Conservatism and Canada’s Regions
September 28, 2005 · By Tom Cerber
John Duffy, a Liberal strategist, has some mildly interesting reflections on the role regionalism plays in determining conservative and Conservative fortunes in Canada (as an aside, I wonder why the National Post chose a Liberal Party strategist to discuss conservatism, but maybe the Aspers owed him another favor, but I digress).
His argument can be summarized that Conservatives have done well and there’s no necessary relationship with the structure of the federation. That Quebec is socialist has little to do with it. Their biggest problem is that the Liberals are gaining hold of urban centers and the Conservatives the rural, which is a losing proposition due to shifting demographics.
Why urbans are liberal has been dealt with with exemplary precision elsewhere. But amidst Duffy’s ruminations is this worthy nugget:
More thoughtful conservatives can searchingly argue that Canada has a governing tradition, rooted in the political culture of the St. Lawrence Valley, that is based on elite accommodation via the state. Moreover, they argue, the Liberals’ stock-in-trade is broadening the definition of that tradition to where it asserts a monopoly on the indigenous values of Canadians, and brands as un-Canadian any who challenge it. There is, to be sure, some relationship between the way a country structured like Canada is bound to work and the political methods the Liberals adopt to govern it. Much of this is attitudinal: There’s something about the structure of the country and the accommodations it makes that tilts in a direction toward which people who become Liberals generally find it easier to march.
While urban liberal values plays a role, the more important factor seems to be that the Conservatives are too populist for their own good. They ignore that Canada is an oligarchy. They must work the corridors of power, from Paul Desmarais to Peter Mansbridge, if they’ll get anywhere.
Yet more evidence Canada is not a nation, but more like an imperial administration. Or call it an oligarchy, if you will.
This is good stuff.
I think you are right that Conservatives have a uphill battle because, as Duffy writes: “There’s something about the structure of the country and the accommodations it makes that tilts in a direction toward which people who become Liberals generally find it easier to march.”
Given that Conservatives have a hard time of it now, does not mean they will forevermore, should Canada remain intact. It means, and I think you will agree, that Conservatives have to change strategy. Better yet, they have to change how they think about “what Canada is” and “what Canada should be about”—how their answers here privilege them to retake federal government. Your point about being too populist for their own good and ignoring the Canadian oligarchy is well taken.
I don’t think Conservatives should despair about their future in Canada, should they know what they know about Canada, learn how their opponents see Canada, and use their imagination to articulate how their Canada is better. This is something Diefenbaker failed at (for various reasons), something Mulroney didn’t even really try because his Conservatives were quite indistinct from the Liberals.
So when it comes to whether or not Canada is a nation or an empire, heuristic question that Conservatives must now face. On the other side of it, I think Conservatives have room to move with provincial rights and decentralisation; which could potentially privilege them visa vis the Liberals on urban issues, not just rural. And this is something Conversatives would do well to see, at least right now, as a better alternative to anything else on the table (i.e. retreat to taking provincial government and breaking up the country).