Asymmetrical Information

The trouble is that Canada has lost what it once had - two political parties that were essentially indistinguishable by the electorate. Both held views that were compatible with mainstream Canadian values. Thus, Canadians could vote one party out of office without changing the basic nature of governance.

The new system is a disaster. Only one party holds generally held Canadian values, and as always, any party that is in power too long begins to corrupt.

Canada is in a dilemma. It can only clean house by electing a government to the right or left of its mainstream desires. So far, the electorate (barely) continues to believe that the harm of a corrupt government is (slightly) less than the harm of a right-wing government. I think Jane is right - it's unlikely to change in this election, and if the Liberals can avoid another scandal, the Liberals are in for good.

My fear is that being out of power is likely to make the Conservatives more extreme, rather than becoming the Liberal party clone that they will need to be in order to win. The current leader (Stephen Harper) is a disaster in that regard, as he symbolizes change that most Canadians don't really want. That, and there seems precious little hope that the left-wing party (NDP) will perform a Blair-ish move in the other direction to become a Liberal clone.

Canada needs more politicians willing to sell their political (not moral) beliefs for votes :-).

Does Canada actually have a unified set of values?

Lots of Canadian bloggers don't seem to think so, and like to suggest that what is popularly called "Canadian values" is really "Liberal Party values" repeated loudly and often until people stop making a distinction.

Sigvald moves to the front of the class. Tom West gets an F for swallowing the Liberal Party line whole. Canada has rarely, if ever, been a truly unified nation (mind you that's true for most nations anyway), and the "Steven Harper is scary" has been the mantra ever since the poor guy became Conservative Party leader. But the reality doesn't live up to the myth.

Jane is absolutely right that there is no better way to prevent sane debate in this country than by invoking the spectre of the hated Yanks. "American-style X" is like a magic phrase up here that anyone left of center can use to put the kybosh on anything from health care reform to electoral reform. It's insane. My hypothesis is that this political neurosis arises from a deep-seated identity crisis -- Canadians need to find something, anything to differentiate themselves from Americans, even though the fact is that we're really not very different.

I think Jane doesn't quite have a firm grasp of the situation on the ground here, though: "...he's managed to pretty conclusively alienate both the Quebecois and the western provinces, plus anyone in Ontario and the Maritimes who cares about the rather sordid corruption scandal that got the Liberals into this political mess."

Anyone who gave the tinest pebbliest crap about the health of the polity would consider themselves duty-bound to vote against the Liberals on principle, but the sad, pathetic fact of the matter is that most of my fellow Ontarians don't care enough about this to break out of their battered-wife relationship with the Liberal Party of Canada. They could run a rutabaga against the Liberal incumbent in my riding and I'd still vote for the vegetable, but I'm all to aware of my minority status. Compare and contrast this with the way people like DeLay et al are hounded for the merest whiff of inappropriate behaviour, and "American style" politics starts to look a lot more appealing.

Oy vey.

Canadians need to find something, anything to differentiate themselves from Americans, even though the fact is that we're really not very different

I've heard it said that there's only one difference between Americans and Canadians -- which is that Canadians get annoyed when you say "there's only only one difference between Americans and Canadians" and Americans don't.

The Liberals are currently polling ahead of the Conservatives. They will carry Ontario and most of the maritimes. Throw in a chunk from the west (mostly Manitoba) and it'll be the status quo all over.

Quebec will make another run at secession, and it's even money whether it'll carry this time. Alberta will make a run at secession, but it won't carry. And conservatives will continue to be marginalized by the media.
Oh, and the maritimes will continue to be mired in poverty. While getting welfare handouts from Ottawa.

most of my fellow Ontarians don't care enough about this to break out of their battered-wife relationship with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Translated - the Liberal policy is more in tune with Canadian mainstream values than anyone else. So the largest segment of the population are likely to hold their nose and vote Liberal.

Does Canada actually have a unified set of values?

Not particularly, but it tends to clump to (what we think of as) the middle, which is where the Liberals can be found, much as the right-wing and the left-wing would like to hope otherwise. (I'll admit, I haven't voted Liberal in the last two elections, but I recognize a reality when I see it.)

Translated - the Liberal policy is more in tune with Canadian mainstream values than anyone else

The fact that no party can muster 50% of the vote pretty much refutes the notion that any party is in tune with "mainstream Canadian values".

In any case, describing the Liberal party as "moderate" or "middle" doesn't seem quite accurate. My understanding is that they have historically been not so much "moderate" as "ideology-free" -- whatever the stance is that's most likely to result in them keeping their place in office, that's the stance they adopt. It seems as if Canada has become too internally divided for that to be a safe way to keep a majority anymore, though.

The fact that no party can muster 50% of the vote pretty much refutes the notion that any party is in tune with "mainstream Canadian values".

I'd disagree. The Bloc Quebecois is probably closest to the Liberals in political ideology. I doubt that most Quebecois are voting BQ for its separatist leanings, but rather for the fact it meets their ideological needs without being the Liberals.

In any case, describing the Liberal party as "moderate" or "middle" doesn't seem quite accurate. My understanding is that they have historically been not so much "moderate" as "ideology-free" -- whatever the stance is that's most likely to result in them keeping their place in office, that's the stance they adopt.

Good point - in general what the majority want is the definition of centrist - so the Liberals have been centrist. Put in a better light - they are bound by pragmatism rather than ideology.

However, my thesis still stands - a Conservative (not conservative) party that became a Liberal clone could win a majority - and a change in government is sorely needed to allow Canada to clean house.

Comments are Closed.