The Blue-State Nation to the North

[maplesyrup]

The Blue-State Nation to the North

Even so, on the very first day of the campaign, three weeks ago, Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party standard-bearer from Alberta, felt compelled to say, "You know, in this country you can be Canadian without being a Liberal."

In fact, that may not be true - at least for successful politicians. Canada is a member of an exclusive club of nations: democracies essentially dominated by a party that has come to embody the national character or purpose - much like the French Gaullists, British Tories and Australian Liberals did in their heydays.

What the Canadian Liberal Party has succeeded in doing, said Jeffrey Simpson, a columnist for The Globe and Mail in Toronto, is "to appropriate the symbols of the country to itself." Liberal banners are red and white and include the maple leaf - just like the national flag that was designed under a Liberal government.

But the Liberal Party has not only appropriated national symbols, it has also bridged Canada's ethnic and language divide. Its coalition includes almost every group that has greater allegiance to the state than to provincial interests: English-speaking voters in Quebec; French-speaking voters everywhere else in Canada who appreciate the Liberals' commitment to bilingualism; ethnic minorities who have benefited from the Liberals' century-long embrace of immigration; and women who appreciate the party's steadfast support of national health insurance.

And the party is not above using old-fashioned politicking. It has kept a restless Quebec anchored to the country by offering French-speaking leaders a measure of power and pork-barrel benefits.

"The Liberals are a national unity party for a divided country," said David Taras, a political scientist at the University of Calgary. "They are inclusive and everyone can see their own reflection."

On the stump, Mr. Harper, the Conservative, has muffled his old positions supporting the war in Iraq and opposing same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, Mr. Martin carefully marries Liberal values to national values. He talks of his devotion to national health insurance, generous foreign aid and multiculturalism.

All those flourishes of the Canadian welfare state are in keeping with the trajectory of the party's most notable prime ministers, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Lester Bowles Pearson, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Mr. Chrétien. They also distinguish Canada in the world, and in the minds of many Canadians.

In one recent campaign appearance, Mr. Martin said, "I love that we are Canada and we're going to stay that way." Trying to paint the tax-cutting Mr. Harper as an American clone, Mr. Martin said in his very first campaign speech: "You cannot have a health care system like Canada's, you cannot have social programs like Canada's, with taxation levels like those of the United States."

Such oratory is consistent with other successful Canadian campaigns. "The Liberals have been more or less dominant," said Desmond Morton, a historian at McGill University, "because they have managed to stand behind the kind of country that Canadians generally prefer - over the red-country U.S. that elects George W. Bush

[August1991]

MS, I'll avoid the druggie remarks if you agree to keep your quotes short. (We can all jump to the link and read for ourselves.)

[maplesyrup]

Martin using flag to score 'cheap political points': Harper

Yeates said he is "increasingly apprehensive of the vacuous platform and social conservative agenda now being purveyed by the newly formed Conservative party."

"I think the views expressed by a number of Conservative candidates and party officials, on topics as diverse as abortion, sexual orientation, bilingualism and immigration verge on intolerant. I am therefore deeply concerned about what a Stephen Harper government could mean for Canada."

It seems to me these two articles tie together.

The New York Times journalist knows Canada well.

[August1991]

It is an interesting article, MS. Thanks for providing the link.

After Confederation, it was the Tories that were the Natural Governing Party. This changed with Riel and Laurier and since then, the Liberals have never really looked back.

The four great PMs were Macdonald, Laurier, King and Trudeau.

American Catholics tend to vote Democrat and Canadians tend to vote like American Catholics. With many more people of Catholic background, Canada would be strongly Democrat.

The article alludes to but doesn't make explicit something unhealthy in Canadian politics. It is an extension of something extremely unhealthy in Quebec politics.

We do not, in Canada, have a legitimate debate between the so-called left and right. In fact, the Liberal Party should not exist and we should merely have the Tories and the NDP. The reason the Liberal Party survives is because it is perceived as the only federalist party in Quebec.

If the question of Quebec independence were ever to disappear (impossible), it would be interesting to see how Quebecers would vote between NDP and Tories. Canada (and Quebec) would have a healthy democracy.

[maplesyrup]

August1991.....we Canadians tend to muddle through things, don't we?

I agree things need to change so we operate more by consensus in this country rather than winner take all, so some groups don't feel so disenfranchised. That's why I would prefer some form of PR and fixed election dates, so we would have more fairness in the system.

I have often thought about what you suggest, just two parties, but it seems we are going the other way with now a fifth party, the greens (unless they connect with one of the more established parties) about to appear on the horizon, and maybe even some seats in some future election.

My hope would be, at least for this election, is for both the Conservatives and the NDP to each win a few seats in Quebec, and then we can have the Bloc running in Ontario (joke) - did you see that Bloc Quebecois for Ontario voters website? We are definitely a strange country as once again, there is the possibility of the Bloc being the official opposition. Weird.

I think if all the participating parties had representation throughout the country, we would get to know each other better, and things might moderate a bit. Fear of the unknown is a huge issue for most people.