Canada & Conservatism

[Frank Dixon]

Canada's political development -- a short overview
By Frank Dixon, Kingston

Part One: 1867-1968

Canada began as a nation with Confederation in 1867, and had Conservative Prime Ministers for 25 of the first 29 years, excepting only Liberal PM Alexander Mackenzie for four years in the mid-1870s, following the Pacific Scandal, over massive Conservative corruption in the cross-country railway planning project. John A. Macdonald, a Kingston lawyer without whose visionary leadership Canada would very likely have become part of the United States by 1900, was PM for about 20 years, and he had been a leader before Confederation as well, being the prime mover of that game-changing concept. He died in office in 1891 at age 76. But the Conservatives were governing with men well into their 70s in the mid 1890s, failing to develop the next generation of leadership talent, leaving a vacuum which the Liberals eventually exploited.

Canada then elected Liberal Wilfrid Laurier, age 55, in 1896 as PM for the next 15 years, at a time when western Canada, especially the prairies, was filling up with European immigrants. The electoral dynamic underwent enormous transformation and expansion, with women finally gaining the right to vote in the 1910s. Laurier, Canada's first francophone PM, had been universally admired, even by his rivals, since he entered national politics in his mid-30s, more than 20 years before becoming PM. Canada became known worldwide during the Laurier era.

Robert Borden served as a very good Conservative PM from 1911 through World War I, when Canada contributed enormously to Britain's sustenance with supplies, and grew its armed forces for a massive effort, leading to eventual victory in late 1918. The Canadian cost in casualties and material was vast; this is insufficiently understood today, since most wider histories barely mention Canada. Income tax was first introduced in that era. Canada was then in a constitutional position of essentially following orders from Britain; this would gradually change towards greater independence in the following decade. Women entered the business workplace in great numbers during the war, with some half a million Canadian males serving overseas.

Borden handed over to the very intelligent, grudge-holding, pedantic Arthur Meighen shortly after the war ended, and Meighen was eventually bested by the peculiar Liberal genius William Lyon Mackenzie King in nasty battles through 1926. Those two had been very bitter enemies since they had first met as undergraduate students at the University of Toronto in the early 1890s. King, who had earned five university degrees, and remains the only Canadian PM to hold a doctorate, would go on to set the record of service term as PM for any Commonwealth nation at that time, more than 22 years. King confounded everyone, friend and foe alike, with his unique governance style. He could never have succeeded in the television era.

King's rule was first interrupted for five years by the wealthy Conservative PM R.B. Bennett from 1930-35, coinciding with the Great Depression, which hit the world very hard, few places harder than Canada, especially in the west. Bennett, a hard-working, imperious lawyer, eventually became the most reviled PM in Canadian history; probably at least 100,000 Canadians died of starvation during that era, although a fully complete and accurate tally has never been compiled. After King won crushing re-election in 1935, Bennett retired at age 65, to the nobility in England. Liberals would rule for 22 straight years, with King retiring in 1948, then handing over to the brilliant Louis St. Laurent. King gave a very good performance as PM during World War II, when Canada was in from the start in 1939 (the USA didn't enter the war until late 1941), and once again punched well above its weight, to enormous societal and material cost. Britain in particular received many billions of dollars in Canadian aid and supplies, mostly never repaid, and even only grudgingly acknowledged publicly.

King and St. Laurent as PMs gradually introduced relief measures such as old age pensions, unemployment payments, and health care assistance, under strong pressure from progressive parties, including the forerunner of today's NDP. The societal impact of smaller political parties in Canada, through limited but effective electoral success, was and remains a major point of distinction from the United States, where there have been two major parties, and two only, for virtually two centuries, leading to today's era of Congressional constipation. The immediate post-war period in Canada was a time of rapid economic growth and development, more secure and higher wages, and a major shift towards an urban landscape. Canada was among the world's most prosperous nations, and attracted new waves of European immigration, this time largely from southern and Balkan Europe, as well as a growing number of non-Caucasian newcomers.

Significant new infrastructure, such as dams, pipelines, hydro networks, nuclear power, highways, air transport, colleges and universities, mines, and residential neighborhoods, was all being developed nationwide, following the war. Newfoundland and Labrador finally entered Confederation in 1949, 75 years ago this year, after nearly a century of lost opportunity since Confederation, through their own indecision and political squabbling. It was, and remained for a good while, virtually a Third World entity, in aspects ranging from economy to education to health care to infrastructure to political integrity. The province has been the main beneficiary of Canadian intra-provincial equalization payments into the hundreds of billions of dollars, much of which has been wasted or embezzled over those eight decades.

St. Laurent stayed on too long as PM, and got into a nasty pipeline squabble. He was defeated at age 75 in 1957 by the upstart surprise Conservative populist John Diefenbaker, who won a minority government, and then a year later won the biggest majority in Canadian history, with about 80 per cent of Commons seats, in 1958. The Liberals were then beset by internal conflict, and generational turnover, and were reduced to a mere rump of their usual nationwide strength.

PM Diefenbaker then gradually squandered his enormous position through party infighting, indecision, and struggles as he encountered regained Liberal strength. Before becoming PM, he had never run anything beyond a small Saskatchewan law office, and it rapidly showed. One description I have recently heard about Diefenbaker cast him as an honest version of Donald Trump, an oversimplification, to be sure, but rather on the mark in many ways. He was a dithering, pompous blowhard, who made more enemies every day, and had little concept of how to govern a nation which spans six time zones. Voters took notice, and elected as PM the Nobel Peace Prize winner, diplomat Lester Pearson, to minority Liberal governments in the mid-1960s. Pearson extended into universal health care, again pressured by the NDP; it was King who had first postulated the modern welfare state for Canada in his classic treatise 'Industry and Humanity' in 1918, before he became PM.

The powerful rise of Quebec protest and nationalism, from the 1950s, saw the bilingualism and biculturalism of Canada developed at last, as Liberal Pierre Trudeau first won the Liberal leadership, then swept to victory as PM, in summer 1968, winning a majority government with strong enough support across the nation. Trudeau, a very wealthy intellectual and activist from Montreal, was not even in Parliament until 1965, and had been a New Democrat until then. The telegenic Trudeau was the first Canadian leader to exploit the power of television in governance and campaign performance.

(End of part one)

[Vlad Drkulec]

Bob A, Sid's suggestion is worth considering. The Marxist brand has just too much baggage attached to it, justified or not.

Those of us with family members murdered and other family members tortured and many threatened with death when they were very old senior citizens have no question or doubt of whether the Marxist brand's reputation is justified or not.

[Tom O'Donnell]

...

And if we talk about lazy people, we must also talk about the Capitalist equivalent ... the domineering property owners who use their property rights (expounded on by Sid in this thread) to keep everyone below them oppressed via high rents and usage costs. If we are going to remove lazy people from the community, maybe we also need to remove these bad actor land owners and give their land back to the community for betterment of the whole society. This could not be done arbitrarily, it must have safeguards, but it seems as necessary as the measures against lazy people.

Consider what happened during Covid. Local shops were closed here, while behemoths like Walmart remained open. Crowding hundreds of people into one store as opposed to having people dispersed to many stores. Why did this happen? Did Walmart close down the competition? No, the government did.

If people let the free market play out, then everyone has a choice to support or not support businesses. If I don't like that CEO Joe Blow makes umpteen millions of dollars I don't have to frequent any of his businesses - that is unless government grants him a monopoly or special exemptions and I have no choice.

As for Bob A's idea of local governance, at least where I live we already have that.
I live in a town of about 35K people. Not enough to know every person but small enough that my wife and I have had a sit down meeting with the mayor about a neighbourhood concern for about 30 minutes (she has kept Mondays open for a few hours each week to address citizens' concerns) and we have attended a couple of town council meetings that are open to everyone. My personal view on government is that there are a few - very few - things that need a federal government and that most other things should be handled at a local level.

The neighbourhood concern was people speeding on the roads right near our condo - a big problem since we live across the street from an elementary school and half block from a retirement home - and although it took about a year or so they did eventually put up four-way stoplights which helped manage the problem.

I personally look forward to what happens if/when Musk and Ramaswamy draining the swamp of lifetime civil servants whose only contribution to society is blocking people who want to get things done. From what I've seen they will somewhat copy the Milei plan in Argentina.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Greed is a primary cause of poverty in the USA.

The financial crash of 2007 was the result of greedy bankers gaming the system, paying themselves obscene bonuses while foreclosing on home-owners sending them into poverty.

The pharmaceutical industry jacking up prices on life saving drugs sending their customers into poverty.

Large companies paying their CEO’s multi-million dollar salaries, bonuses, and stock option plans, while paying workers less than a living wage.

These are all examples of greed by the few causing poverty to the many. All these people are not lazy. Poverty is the lack of money, not a sign of laziness.

The right way of dealing with these greedy companies is to enable non-greedy entities to compete with them in their businesses by providing services at a reasonable price, and thus driving the greedy ones out of business.... not by robbing them as a Marxist would recommend!

[Bob Gillanders]

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.
If someone is greedy without harming anyone else, you cannot rob him, though you would certainly pity him for wasting his life to accumulate what is not needed! Society is not harmed by greed which does not harm anyone else, but society is certainly harmed by Marxist principles which resort to robbing the rich to reward the lazy...

Greed is a primary cause of poverty in the USA.

The financial crash of 2007 was the result of greedy bankers gaming the system, paying themselves obscene bonuses while foreclosing on home-owners sending them into poverty.

The pharmaceutical industry jacking up prices on life saving drugs sending their customers into poverty.

Large companies paying their CEO’s multi-million dollar salaries, bonuses, and stock option plans, while paying workers less than a living wage.

These are all examples of greed by the few causing poverty to the many. All these people are not lazy. Poverty is the lack of money, not a sign of laziness.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I like this post because it recognizes that socialism can work when the parties are well known to each other. So Tom, what then do you think about Bob A's idea of circles within circles, in which everything derives down to the local level and reputations of the locality can actually be communicated to higher levels?

Interesting about the Amish. If we took religion totally out of it, could the Amish idea of hard work and dedication of everyone work in Bob A's model of DM? Yes, there are always people who want to be lazy, but the Amish handle this by (I think) having some sort of ... I can't think of the word in English. It means to make the person an outcast. They would be out on their own, not welcome in the Amish community.

And if we talk about lazy people, we must also talk about the Capitalist equivalent ... the domineering property owners who use their property rights (expounded on by Sid in this thread) to keep everyone below them oppressed via high rents and usage costs. If we are going to remove lazy people from the community, maybe we also need to remove these bad actor land owners and give their land back to the community for betterment of the whole society. This could not be done arbitrarily, it must have safeguards, but it seems as necessary as the measures against lazy people.

I am not sure if Bob A would include my idea of circles within circles in his DM, but the set-up of circles within circles would certainly be one of the pillars of a truly Libertarian society...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.
If someone is greedy without harming anyone else, you cannot rob him, though you would certainly pity him for wasting his life to accumulate what is not needed! Society is not harmed by greed which does not harm anyone else, but society is certainly harmed by Marxist principles which resort to robbing the rich to reward the lazy...

[Pargat Perrer]

Yes, and hence it begins at a very young age, with guidance (or lack of) from their parents... do they slog hard and smart to enable them to earn better as adults or do they rather just concentrate on having non-productive fun..

The problem of society members deciding to have "non-productive fun" is as old as civilization itself. You only need to read the Old Testament of the Bible to understand this.

It is all part of the karmic cycle of civilization. It cannot be prevented. It is part of human nature.

Perhaps Dilip the clue that Bob G. wants you to recognize has to do with human nature. You have zero understanding of human nature. You rant about those who become non-productive and totally IGNORE those who become GREEDY.

Both laziness and greed are part and parcel of human nature and cannot be stopped. This is why civilizations rise and fall.

[Pargat Perrer]

Socialism works well in small groups. Families are inherently socialistic. So are small, tight-knit communities like the Amish. When you know the people you are dealing with well, you have expectations and you can tell if they are doing the best they can, given their circumstances. At larger levels, you cannot have any such knowledge. People correctly suspect that there are lazy people out there who will take and take and not think twice about it. They will never give back and this is sometimes ingrained to such a level it becomes multi-generational. Without government doling out free money, such people would be forced to contribute. Something like UBI would only exacerbate the problem of such people, imo, and increase their number.

I like this post because it recognizes that socialism can work when the parties are well known to each other. So Tom, what then do you think about Bob A's idea of circles within circles, in which everything derives down to the local level and reputations of the locality can actually be communicated to higher levels?

Interesting about the Amish. If we took religion totally out of it, could the Amish idea of hard work and dedication of everyone work in Bob A's model of DM? Yes, there are always people who want to be lazy, but the Amish handle this by (I think) having some sort of ... I can't think of the word in English. It means to make the person an outcast. They would be out on their own, not welcome in the Amish community.

And if we talk about lazy people, we must also talk about the Capitalist equivalent ... the domineering property owners who use their property rights (expounded on by Sid in this thread) to keep everyone below them oppressed via high rents and usage costs. If we are going to remove lazy people from the community, maybe we also need to remove these bad actor land owners and give their land back to the community for betterment of the whole society. This could not be done arbitrarily, it must have safeguards, but it seems as necessary as the measures against lazy people.

[Dilip Panjwani]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/la...cbo=v2-MDUnv26

[Bob Armstrong]

I think the contributions on the topic of what is Democratic Marxism, what is Democratic Socialism, rights protection from the majority, and progressive taxation have been most thoughtful.

I will take some time, as asked, to consider the points raised, and try to deal with each of them, one at a time.

Give me some time to do this.

It is becoming a truly "collective" thread: all are inputting; all are benefitting. And I won't say that this only happens under Democratic Marxism .

Bob A (Very, very open-minded!)

[Dilip Panjwani]

In Canada, the Charter of Rights, and in the United States, the Constitution, exist precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. These documents ensure that no government, no matter how popular, can infringe on fundamental freedoms—be it through authoritarian overreach or policies that disregard individual rights.

---

And yet authoritarian overreach commonly occurs, whether it be infringement on property rights (as Tom pointed out) by progressive direct taxation or those instances where the authoritarian government threatens to use the 'notwithstanding' clause...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Some problems? Venezuela is full of problems, thanks to its Marxism, which is nothing but utter nonsense, for all the reasons you have been repeatedly given, and have no sensible argument against any of those facts, but in your stubbornness, just choose to ignore them, and continue to have blind faith in your DM!

Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in South America prior to their revolution which involved expropriating wealth and property and giving it to the people, who then ran it into the ground. People like Elon Musk are a gift from God. Society and its wealth are diminished if you steal from him or people like him.

[Dilip Panjwani]

...there are lazy people out there who will take and take and not think twice about it. They will never give back and this is sometimes ingrained to such a level it becomes multi-generational.

Yes, and hence it begins at a very young age, with guidance (or lack of) from their parents... do they slog hard and smart to enable them to earn better as adults or do they rather just concentrate on having non-productive fun..

[Tom O'Donnell]

Socialism works well in small groups. Families are inherently socialistic. So are small, tight-knit communities like the Amish. When you know the people you are dealing with well, you have expectations and you can tell if they are doing the best they can, given their circumstances. At larger levels, you cannot have any such knowledge. People correctly suspect that there are lazy people out there who will take and take and not think twice about it. They will never give back and this is sometimes ingrained to such a level it becomes multi-generational. Without government doling out free money, such people would be forced to contribute. Something like UBI would only exacerbate the problem of such people, imo, and increase their number.