to have serious trouble getting any ground here because we take this as though you’re not a serious contender, that you’re not taking Obama’s direction of the country with serious urgency for change. As a voter, it tells me the republican field is very “wanting,” and it is going to take someone unannounced to fire consevratives up.

    • YnotNOW

      Not enough of the potential candidates have officially declared, and there is not enough public scrutiny yet to sort out the serious candidates from the side-show fringes.

      So this is not a snub to South Carolina, just a realistic view of the current status of the campaign.

  • citizenjerry

    American conservatives can learn something from what happened with our socialist neighbor to the north. It puts the lie to the Democrat meme that the natural order of things in America is Democrats in control for the rest of forever.

  • littlehouse18

    ” Third, and this will be harder for many American conservatives: immigrants. The conservatives made an unprecedented effort to reach out to ?ethnic? voters.”

    Sorry, but that line is really irritating. That buys into the liberal meme about American conservatives being anti-minority. We don’t need to perpetuate this falsehood ourselves. The only immigrants we don’t want voting are illegal aliens. We crave more support among legal immigrant voters.

    • acat

      and my question to you, littlehouse, is what you see as ways conservatives or the GOP have successfully done just that.

      There are some, there aren’t many… and a “vote your values” tag with a clear communication of what conservative values actually are may work pretty well to peel support in some districts.

      It can’t work worse than some of the GOP’s disasterous panders in the past. (McCain and Graham on amnesty, forex…)

      Mew

    • The_Gadfly

      While it is true that we understand we aren’t anti-immigrant, we do a lousy job of communicating that, and a worse one of communicating that we and not Dems stand for their core values.

      • victrola

        It’s very easy for conservatives in Canada to be very pro immigrant because they don’t have the rampant ILLEGAL immigration problem we do, and the associated problems. There’s almost as many illegal immigrants in the US as the ENTIRE population of Canada. (20 million versus 33 million)

        I don’t buy the media’s bargain that being pro-amnesty is the only way for Republicans to appeal to Hispanics. All that would do is slit our throat for a generation, and any “plus” with regard to Hispanics would be VERY short lived. We saw how well McCain did with Hispanics in 2008 despite his best efforts to pass amnesty. Had McCain made an issue of Obama’s support of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, he would have done MUCH better in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania than whatever token support he got from Hispanics for supporting a blanket amnesty.

        I certainly don’t want the Republican Party to seem xenophobic (and we don’t, but the media paints us that way) but I think border security actually sells really well (especially among blue collar “Reagan Democrats”)
        Does being “tough on the border” cost us votes with Hispanics? Possibly, but I honestly think that will fade, and even legal Hispanics that call the US home will not want open borders once they start to see themselves as Americans.

        • acat

          If Chicago has a problem with illegals – and, hint hint, we do – then there’s nothing to prevent Canada from having the same problem. Just follow I-35, eh? Once you’re into the U.S., it’s a straight shot to Canada.

          Further, Canada’s west coast ports are just as open to illegals from Asia as ours are.. don’t think there’s not smuggling – and ditto on the east coast. You may not recognize them on the street, but Boston has a problem with illegal Irish, for instance.

          Mew

          • victrola

            The US has close to a million illegals cross our border every year. Canada does not have that magnitude of that problem. Period. There’s lots of reasons why, but at the end of the day much of it is simple geography and the fact that usually “clusters” of illegal immigrants tend to grow rather than simply spreading out.

            And just because the ramifications haven’t reared their head yet doesn’t mean an open borders policy “works” in Canada. See Europe for an example, it’s close to completely losing it’s identity. Have you been to London lately? Or Paris? Multiculturalism has failed, and these disastrous policies were because of short-sighted politicians that were trying to chase votes for the short term. Sound familiar?

            Living in Arizona, I’ve seen affluent communities become crime-ridden ghettos in a matter of years where parents are scared to send their kids to school. I have friends that live in Los Angeles and it’s not even a question, you HAVE to send your kids to a private school.

            I want the border secure and our immigration laws enforced. If that offends certain ethnic groups, I will take that “hit” for the good of sound public policy and the rule of law.

            I think you can appeal to immigrants without “softening” our laws regarding illegal immigration, and the evidence I’ve seen is that you can’t “outbid” Democrats when it comes to this.

          • acat

            I’m the guy who wants to turn a nice, wide strip along the southern border over to the armed services for live weapons training. (sarc) Yeah, we’ll have to move Brownsville… what a loss. (/sarc)

            Yes, multi-culti failed. Boo hoo for Europe. I don’t see us wasting our blood and gold rescuing them… although I doubt the last page has been written.

            Your initial position, that Canada doesn’t have a problem with illegals is false.

            Besides, if you look at what it takes to legally emigrate to Canada today, maybe their lowering their standards a little is a good thing… maybe more of our hollywood left will finally get packed and make good on their promises…

            Mew

          • powertothepeople

            CatAttack

          • powertothepeople

            NINJA CAT ATTACK

            By the time he noticed it, he was already dead.

          • victrola

            Or if you’re even arguing with me.

            My position is the problem of illegal immigration is MUCH more severe in the US than it is in Canada. You really can’t make a case otherwise. Of course people sneak into every country, but the largest “immigrant group” in Canada are the Chinese which make up a whopping 4% of the population. Latinos make up around 1% of the population. I hardly see that as a cause for alarm that the country will balkanize because of open borders, and I’m sure the overwhelming majority of those groups are actually legal citizens.

            My point was, when I hear we should push for a more “immigrant-friendly” GOP, that’s usually code for “amnesty” or at the very least “stop talking about illegal immigration, it’s no big deal, and we look like racists”

            My point is, I don’t think illegal immigration is something conservatives can afford to turn a blind eye to, but possibly in Canada they can for the time being.

            I still believe that a hawkish stance on the border is politically MUCH more popular, and the road to winning elections is not by appealing to the small sliver of ethnic groups that want open borders.

          • acat

            something that even Cesar Chavez understood…. but that far too many of the GOP seem to miss… in part because we keep worrying about “code”.

            Let’s try an analogy. If you invite someone into your home, as long as there’s no provocation, you’re fine with your guest being there, right? I’m going to assume, though, that if someone snuck in through your back door at night, turned on the lights in your kitchen, and made a nice dinner for themselves, you’d be less fine with it … even if the person is a former guest.

            Same thing applies to immigration.

            I’m for very strong defense-in-depth border and immigration enforcement. I want every State to have to use eVerify. I want the Army securing the border, and have wanted that for decades, not just since Mexico started sliding noticably faster toward their inevitable civil war. (it’s been kind of obvious that they’re going to have one for a long time…)

            Those who have come here from South America legally, who busted their butts to find employment, find a sponsor, learn the lingua franca, and stand in line for hours at the ICE are generally just as opposed to illegal immigration as you are. They’re generally competing in the same job markets, only getting undercut by the illegals, or the anchor-baby-mamas.

            The problem seems to be the D.C. bureaucrats and career politicians who can’t tell a Mexican from a Cuban .. because the latter see this issue through a different lens – unlike someone from South America, Cuban-Americans generally can’t return home.. and there’s a much higher chance that they came here as refugees. Unfortunately, most of the GOP outreach to hispanics seems targeted at Cubans, not Mexicans .. maybe it’s a proximity-to-D.C. thing…? Shorter drive up I-95?

            In any case, stop looking for “code”. Make yourself crazy that way. There’s nothing hypocritical in being strong on immigration enforcement while at the same time wanting to encourage the GOP to reach out to legal immigrant communities.

            Finally, while the illegal problem in Canada may be smaller, so’s their starting population .. and they’re also pre-balkanized .. Quebecois ring any bells?

            Just sayin’, it’s a different country .. the effects of illegal immigrants are understandably different, but the goal of reaching out to social conservatives by focusing on what values we share – most Mexican-Americans are at least nominally Catholic so there’s certainly common ground – we can splinter the Dems’ support among these groups.

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            is an artifact of the Bush presidents. Without their influence I doubt that there would have been any attempt by the GOP to create a second amnesty bill.

            I know it is hard to swallow, but the Obama administration is 1000% better on border enforcement than the Bush administration.

            They have been raiding businesses, deporting people, and patrolling the borders. While Bush actually did literally NOTHING to enforce the border for several years, and did many pernicious things like prosecuting immigration agents for doing their job.

        • The_Gadfly

          I think by and large the conservative Republican position IS pro-legal immigrant, but staunchly opposed to illegal immigration (on the border build the fence, increase the number of enforcement officers, and turn back or capture more infiltrators; in the hinterland raid the shops that harbor the illegals, deport them forthwith, and fine the crap out of the owners who ignore our immigration laws). Frankly, after we’ve got control of the illegal issue it might be appropriate to increase our legal immigration quotas. I’d even be willing to offer a 90-day period for an amnesty: turn yourself in for a free ride home and we’ll waive the usual can’t-apply-for-legal-immigration time.

          Moreover, most of the Hispanics I’ve known are truly hard workers who value family, faith, and education. Those are conservative Republican attributes, not socialist Democrat attributes. Yet when you look at Republican “outreach” to that minority community what you find are precisely the sorts of programs you criticized: pandering by offering to “normalize” illegals who are already here. I think an outreach that emphasizes our common social values would be better received than the pandering.

  • earlgrey

    Sometimes this little weakling needs a pep talk. Thanks.