I like the column but note not much was made of immigration. Do we dare go there ? Trudeau is cranking immigration to levels where some of the “grand remplacement” conspiracy theories are starting to look less crazy — and at a time when there’s a cost of living and real estate crisis, and no labour shortages. It’s been seen as un-Canadian to even go down this road for the Tories, with Harper/Kenney keen to broadcast the success of outreach during their time in power. But I can’t think of a more logical lever to get the cost of living crisis under control, to erode the voting power of the woke left and pro-CCP vote in Vancouver and Toronto, and to make inroads with alienated Bloc Québécois / Legault voters.
This is even before you confront the left with the logical fallacy of being obsessed with climate change and also backing the mass relocation of people from low-emission countries to a rich, wintry nation with necessarily high per capita emissions.
As an immigrant, I think there is a way that Conservatives can use this. They should focus on reducing immigration. But emphasize that they want to do so that, both domestic residents and Immigrants could have a better life in Canada. In addition, gaining votes from socially conservative immigrants by reaching out to them can also help.
You should show people that you are on their side, fighting alongside them for a better future.
I agree with your descriptive analysis of conservatism in Canada. As you set out really well, the alternatives seem to be lite-liberalism and Bernier-ism. Neither of these appeal to me. And I totally agree "conservatism should ... adapt and change as conditions demand."
But then I think the second half falls short. For one thing, you're not thinking big enough. GDP growth within the current system is important, but our attention should be turned to even more basic issues, like the structural flaws in the Canadian economy and the sacrifices it will take to build a new one. On this note, you do mention housing, and I agree. But coming off housing/cheap skilled labor (both driven largely by immigration) will be extremely painful, our economy will contract, and barring a miraculous oil boom it'll be a long time before concepts like "growth" are the most important. We should talk about trade-offs and ask the public to make these sacrifices with us before we are forced to. Conservatives should be talking about, say, joining and expanding the trade war, weaning ourselves off very-high levels of immigration, and building east-west infrastructure (the Trans-Canada sucks) so that Canadian regions are more connected with each other than they are with the US.
As far as culture, I don't see how you "hold the line" or "limit the spread" without a substantive alternative vision. That's the whole problem. Conservatives should be talking about why all our new buildings are horrific and promise to build beautiful buildings and cities again. They should propose building *more* statues of John A. Macdonald and other important Canadians. They should talk about restoring important norms, such as the norm against needless divorce, that have been carelessly eroded, often thanks to American influence (instead of wokeism, just call it "contemporary American ideology"). They should criticize trashy popular entertainment for being trashy and expand the CBC and use it to produce good art everyone likes and is proud of. They should talk about banning porn, or at least age-gating it, and forcing social media onto a no-ad subscription model where it can be more easily regulated. Propose heavily taxing subscriptions to US newspapers. Talk about repealing official multiculturalism, upending the uneasy Quebec settlement that nobody is satisfied with, and working toward a coherent sense of nationhood as a people. I could keep going all day. Anyway, I don't think wokeism/successor ideology/left-modernism/whatever could compete in that environment. Put the left on the defense, the way we literally never do in Canada.
People know something is deeply wrong. They are desperate for someone to say structural change is needed, here is what we must do, and we will do it.
I think Conservatives need to find a narrative. Problem is left more or less has set the narrative and unlike in past when Conservatives were setting it such as free trade, privatization, lower taxes, balanced budgets, we are now being reactive. Admittedly most conservative ideas we've either won on like free trade or we are losing on and left will say our ideas failed and we need something new. This is a challenge.
But I also think there is a real opportunity. Canadians by nature are risk averse and left is bent on radically altering society, not making tweaks where problems exist. I think there is a strong message that we cannot afford this risk and our current system by and large works. Its not perfect by any means, but trying radically different ideas that are untested may end up much worse. This may not appeal to millennials who are idealistic and like these big bold ideas that sound good on paper even if end in disaster. But could appeal to boomers who are wary of radical change. British Tories did worse amongst millennials than ours, but are winning unlike ours by winning big amongst over 50. They've done this by appealing to many Blair type Labour voters who feel Labour has swung too far left and I feel there is opportunity to here to win over many Martin/Chretien Liberals who aren't interested in a radical shift left.
I also think we need to do more to point out fallacies of left. Left is too much about idealism and perfection, not realism. On the cultural issues, they are always looking for oppression even when there is none and aim for perfection rather than understanding we are work in progress and life isn't perfect, but you strive for better. On climate change I like idea we do a mix of adaptation and mitigation. For economic issues, left has trashed neo-liberalism and I think we need to start pushing back instead of accepting their talking points.
Austerity in the past worked and is what allowed us to have more growth and be able to spend on programs we want. Free markets even if imperfect deliver far superior results to big government. Taxing the rich more is pure virtue signaling as brings in little new revenue and just makes Canada less attractive place for top talent to move to. While income inequality exists but we are not the United States here. Since 2000 it has been flat and has not skyrocketed and our income distribution is closer to Nordic Countries than US. Otherwise it is a serious American problem, but we are not US and we don't need to fix problems they have but we do not.
In sum, rather than flashy big ideas that end up being disasters, how about a focus on good governance that works and not engage in risky untested ideas. I believe that could have lots of appeal. May not be exciting, but also appeals to our risk averse nature as Canadians.
This is just Liberalism. You are embracing Classical Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism. Good luck winning like that. You just turn into the Liberal party, who is offended a bit less, with less compassion to the poor. Neo-Liberalism destroyed conservatism in Canada. If anything we have to abandon it.
Conservative party has been neo-liberal for years. Social Conservatism combined with big government doesn't sell. By contrast social moderation in support of free markets may be a tough sell at moment but can work especially as deficit gets too large and our economy slows due to excessive government.
It has been since the Mulroney days that way. That is true! But my point is, Conservatism dies in such a system. It is better to not fool the public with the "Conservative" label, and destroy the reputation of actual Conservatives. If the party wants to have the CPC label, it must at least embrace some social conservatism or some fiscally moderate pro-family social programs.
If not, then it should remove its label and name its self something like "Free Democratic Party"
For your argument that "Social Conservatism combined with big government doesn't sell."
I would need proof for that, we have yet to try such a system in modern politics in Canada. People want something different. They currently have 3 of the same options. Neo-Liberal(A), Neo-Liberal(B), Neo-Liberal(C).
They are stuck in a mindset of Neo-Liberalism. They cant think outside of that box, because they see nothing outside of that box, its just a void. I bet you, if we had a MPP system, and we created such a Christian Democratic party. We can easily within years gain at least 25% of the vote in that party, in the midst of the 3 neo-liberal parties existing.
Diefenbaker won the largest majority in Canadian political history with a Red Tory party.
In addition im not asking for "Big Government" rather just more social programs.
Lots of Canadians oppose neo-liberalism and want more social programs, but most of that group is socially progressive thus going Liberal or NDP who in case of former have largely ditched neo-liberalism and latter never embraced it. Most see conservatism as smaller government and most see liberalism as centre-left. True classical liberalism is smaller government and in Europe most liberal parties lean that way. But in North America, word liberal, is generally associated with progressivism. BC Liberals are a classical liberal party yet most see federal Liberal party as being true liberal party while BC Liberals as a conservative party masquerading as liberals.
Now I have no issue with more family friendly programs. But at same time with our huge deficits and aging population we are somewhat limited on what we can do unlike in past. In 50s, 60s, and 70s, you had a younger population so you could count on growth to pay for new programs. Today you cannot, so new programs either require higher taxes or spending cuts. With health care rising in cost, we are very limited on what type of spending cuts are feasible. While higher taxes asides taxing rich or big corporations more is political suicide and those two aren't big revenue raisers.
I mean I just think we should stop funding things we dont need to fund. The Liberals are spending money on things that we dont have to spend money on really.
But you point that <<Lots of Canadians oppose neo-liberalism and want more social programs, but most of that group is socially progressive thus going Liberal or NDP >>
I agree with this 100%. But the reason for this is that people started to associate social programs with progressive social issues. This wasnt the case back in the 20th century, because most of our left wing parties, were socially conservative.
When the SoCreds stopped existing, and the PCs went the Neo-Liberal route, and the CCF died for the new woke NDP. People could only look at those woke left wing parties. They did not see any conservative, left wing parties.
I think if you break this mold, as it was done in the 70s-80s with the old mold. Things can change. What many dont realize is that this "progressive" social values, is a return to 1st century european values. It is regression to the natural state. Just as values in the 1st century changed, so can it change now. It looks like a large task, and it is. But it can be done. Just as the country changed decades ago.
<<who in case of former have largely ditched neo-liberalism and latter never embraced it. >>
This disagrees with. The NDP and LPC are Neo-Liberal also. They are just Neo-Liberal with extra stuff sprinkled on top. Neo-Liberals can be Keynesian, many Neo-Liberals today are Keynesian.
I agree that the situation with the aging population really makes it hard for us. This is why Social Conservatism is needed. As Quebec lost its social conservatism, so did the rest of the country. The slow death of Social Conservatism lead us to this point. Birth Rates have fallen for a reason. There are no social conservative values any more, so there is no reason for most people to see having 2 kids as a good thing. As people were having less and less kids. It put us in a worse and worse situation. Now people who even want to have 2 kids, struggle to even afford 1. I mean are we really in such an ugly position that we have to think about *affording kids?*
That is a sad world to live in, the CPC(PC), LPC and NDP are all to blame for this.
I agree with the pessimism about the Conservative political movement (or at least the CPC). Is there some other venue that exists that could be used to produce and promote these kinds of policies? An Institute? Policy incubator? A political non-profit? If not, is it possible to create one?
I like the column but note not much was made of immigration. Do we dare go there ? Trudeau is cranking immigration to levels where some of the “grand remplacement” conspiracy theories are starting to look less crazy — and at a time when there’s a cost of living and real estate crisis, and no labour shortages. It’s been seen as un-Canadian to even go down this road for the Tories, with Harper/Kenney keen to broadcast the success of outreach during their time in power. But I can’t think of a more logical lever to get the cost of living crisis under control, to erode the voting power of the woke left and pro-CCP vote in Vancouver and Toronto, and to make inroads with alienated Bloc Québécois / Legault voters.
This is even before you confront the left with the logical fallacy of being obsessed with climate change and also backing the mass relocation of people from low-emission countries to a rich, wintry nation with necessarily high per capita emissions.
As an immigrant, I think there is a way that Conservatives can use this. They should focus on reducing immigration. But emphasize that they want to do so that, both domestic residents and Immigrants could have a better life in Canada. In addition, gaining votes from socially conservative immigrants by reaching out to them can also help.
You should show people that you are on their side, fighting alongside them for a better future.
I agree with your descriptive analysis of conservatism in Canada. As you set out really well, the alternatives seem to be lite-liberalism and Bernier-ism. Neither of these appeal to me. And I totally agree "conservatism should ... adapt and change as conditions demand."
But then I think the second half falls short. For one thing, you're not thinking big enough. GDP growth within the current system is important, but our attention should be turned to even more basic issues, like the structural flaws in the Canadian economy and the sacrifices it will take to build a new one. On this note, you do mention housing, and I agree. But coming off housing/cheap skilled labor (both driven largely by immigration) will be extremely painful, our economy will contract, and barring a miraculous oil boom it'll be a long time before concepts like "growth" are the most important. We should talk about trade-offs and ask the public to make these sacrifices with us before we are forced to. Conservatives should be talking about, say, joining and expanding the trade war, weaning ourselves off very-high levels of immigration, and building east-west infrastructure (the Trans-Canada sucks) so that Canadian regions are more connected with each other than they are with the US.
As far as culture, I don't see how you "hold the line" or "limit the spread" without a substantive alternative vision. That's the whole problem. Conservatives should be talking about why all our new buildings are horrific and promise to build beautiful buildings and cities again. They should propose building *more* statues of John A. Macdonald and other important Canadians. They should talk about restoring important norms, such as the norm against needless divorce, that have been carelessly eroded, often thanks to American influence (instead of wokeism, just call it "contemporary American ideology"). They should criticize trashy popular entertainment for being trashy and expand the CBC and use it to produce good art everyone likes and is proud of. They should talk about banning porn, or at least age-gating it, and forcing social media onto a no-ad subscription model where it can be more easily regulated. Propose heavily taxing subscriptions to US newspapers. Talk about repealing official multiculturalism, upending the uneasy Quebec settlement that nobody is satisfied with, and working toward a coherent sense of nationhood as a people. I could keep going all day. Anyway, I don't think wokeism/successor ideology/left-modernism/whatever could compete in that environment. Put the left on the defense, the way we literally never do in Canada.
People know something is deeply wrong. They are desperate for someone to say structural change is needed, here is what we must do, and we will do it.
What the heck dude, your 3rd paragraph is spot on. That is a perfect strategy, like 100% perfect. You should run for the CPC lol.
I think Conservatives need to find a narrative. Problem is left more or less has set the narrative and unlike in past when Conservatives were setting it such as free trade, privatization, lower taxes, balanced budgets, we are now being reactive. Admittedly most conservative ideas we've either won on like free trade or we are losing on and left will say our ideas failed and we need something new. This is a challenge.
But I also think there is a real opportunity. Canadians by nature are risk averse and left is bent on radically altering society, not making tweaks where problems exist. I think there is a strong message that we cannot afford this risk and our current system by and large works. Its not perfect by any means, but trying radically different ideas that are untested may end up much worse. This may not appeal to millennials who are idealistic and like these big bold ideas that sound good on paper even if end in disaster. But could appeal to boomers who are wary of radical change. British Tories did worse amongst millennials than ours, but are winning unlike ours by winning big amongst over 50. They've done this by appealing to many Blair type Labour voters who feel Labour has swung too far left and I feel there is opportunity to here to win over many Martin/Chretien Liberals who aren't interested in a radical shift left.
I also think we need to do more to point out fallacies of left. Left is too much about idealism and perfection, not realism. On the cultural issues, they are always looking for oppression even when there is none and aim for perfection rather than understanding we are work in progress and life isn't perfect, but you strive for better. On climate change I like idea we do a mix of adaptation and mitigation. For economic issues, left has trashed neo-liberalism and I think we need to start pushing back instead of accepting their talking points.
Austerity in the past worked and is what allowed us to have more growth and be able to spend on programs we want. Free markets even if imperfect deliver far superior results to big government. Taxing the rich more is pure virtue signaling as brings in little new revenue and just makes Canada less attractive place for top talent to move to. While income inequality exists but we are not the United States here. Since 2000 it has been flat and has not skyrocketed and our income distribution is closer to Nordic Countries than US. Otherwise it is a serious American problem, but we are not US and we don't need to fix problems they have but we do not.
In sum, rather than flashy big ideas that end up being disasters, how about a focus on good governance that works and not engage in risky untested ideas. I believe that could have lots of appeal. May not be exciting, but also appeals to our risk averse nature as Canadians.
This is just Liberalism. You are embracing Classical Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism. Good luck winning like that. You just turn into the Liberal party, who is offended a bit less, with less compassion to the poor. Neo-Liberalism destroyed conservatism in Canada. If anything we have to abandon it.
Conservative party has been neo-liberal for years. Social Conservatism combined with big government doesn't sell. By contrast social moderation in support of free markets may be a tough sell at moment but can work especially as deficit gets too large and our economy slows due to excessive government.
It has been since the Mulroney days that way. That is true! But my point is, Conservatism dies in such a system. It is better to not fool the public with the "Conservative" label, and destroy the reputation of actual Conservatives. If the party wants to have the CPC label, it must at least embrace some social conservatism or some fiscally moderate pro-family social programs.
If not, then it should remove its label and name its self something like "Free Democratic Party"
For your argument that "Social Conservatism combined with big government doesn't sell."
I would need proof for that, we have yet to try such a system in modern politics in Canada. People want something different. They currently have 3 of the same options. Neo-Liberal(A), Neo-Liberal(B), Neo-Liberal(C).
They are stuck in a mindset of Neo-Liberalism. They cant think outside of that box, because they see nothing outside of that box, its just a void. I bet you, if we had a MPP system, and we created such a Christian Democratic party. We can easily within years gain at least 25% of the vote in that party, in the midst of the 3 neo-liberal parties existing.
Diefenbaker won the largest majority in Canadian political history with a Red Tory party.
In addition im not asking for "Big Government" rather just more social programs.
Lots of Canadians oppose neo-liberalism and want more social programs, but most of that group is socially progressive thus going Liberal or NDP who in case of former have largely ditched neo-liberalism and latter never embraced it. Most see conservatism as smaller government and most see liberalism as centre-left. True classical liberalism is smaller government and in Europe most liberal parties lean that way. But in North America, word liberal, is generally associated with progressivism. BC Liberals are a classical liberal party yet most see federal Liberal party as being true liberal party while BC Liberals as a conservative party masquerading as liberals.
Now I have no issue with more family friendly programs. But at same time with our huge deficits and aging population we are somewhat limited on what we can do unlike in past. In 50s, 60s, and 70s, you had a younger population so you could count on growth to pay for new programs. Today you cannot, so new programs either require higher taxes or spending cuts. With health care rising in cost, we are very limited on what type of spending cuts are feasible. While higher taxes asides taxing rich or big corporations more is political suicide and those two aren't big revenue raisers.
I mean I just think we should stop funding things we dont need to fund. The Liberals are spending money on things that we dont have to spend money on really.
But you point that <<Lots of Canadians oppose neo-liberalism and want more social programs, but most of that group is socially progressive thus going Liberal or NDP >>
I agree with this 100%. But the reason for this is that people started to associate social programs with progressive social issues. This wasnt the case back in the 20th century, because most of our left wing parties, were socially conservative.
When the SoCreds stopped existing, and the PCs went the Neo-Liberal route, and the CCF died for the new woke NDP. People could only look at those woke left wing parties. They did not see any conservative, left wing parties.
I think if you break this mold, as it was done in the 70s-80s with the old mold. Things can change. What many dont realize is that this "progressive" social values, is a return to 1st century european values. It is regression to the natural state. Just as values in the 1st century changed, so can it change now. It looks like a large task, and it is. But it can be done. Just as the country changed decades ago.
<<who in case of former have largely ditched neo-liberalism and latter never embraced it. >>
This disagrees with. The NDP and LPC are Neo-Liberal also. They are just Neo-Liberal with extra stuff sprinkled on top. Neo-Liberals can be Keynesian, many Neo-Liberals today are Keynesian.
I agree that the situation with the aging population really makes it hard for us. This is why Social Conservatism is needed. As Quebec lost its social conservatism, so did the rest of the country. The slow death of Social Conservatism lead us to this point. Birth Rates have fallen for a reason. There are no social conservative values any more, so there is no reason for most people to see having 2 kids as a good thing. As people were having less and less kids. It put us in a worse and worse situation. Now people who even want to have 2 kids, struggle to even afford 1. I mean are we really in such an ugly position that we have to think about *affording kids?*
That is a sad world to live in, the CPC(PC), LPC and NDP are all to blame for this.
I agree with the pessimism about the Conservative political movement (or at least the CPC). Is there some other venue that exists that could be used to produce and promote these kinds of policies? An Institute? Policy incubator? A political non-profit? If not, is it possible to create one?