Branding in Canadian and American Politics
February 21, 2010 · By Richard Albert
It’s fascinating to try to make sense of the cultural, social and political differences that set Canadians apart from Americans.
Take politics for instance. A recent poll from Rasmussen Reports shows that Americans regard the label “conservative” more positively than the either of the two labels “liberal” or “progressive.” The conservative brand is in fact three times more appealing to the electorate than the liberal brand, and twice as appealing as the progressive brand.
I would be shocked if the same were true of Canadians.
Although the Conservative Party has been in power since 2006, I suspect that Canadians nonetheless still identify most closely with the label “liberal.”
Let me be clear on this: I am not suggesting that Canadians define themselves as members of the Liberal Party. What I am instead suggesting is that the brand of liberal resonates most intensely with Canadians, both as an ideological descriptor and as a general cultural orientation.
Two points in particular strike me as worthy of some discussion. First, why do Canadians situate themselves more comfortably in the liberal camp while Americans are more at ease in the conservative camp? And, second, how and how often do these preferences evolve?
Any thoughts from readers here at The Politic?
Simple: media indoctrination.
My thought: this would be much more interesting to think about if there were some figures to back up your suspicion.
The Politics of our neighbour to the south is much more advanced in strategy, branding and awareness. A larger investment has been made to micro-manage the outcome in comparison to ours.
We simply don’t have the tools, resources to measure the voters.
I have to agree with you on this Richard, and while I know that there aren’t any “numbers” per se to back this up, I think it can be generally agreed that when measured on the same scale, the United States leans conservative, and Canada leans liberal.
The reason, I think, has to do with our different processes of independence from Britain/France. The United States fought for their freedom. Canada negotiated.
I believe that it’s those singular events that paved the way for our different approaches to issues both within and without our borders.
As a result of winning their war of independence, the United States became an aggressive and reactive nation, seeking to ensure that they would never again be dominated by another nation. That “spirit” or “demeanor” paved the way to the United States becoming a World Power. A stunningly remarkable achievement for such a young nation and people.
Canada on the other hand, became more pacifist by nature. Knowing that Canada did not have the population, power or resources to achieve what the United States did and fearing American expansionism, Canada allied itself wholly with Britain and France and tried to stay out of the cross-hairs. Eventually world events and circumstances allowed for Canada to seek and be granted independence from Britain, which was fully formalized in 1982 with the Canada Act (Britain) and the Constitution Act (Canada). Canada has never achieved a World Power status, but our activities and performance on the world stage has granted us a measurable amount of respect and weight in world issues.
So what I think it all boils down to, is that by it’s aggressiveness and self-preservative instincts, the United States leans towards conservatism to protect itself and its values whereas Canada in it’s more diplomatic and pacifist ways leans towards a liberal attitude to preserve itself.
I’d say it has much to do our national identity being different than the Americans.
For instance, our French heritage leans more to the left than most elements in the United States.
I also think our British heritage is much more progressive than the Americans who in fact revolted against the crown on account of taxation.
Momentum; 50 years in power over the last 75 gave the Liberals an opportunity to shape the country in their own image. A dependent populace becomes self-perpetuating and then private media will follow the opinions of the majority.
This stranglehold on power gave the Liberals an opportunity to hire their own; as a bureaucrat admitted to me 90% of bureacracy votes Liberal. Though by nature they’d be more inclined to vote for a party that favours big government irregardless.
Liberal policy wasn’t always popular at the time of implementation, but as Dennis Prager said, “changes for the worse are often permanent.” as dependecy and self-image become established.
We often think of present public opinion paramount, without regard for the principles and opinions of our progenitors; and so the downgrade continues.
I suspect that Canadians nonetheless still identify most closely with the label “liberal.”
I’d say that’s becoming less true all the time, especially since we’ve been prodded awake by the fascist Human Rights Kommissars here with their abusive censorship of free speech.
However, you’d first have to describe the label “liberal” to Canadians. I believe many who call themselves “liberal” mean it in the classical sense — not today’s definition of liberal.
Also Americans have always taken strength in their Constitution — we Canadians just don’t have the backing of such a potent document (our Charter of Rights & Freedoms is a sad substitution). Of course, I recommend you fiercely defend your Constitution from those among you who seem bent on corrupting it.
Thanks for your comments. That’s one of the wonderful things about The Politic–an engaged readership.
Real Conservative: That could be a big part of it. I recall reading something precisely along the lines your raise, perhaps in Stephen Clarkson’s book about “The Big Red Machine.”
Ian: With all due respect, your comment gets us absolutely nowhere. But thank you nonetheless for your comment.
Canadiansense: What you’re getting at makes sense. Conservatives in the United States have a vast infrastructure of think tanks, leadership institutes, and other groups whose sole function is to advance conservative principles. There are some groups devoted to that in Canada, namely the Manning Centre, but they are far behind their American counterparts, both in terms of influence and experience.
Sean: This is the most compelling explanation I’ve heard or read thus far, Sean. Your interpretation of American and Canadian history makes sense, and it meshes quite nicely with your understanding of why different labels reign in each country. I recall reading something similar from Ripstein, I think, who published a book about how the revolutionary origins of both countries has determined much of their evolution since then. The argument feels a lot like an argument about path-dependence, which may or may not make sense in the context of variables like people and power. But it’s a powerful argument nevertheless. Thanks for making it so well for our readers to weigh for themselves.
RD: Fascinating. On the one hand, Canadians are more progressive than Americans. On that score, you’re right. Yet, on the other, aren’t Canadians also more traditional or deferential and less open to change than Americans? If yes, how should we understand that disconnect?
DJeffery: Interesting–when the political branches and the bureaucracy become intertwined, as you suggest they may be, the result cannot be good for the country.
Natasha: I think you’ve hit on one of the most important differences between Canada and the United States: how citizens see their constitution. While I would not characterize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms “a sad substitution,” I do think that the U.S. Constitution succeeds where the Canadian Constitution (here, I’m referring to both the Canada Act, 1867, and the Canada Act, 1982) does not. Specifically, the American Constitution creates a robust culture of citizenship that binds citizens to their state and to one another. Not so for the Canadian Constitution.
I’m late to the game, but better late than never, I suppose. :)
My thoughts fall pretty well along the lines of Natasha and Sean insomuch as Canada’s roots are quite different than the United States’.
As Sean said, Canada never really cut the umbilical cord from Mother Britain. We’ve always had a monarchy, always been subjected to high taxation, always been sold on the necessity of high taxation, and therefore always imbued a reliance on a benevolent State. In the past 50-60 years, the media have perpetuated the socialist Nanny-state mindset as Canada subjected itself to decades of neo-liberal (as opposed to classic liberal) rule. Canada now drifts so far Left that its Center is actually Left of true Center. See the governance of the CPC in the past few years if you remain in doubt.
The United States was borne of contempt for Britain and her policies, mainly taxation. Once free men got a taste of true private property, local government and local justice, they realized that the milk of Mother Britain was, in fact, quite sour and wanted no more. Though a crude analogy, the refusal to be subjects to the Crown ultimately spawned the American Constitution, which is an earth-shattering document pertaining to the inalienable rights of man. It has no equal on earth.
Because the United States broke free from Britain and created a Constitution based on freedom and inalienable rights, it put in place a framework that promotes what we describe as ‘conservative’ ideals today, though these are very well aligned with classic liberal ideals of old: small government, free markets, freedom of association, separation of powers, property rights, gun ownership rights, speech rights, etc.
In sum, Canada is much more a continuation of Britain than is America. America is its own thing, and I am so glad she is our neighbour.