Is Canada Left Wing?

[August1991]

Two-thirds (67 per cent) of adult Canadians said they agreed with the statement that Mr. Bush "knowingly lied to the world to justify his war with Iraq" a year ago, The Globe and Mail-CTV News poll says.

Moreover, almost three-quarters (74 per cent) of the poll respondents said that the federal government made the correct decision by not joining the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq, the polling data show.

G&M Poll CTV News

Support for a woman's right to an abortion has reached an all-time high in Canada, according to a National Post/Global National poll that found almost four of five Canadians, or 78%, believe women should have a completely free choice in the matter.

NP, 27 November 2002

Only 52 per cent think the gun registry should be scrapped, vs. 43 per cent who think it should be maintined.

Forty-eight per cent oppose gay marriage, while 47 per cent support it.

The government's health-care plans are supported by 48 per cent, while 30 per cent don't view them positively.

CTV Poll

Ekos in its yearly "Rethinking Government" study asked people what the federal government's priority should be. Tax cuts placed seventh, behind health care, education, child poverty, improving productivity, supporting children and families, and reducing the national debt. Even in Ontario, in the middle of the last provincial election, an Angus Reid poll showed that 53% wanted the government to forget its promised tax cut and spend the equivalent amount on health care and education, while 22% said forget the tax cut and bring down the deficit.

Policy Alternatives

One can argue about methodology, the way the questions were asked, regional differences, sources (Policy Alternatives??) - the fact of the matter is, we're a left wing country. Is it because we choose to define ourselves as "Anti-American" and the US is right wing? Well, people in Quebec have a distinct sense of who they are - no need to be anti-American - and they would be on the left side of all these questions.

Is it because Canadians are "behind" the political ideology curve? Eventually we'll "catch up" with the "progressive" Americans and Brits? (In Quebec, the word "progressive" still means State Intervention and "neo-liberal" is an insult of ex-communication.)

Or, taking a leaf from the angry American left, are we just a nation of ignorant cry-babies, manipulated by the CBC to believe that we can have it all for free?

Or, maybe there's some sophisticated analysis that explains these results and at the same time means that people will happily vote for Stephen Harper.

I wonder. The guy got 56% against 37% for a woman, basically unknown two months ago, and whose main contribution to the candidacy was to make plain that she was a social liberal, a "progressive" conservative who wanted to bake bigger pies but not by demolishing government.

The Liberals are immersed in umpteen scandals yet they still lead the polls. Am I wrong to say that many Canadians secretly agreed when Broadbent compared Canadian banks to MC and Visa, or when Lewis talked about "Corporate Welfare Bums"?

I'm no left wing apologist. Far from it. I've seen the beast of government up front and it's ugly in my view. But it seems to me that many Canadians still believe there's a pony under all that pony dung. One has to admit the truth sometimes, and in this case, it's what our countrymen believe.

Admit it. We're a boring Finland. Harper will have a hard slog.

[maplesyrup]

Yup.....

Harper will have a hard slog.

Canada is not quite ready for the Canadian Republican (oops, Conservative) Party.

Stephen Bush harper, during the election campaign, will try to hide his extreme right wing plans from Canadians, with the help from his right wing mainstream media friends.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Canada is very left wing, in the early 60's Canada's was more right wing than the US, then the cowards like Trudeau who mocked those who went to fight nazi germany got into power and destroyed this country. Pierre Trudeau had the biggest negative effect on this nation, destroyed our proud military, and cozied up to socialists. I dont think that 100,000 Canadian's died so that that A-hole could get into power and cozy up to dictators.

[August1991]

the cowards like Trudeau who mocked those who went to fight nazi germany got into power and destroyed this country. Pierre Trudeau had the biggest negative effect on this nation, destroyed our proud military, and cozied up to socialists.

I dont think that 100,000 Canadian's died so that that A-hole could get into power and cozy up to dictators.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

[willy]

We are a confused country.

For three terms we elected a government that pretended to be both left and right. More regional programs and cuts to transfer payments were the policy. Appear fiscally responsible while beholding new groups of influence with new directed dollars. (Regional development, corporate subsidies, promotion, scholarship programs)

As I accuse the Liberals of action over the last 10 years, I realize what they really lacked was action. The Red Book was their plan but little ever happened.

They managed the country as administrators, but did little to lead. The one big new thing was the Gun Registry and it doesn't work.

I think Canadians feel most comfortable with the status quo. Very little new policy enacted and then have the courts use the charter to sort out any internal problems. We have had a very reactive government that has spent most of the time playing politics. They are fear mongers of both the left and the right.

The curious thing is the Conservative and the NDP represent real change. Now the Liberals have lost the confidence of Canadians will the country go for less or more government?

[cgarrett]

great question! because the answer i believe is most interesting...

yes canada is left wing! we are a socialist democracy that enjoys a capitalist economy! in fact, most functioning democracies in the world are socialist democracies with capitalist economies! who knew? well most western media are not telling you this... mostly because they are controlled by their billionaire owners!

and yes, even the united states of america is a socialist country! the economic indicator for socialism is the progressive tax system which is in place in every major democracy in the world. sure, some of us have more... we have national health care, a social safety net, publicly funded transit and education. and conservative governments mess with the numbers of our tax system as much as they can. but even complete psycho right wing parties avoid abandoning it. thatcher tried to push through regressive taxation (the poll tax, flat tax, whatever new name they have for it) in the late eighties. do you remember the riots!?

so, what is really news (if you have been relying on news papers and television for news) is that democracies are inherently socialist. the idea that a nations wealth should be enjoyed by the majority of its citizens instead of by a select minority is inherently appealing to an electorate.

[MapleLeafMerc]

The US fought a war for independence, we did not. That's why they value freedom and independence more than we.

The US got frisky and tried to invade. That's something liberals will NEVER get over, and why so many hate the US. (That and an inherent envy of success.)

Overall we are lefties. Steal from the producers, give to the moochers.

August, willy, good points.

[MapleLeafMerc]

The US fought a war for independence, we did not. That's why they value freedom and independence more than we.

The US got frisky and tried to invade. That's something liberals will NEVER get over, and why so many hate the US. (That and an inherent envy of success.)

Overall we are lefties. Steal from the producers, give to the moochers.

August, willy, good points.

[cgarrett]

mapleleafmerc

are you a producer? and if you are do you use canadian raw materials? do you do this work yourself or do you use other people to produce?

in any case, you've missed my point entirely! the u.s. is a socialist regime just like ours. the only difference is the numbers in the tax system and how tax money is spent.

canadians prefer to spend their tax money on the items i mentioned (national health care, education etc..). republicans prefer to spend it on the military! (u.s. military spending now dwarfs all discretionary spending in the federal budget, enough money has been allocated on the war in iraq to fund health care for all americans who do not have it for ten years).

[August1991]

The US fought a war for independence, we did not. That's why they value freedom and independence more than we.

The US fought a successful war. We did not. French Canadians were defeated, and immigrants of Irish origin were defeated too. You can draw your own opinion about the UEL.

The recent arrivals -East European or others- are extremely sensitive to this whole question. I suspect they are already angry with what I have written.

As a Ukrainian once wisely explained, "I came to the New World, but no one told me there were two of them."

When Harper said "culture of defeat", he has no idea what wounds he naively opened. Trudeau opened minds, sometimes wounds, but always wisely. Harper is young. Let's see if he can heal, not hurt.

"Any damn fool can burn down a barn. It takes someone smart to build one."

[willy]

August1991,

Just a quick note on Trudeau, he created a western separation party. This was a whole new wound, and he was aged with experience. Just to be clear I am talking about the National Energy Policy, and lets not forget why Quebec is not signed on to the constitution. He was also the brilliant leader behind the night of the long knives.

How about old Jean? Would you like some pepper with that salt or tell Israel that they don't need that lake.

Let's be clear our past PM's have made some huge blunders. In this context a new leader who was taken out of context in a couple of speeches seems minor.

[maplesyrup]

And our past prime ministers have made some sound decisions as well, such as not formerly sending Canadian troops to Iraq.

That decision is not even up for debate any more I would assume.

[willy]

You can not send troops to support your largest trading partner and still do it with diplomacy. We insluted the states and didn't need to.

And we did send ships to the gulf and continue to have troops in Afghanistan.

All we had to do is wish them well, but no we had to make a scene. It didn't change the course of events. All it did was make it hard to get Bush on the phone for any issue.

That is not a good example of great politicing.

[Moderate Centrist]

” Canada is very left wing, in the early 60's Canada's was more right wing than the US…”

Alliance Fanatic

This is incorrect for a number of reasons. Namely because much of what is considered current right wing thinking begins with Barry Goldwater’s run for president and book the Conscience of a Conservative. He was later followed by Regan and Thatcher.

King, St. Laurent, Deifenbaker and Person do not even remotely fit any definition of right wing as I’m aware of it.

Focusing strictly on the Chief – he had a personal feud with JFK and dislike of American dominance in general. He even refused for some time to put Canadian forces on high alert during the Cuban missile crisis. The Chief was also an adamant death penalty opponent.

Are you also suggesting that the Eisenhower and JFK administrations were left wing? Perhaps you’re joking here?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you also suggesting that the Eisenhower and JFK administrations were left wing? Perhaps you’re joking here?

Well, the top tax rate under Ike was something like 92%. He was a Republican.

These terms - right-wing, left-wing - really are meaningless today. Right-wingers supposedly don't like government intevention or taxation, yet they tend to support anti-homosexuality legislation and increased military spending. Left-wingers decry the poverty of the third world, yet resist globalization that boosts the economies of said countries.

Left-wing parties in North American can be far to the right of European right-wing parties. They can also be far to the right of right-wing parties of twenty, thirty years ago.

It might help to clarify if you break it down into time-frames, country (even in North America, it seems that the CPC is closer to the Democrats than the Republicans with their advocacy of universal health care) and social/economic issues.

[August1991]

For Willy, others can ignore:

Just a quick note on Trudeau, he created a western separation party. This was a whole new wound, and he was aged with experience. Just to be clear I am talking about the National Energy Policy, and lets not forget why Quebec is not signed on to the constitution. He was also the brilliant leader behind the night of the long knives.

I recall Trudeau at MUN in St. John's saying, "OK. You can have every last cent from the oil. But would that be Canada?"

The NEP raises the same question. Who owns the oil under the ground in Alberta?

Trudeau suffered the cuts of a thousand knives because of the FLQ and the so-called lack of a Quebec signature on the Constitution. True, Quebec's legislature voted against (PQ and provincial Liberals under Ryan). But Trudeau said that his federal Quebec Liberals did sign.

But who represents the people of Quebec? Well, who represents the people of Alberta?

If we have a country, then Trudeau's question is good. It opens minds, and maybe wounds, but wisely.

I'm no Trudeau apologist. Far from it. (Incidentally, I had no argument with his being left-wing.) Rather, I disagreed with his apparent belief - typical of post World War II types - that the world is perfectible. I don't think it is. And I'm irritated by those who want to perfect it. I think instead that people just are, and that they learn on their own in ways none of us can imagine.

Thank God, if so willed.

[willy]

August 1991

I do only know Trudeau from books and biographies, as I was not old enough to vote when he was in power.

My point was more general.

I didn't perceive Trudeau to be politically correct around the country, in words or action. He was the last Liberal PM to lead the country. He had a vision, shaped our future, and in doing so he stepped on a number of toes.

Harper's critics have characterized him as being too insensitive to lead the country. My point was that a number of good leaders rattle the status quo.

What is the big deal about what Harper has said? If people don’t like his ideas fine but why discredit him with comments about his personality or sensitivity. They should just sell there policy or poke holes in his.(I know this is not realistic but we can always hope for the high road even though it will always end up on the low road)

The two repeated comments:

Fire wall, comment was about staying out of provincial jurisdiction. This would be a good idea for all provinces. I support this idea assuming it would also come with an increase to health and education transfer payments.

Atlantic Canadian defeatism, comment was a plan to change the hard realities on our east coast. High unemployment, seasonal workers, and the federal programs that don't change the situation.

Let’s not make a turn of phrase into extremism. August 1991 I don’t think you have been doing this but it has been repeated on this site and in the news papers enough to make me nauseous.

What is the conservative platform and will Harper follow is through? I trust him so far and I like the platform. Those that don’t should focus on real policy concerns. If they have a reason not to trust him I would like to know as well.

It might not be Trudeau mania but at least it is leadership.

If I am wrong tell me so and I will change tact. (Ex. Layton reminds me of a used car salesman, slick, outgoing and you can’t trust him, or Martin is just too old) I need not go on with name calling.

[August1991]

Willy, I found your post very sensible and I largely agree with it. I have not found Harper's comments "outrageous" but rather thoughtful and intelligent.

Harper's critics have characterized him as being too insensitive to lead the country. My point was that a number of good leaders rattle the status quo.

Too insensitive? I'm just wondering out loud what the country is, what Harper's idea of it is and whether these two things are compatible.

For example, I have the sense that Canadians are "left wing": they identify with the underdog, are inclined to feel like victims, feel the State should protect them, respect authority but secretly admire efforts to annoy it, tend to smugness, and while proud, are irritated by self-doubt. In short, Canada (both English and French Canada) is a Catholic country.

I have a suspicion that many voters in Ontario are wondering whether they can feel comfortable with Harper. Indeed, many may be willing to vote for a non-National leader (ie. a non-Quebec-winning leader). The next few polls will give a hint of the answer.

It may well be time for English Canada to have a thoughtful leader who speakes for English Canada. Am I wrong to suspect that many English Canadians have felt disenfranchised for a long time now?

[bTW, Trudeau, it seems to me, did have an idea - and he defended it, at greater cost to his reputation in Quebec than outside the province.]

[willy]

We are in agreement and this is my frustration.