Americans pay little attention to Canadian politics, even though Canada is by far our largest export market and in many ways Canada is the country that is most similar to the US.
In the upcoming election, Canada’s Conservative Party has recently been rising in the polls. Interestingly, its message seems to be aimed at blue-collar voters:
There are plenty of skeptics of O’Toole too. He’s propagating an interventionist, pro-labor and big spending program that Conservatives haven’t offered up in decades. On top of putting workers on boards, for example, he wants to change the labor code to empower unions and help them organize. . . .
It’s all building up to be a disappointing turn of events for business, which worked hard in the run-up to the election campaign to make growth and productivity a priority. Instead, the two big parties appear to be taking pages from the left-leaning New Democratic Party, which promised this week to cut family mobile phone bills by C$1,000 ($792) a year.
One sees similar trends in some other Western democracies, which raises a number of interesting questions:
1. Why is this happening?
2. Will the Republican Party in the US become a blue-collar party?
Throughout history, conservatives have not always been associated with small government and/or market friendly policies. Indeed in many countries the term ‘liberal’ connotes views on economics that would be viewed as conservative in America. I suspect that the association of conservatism and small government has something to do with the rise and fall of Soviet communism between 1917 and 1991. When conservatives viewed communism as the biggest threat to our way of life, they naturally gravitated toward ideologies that were the polar opposite. This boosted the prestige of free market ideologues like Milton Friedman, and made the libertarian wing of the GOP disproportionately influential during the last half of the 20th century. The Reagan administration spent more time enacting tax cuts and deregulation than in promoting social conservatism.
With the collapse of communism, conservatism focused on other issues. After 9/11, Islamic terrorism became the number one foe. But after the disappointing interventions in several Middle Eastern countries, many conservatives lost faith in the neoconservative agenda of a highly interventionist foreign policy. At this point, cosmopolitanism became increasingly seen as the number one problem. Ironically, the success of the neoliberal revolution championed by people like Reagan and Thatcher served to transform our cultures in a number of ways that made conservatives uncomfortable.
The most successful economies tended to shift toward a post industrial structure, where highly skilled people in big cities exported goods and services requiring a high degree of education, and more basic manufactured goods were imported from lower wage countries. These same big cities drew immigrants from all over the world, so much so that places like London are increasingly filled with immigrants and their children. Highly educated urban areas also tend to reject the sort of traditional values that are prized by many conservatives.
Ex ante, it was not at all clear how this would play out in terms of electoral politics. One could imagine a different scenario where the British Labour Party became a foe of globalization and held on to its support in working class towns in the north of England. After all, they had traditionally been skeptical of the EU, viewing it as a neoliberal Trojan horse. Instead, the Conservatives became the Brexit Party.
In America, the Bernie Sanders of 2016 was a sort of transitional figure, skeptical of globalization and immigration, trying to put forth an “all lives matter” message that would appeal to white, black and Hispanic blue collar workers. But the Democrats were moving in another direction, and Sanders eventually shifted with the party. Similarly, pro-globalization, pro-immigration GOP figures like Jeb Bush discovered that their party had moved off in another direction.
Political parties are highly complex entities, particularly in a two party system such as the US. They are forced to become “big tents”, containing various groups that don’t see eye to eye on each and every issue. The challenge for the Democrats is to hold onto low income/low education voters while reaching out to highly educated social liberals. The challenge for the GOP is to attract working class voters while holding onto more affluent voters that own stocks and thus benefit from trade, deregulation and corporate tax cuts.
If higher income voters in big cities continue drifting toward the Democrats (not a sure thing by any means), then the GOP will be likely to move away from its small government stance of the 20th century. In the 2022 midterms, I expect the GOP to focus more on immigration, critical race theory and bashing tech companies than corporate tax cuts and repealing Obamacare. I also expect President Biden to have trouble convincing Democrats in affluent areas to raise taxes on the rich. But politics is so complex that I don’t have much faith in my ability to predict what the two big parties will look like in 2040. Almost anything is possible.
One thing I know for sure is that neither party will consistently advocate “freedom”. Almost no one believes in freedom. So the parties will sort issue by issue. Freedom to engage in physician-assisted suicide? To sell one’s kidney? To smoke pot? To gamble? Prostitution? Pornography? Freedom to have an abortion? Freedom from government vaccine or mask mandates? Freedom to enact private vaccine or mask mandates? Freedom to sell unapproved vaccines? Freedom to migrate between countries? Freedom to trade with other countries? Freedom to espouse conservative views in liberal corporations. Freedom to kneel during the national anthem at football games?
Please don’t mention freedom when talking about American politics. Politicians that favor freedom are about as plentiful as this animal:
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Sep 6 2021 at 10:56pm
I agree with all of that, but I do think there is a slightly more hopeful spin to be put upon it. If you work within the parameters of the US constitution, you are pro-freedom by default (compared to anywhere(?) else in the world). So I think it’s reasonable to argue that by maintaining a commitment to rule of law in the American context, politicians and parties are in fact expressing a commitment to freedom.
It’s also possible to argue that the constitutional system is not free enough, and to argue and campaign for more freedom. But we need working systems that get us through the day to day, and working within an impressively free system is surely a good start.
Scott Sumner
Sep 7 2021 at 12:48pm
I wish I could be more optimistic. I don’t see either party showing much commitment to the rule of law. One party prefers the arbitrary rule of regulators, and the other says we shouldn’t investigate and punish corruption in government (or even attempts to overturn elections.).
Jose Pablo
Sep 7 2021 at 8:00pm
“If you work within the parameters of the US constitution, you are pro-freedom by default”. I am afraid this is not supported by the facts.
The number of laws and regulations passed by Congress “within the parameters of the US constitution” since 1789 cannot be counted (close to the number of grains of sand or starts). The State has growth from a low single digit part of the economy to 40%+ of a much much bigger economy.
In which regard the extreme abundancy of new laws and regulations and the extreme increase in the government size make us more “free”?
I find the Scalia position on the “irrelevance” of the Constitution to “guarantee” (much less to “promote”) freedom very compelling. If the idea of the Founding Fathers was really to avoid “excess of legislation” the whole Constitutional framework is a total failure by that count.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd–UO0
You can argue that the US “true separation of powers” (not the “words on paper” of its Constitution) has delayed American path down the Road to Serfdom. But even at a slow pace they are moving in the same direction that everybody else.
Very likely because is the only path available since it is almost impossible to “design” a truly “dysfunctional government”. No reason for optimism.
Michael Sandifer
Sep 7 2021 at 12:27am
I see what’s happening as socialism/government interventionism becoming more popular across most of the political spectrum, with differences along social policy, with religious influences being important.
Democrats are turning more toward traditional big government policies, as is common in much of western Europe. Republicans have turned toward national socialism, as part of white nationalism, also as is common in much of western and eastern Europe.
The US is becoming more secular overall, but the religious fundamentalists are gaining in intensity as they see the kind of world they want to live in slipping away. They increasingly understand they cannot reverse this trend via free and fair elections, so they increasingly favor rigging elections. They are also increasingly championing various forms of national purity, hoping to preserve a culture, the loss of which represents a metaphysical, existential threat. They take the book of Revelations very seriously, and are increasingly a doomsday cult. Trump represents the ultimate expression of their nihilism. The future doesn’t matter much anymore, as more and more of them interpret the increasing secularization of society as signs that the end days are coming. They all want to be caught behaving well when their old testament version of a vengeful god returns.
Mark Z
Sep 7 2021 at 1:26am
I think a simpler explanation is just that (in the minds of most elites, at least) the whole of the political spectrum has shifted left on economic issues (and some other areas), and conservative parties are fighting a rearguard action to stay relevant in a post-neoliberal world. It’s not like they’re really outflanking erstwhile center-left parties, which are moving leftward at a similar pace. Hence why conservative parties can still win most of the rich voters. The extent to which the GOP, for example, has managed to win over working class voters is greatly overhyped and overestimated, imo.
Alan Goldhammer
Sep 7 2021 at 7:28am
The shift of the US Republican party that began in the late 1960s with a focus on social issues led to their marginalization. They had to find more voters somewhere and that is when they began to turn protectionist and woo white working class voters who were seen jobs disappear. Ross Perot was the first to try to move this needle in his independent bid in 1992, and it then became the staple of the Republican party. In the long run this is not sustainable for the party and certainly some of the state level policies on abortion and uncontrolled gun laws will cause a backlash in some sectors. The central question, as always, is will people vote in sufficient numbers to throw them out of office.
David Henderson
Sep 7 2021 at 1:10pm
You write:
I don’t think your timing works. The Republican Party was the relatively pro-free-trade party from the 1950s through, at least, the early 2000s. The Republicans in Congress gave Clinton his win on NAFTA in 1994, for example.
Richard A.
Sep 7 2021 at 5:53pm
My observation is that congressional Republicans were relatively free trade up to 2016, just prior to Trump’s election. Biden is proving himself to be just as bad on the trade issue as Trump. Trump hit solar panels with a tariff that is now at 18%. There was high expectation when Biden took office that this tariff would be removed. He not only did not eliminate this tariff, he has made it more bureaucratic to import solar.
The Trump solar tariff is due to expire in February 2022, about 5 months from now. It will be interesting to see if Biden lets this tariff expire. Prior to Trump, the Obama administration hit China with tariffs on solar panels. As a result of these trade restrictions, the domestic price of solar panels in the US is well above the world price.
David Henderson
Sep 7 2021 at 6:54pm
Good point, which makes my point about timing even stronger.
Jose Pablo
Sep 7 2021 at 7:32pm
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from-the-illiberal-left
More freedom is nowhere to be seen in front of us (despite the tittle, The Economist article briefly touches threats to freedom coming from the “Conservatives”. And there are plenty).
It is very sad.
[In any case, nothing to worry about, Stiglitz has the solution to a significant part of our problems. It is as easy as taking advantage of the present “crisis”. The recipe does not include more freedom, I am afraid]
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/03/joseph-stiglitz-says-its-time-to-rewire-the-us-economy-we-shouldnt-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste.html
Rajat
Sep 8 2021 at 12:05am
Thanks, Scott, a very interesting if depressing post.
Jose Pablo
Sep 8 2021 at 1:39am
“Political parties are [indeed] highly complex entities” and sure they evolved. Regarding this I came across this Woodrow Wilson quote:
The freed slaves were “unpracticed in liberty, unschooled in self-control, never sobered by the discipline of self-support, never stablished in any habit of prudence … insolence and aggressive, sick of work, [and] covetous of pleasure”
[The quote is from Leonard’s “Illiberal Reformers”]
So, yes, it seems that democratic POTUS and Princeton’s Presidents have indeed changed a lot their discourse.
Comments are closed.