Thanks for this, Ben - super helpful for me as I continue to understand the country in which I now live.
I have a question for you about this: do you have any general heuristic or set of principles to distinguish a responsible Canadianising of ideas originally developed elsewhere from an Americanising move that surrenders that which ought be distinctly or particularly Canadian to US cultural dominance? I was struck by the difference in how you described the intellectual basis of anti-Laurentian conservatism (as I read it, as a Canadianising of certain mostly US thinkers or ideas in support of a far older if perhaps inchoate political positioning) vs contemporary Canadian liberalism (as an Americanising of liberalism, an increased obsession with imported US concerns and categories). That is, you resist a read (perhaps a George Grant-esque one?) of this anti-Laurentianist conservatism as a mere importation of US politics or concerns while arguing that such a read of Canadian progressivism is, essentially, correct. Now I don't mean to dispute the judgment (I don't think I know enough to do so, frankly, although I have certainly seen enough of Canadian progressivism to know that the critique hits home...) - I'm just curious as to how you make it.
It's a good question and observation and I've heard a similar critique from a few people. This if anything seems to be the biggest point of contention some have with my essay here. I think it's a fair response and I invite this because i don't spend enough time (or any, really) delving into the prairie populist roots of this tradition enough. I'm hoping at some point to return to the argument here and expanding it, so i think one thing I will do when i do this is really connect this anti-Laurentian tradition to the prairie populist tradition which need not be a conservative-exclusive tradition, in fact i think you see in things like social credit and also the CCF that there are lots of non-conservative movements that come out of prairie populism. But i do think that the anti-Laurentian tradition as it develops essentially indigenizes some of these non-Canadian traditions both intellectually and politically by filtering it through this anti-Laurentian framing. Let me give you an example that i didn't mention in this essay. There's another important book (one that was very influential on me) that was produced by Morton and Knopff fittinly called "The Charter Revolution and the Court Party." It's the classic critique of the Charter and the way it transformed Canada's political institutions. That it is critical of an entreched bill of rights and this newfound judicial supremacy is something that i think is an explicitly Canadian idea and not simply the importation of American conservatism. Anyways, happy to chat more about this with you, in fact at some point we should meet up over a coffee or pint to do so!
Thanks so much for all this - this definitely makes sense and I'll check out that book. Definitely seems right that skepticism of the Charter suggests a markedly different attitude towards rights-language than in the US. Of course the language of 'judicial activism' etc. and the criticism of unenumerated rights/substantive due process jurisprudence in the US right is perhaps an analogue, but still a case of analogues or similarities rather than importation of US conservatism, it seems. And yes -- let's do it; I'd like that!
(I also understand that this probably isn't a question that is answerable in the length of a comment - but if it's something you've written about in the past or if you were ever to reflect upon the question I would be keen to read it!)
Fine article. My problem with the new flag, is that like the Pride flag, is a symbol of Canada's downfall, we went from the men who took Juno Beach, and Vimy Ridge, to the wimps who ripped up the flag of those great men. I think that would be more unifying to harp on the great Westerners that fought then, fusing on great Nationalist triumphs of Canada. Since the new flag was adopted Canada has only fallen far into the woke progressive hell hole. It is the symbol of the Trudeau Empire, Pearson may have stuck us with the flag, but the Trudeau captured it's true "essence".
Thanks for this, Ben - super helpful for me as I continue to understand the country in which I now live.
I have a question for you about this: do you have any general heuristic or set of principles to distinguish a responsible Canadianising of ideas originally developed elsewhere from an Americanising move that surrenders that which ought be distinctly or particularly Canadian to US cultural dominance? I was struck by the difference in how you described the intellectual basis of anti-Laurentian conservatism (as I read it, as a Canadianising of certain mostly US thinkers or ideas in support of a far older if perhaps inchoate political positioning) vs contemporary Canadian liberalism (as an Americanising of liberalism, an increased obsession with imported US concerns and categories). That is, you resist a read (perhaps a George Grant-esque one?) of this anti-Laurentianist conservatism as a mere importation of US politics or concerns while arguing that such a read of Canadian progressivism is, essentially, correct. Now I don't mean to dispute the judgment (I don't think I know enough to do so, frankly, although I have certainly seen enough of Canadian progressivism to know that the critique hits home...) - I'm just curious as to how you make it.
It's a good question and observation and I've heard a similar critique from a few people. This if anything seems to be the biggest point of contention some have with my essay here. I think it's a fair response and I invite this because i don't spend enough time (or any, really) delving into the prairie populist roots of this tradition enough. I'm hoping at some point to return to the argument here and expanding it, so i think one thing I will do when i do this is really connect this anti-Laurentian tradition to the prairie populist tradition which need not be a conservative-exclusive tradition, in fact i think you see in things like social credit and also the CCF that there are lots of non-conservative movements that come out of prairie populism. But i do think that the anti-Laurentian tradition as it develops essentially indigenizes some of these non-Canadian traditions both intellectually and politically by filtering it through this anti-Laurentian framing. Let me give you an example that i didn't mention in this essay. There's another important book (one that was very influential on me) that was produced by Morton and Knopff fittinly called "The Charter Revolution and the Court Party." It's the classic critique of the Charter and the way it transformed Canada's political institutions. That it is critical of an entreched bill of rights and this newfound judicial supremacy is something that i think is an explicitly Canadian idea and not simply the importation of American conservatism. Anyways, happy to chat more about this with you, in fact at some point we should meet up over a coffee or pint to do so!
Thanks so much for all this - this definitely makes sense and I'll check out that book. Definitely seems right that skepticism of the Charter suggests a markedly different attitude towards rights-language than in the US. Of course the language of 'judicial activism' etc. and the criticism of unenumerated rights/substantive due process jurisprudence in the US right is perhaps an analogue, but still a case of analogues or similarities rather than importation of US conservatism, it seems. And yes -- let's do it; I'd like that!
(I also understand that this probably isn't a question that is answerable in the length of a comment - but if it's something you've written about in the past or if you were ever to reflect upon the question I would be keen to read it!)
every time I read an article like this about Canadian politics, I always marvel at how boring Canadian politics is compared to American politics
Fine article. My problem with the new flag, is that like the Pride flag, is a symbol of Canada's downfall, we went from the men who took Juno Beach, and Vimy Ridge, to the wimps who ripped up the flag of those great men. I think that would be more unifying to harp on the great Westerners that fought then, fusing on great Nationalist triumphs of Canada. Since the new flag was adopted Canada has only fallen far into the woke progressive hell hole. It is the symbol of the Trudeau Empire, Pearson may have stuck us with the flag, but the Trudeau captured it's true "essence".