I wonder how things would have changed if we focussed the money and resources we spend campaigning in Quebec in the BC lower mainland or in the GTA, seats we actually could win and were close in..
Oh JJ. When Quebec bans public prayer, we know that they are concerned about lay-zah-rhab, that is, the Muslims. And conservatives like that! As you acknowledge, immigrants are not popular. But why. Sure, Anglo Canadians will say things like housing, jobs, healthcare, traffic. But anglos lie. They’ll say anything besides what’s going on, because they feel icky about being openly expressing fears of racial or cultural change. How do we know this? Anglos didn’t care about immigration when it was British, were only mildly perturbed when it was white, but now when it’s Indian or whatever, watch out.
So, why would anyone, let alone conservatives, want to crack down on Quebec? Quebec is doing what we would do, if Anglo Canadians weren’t so full of shit.
And, yes, sure. the charter might be popular when you ask about it in the abstract. Who could possibly be against something that sounds as good and magical as “rights.” Of course, when it comes to specific issues, like should children be transed, or how long sentences should be, or should temporary visa holders be sentenced equally like the native-born (?!), conservatives change their tune, as they should. If you asked them the question, should (a) lawyers and judges or (b) the legislature decide these issues, you’ll get a different result.
Great stuff JJ, wondering if the article is specifically about Kenney or are there other thought leaders you could mention? You often talk about how hierarchical Canadian parties are, surely the fact that Pierre leads the CPC makes him the most important figure in the movement ideologically? I don’t see him writing any hagiographies about King Charles and is generally perceived as striking a more populist tone? Always interested in hearing more of your thoughts.
I don’t want to name a lot of names just because it’s a small country and I don’t want to be seen as picking fights. You’re right that I don’t think Pierre falls into this category, but there have definitely been a lot of people around him who do. I think a lot of the people who write for the National Post are this way.
Conservative writers like Coyne and Ibbitson love high immigration, despite the polls.
Mulroney, Kenney and others who courted the immigrant vote - the old PCers rather than the Reform side generally, were pandering to immigrant voters to take them away from the Liberals.
The truth is that many immigrants ARE conservative, in some ways. With the points system and shift to Asian immigration, we are no longer bringing in the poor Southern Europeans who will take blue collar jobs, but instead, educated or upper income people from poor Asian countries who believe in small business, entrepreneurialism, tradition, religion and family, and yet, they came here for the social safety net and educational system. They might want low taxes, but they want government to do a decent job in its core areas. These are suburban voters and voted for Ford provincially, and often vote Liberal federally.
I appreciate your views generally, but I must say I think the fault lies not in our conservative elite, but in yourself. The conservative party you want to see (absolute free markets, anti monarchy, anti French) is not at all something I wish to vote for or see in power. You could argue I'm a natural Liberal, I suppose, although after voting against Trudeau in all elections I would take some issue. But I am absolutely against the American faux libertarian conservativism that leaks north.
I think to use the lable Conservative, first and foremost the intention must be the cultural conservation of what differentiates the nation. A CPC that wants to be American, as much as it gets Reform ridings to vote at 80% instead of 50%, I don't believe will ever win in Eastern Canada.
If the CPC wants to win, I think the first C needs to change to Confederationalist, and the parties goals need to become Provincial supremacy. That is the only way to run against the Federal government - run on the basis of each province being distinct. Certainly not on the whole nation being American.
The "conservative Canadian elites" (a contradiction in term if ever I heard one) are IMHO the remnants of the old federal Progressive Conservative Party. We can thank Mr Mulroney for putting paid to their existence. Those people have never forgiven Preston Manning for "stealing" their supporters, when in fact it was Brian Mulroney who did in the party with his political decisions. There is very little the CPC has to offer Canadians east of the Ottawa River, which is why they don't elect anybody in those ridings. The Liberals ensure Quebec (and to a lesser extent, the Atlantic Provinces), receive lavish financial benefits for supporting them. The MSM consistently insinuates that Canada's conservatives are just like this people who support Trump, ensuring enough voters are frightened by the thought of someone like Mr Poilievre becoming PM. I agree with JJ that if conservatives want to be successful, they need to run as conservatives promoting things that are important, like helping people under 40 buy a house, reducing taxes, fighting crime and public disorder, improving access to decent healthcare and reducing government overreach. JJ is spot on when he indicates that the younger conservative crowd isn't going to be animated by the esoteric values of the Conservative elites.
The Quebec and Charter things are two parts of the same thing, as you hint at: that Canada is the government's relationship with classes of people instead of with free and equal citizens. The First Nations vetocracy is part of it too. As many problems as America has I'm glad I live in a country where states have to actually follow the Constitution and the awful crap Quebec pulls would get shut down in court in about tens seconds flat. And weakening let alone abolishing the charter would be awful for conservatives. In a country as left-wing as Canada is, how can a conservative possibly think that removing the protection of individual rights is possibly going to help them over the long run?
I agree that the Conservatives might want to break with Quebec chauvinism, but it boggles my mind that the NDP hasn't figured that out yet. They're looking for a reason to exist and a thing that makes them not the Liberals, and Quebec is the perfect foil. They're not going to win a plurality of seats in English Canada by taking Quebec to task but they could certainly win enough to more than make up for risking the one (1) Quebec seat they currently have. Jagmeet Singh couldn't figure out that Quebec nationalists weren't going to vote for a guy named "Jagmeet Singh" who barely spoke French at all. Incredible timidity and myopia.
I'm a longtime watcher of your channel, and one thing I'm still wondering even after watching your videos on Canadian identity: what affirmative reason do you think justifies Canada's existence as a separate country from the United States? If Quebec did its own thing and the other provinces joined as states, what would be lost? You once tweeted about Canadian pride coming from the high standard of living, not top-down cultural pretensions and Anglophilia. It seems hard to argue that Canada's economy is structurally stronger than America's. So is it important from first principles for Canada to exist as a legally distinct suburb of the US? Because if it's not, if the logic of Confederation in the wake of the Civil War has been totally exhausted, then I see the romance of an unbroken country of stretching from the North Pole to the Rio Grande.
I'm American, albeit one who spends a lot of time in Canada and has a lot of Canadian friends, so I guess take this with a grain of salt. And whatever Trump says from time to time obviously the merger will never ever actually happen and it's dumb to bring it up in his Trumpy sort of way. But it doesn't follow that it's actually unwise as a concept.
God I can't stand the kind of smug American exceptionalists JJ attracts with his America-simping. Even if we put aside all questions of identity and history, we still shouldn't join the US because we have better, saner and less-polarised politics, higher life expectancy, higher levels of happiness and far less violence and crime overall.
I'll cop to being an American exceptionalist, although I hope not a smug one. My question wasn't rhetorical, and you gave a reasonable answer. Thanks!
Calling Canada a suburb of America isn't meant as an insult; suburbs can be nice places to live that capitalize on many benefits of the metropolis while mitigating its worst vices. Suburbs don't have a chip on their shoulder about being better than or different from the metropolis, and can certainly justify themselves on a combination of Burkean intertia, better local government and higher quality of life (you seem confident Canada does have these latter two, I'm not). JJ has talked about liking suburbs as part of his affection for bourgeois culture in general, so this conception might synthesize two of his core ideas.
Given that JJ has said elsewhere that Canada was founded on anti-American ideas that have "always been quite ignorant and unrealistic" I think it's eminently reasonable to be interested in his raison d'etre for Canada.
Great work JJ your profound words of wisdom are as necessary as ever
great article JJ. I'm always happy to read your thoughts
I wonder how things would have changed if we focussed the money and resources we spend campaigning in Quebec in the BC lower mainland or in the GTA, seats we actually could win and were close in..
Very interesting article, JJ.
Oh JJ. When Quebec bans public prayer, we know that they are concerned about lay-zah-rhab, that is, the Muslims. And conservatives like that! As you acknowledge, immigrants are not popular. But why. Sure, Anglo Canadians will say things like housing, jobs, healthcare, traffic. But anglos lie. They’ll say anything besides what’s going on, because they feel icky about being openly expressing fears of racial or cultural change. How do we know this? Anglos didn’t care about immigration when it was British, were only mildly perturbed when it was white, but now when it’s Indian or whatever, watch out.
So, why would anyone, let alone conservatives, want to crack down on Quebec? Quebec is doing what we would do, if Anglo Canadians weren’t so full of shit.
And, yes, sure. the charter might be popular when you ask about it in the abstract. Who could possibly be against something that sounds as good and magical as “rights.” Of course, when it comes to specific issues, like should children be transed, or how long sentences should be, or should temporary visa holders be sentenced equally like the native-born (?!), conservatives change their tune, as they should. If you asked them the question, should (a) lawyers and judges or (b) the legislature decide these issues, you’ll get a different result.
Great stuff JJ, wondering if the article is specifically about Kenney or are there other thought leaders you could mention? You often talk about how hierarchical Canadian parties are, surely the fact that Pierre leads the CPC makes him the most important figure in the movement ideologically? I don’t see him writing any hagiographies about King Charles and is generally perceived as striking a more populist tone? Always interested in hearing more of your thoughts.
I don’t want to name a lot of names just because it’s a small country and I don’t want to be seen as picking fights. You’re right that I don’t think Pierre falls into this category, but there have definitely been a lot of people around him who do. I think a lot of the people who write for the National Post are this way.
Conservative writers like Coyne and Ibbitson love high immigration, despite the polls.
Mulroney, Kenney and others who courted the immigrant vote - the old PCers rather than the Reform side generally, were pandering to immigrant voters to take them away from the Liberals.
The truth is that many immigrants ARE conservative, in some ways. With the points system and shift to Asian immigration, we are no longer bringing in the poor Southern Europeans who will take blue collar jobs, but instead, educated or upper income people from poor Asian countries who believe in small business, entrepreneurialism, tradition, religion and family, and yet, they came here for the social safety net and educational system. They might want low taxes, but they want government to do a decent job in its core areas. These are suburban voters and voted for Ford provincially, and often vote Liberal federally.
I appreciate your views generally, but I must say I think the fault lies not in our conservative elite, but in yourself. The conservative party you want to see (absolute free markets, anti monarchy, anti French) is not at all something I wish to vote for or see in power. You could argue I'm a natural Liberal, I suppose, although after voting against Trudeau in all elections I would take some issue. But I am absolutely against the American faux libertarian conservativism that leaks north.
I think to use the lable Conservative, first and foremost the intention must be the cultural conservation of what differentiates the nation. A CPC that wants to be American, as much as it gets Reform ridings to vote at 80% instead of 50%, I don't believe will ever win in Eastern Canada.
If the CPC wants to win, I think the first C needs to change to Confederationalist, and the parties goals need to become Provincial supremacy. That is the only way to run against the Federal government - run on the basis of each province being distinct. Certainly not on the whole nation being American.
The "conservative Canadian elites" (a contradiction in term if ever I heard one) are IMHO the remnants of the old federal Progressive Conservative Party. We can thank Mr Mulroney for putting paid to their existence. Those people have never forgiven Preston Manning for "stealing" their supporters, when in fact it was Brian Mulroney who did in the party with his political decisions. There is very little the CPC has to offer Canadians east of the Ottawa River, which is why they don't elect anybody in those ridings. The Liberals ensure Quebec (and to a lesser extent, the Atlantic Provinces), receive lavish financial benefits for supporting them. The MSM consistently insinuates that Canada's conservatives are just like this people who support Trump, ensuring enough voters are frightened by the thought of someone like Mr Poilievre becoming PM. I agree with JJ that if conservatives want to be successful, they need to run as conservatives promoting things that are important, like helping people under 40 buy a house, reducing taxes, fighting crime and public disorder, improving access to decent healthcare and reducing government overreach. JJ is spot on when he indicates that the younger conservative crowd isn't going to be animated by the esoteric values of the Conservative elites.
The Quebec and Charter things are two parts of the same thing, as you hint at: that Canada is the government's relationship with classes of people instead of with free and equal citizens. The First Nations vetocracy is part of it too. As many problems as America has I'm glad I live in a country where states have to actually follow the Constitution and the awful crap Quebec pulls would get shut down in court in about tens seconds flat. And weakening let alone abolishing the charter would be awful for conservatives. In a country as left-wing as Canada is, how can a conservative possibly think that removing the protection of individual rights is possibly going to help them over the long run?
I agree that the Conservatives might want to break with Quebec chauvinism, but it boggles my mind that the NDP hasn't figured that out yet. They're looking for a reason to exist and a thing that makes them not the Liberals, and Quebec is the perfect foil. They're not going to win a plurality of seats in English Canada by taking Quebec to task but they could certainly win enough to more than make up for risking the one (1) Quebec seat they currently have. Jagmeet Singh couldn't figure out that Quebec nationalists weren't going to vote for a guy named "Jagmeet Singh" who barely spoke French at all. Incredible timidity and myopia.
I'm a longtime watcher of your channel, and one thing I'm still wondering even after watching your videos on Canadian identity: what affirmative reason do you think justifies Canada's existence as a separate country from the United States? If Quebec did its own thing and the other provinces joined as states, what would be lost? You once tweeted about Canadian pride coming from the high standard of living, not top-down cultural pretensions and Anglophilia. It seems hard to argue that Canada's economy is structurally stronger than America's. So is it important from first principles for Canada to exist as a legally distinct suburb of the US? Because if it's not, if the logic of Confederation in the wake of the Civil War has been totally exhausted, then I see the romance of an unbroken country of stretching from the North Pole to the Rio Grande.
I'm American, albeit one who spends a lot of time in Canada and has a lot of Canadian friends, so I guess take this with a grain of salt. And whatever Trump says from time to time obviously the merger will never ever actually happen and it's dumb to bring it up in his Trumpy sort of way. But it doesn't follow that it's actually unwise as a concept.
God I can't stand the kind of smug American exceptionalists JJ attracts with his America-simping. Even if we put aside all questions of identity and history, we still shouldn't join the US because we have better, saner and less-polarised politics, higher life expectancy, higher levels of happiness and far less violence and crime overall.
I'll cop to being an American exceptionalist, although I hope not a smug one. My question wasn't rhetorical, and you gave a reasonable answer. Thanks!
Calling Canada a suburb of America isn't meant as an insult; suburbs can be nice places to live that capitalize on many benefits of the metropolis while mitigating its worst vices. Suburbs don't have a chip on their shoulder about being better than or different from the metropolis, and can certainly justify themselves on a combination of Burkean intertia, better local government and higher quality of life (you seem confident Canada does have these latter two, I'm not). JJ has talked about liking suburbs as part of his affection for bourgeois culture in general, so this conception might synthesize two of his core ideas.
Given that JJ has said elsewhere that Canada was founded on anti-American ideas that have "always been quite ignorant and unrealistic" I think it's eminently reasonable to be interested in his raison d'etre for Canada.
Canadians are not Americans. We're different.
Yep Punjabis