Jack Layton has a great mustache and a knack for one liners ("Where is your program Harper? Under the sweater?"), but does he have a plan for Canada? Yes he does, especially if you have a table in your kitchen, which is a piece of furniture for which he has an odd obsession. He also deserves credit for being the leader who most consistently raises the issue of First Nations social conditions, which he seeks to address directly. He also has plans for women, for immigrants, for the environment. He claims to be running for Prime Minister, and I believe him. But he doesn't really want to be Prime Minister of Canada - just Prime Minister of Canada minus the bigger corporations (which don't like the NDP anyway), which under his government will be best represented by the ambassador of the United States.
Worker's Paradise
The New Democrats understand the plight of regular Canadians, and they want to ease the economic burden on the working class and the middle class. This will be done with lots and lots of money - money for doctors and nurses, money for education and retraining, money for First Nations communities, money for culture and the arts, money to enforce environmental regulation, money for pharmacare. And where will this money come from? The corporations!
New Democratic Canada would be a country where the gains from economic growth and development fell to those who deserved them - the workers and employees whose effort and energy, tireless labor and selfless dedication, produced the wealth which is now sequestered in the jewelry boxes of second wives in Toronto and fancy motor vehicles (terrestrial and aquatic) throughout Alberta. The only thing standing in the way of a genuinely equitable society where no one need worry about the necessities of life - housing, healthcare and education - or labor under dangerous and demeaning conditions is the reluctance of political leaders to take on moneyed interests. The NDP would shake down the bankers and the executives and, by collecting corporate profits as well as the loose change found in their pockets, provide those necessities and decent working conditions for the great mass of unluxuried Canadians. There is no ill that public spending can't fix! And no amount of money that taxing the rapacious private sector can't provide!
In this Canada, one would select an appropriate course of training for one's chose career, which would be heavily subsidized to ensure freedom from debt for the new graduate, and then find a job either in the state apparatus (which, given the needs of administering all the new spending and programs, would likely have a great demand for labor) or in a unionized job in the private sector (which, despite its sizeable tax liability, would still be willing to hire). Once on the job, Canadians would work hard and contribute to the economy, secure in the knowledge that their income, their pensions and their social services were all secure and guaranteed by the state. The Conservatives see the market as the ultimate venue for the expression of individual freedom, and seek to expand freedom by enlarging the market and shrinking the state (they believe this because they are investors, entrepreneurs and career politicians, and the market is good to them). The NDP have the opposite view - the market is a venue for exploitation and insecurity, and true freedom rests in freedom from the competitive pressures of the market place. Work is part of life, and everyone should work - its part of what makes you decent - but it is a moral wrong to tie quality of life to the outcomes of a fickle marketplace slanted in favor of those who start out with money. Instead, the state should take direct action to provide for everyone means sufficient to live a decent, dignified life. This includes not just typical workers, but other groups that suffer in the marketplace - artists, First Nations living under the legacy of dreadful reservation conditions, recent immigrants. All in Canada deserve a decent life.
The egalitarianism and charity of this vision has a certain appeal. One weakness needs to be pointed out - where will the money come from? Sure, the rich and the corporations can be soaked for a while, but then they become poor and bankrupt, and the money well is dry. Under conditions of globalization, it's hard to suspend the market in a single country - capital and investment can flee elsewhere, just as the American auto industry decamped to Windsor ON when it made sense to abandon Detroit. The NDP has a plan to distribute the wealth created by private companies but few plans to strengthen the ability of those companies to compete internationally. The risk is that excessive demands on the private sector may stifle growth, and leave the country as a whole worse off despite a more equitable sharing of the national product. Then again, some industries can probably be pretty well shaken down without dreadful consequences - the resource extractors, especially the Alberta oil firms, generate sky high profits and could afford a little extortion. The banks, until recently, also fit the bill. Ironically enough, when it comes to the financial crisis, he may be the man for the job - he'll hand out money like it was going out of style, and smack enough regulation on Canadian banks to keep them from being tempted the next time US investment banks are peddling toxic waste.
Jack Layton wants Canada to look like: France in the 60s
Best case scenario: France in the 90s
Worst case scenario: Have you been to Cuba?
Likelihood of success: 0% A minority government may need him, may even include him, but ultimately will not listen to Jack Layton
Monday, October 13, 2008
What the Parties Want - Greens
It is tough to get a read on the Green Party. In Elizabeth May they have found a formidable leader - she talks tough as a Tory, speaks smart as a Liberal, but her fashion sense is unmistakeably Green. She preformed extremely well in the leader's debate, matching Layton and Harper in her grasp of the issues, and getting in a number of decent jabs at the Prime Minister. She displayed a mastery of all of the major issues, stepping well beyond purely environmental concerns - she certainly seemed like a serious candidate, which is how she seeks to present herself in her campaign advertising as well. However, go to the Green Party website. Go ahead, I'll wait. See the folk singer? Listen carefully to the lyrics. That's about all you need to know about the Green Party agenda.
Scandinavia, but with Unicorns
It must be an odd feeling to lead a party which simultaneously enjoys a high public profile and an long odds for a single seat in Parliament, none at all for forming a government. The Party will never be held to any of the promises it makes, and thus is free to make whatever crazy promises it wants, which is where the Unicorns come in. Amid the typical litany of goodies for everyone - benefits for seniors! universal pharmacare! more childcare benefits! - comes a chapter on the promotion of beauty in civic spaces.
The Green Party has a radical vision for the future of Canada. The Canada they want is one which is environmentally sustainable, and they have a sober appreciation for the sort of drastic changes that such a goal requires. Canadians would need to pay more for goods as the environmental costs of consumption began to be factored into the price at the till. Transportation costs would increase dramatically as the price of fossil fuels would experience one of the most intense rises. This would crimp people's lifestyle - a cross-country plane ride might cost so much as to be a once-a-year indulgence for middle class Canadians. Likewise, the cost of goods produced abroad - or in distant parts of Canada - would spike considerably, especially given the Green pledge to revisit NAFTA in a manner the Americans are likely to reject out of hand. Local economies would begin to make a lot of sense, as lower transport costs made small, local business competitive. This would be felt across the board, but most intensely with food - producing fresh, organic produce in the vicinity of big cities would be a relatively profitable venture, and the health and diet of Canadians would benefit from higher quality ingredients (and also for all of the summer time bike transport, which keeps you fit and saves a bundle). However, out-of-season produce would be a thing of the past, and the gains experienced by farmers would be provided by the higher prices paid by consumers. The new type of agriculture that the Green Party envisions - local, small-scale, super-organic - would be much more labor intensive than current factory or factory-organic production. The proportion of Canadians working in agriculture would spike dramatically - local farmer would be a hot job. However, consumption of other goods would also be seriously effected - no more endless Walmart shelves of cheap Chinese schlock. Instead, go to your local store for a small selection of expensive Canadian schlock, perhaps of better quality but orders of magnitude more expensive. No more trouble finding adequate closet space! Only the ultra rich will be able to afford enough fabric to have that problem.
Although Canadians will have to sacrifice a significant level of material consumption to live in Green Canada, the exact extent of that sacrifice - whether we are talking about the equivalent of $20000 income for a family of four or a $2000 one - will depend on technological developments. If clean sources of electricity and transport energy can be devised, then much of the bite of pollution taxes is removed - not all of it by any stretch of the imagination (no matter, you will have less stuff than you do now) - but enough for technological development to be a real priority for the Greens. No alternative fuels (except nuclear power, which is ruled out by the Green Party) have demonstrated large scale viability. Some seem to have potential (especially wind power), but there is no guarantee that such sources can make up for a drastic increase in fossil fuel costs.
Although the cost of material goods will increase and Canadians will have to make do with less, the Greens suggest that social benefits can be maintained and even expanded. I do not know how this can be paid for, especially given the commitment to balanced budgets that's written into the Green Party platform - this does not seem to be a credible claim. One claim which the Greens make that is credible concerns the amount of free time that Green Canadians will enjoy. The expense of travel will make long trips unfeasible, the slow down of the economy through the adjustment to sustainable levels of consumption will reduce labor demand, and there will be fewer frivolous entertainments to fritter our time away with. Instead, Canadians will be able to devote themselves to friends, family and community (perhaps growing their own food, or volunteering at educational and health centers to make up the shortages of paid workers) reenergizing Canadian public life. Whether this is a good or bad thing likely depends on your personal feelings - I myself can't decide if this sounds heavenly or hellish.
Although the changes would be drastic, they would result in an ecologically sustainable society, and any growth achieved through technological breakthroughs or process rationalization could be enjoyed guilt-free, and might slowly allow the material standard of life to clawback to its pre-Green level. Such drastic changes might be enough to avert catastrophic climate change, thus saving more lives and resources in the long run. Further, the Greens build in significant social supports for those at low incomes - this would likely be a very equalizing transition, as there are fewer opportunities for status consumption and a greater need for communal living, if only to kill the boredom of the strictly local economy. Either that, or rampant drug use (which is actually also part of the Green Party agenda. I guess we'll feel better about having less stuff if we're stoned all the time).
The Green Party agenda, while radical, has two substantial x factors that are both unpredictable and crucially effect the final outcome. The first, which I already mentioned, is technology. If you get cold fusion working tomorrow then all we need to sacrifice are plastic supermarket bags. If you can't get wind power working, then every meal is by candlelight. The second question concerns the behavior of other countries - unless there is a real global commitment to the Green project, than Green Canada may find that it gets the double whammy of climate change and economic sacrifice, thanks to the Texan refusal to ditch their SUVs. Jerks.
Elizabeth May wants Canada to resemble: Tofino BC, but with thirty million people
Best-case scenario: Norway, but with jam bands instead of alcoholism
Worst-case scenario: Medieval Scotland, complete with witch trials (though they will be trials by, rather than of, witches)
Her plan for the economic crisis: She won't be Prime Minister, so she doesn't need one.
Likelihood of success: 0% Let's be real.
Scandinavia, but with Unicorns
It must be an odd feeling to lead a party which simultaneously enjoys a high public profile and an long odds for a single seat in Parliament, none at all for forming a government. The Party will never be held to any of the promises it makes, and thus is free to make whatever crazy promises it wants, which is where the Unicorns come in. Amid the typical litany of goodies for everyone - benefits for seniors! universal pharmacare! more childcare benefits! - comes a chapter on the promotion of beauty in civic spaces.
The Green Party has a radical vision for the future of Canada. The Canada they want is one which is environmentally sustainable, and they have a sober appreciation for the sort of drastic changes that such a goal requires. Canadians would need to pay more for goods as the environmental costs of consumption began to be factored into the price at the till. Transportation costs would increase dramatically as the price of fossil fuels would experience one of the most intense rises. This would crimp people's lifestyle - a cross-country plane ride might cost so much as to be a once-a-year indulgence for middle class Canadians. Likewise, the cost of goods produced abroad - or in distant parts of Canada - would spike considerably, especially given the Green pledge to revisit NAFTA in a manner the Americans are likely to reject out of hand. Local economies would begin to make a lot of sense, as lower transport costs made small, local business competitive. This would be felt across the board, but most intensely with food - producing fresh, organic produce in the vicinity of big cities would be a relatively profitable venture, and the health and diet of Canadians would benefit from higher quality ingredients (and also for all of the summer time bike transport, which keeps you fit and saves a bundle). However, out-of-season produce would be a thing of the past, and the gains experienced by farmers would be provided by the higher prices paid by consumers. The new type of agriculture that the Green Party envisions - local, small-scale, super-organic - would be much more labor intensive than current factory or factory-organic production. The proportion of Canadians working in agriculture would spike dramatically - local farmer would be a hot job. However, consumption of other goods would also be seriously effected - no more endless Walmart shelves of cheap Chinese schlock. Instead, go to your local store for a small selection of expensive Canadian schlock, perhaps of better quality but orders of magnitude more expensive. No more trouble finding adequate closet space! Only the ultra rich will be able to afford enough fabric to have that problem.
Although Canadians will have to sacrifice a significant level of material consumption to live in Green Canada, the exact extent of that sacrifice - whether we are talking about the equivalent of $20000 income for a family of four or a $2000 one - will depend on technological developments. If clean sources of electricity and transport energy can be devised, then much of the bite of pollution taxes is removed - not all of it by any stretch of the imagination (no matter, you will have less stuff than you do now) - but enough for technological development to be a real priority for the Greens. No alternative fuels (except nuclear power, which is ruled out by the Green Party) have demonstrated large scale viability. Some seem to have potential (especially wind power), but there is no guarantee that such sources can make up for a drastic increase in fossil fuel costs.
Although the cost of material goods will increase and Canadians will have to make do with less, the Greens suggest that social benefits can be maintained and even expanded. I do not know how this can be paid for, especially given the commitment to balanced budgets that's written into the Green Party platform - this does not seem to be a credible claim. One claim which the Greens make that is credible concerns the amount of free time that Green Canadians will enjoy. The expense of travel will make long trips unfeasible, the slow down of the economy through the adjustment to sustainable levels of consumption will reduce labor demand, and there will be fewer frivolous entertainments to fritter our time away with. Instead, Canadians will be able to devote themselves to friends, family and community (perhaps growing their own food, or volunteering at educational and health centers to make up the shortages of paid workers) reenergizing Canadian public life. Whether this is a good or bad thing likely depends on your personal feelings - I myself can't decide if this sounds heavenly or hellish.
Although the changes would be drastic, they would result in an ecologically sustainable society, and any growth achieved through technological breakthroughs or process rationalization could be enjoyed guilt-free, and might slowly allow the material standard of life to clawback to its pre-Green level. Such drastic changes might be enough to avert catastrophic climate change, thus saving more lives and resources in the long run. Further, the Greens build in significant social supports for those at low incomes - this would likely be a very equalizing transition, as there are fewer opportunities for status consumption and a greater need for communal living, if only to kill the boredom of the strictly local economy. Either that, or rampant drug use (which is actually also part of the Green Party agenda. I guess we'll feel better about having less stuff if we're stoned all the time).
The Green Party agenda, while radical, has two substantial x factors that are both unpredictable and crucially effect the final outcome. The first, which I already mentioned, is technology. If you get cold fusion working tomorrow then all we need to sacrifice are plastic supermarket bags. If you can't get wind power working, then every meal is by candlelight. The second question concerns the behavior of other countries - unless there is a real global commitment to the Green project, than Green Canada may find that it gets the double whammy of climate change and economic sacrifice, thanks to the Texan refusal to ditch their SUVs. Jerks.
Elizabeth May wants Canada to resemble: Tofino BC, but with thirty million people
Best-case scenario: Norway, but with jam bands instead of alcoholism
Worst-case scenario: Medieval Scotland, complete with witch trials (though they will be trials by, rather than of, witches)
Her plan for the economic crisis: She won't be Prime Minister, so she doesn't need one.
Likelihood of success: 0% Let's be real.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
What the Parties Want - Liberals
Stephane Dion is a committed and noble Canadian - he deserves great respect for his job of promoting federalism in Quebec after the last referendum. He went around the province debunking the cherished myth that Canada takes more away from Quebec than the province gets back in benefits, and his Clarity Act has severely dampened the chances of a Yes victory in another referendum. That said, he is a lousy politician, in English at least (he apparently swept the floor with the competition in the French debate). Still, the election tide has turned to his favor - the economic crisis in the US seems to have caught Harper by surprise and, as an ideological free marketeer, he cannot wrap his head around it, let alone come up with a government intervention plan (gasp! the socialism!) to try to lessen the destructive effects of the crisis. As a result, the door to the premiership has opened a picometer for him - what will he do if he can sneak through?
Jean Chretien, but with much better French
Stephane Dion has one big idea - the Green Shift - which he lifted from the Green Party. According to this program, the overall rate of taxation would remain the same - you would get a fat tax cut on your income (if you work) or on your profits (if you're a business) but taxes on pollution would be sharply raised to make up the lost revenue. Thus productive behavior (working your job, increasing the profitability of your business) would be rewarded and bad behavior (emitting carbon) would be punished. You pay for what you burn, not on what you earn. For consumers, this is actually a much sweeter deal than has been made out - since you can control your carbon output (by biking to work, or heating your house less, or not flying, or cooling your house less) you can probably capture significant tax gains as a result of this scheme. From the business side, it produces significant incentives for working in clean activities, and this would, the argument goes, encourage the type of green business which will supply Canadians with the jobs and the investment opportunities of the future.
That is the one big policy item. The rest of the Liberal agenda represents continuity with the past and not a break from it. The social safety net will be made more robust and progressive, with catastrophic pharma care, the construction of social housing units, and more government-sponsored child care options. Support for culture will remain intact, budget conditions permitting, and the commitment to promoting Canadian culture will be treated as sacrosanct. Political correctness will return in full flower - expect a lot of rhetoric concerning women's equality and a revival of the Kelowna Accord. The Liberals have a long tradition of deploying the resources of the state towards achieving cultural change and progressive economic goals. Dion will reinvigorate this tendency - expect state resources and activism to be visible in poor communities and on distant First Nations reserves. This may sound nice, but this will all be expensive. Harper would give you tax cuts - Dion is unlikely to raise your taxes, but you won't be getting a cent back unless its an election year and the Liberals are five points behind. Also, while programs will be generous, that doesn't mean they will be at all effective. Conditions will be set for significant waste, and there is always the possibility of some late-term corruption, not by Dion himself but some of the party hacks in safe ridings. Finally, although the Green Shift is absolutely sound economic and environmental policy, there will be an adjustment period that may be very harsh for some sectors. Big consumers of energy and big polluters abound in Canada's resource industry, and those are the sorts of operations where efficiencies can be achieved by only to a limited extent - the petrochemical business works with petrochemicals, after all. Expect those industries - and the regions that house them - to take a big hit, while industries that are already clean and those that can retool in ways to lower emissions will be big winners. Effectively, this translates to Alberta and the resource towns taking a hit to increase the competitiveness of the big cities and manufacturing regions. Mind you, from an Ontario Liberal's perspective, this may not be a bad thing. Also, carbon costs will fall unevenly across lifestyle activities. Your idea of fun riding your bike down the West Coast trail? Congratulations, you've just saved enough money to buy organic produce for a year. You like snowmobiling or motor boating? Guess you're just gonna have to learn to live with paying for that hippie's organic beets.
Stephane Dion wants Canada to be like: Canada, but more so
Best case scenario: Sweden
Worst case scenario: Jimmy Carter's America
What he'll do about the crisis: Hold a meeting. If necessary, he may go as far as to offer relief to retirees, less likely to mortgage holders.
Chance of success: 20% He's just not that electable.
Jean Chretien, but with much better French
Stephane Dion has one big idea - the Green Shift - which he lifted from the Green Party. According to this program, the overall rate of taxation would remain the same - you would get a fat tax cut on your income (if you work) or on your profits (if you're a business) but taxes on pollution would be sharply raised to make up the lost revenue. Thus productive behavior (working your job, increasing the profitability of your business) would be rewarded and bad behavior (emitting carbon) would be punished. You pay for what you burn, not on what you earn. For consumers, this is actually a much sweeter deal than has been made out - since you can control your carbon output (by biking to work, or heating your house less, or not flying, or cooling your house less) you can probably capture significant tax gains as a result of this scheme. From the business side, it produces significant incentives for working in clean activities, and this would, the argument goes, encourage the type of green business which will supply Canadians with the jobs and the investment opportunities of the future.
That is the one big policy item. The rest of the Liberal agenda represents continuity with the past and not a break from it. The social safety net will be made more robust and progressive, with catastrophic pharma care, the construction of social housing units, and more government-sponsored child care options. Support for culture will remain intact, budget conditions permitting, and the commitment to promoting Canadian culture will be treated as sacrosanct. Political correctness will return in full flower - expect a lot of rhetoric concerning women's equality and a revival of the Kelowna Accord. The Liberals have a long tradition of deploying the resources of the state towards achieving cultural change and progressive economic goals. Dion will reinvigorate this tendency - expect state resources and activism to be visible in poor communities and on distant First Nations reserves. This may sound nice, but this will all be expensive. Harper would give you tax cuts - Dion is unlikely to raise your taxes, but you won't be getting a cent back unless its an election year and the Liberals are five points behind. Also, while programs will be generous, that doesn't mean they will be at all effective. Conditions will be set for significant waste, and there is always the possibility of some late-term corruption, not by Dion himself but some of the party hacks in safe ridings. Finally, although the Green Shift is absolutely sound economic and environmental policy, there will be an adjustment period that may be very harsh for some sectors. Big consumers of energy and big polluters abound in Canada's resource industry, and those are the sorts of operations where efficiencies can be achieved by only to a limited extent - the petrochemical business works with petrochemicals, after all. Expect those industries - and the regions that house them - to take a big hit, while industries that are already clean and those that can retool in ways to lower emissions will be big winners. Effectively, this translates to Alberta and the resource towns taking a hit to increase the competitiveness of the big cities and manufacturing regions. Mind you, from an Ontario Liberal's perspective, this may not be a bad thing. Also, carbon costs will fall unevenly across lifestyle activities. Your idea of fun riding your bike down the West Coast trail? Congratulations, you've just saved enough money to buy organic produce for a year. You like snowmobiling or motor boating? Guess you're just gonna have to learn to live with paying for that hippie's organic beets.
Stephane Dion wants Canada to be like: Canada, but more so
Best case scenario: Sweden
Worst case scenario: Jimmy Carter's America
What he'll do about the crisis: Hold a meeting. If necessary, he may go as far as to offer relief to retirees, less likely to mortgage holders.
Chance of success: 20% He's just not that electable.
What the Parties Want - Conservatives
Stephen Harper is an extremely cautious politician. Since becoming Prime Minister, he has been careful to steer a middle course, avoiding radical change and instead operating on the margins to make the institutions and the programs that Canadians support work more efficiently, more effectively and more honestly after the debacle of the Paul Martin premiership. On his watch, Canada experienced good economic times, letting him make some popular, conservative moves such as reducing the GST - as a result, he has developed a reputation as an effective administrator, an economic wonk and reducer of taxes. This situated him very well electorally, as it was meant to do, and he capitalized on the opportunity provided by the weakness and instability of the Dion Liberals to call an election, pressing his advantage and making a play for a majority government, the ultimate political goal of his premiership. He wants that majority badly - he broke his own electoral law to get it. We should ask ourselves - what would he do with it?
Shrink the State, Grow the Economy, Cultivate the Individual
Stephen Harper is not a Tory. The Progressive Conservative Party (note the adjective) had reconciled itself to the welfare state and looked favorably on the ineffective but colorful political institutions left over by the British - the unelected Senate, the Governor General, etc. They were a party of the Eastern Canadian Elite, slightly more pro-business and pro-American than the Liberals, but sharing much of that party's outlook. Stephen Harper is not this kind of Conservative.
He believes that in the decades after World War Two Canada lost its way. It sacrificed the freedom of its economy and the self-reliance of its citizenry, preferring to be coddled by a powerful and more-than-slightly-corrupt welfare state. As a result, the country has developed a "can't do" attitude, where the government is the first place (not the last place) the public turns to for help and leadership, and individuals are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. This mentality and the smothering system of social support that cultivates it is the cause of Canada's persistant economic underpreformance, and Stephen Harper wants to end that.
He wants to reintroduce Canadians to the exhilarating freedom and opportunity of the market. It is in the market where people are free, free to select for themselves what they value (instead of having the CBC pick their music and tv shows for them), free to test themselves, free to succeed (and to fail). The market is the source for innovating, for growth and for dynamism, and Stephen Harper is confident that once Canadians are reintroduced to it, they will fall in love with it, since it will allow Canadians to achieve - through hard work, discipline and competitive pressure - their true potential. It will also liberate the productive Canadians from the burden of carrying those unwilling to work - even if you're reluctant, the market will find a use for you, though it may not be one you like. And it will reward those with the vision, the drive and the motivation to succeed.
Stephen Harper will cut your taxes. He will let you pick if you want to go to a private clinic or a public hospital. He will encourage provinces to give parents choice in where they educate their children. He will cut funding to the arts - not because he is a barbarian, but because he believes that real, valuable art will have no trouble finding sponsors and buyers in the private sector. He will hold people personally responsible for the mistakes they make - economically, by reducing welfare payments (those tax cuts don't pay for themselves) and by increasing criminal sentences. For the environment, he will do as little as possible - if people care about environmental issues, they should use their freedom as consumers to encourage green behavior by buying only from green companies, and those that don't care about the environment shouldn't have to shoulder costs for a cause they don't believe in. Very little will be done for First Nations - the Kelowna Accord is expensive, and aboriginal Canadians need to take responsibility for their own communities, which won't happen if they keep getting hand outs from the government. Quebec will be dealt with through greater decentralization, which will also let the provinces develop their own development agendas. Under Harper, the state will gradually give up a leadership role in Canadian culture and society - issues of value, identity and inclusion are matters for communities and individuals, not the stuff of public policy. As for foreign affairs, he likes America, dislikes Europe and doesn't care about the rest.
He hopes that these reforms - shrinking the role of the state, increasing business opportunities through lower taxes and fewer regulations, encouraging personal responsibility - will have very beneficial effects for Canada. Without the drag of taxes and regulations, companies in Canada (both Canadian and foreign) will take advantage of Canada's talented work force and abundant resources and a boom will result. There will be winners and losers - some provinces (looking at you Ontario) will refuse to get with the program and keep social outlays too high and discourage investment. Others (way to go Alberta!) will create the free market conditions for unparlleled growth, creating jobs and generating wealth. This wealth - kept in the hands of workers and investors thanks to the low taxes - will let people afford to make social welfare provisions (education, healthcare) for themselves, so they'll hardly notice the cuts to the social safety net. Without a paternalistic government telling people what to do - and an elite media telling them what to think - culture will actually reflect what people want, and not what they are told to want. More Shania Twain, less whatever they play on CBC radio three. You will also finally have the opportunity to avoid the hegemony of political correctness, and social conservatives will be able to live in their own communities according to their own values without worrying about whether their kids are being taught a pro-gay agenda in school or through the CBC. This new economic, social and cultural reality will create a new Canadian, more self-reliant, more self-confident, willing to take responsibility for himself and unwilling to should the burden of the lazy.
That is what he wants for this country, which he described as "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the word." He wants Canadians to cut the apron strings to big government, and achieve their full potential while being free to enjoy the fruits of their own hard work.
Stephen Harper wants Canada to resemble: Ralph Klein's Alberta
Best case scenario: Ireland (deregulated economy, boom times, but still strong cultural unity and a reasonable social safety net)
Worst case scenario: George Bush's America
What will he do about the crisis: As little as possible. Let the market sort it out - government just screws things up. If absolutely necessary, everyone gets a stimulus check.
Likelihood he gets his way: 45% before the crash, 10% now
Shrink the State, Grow the Economy, Cultivate the Individual
Stephen Harper is not a Tory. The Progressive Conservative Party (note the adjective) had reconciled itself to the welfare state and looked favorably on the ineffective but colorful political institutions left over by the British - the unelected Senate, the Governor General, etc. They were a party of the Eastern Canadian Elite, slightly more pro-business and pro-American than the Liberals, but sharing much of that party's outlook. Stephen Harper is not this kind of Conservative.
He believes that in the decades after World War Two Canada lost its way. It sacrificed the freedom of its economy and the self-reliance of its citizenry, preferring to be coddled by a powerful and more-than-slightly-corrupt welfare state. As a result, the country has developed a "can't do" attitude, where the government is the first place (not the last place) the public turns to for help and leadership, and individuals are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. This mentality and the smothering system of social support that cultivates it is the cause of Canada's persistant economic underpreformance, and Stephen Harper wants to end that.
He wants to reintroduce Canadians to the exhilarating freedom and opportunity of the market. It is in the market where people are free, free to select for themselves what they value (instead of having the CBC pick their music and tv shows for them), free to test themselves, free to succeed (and to fail). The market is the source for innovating, for growth and for dynamism, and Stephen Harper is confident that once Canadians are reintroduced to it, they will fall in love with it, since it will allow Canadians to achieve - through hard work, discipline and competitive pressure - their true potential. It will also liberate the productive Canadians from the burden of carrying those unwilling to work - even if you're reluctant, the market will find a use for you, though it may not be one you like. And it will reward those with the vision, the drive and the motivation to succeed.
Stephen Harper will cut your taxes. He will let you pick if you want to go to a private clinic or a public hospital. He will encourage provinces to give parents choice in where they educate their children. He will cut funding to the arts - not because he is a barbarian, but because he believes that real, valuable art will have no trouble finding sponsors and buyers in the private sector. He will hold people personally responsible for the mistakes they make - economically, by reducing welfare payments (those tax cuts don't pay for themselves) and by increasing criminal sentences. For the environment, he will do as little as possible - if people care about environmental issues, they should use their freedom as consumers to encourage green behavior by buying only from green companies, and those that don't care about the environment shouldn't have to shoulder costs for a cause they don't believe in. Very little will be done for First Nations - the Kelowna Accord is expensive, and aboriginal Canadians need to take responsibility for their own communities, which won't happen if they keep getting hand outs from the government. Quebec will be dealt with through greater decentralization, which will also let the provinces develop their own development agendas. Under Harper, the state will gradually give up a leadership role in Canadian culture and society - issues of value, identity and inclusion are matters for communities and individuals, not the stuff of public policy. As for foreign affairs, he likes America, dislikes Europe and doesn't care about the rest.
He hopes that these reforms - shrinking the role of the state, increasing business opportunities through lower taxes and fewer regulations, encouraging personal responsibility - will have very beneficial effects for Canada. Without the drag of taxes and regulations, companies in Canada (both Canadian and foreign) will take advantage of Canada's talented work force and abundant resources and a boom will result. There will be winners and losers - some provinces (looking at you Ontario) will refuse to get with the program and keep social outlays too high and discourage investment. Others (way to go Alberta!) will create the free market conditions for unparlleled growth, creating jobs and generating wealth. This wealth - kept in the hands of workers and investors thanks to the low taxes - will let people afford to make social welfare provisions (education, healthcare) for themselves, so they'll hardly notice the cuts to the social safety net. Without a paternalistic government telling people what to do - and an elite media telling them what to think - culture will actually reflect what people want, and not what they are told to want. More Shania Twain, less whatever they play on CBC radio three. You will also finally have the opportunity to avoid the hegemony of political correctness, and social conservatives will be able to live in their own communities according to their own values without worrying about whether their kids are being taught a pro-gay agenda in school or through the CBC. This new economic, social and cultural reality will create a new Canadian, more self-reliant, more self-confident, willing to take responsibility for himself and unwilling to should the burden of the lazy.
That is what he wants for this country, which he described as "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the word." He wants Canadians to cut the apron strings to big government, and achieve their full potential while being free to enjoy the fruits of their own hard work.
Stephen Harper wants Canada to resemble: Ralph Klein's Alberta
Best case scenario: Ireland (deregulated economy, boom times, but still strong cultural unity and a reasonable social safety net)
Worst case scenario: George Bush's America
What will he do about the crisis: As little as possible. Let the market sort it out - government just screws things up. If absolutely necessary, everyone gets a stimulus check.
Likelihood he gets his way: 45% before the crash, 10% now
What the Parties Want - Introduction
Gentle reader,
I have been following the election closely, obsessively, like a stalker whose restraining order has just expired. I've watched the debates, I've read speeches, examined countless minutes of youtube video and innumerable column inches of journalistic commentary. In order to justify to myself that I haven't just thrown away two weeks of my life, I've set up these posts to try to share some of my hard-won insights into this collective mess that we call an election. The leaders have talked about issues ad nauseum, and we've heard more about the Green Shift and Stephen Harper's sweater than any of us ever wanted to. I'll try to do something different in the following posts - go party by party and describe their agenda for Canada, the ways in which they want to transform this country and its people. This is something that political leaders tend to keep hidden from the public, and may be a way in which I can introduce something new to the discussion. I have tried to be fair and found that impossible, so I've settled for being even-handed. I have likewise tried to be careful with my prose and my spelling, but it may not be perfect - my proofreader took the weekend off and also doesn't exist.
I have been following the election closely, obsessively, like a stalker whose restraining order has just expired. I've watched the debates, I've read speeches, examined countless minutes of youtube video and innumerable column inches of journalistic commentary. In order to justify to myself that I haven't just thrown away two weeks of my life, I've set up these posts to try to share some of my hard-won insights into this collective mess that we call an election. The leaders have talked about issues ad nauseum, and we've heard more about the Green Shift and Stephen Harper's sweater than any of us ever wanted to. I'll try to do something different in the following posts - go party by party and describe their agenda for Canada, the ways in which they want to transform this country and its people. This is something that political leaders tend to keep hidden from the public, and may be a way in which I can introduce something new to the discussion. I have tried to be fair and found that impossible, so I've settled for being even-handed. I have likewise tried to be careful with my prose and my spelling, but it may not be perfect - my proofreader took the weekend off and also doesn't exist.
The Canadian Consensus - As I Understand It
Having spent entirely too much time in the United States, I fear that I may have developed a somewhat simplistic - and perhaps overly optimistic - opinion on the mainstream of Canadian politics. From across the border, Canada looks like a left-wing fantasia - gay marriage, medicinal marijuana, free health care, popular multiculturalism and the CBC. While the story is much more nuanced than that, these institutions - and Canada's distinctiveness from the United States - do rest on a set of widely-shared values that have emerged from the post-war experience of politics, what I call the Canadian Consensus. I've listed what I consider to be the key elements of that consensus below - I'm very curious to hear what people who haven't spent the last eight years stateside think. Am I off base? Out of touch? Let me know.
The Canadian Consensus
1. Respect Quebec
Quebec is one of the founding provinces of Canada, and has an unassailable claim to Canadianess. The coexistence of French and English speaking communities is one of the defining elements of the Canadian national identity, and the contribution of Quebecois and, more broadly, francophone Canadians is great and appropriate to recognize. That said, francophone Quebecois have an ambiguous attitude towards Canada - some strongly identify with it (Stephane Dion, for example, whose thankless job under Chretien was to go around Quebec debunking the myth that Quebec pays more in taxes than it receives in benefits, and then going on to draft the Clarity Act. This probably cost him some friends) and many consider Canada to merely be the latest, nicest form of anglo domination that began with the Plains of Abraham, and feel a sense of patriotic obligation to shrug off this final form of oppression and finally create an independent Quebec. When this project is pursued through democratic channels, it is granted legal protection and social toleration (Giles Duceppe gets to sit in Parliament. Hell, he even gets invited to debates at the CBC), and when it relies on violence (as in the FLQ attacks in the 1970s) it gets put down with violence.
Canadians have responded to Quebec separatism, which amounts to an existential threat to the survival of the country, primarily by reasoned - if sometimes impassioned - debate and accommodation with every identity aspiration of Quebec short of secession. Or at least that has been the response of the political class. On a popular level, especially in Western Canada, there is some grumbling about Quebec and right-wing resentment of the political recognition of cultural rights (which, from a strict conservative position, should be settled entirely through private practices and supported by private contributions), but this has been, remarkably, marginal. The vast majority of anglophone Canadians have an attitude towards Quebec that ranges from benign indifference to outright affection, even those who have spent very little time in la belle province. Official bilingualism is uncontroversial and for many a source of pride in Canadian pluralism, and the official promotion of francophone culture (alongside programs for the arts in general) is likewise unproblematic. And anglophone Canadians seem to have no problem voting for francophone Quebec politicians to lead the country, and even turned out to watch the ultimate valentine to anglo-franco coexistence, Bon Cop Bad Cop, as entertaining as it was socially valuable. I've seen it twice - once for franco and once for anglo Canada.
2. Include Everyone
Not unrelated to the project of harmonizing anglo-franco and Rest of Canada-Quebec relations has been the Canadian embrace of official multiculturalism. Canada is a nation of immigrants, many (including the author) relatively recent ones with strangely-spelled last names or duskier complexions. Assimilation - the melting-pot approach favored by the United States - was too problematic for Canada. Not only is the relative proportion of immigrants much greater in Canada than in the United States, there is also the thorny question of which culture to assimilate them too - should new immigrants be socialized as anglo or franco Canadians? Instead a multicultural policy was adopted, in which immigrants were not expected to suppress their original cultural identities in the process of becoming Canadian. The upshot is that immigrant communities both feel at home and can choose how far they wish to assimilate - do I keep my impractical surname? Which language do I speak at home? How much of the old country do I want to give up? In practice these are always personal questions, but Canadian multiculturalism makes a point of publicly accepting any answer to those questions - great efforts are made to present culturally diverse personalities and arts in the public media, and the symbolic offices left over from the British Empire (the Governor-Generalship, etc.) are used to visibly include new Canadians into public life. A special mention should be made here of Little Mosque on the Prairie, a popular Canadian sitcom combining two of Canada's most misunderstood and cultural distinct communities -Prairie people and Muslims. The shows humor and story lines are the stuff of conventional family sitcoms - predictable, slightly corny, but remarkably easy to identify with. The juxtaposition of Islamic cultural practices with a downright wholesome small-town story presents a community which, since 9/11, has been seen as threatening and alien as likable, down-to-earth, reassuringly like us. If white Canadians are willing to watch such a show in numbers large enough to make it commercially viable, that suggests that multiculturalism has healthy roots in this society.
The same tactics have also been used to give women a more visible role in public life (such as the Liberal Party's goal of having one third of its Parliamentary candidates be women, or the careful gender balancing on the Supreme Court, or, once again, the office of the Governor General), with fairly credible results - certainly in some corners of Canadian society sexism exists, but the society at large gives equal credence to male and female leaders, and the opportunities for advancement to roles of high responsibility are very real for women in Canada.
Most recently, aboriginal peoples have been included in these efforts. The visibility of aboriginal culture in Canada has increased dramatically, largely due to resources provided by the state (Atanarjuat, for instance, received substantial support from various state agencies) although also in commercial media (as in Corner Gas). Further, recently a number of moves by political leaders have sought to improve relations and begin to settle the moral debt to Canada's aboriginal peoples - Stephen Harper's apology for the residential school system and the now-shelved Kelowna Accord being the most prominent examples.
The Canadian identity has never been an exacting one, making it relatively easy to expand the circle of social inclusion to culturally diverse communities. In doing this, the state has played a key role - and Canadians, by and large, are satisfied with the policies and pleased with the results.
3. Support Culture
One of the most significant legacies of British rule has been the creation and the continued strength and relevance of the CBC. Between hockey, news and cultural programming, the CBC - as an independent, publicly-funded institution, insulated from both direct political control and the lowest-common-denominator pressures of the competitive marketplace. CBC radio, chimerical free and available coast-to-coast in French and English, goes even further in promoting often overlooked elements of Canadian culture and delivering thoughtful news coverage. Apart from these venerable institutions, the National Film Board supports Canadian cinema and maintains a remarkable tradition in film animation, and the Canada Council provides support for individual artists. These programs all enjoy real public support - in the current campaign, one of the few missteps by an ever-cautious Conservative party was the introduction of cutbacks to arts funding, which compromised their standing in the polls and invited harsh criticism from all four opposition parties as well as significant social elements, especially in Quebec. Partly out of a fear of cultural domination by the United States, partly out of a sense of pride in the cultural achievements of Canadian artists, and partly because they very much enjoy watching or listening to the CBC, Canadians are broadly supportive of public funding for culture.
4. Stay out of the Bedroom
In the United States especially, Canadians enjoy a reputation as something of a libertine people, who have been far more accepting of gays and lesbians than Americans, and who display a refreshingly enlightened attitude towards marijuana. San Franciscans especially like to fantasizes about this country, imagining a society of bicurious, perpetually stoned Arcade Fire fans biking to and from the organic co-op. This is mistaken - the Canadian toleration of a hedonistic, Californian lifestyle should not be confused with an embrace of such a lifestyle as something to necessarily strive for. In terms of the sort of lives they lead, many Canadians are perfectly wholesome family people. One even finds personally conservative, firmly committed Christians leading lives of Ned Flanders style virtuous perfection. Also, rednecks. The wholesome (whether religious or not) represent a significant part of the Canadian population, perhaps even (gaps!) a majority. The reason that the society as a whole seems more libertine is because the wholesome have been convinced that wholesomeness is a personal choice and commitment, and should not be legislated upon the sketchy. This live-and-let-live attitude may have something to do with multiculturalism and franco-anlgo coexistence or maybe just the result of the more mellow form of Christianity which typified traditional Canadian culture (as opposed to New England Puritanism or the enthusiasm of the Great Awakening). Whatever it is, Canadians are content to allow individuals to look after their own moral well-being. Interestingly enough, when it comes to tobacco, the toleration reaches its end and the smug sanctimony begins. But that's a topic for another post.
5. Make Money, but not too Much, and Share it around
Canada has a socialist party - the NDP - which is generally well regarded, largely for the role it played in introducing universal health care. That said, the economic program of socialism - state control over the means of production, the restriction or elimination of private property - is a complete non-starter in Canada, whose economic model has consistently matched that of the other capitalist states of the West. In the post-War period, when even Nixon was a Keynesian, Canada had a mixed economy with some elements of planning. In the 1980s and early 1990s when economies were deregulating and welfare states retrenching, Canada followed the lead of the US and Western European countries and likewise liberalized its economy, albeit never to the same extent as the American. In the Keynesian heyday, for instance, Canada developed a much more significant welfare state, with more generous income provisions, relatively high quality public education, publicly funded mass universities and universal health care provision. All of these proved very popular among Canadians, and though health and education did experience funding cuts in the 1990s (as they did throughout the West), the brunt of the budget cuts befell the Canadian military, which was effectively disarmed under Jean Chretien (given the choice between guns and hospitals, Canadians felt he made the right one and reelected him twice). Canadians have nothing against business or the marketplace, and they very much like private property, but certain types of services are thought of as too sensitive to entrust to the profit motive, education and healthcare being the most important. The main reason for this has to do with a sense of Canadian egalitarianism which rebels at the idea of an essential service being apportioned by price - regardless of the efficiency arguments that may be mustered, there is a moral disgust at the thought of two-tier healthcare, or the exclusion of students from adequate education based on the inability to pay of their parents. In healthcare especially, everyone is not only entitled to a minimum of care, they are entitled equal care - when it comes to questions of life and death, wealth is not a measure of desert.
Which brings me to a broader point - Canadians are more skeptical of the claims that market success equals merit than are Americans, and are thus much less willing to tolerate the inequality of the very rich. Similarly, market failure in Canada is not the mark of disgrace that it is in the United States, and thus those who can't make ends meet through regular employment are not begrudged a boost from the federal dole. To be sure, there are significant disputes over the economic details of the Canadian welfare state and productive economy, but they fall within very sharp boundaries - no one on the left calls for large scale nationalization of industry, and no one on the right dare do more than nibble at the edges of the social safety net.
These five elements, as best as I can gather, represent the general area of agreement of the Canadian public. This is a slightly leftish set of values, I admit, but then the Conservatives have never polled over 38% Canada-wide, and have since slipped considerably, suggesting that the average Canadian is somewhere to the left of that particular perspective (and, given 18% NDP support, some are very far to the left). This is the set of values that Canadians have chosen for themselves over the last fifty years. In this election, and perhaps in the next one, we will see if they don't start selecting different ones for the next fifty.
The Canadian Consensus
1. Respect Quebec
Quebec is one of the founding provinces of Canada, and has an unassailable claim to Canadianess. The coexistence of French and English speaking communities is one of the defining elements of the Canadian national identity, and the contribution of Quebecois and, more broadly, francophone Canadians is great and appropriate to recognize. That said, francophone Quebecois have an ambiguous attitude towards Canada - some strongly identify with it (Stephane Dion, for example, whose thankless job under Chretien was to go around Quebec debunking the myth that Quebec pays more in taxes than it receives in benefits, and then going on to draft the Clarity Act. This probably cost him some friends) and many consider Canada to merely be the latest, nicest form of anglo domination that began with the Plains of Abraham, and feel a sense of patriotic obligation to shrug off this final form of oppression and finally create an independent Quebec. When this project is pursued through democratic channels, it is granted legal protection and social toleration (Giles Duceppe gets to sit in Parliament. Hell, he even gets invited to debates at the CBC), and when it relies on violence (as in the FLQ attacks in the 1970s) it gets put down with violence.
Canadians have responded to Quebec separatism, which amounts to an existential threat to the survival of the country, primarily by reasoned - if sometimes impassioned - debate and accommodation with every identity aspiration of Quebec short of secession. Or at least that has been the response of the political class. On a popular level, especially in Western Canada, there is some grumbling about Quebec and right-wing resentment of the political recognition of cultural rights (which, from a strict conservative position, should be settled entirely through private practices and supported by private contributions), but this has been, remarkably, marginal. The vast majority of anglophone Canadians have an attitude towards Quebec that ranges from benign indifference to outright affection, even those who have spent very little time in la belle province. Official bilingualism is uncontroversial and for many a source of pride in Canadian pluralism, and the official promotion of francophone culture (alongside programs for the arts in general) is likewise unproblematic. And anglophone Canadians seem to have no problem voting for francophone Quebec politicians to lead the country, and even turned out to watch the ultimate valentine to anglo-franco coexistence, Bon Cop Bad Cop, as entertaining as it was socially valuable. I've seen it twice - once for franco and once for anglo Canada.
2. Include Everyone
Not unrelated to the project of harmonizing anglo-franco and Rest of Canada-Quebec relations has been the Canadian embrace of official multiculturalism. Canada is a nation of immigrants, many (including the author) relatively recent ones with strangely-spelled last names or duskier complexions. Assimilation - the melting-pot approach favored by the United States - was too problematic for Canada. Not only is the relative proportion of immigrants much greater in Canada than in the United States, there is also the thorny question of which culture to assimilate them too - should new immigrants be socialized as anglo or franco Canadians? Instead a multicultural policy was adopted, in which immigrants were not expected to suppress their original cultural identities in the process of becoming Canadian. The upshot is that immigrant communities both feel at home and can choose how far they wish to assimilate - do I keep my impractical surname? Which language do I speak at home? How much of the old country do I want to give up? In practice these are always personal questions, but Canadian multiculturalism makes a point of publicly accepting any answer to those questions - great efforts are made to present culturally diverse personalities and arts in the public media, and the symbolic offices left over from the British Empire (the Governor-Generalship, etc.) are used to visibly include new Canadians into public life. A special mention should be made here of Little Mosque on the Prairie, a popular Canadian sitcom combining two of Canada's most misunderstood and cultural distinct communities -Prairie people and Muslims. The shows humor and story lines are the stuff of conventional family sitcoms - predictable, slightly corny, but remarkably easy to identify with. The juxtaposition of Islamic cultural practices with a downright wholesome small-town story presents a community which, since 9/11, has been seen as threatening and alien as likable, down-to-earth, reassuringly like us. If white Canadians are willing to watch such a show in numbers large enough to make it commercially viable, that suggests that multiculturalism has healthy roots in this society.
The same tactics have also been used to give women a more visible role in public life (such as the Liberal Party's goal of having one third of its Parliamentary candidates be women, or the careful gender balancing on the Supreme Court, or, once again, the office of the Governor General), with fairly credible results - certainly in some corners of Canadian society sexism exists, but the society at large gives equal credence to male and female leaders, and the opportunities for advancement to roles of high responsibility are very real for women in Canada.
Most recently, aboriginal peoples have been included in these efforts. The visibility of aboriginal culture in Canada has increased dramatically, largely due to resources provided by the state (Atanarjuat, for instance, received substantial support from various state agencies) although also in commercial media (as in Corner Gas). Further, recently a number of moves by political leaders have sought to improve relations and begin to settle the moral debt to Canada's aboriginal peoples - Stephen Harper's apology for the residential school system and the now-shelved Kelowna Accord being the most prominent examples.
The Canadian identity has never been an exacting one, making it relatively easy to expand the circle of social inclusion to culturally diverse communities. In doing this, the state has played a key role - and Canadians, by and large, are satisfied with the policies and pleased with the results.
3. Support Culture
One of the most significant legacies of British rule has been the creation and the continued strength and relevance of the CBC. Between hockey, news and cultural programming, the CBC - as an independent, publicly-funded institution, insulated from both direct political control and the lowest-common-denominator pressures of the competitive marketplace. CBC radio, chimerical free and available coast-to-coast in French and English, goes even further in promoting often overlooked elements of Canadian culture and delivering thoughtful news coverage. Apart from these venerable institutions, the National Film Board supports Canadian cinema and maintains a remarkable tradition in film animation, and the Canada Council provides support for individual artists. These programs all enjoy real public support - in the current campaign, one of the few missteps by an ever-cautious Conservative party was the introduction of cutbacks to arts funding, which compromised their standing in the polls and invited harsh criticism from all four opposition parties as well as significant social elements, especially in Quebec. Partly out of a fear of cultural domination by the United States, partly out of a sense of pride in the cultural achievements of Canadian artists, and partly because they very much enjoy watching or listening to the CBC, Canadians are broadly supportive of public funding for culture.
4. Stay out of the Bedroom
In the United States especially, Canadians enjoy a reputation as something of a libertine people, who have been far more accepting of gays and lesbians than Americans, and who display a refreshingly enlightened attitude towards marijuana. San Franciscans especially like to fantasizes about this country, imagining a society of bicurious, perpetually stoned Arcade Fire fans biking to and from the organic co-op. This is mistaken - the Canadian toleration of a hedonistic, Californian lifestyle should not be confused with an embrace of such a lifestyle as something to necessarily strive for. In terms of the sort of lives they lead, many Canadians are perfectly wholesome family people. One even finds personally conservative, firmly committed Christians leading lives of Ned Flanders style virtuous perfection. Also, rednecks. The wholesome (whether religious or not) represent a significant part of the Canadian population, perhaps even (gaps!) a majority. The reason that the society as a whole seems more libertine is because the wholesome have been convinced that wholesomeness is a personal choice and commitment, and should not be legislated upon the sketchy. This live-and-let-live attitude may have something to do with multiculturalism and franco-anlgo coexistence or maybe just the result of the more mellow form of Christianity which typified traditional Canadian culture (as opposed to New England Puritanism or the enthusiasm of the Great Awakening). Whatever it is, Canadians are content to allow individuals to look after their own moral well-being. Interestingly enough, when it comes to tobacco, the toleration reaches its end and the smug sanctimony begins. But that's a topic for another post.
5. Make Money, but not too Much, and Share it around
Canada has a socialist party - the NDP - which is generally well regarded, largely for the role it played in introducing universal health care. That said, the economic program of socialism - state control over the means of production, the restriction or elimination of private property - is a complete non-starter in Canada, whose economic model has consistently matched that of the other capitalist states of the West. In the post-War period, when even Nixon was a Keynesian, Canada had a mixed economy with some elements of planning. In the 1980s and early 1990s when economies were deregulating and welfare states retrenching, Canada followed the lead of the US and Western European countries and likewise liberalized its economy, albeit never to the same extent as the American. In the Keynesian heyday, for instance, Canada developed a much more significant welfare state, with more generous income provisions, relatively high quality public education, publicly funded mass universities and universal health care provision. All of these proved very popular among Canadians, and though health and education did experience funding cuts in the 1990s (as they did throughout the West), the brunt of the budget cuts befell the Canadian military, which was effectively disarmed under Jean Chretien (given the choice between guns and hospitals, Canadians felt he made the right one and reelected him twice). Canadians have nothing against business or the marketplace, and they very much like private property, but certain types of services are thought of as too sensitive to entrust to the profit motive, education and healthcare being the most important. The main reason for this has to do with a sense of Canadian egalitarianism which rebels at the idea of an essential service being apportioned by price - regardless of the efficiency arguments that may be mustered, there is a moral disgust at the thought of two-tier healthcare, or the exclusion of students from adequate education based on the inability to pay of their parents. In healthcare especially, everyone is not only entitled to a minimum of care, they are entitled equal care - when it comes to questions of life and death, wealth is not a measure of desert.
Which brings me to a broader point - Canadians are more skeptical of the claims that market success equals merit than are Americans, and are thus much less willing to tolerate the inequality of the very rich. Similarly, market failure in Canada is not the mark of disgrace that it is in the United States, and thus those who can't make ends meet through regular employment are not begrudged a boost from the federal dole. To be sure, there are significant disputes over the economic details of the Canadian welfare state and productive economy, but they fall within very sharp boundaries - no one on the left calls for large scale nationalization of industry, and no one on the right dare do more than nibble at the edges of the social safety net.
These five elements, as best as I can gather, represent the general area of agreement of the Canadian public. This is a slightly leftish set of values, I admit, but then the Conservatives have never polled over 38% Canada-wide, and have since slipped considerably, suggesting that the average Canadian is somewhere to the left of that particular perspective (and, given 18% NDP support, some are very far to the left). This is the set of values that Canadians have chosen for themselves over the last fifty years. In this election, and perhaps in the next one, we will see if they don't start selecting different ones for the next fifty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)