It seems, at first, odd when foreign commentators cite Canada's conservative political culture. The reality is best expressed not in our conception of ideology but rather in the way we approach governance in attitude. As I've noted in a previous post, we are a country founded on the maxim of “peace, order and good governance” and this reverberates through our political culture. We have had, essentially, the same three federalist parties in play since the 50s. For all the rhetoric surrounding change it is hard to discern how Canadians generally approach it (and it is a question I don't have the time or resources to delve into) but it can certainly be said that we expect our governments to be cautious when approaching it. Change in government is inevitable but we want to be assured, or at least minimally unsure, that the results will be positive.
Hence, when a government is working, perhaps not as best it should, but working nonetheless we tend to support it. This is how the Liberals were able to maintain the unwarranted title of Canada's 'natural governing party' for most of our history. It was not through brilliance, or even through design, it was because with Laurier, King, St. Laurent, Pierson, Chrétien, they knew their jobs and did them. They weren't exciting, they weren't exceptional, they simply worked. They showed up for their jobs and they did an alright enough job so that Canadian's didn't feel impelled to fire them. And when they did fire them, they hired a new guy remarkably similar, like Diefenbaker, Clark, or Mulroney. Trudeau, arguably, is the only politician that didn't fit this mould in the least. Love him or hate him he was exciting. The place he hold's in many liberal Canadian's imagination –as the archetype Canadian liberal politician–is largely ahistorical. Not only did he do more to Americanize our country than any Canadian politician before him in a policy sense he was very American in his approach to politics. He was not like the bureaucratic image of a Canadian politician. He fit the mould of an American one perfectly, which is perhaps, precisely why he irritated them so; it is often the characteristic of loud personalities that they can only stand themselves. He was brash, confrontational, cocky, and unapologetic.
After Trudeau things were slightly altered although not as drastically as could have been the case. The inherent blandness of Canadian politics seemed to pick up a bit of American sex appeal. Canadians seemed, at least for a while, to demand more excitement from their leaders. Mulroney's wife Mila was a favourite of the press. The intrigue and political gamesmanship of the Meech Lake and Charlettetown Accords were testaments to the new atmosphere in Ottawa as much as they were to the vaunted efforts of a Prime Minister who was intent on making his mark on Canadian history. The fact remains, however, that Mulroney was a return to the bureaucratic, disciplined, anti-polar image of Canadian PM's.
Which brings us to Harper; he fits the image perfectly, despite what some negligible commentators on the left would have us believe. They would have us believe that Harper is intent on criminalizing abortion and reversing same-sex marriage. They insist that the hidden agenda that won the 2004 election is still going to rear its head. It is what political losers do: point to imaginary problems to score much needed and illusive points. (Conservatives did and still do it when they cry socialism whenever liberal policy is enacted.) It's extremely counterproductive and counterintuitive in that it neither highlights real problems to appose or offers any solutions. The left's insistence on attacking the Conservative's record on false logic will not work with 4 years of government record to the contrary. Nevertheless, people who oppose all too often resort to this strategy. Harper, is in fact, remarkably similar to his predecessors in personality and policy. It is in the essential truth of the latter point that some conservatives, in fact, find themselves adversely affected. They would rather Harper be less like his predecessors. These individuals, myself included, would prefer he be more conservative or more reformist (by this I mean not to allude to the negative social conservative connotation that leftists often impinge on this word in Canada but its universal meaning, also related to his routes in the Reform Party). Most of us, however, will settle on our conservative disposition and re-elect him because he is here and he is unworthy of being fired. It seems likely that Canadians will, over these next three years, become increasingly comfortable with the idea that Harper is much like they have come to expect from their leaders and the Conservative government has behaved much like previous Liberal ones. As Canadians increasingly warm to Harper and come to see him for what he is –a leader that appeals to very Canadian sensibilities about what a leader should be– he will be given more license to make his own, unique, mark on Canadian politics. So, paradoxically, it is in his adherence to the norm of Canadian politics that he will be permitted to be more different.
It is in this paradox that, finally, it becomes apparent that the situation is not so odd as it seems. Harper's adherence to the Canadian norm, to the established idea of a Canadian Prime Minister, the characteristically conservative attitude of Canadian's towards our Government that foreigners so often point to, will allow our Prime Minister to enact more conservative policy. Continuing with the attention to oddities in Canadian politics: of these conservative policies, the ones for which many Conservative's, including myself, are most hopeful are the reform policies. Indeed, reform is not the usual provocative of conservative governments but it seems in Canada we have a habit of turning typical political meanings on their head.
