I worry the hyper-partisanship that has grown within Canada's culture will make any resistance to US expansion that much harder.
When I hear reference to Tory conservatism, I have a good idea of what is being referenced.
So many Canadians simply think of “Tory” as a synonym for “conservative”, and that all shades of “conservative” are the same. Within the Canadian Federal parliament there have been governments formed by Liberal-Conservative, Progressive Conservative and a variety of different parties and political philosophies calling themselves “Conservative”.
Rather than embracing the ways in which Tory conservatism is entirely different from the Lockean liberalism of the USA (where both the Democrats and Republicans are to the right of traditional Canadian Tory conservatives), most Canadians will treat those roots of what made Canada different as some “other”.
The USA was created from a subset of British North American colonies that didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes to pay for things the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of, and didn’t want to honour British law limiting genocidal policies. That isn’t how the USA markets itself today, nor is it even how Canada’s “left” understand the USA today.
Without understanding the history and the ongoing differences, how can there possibly be a resistance to the separatists assimilating the remains of what they separated from?
Agreed, it is remarkable how contemporary Canadian politics and discourse is almost completely disconnected from history, which to your point makes us vulnerable to annexation and integration. I'm not even sure the Tories under PP are conservative, since they seem so focused in perceived individual rights and grievances. For example any conservative movement that rejects public health is inherently anti-conservative.
As to a disconnect from history: I believe individualism disconnects humans from time, place, peoples, culture, etc.
People who subscribe to the ideology of individualism are more vulnerable to external systemic manipulation. It is hard to protect yourself from social programming you have been programmed to believe doesn't exist.
Or, to flip the language: is the Conservative Party of Canada under PP Tory?
I don't think the current Conservative party is Tory,, even if some of the candidates and MPs are Tory.
The centralization of politics into hierarchical corporate brands have in many ways silenced Tories - to the detriment of the possible future independence of "Canada".
(Autistic infodump and thinking out loud -- skip if this isn't interesting....)
The US political movements and parties seem to have stuck with names based on different concepts: features of being a Republic and/or being Democratic (Democratic-Republican party, 1824 split, etc. Interesting history).
The Dominion of Canada has had "Liberal" and "Conservative" in party names of sitting MPs since the passage of the first British North America Act in 1867, much like the British parliament itself. Canada isn't a republic, and is instead a Constitutional Monarchy that remains part of (and embarrassingly a big cheerleader of) the British Commonwealth.
Canada's New Democratic Party doesn't focus on the health of Democratic Institutions (NDP is in many ways more centralized than other Canadian parties), so it isn't like you can learn much about a political party or movement from the name it gives itself.
I learned early in my getting involved in politics that "left" vs "right" in Canada didn't speak to me.
The "right" seemed to favor big corporations, and the "left" big unions and big government.
I reject the hierarchies that "big" generates, and want to see decentralized community focused participation.
-----
I was speaking with a Green Party supporter the other day about electoral reform. I was talking about Ranked Ballots (and preferably in multi-member districts, which is Single Transferrable Vote).
They complained that these systems were geography based, different from being party based (they favored party lists).
That is of course the point: politics should be understood as local and we should be organizing and collaborating within our communities, not (dis)organizing into deliberately isolated, warring corporate silos (political parties).
----
BTW: Having a party brand that is only in one province is a good thing. Having the same brand name used for federal and provincial parties makes no real sense, given the jurisdiction and thus the policy focus is (or should be) understood as different. The NDP regularly conflate federal and provincial jurisdiction, misinforming citizens rather than helping to clarify an already confusing situation.
Shorter term I'm focused on doing anything I can to help defang divisive hierarchical political silos, currently in the form of political parties operating outside of parliament (different from caucuses operating inside parliament).
My views don't fit into the more typical "Canadian" conversation. I'll be open and honest here, as is in my nature, even though I'm guessing this isn't a perspective that will be shared by many other people reading.
I don't see modifying the constitution to shift greater jurisdiction from the current federal government to the current provinces would solve any significant problems, and with the divisiveness we already see I can see that making existing problems worse.
I'm not a fan of the British North America Acts (AKA: The core of the Canadian Constitution), or how the constitution was set up to facilitate less accountable resource extraction for the British Empire, or to allow the Catholic Church to maintain control over healthcare and education in specific regions of the colonies.
Municipal governments are Provincial corporations under the Canadian system. That is a whole other conversation whether they should be created as separate governments that aren't dictated to by provinces.
I don't like how provinces were gerrymandered to be north-south even though the existing nations and populations were east-west. This gerrymandering was done to grant southern interests control over northern resources -- those who primarily benefit from the resource extraction are not the people who are harmed by the pollution and other costs of that extraction. With Nunavut being created by splitting from North West Territories, my long-term hope is that the same can happen with provinces to allow the different populations in the True North to become strong and free of southern governments.
Canadian Constitutional change via the new amending formula was made deliberately hard with Canada Act 1982 in order to block various movements at the time (In Britain and elsewhere). Prior to that act it was the British parliament that passed any changes to the “Canadian” constitution.
Any real change to Canada’s outdated and foreign systems will require the current silos of the hierarchical political brands be broken down. Provinces and the feds can't even get together to realistically discuss what is happening with the southern separatists (USA), so constitutional modernization isn't even close to being on the table.
BTW: Here is a video about the extremely outdated natural of the US constitutional, with Canada being very similar (in some ways worse, given the Canadian constitution was written by the British and not by inhabitants of this continent).
As a young Liberal this rings so true for me. The merging of the Conservative and Reform parties was a reduction in the conservative ethic in Canada and it pushed young people like me to align with other parties as the PCs became straight C and lost the P. There’s a Red Tory in me and a lot of young Canadians but we let ourselves forget that our politics have that nuance
Thanks! Taking a listen to the pilot and at least from the first 5 minutes “rejection of ideological rigidity” and sense-making is exactly what I’d hoped for! Looking forward to listening more
First time I've ever heard the idea that conservative thinking is at the root of Canadian liberal and progressive ideas. An interesting read for me ... would probably have the current bunch of Conservatives (without the "Progressive" prefix) seething with indignation.
I think the argument belies the idea that Canada in one of he most educated countries in the world. Ideas are debated but within a fundamental construct that Community and society exist that all may thrive. The charter of rights has free speech but not to the detriment of other canadians. And that no individual deserves more stature than others and the collective health of society is more important than an individual grievance. There is no room for a Karen. Canada is not built upon the same defrence to property rights as the US. And Canadians are proud, individual and wary.
I worry the hyper-partisanship that has grown within Canada's culture will make any resistance to US expansion that much harder.
When I hear reference to Tory conservatism, I have a good idea of what is being referenced.
So many Canadians simply think of “Tory” as a synonym for “conservative”, and that all shades of “conservative” are the same. Within the Canadian Federal parliament there have been governments formed by Liberal-Conservative, Progressive Conservative and a variety of different parties and political philosophies calling themselves “Conservative”.
Rather than embracing the ways in which Tory conservatism is entirely different from the Lockean liberalism of the USA (where both the Democrats and Republicans are to the right of traditional Canadian Tory conservatives), most Canadians will treat those roots of what made Canada different as some “other”.
The USA was created from a subset of British North American colonies that didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes to pay for things the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of, and didn’t want to honour British law limiting genocidal policies. That isn’t how the USA markets itself today, nor is it even how Canada’s “left” understand the USA today.
Without understanding the history and the ongoing differences, how can there possibly be a resistance to the separatists assimilating the remains of what they separated from?
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian
Agreed, it is remarkable how contemporary Canadian politics and discourse is almost completely disconnected from history, which to your point makes us vulnerable to annexation and integration. I'm not even sure the Tories under PP are conservative, since they seem so focused in perceived individual rights and grievances. For example any conservative movement that rejects public health is inherently anti-conservative.
As to a disconnect from history: I believe individualism disconnects humans from time, place, peoples, culture, etc.
People who subscribe to the ideology of individualism are more vulnerable to external systemic manipulation. It is hard to protect yourself from social programming you have been programmed to believe doesn't exist.
Or, to flip the language: is the Conservative Party of Canada under PP Tory?
I don't think the current Conservative party is Tory,, even if some of the candidates and MPs are Tory.
The centralization of politics into hierarchical corporate brands have in many ways silenced Tories - to the detriment of the possible future independence of "Canada".
Progressive Conservative. Why that combination never took off in the states is a head scratcher.
(Autistic infodump and thinking out loud -- skip if this isn't interesting....)
The US political movements and parties seem to have stuck with names based on different concepts: features of being a Republic and/or being Democratic (Democratic-Republican party, 1824 split, etc. Interesting history).
The Dominion of Canada has had "Liberal" and "Conservative" in party names of sitting MPs since the passage of the first British North America Act in 1867, much like the British parliament itself. Canada isn't a republic, and is instead a Constitutional Monarchy that remains part of (and embarrassingly a big cheerleader of) the British Commonwealth.
Canada's New Democratic Party doesn't focus on the health of Democratic Institutions (NDP is in many ways more centralized than other Canadian parties), so it isn't like you can learn much about a political party or movement from the name it gives itself.
NDP used to be the favourite of the big unions, no?
Reform Party of Canada - failed to reform the Senate
People's Party of Canada - stuck in the wilderness
Wild Rose Party - only in Alberta
Then there is British Columbia's version of Liberal and Conservative.
Canada - where red is blue and blue is red. Where Grits used to refer to nothing but sand. Now its nothing but dirt.
I learned early in my getting involved in politics that "left" vs "right" in Canada didn't speak to me.
The "right" seemed to favor big corporations, and the "left" big unions and big government.
I reject the hierarchies that "big" generates, and want to see decentralized community focused participation.
-----
I was speaking with a Green Party supporter the other day about electoral reform. I was talking about Ranked Ballots (and preferably in multi-member districts, which is Single Transferrable Vote).
They complained that these systems were geography based, different from being party based (they favored party lists).
That is of course the point: politics should be understood as local and we should be organizing and collaborating within our communities, not (dis)organizing into deliberately isolated, warring corporate silos (political parties).
----
BTW: Having a party brand that is only in one province is a good thing. Having the same brand name used for federal and provincial parties makes no real sense, given the jurisdiction and thus the policy focus is (or should be) understood as different. The NDP regularly conflate federal and provincial jurisdiction, misinforming citizens rather than helping to clarify an already confusing situation.
Do you support greater jurisdiction for the provinces? Or more responsibilities for the municipal/city level?
We reelected the Conservative Party in Nova Scotia - they are not your western Canada conservatives.
Shorter term I'm focused on doing anything I can to help defang divisive hierarchical political silos, currently in the form of political parties operating outside of parliament (different from caucuses operating inside parliament).
https://www.davidgraham.ca/p/leadership-by-caucus
----------
My views don't fit into the more typical "Canadian" conversation. I'll be open and honest here, as is in my nature, even though I'm guessing this isn't a perspective that will be shared by many other people reading.
I don't see modifying the constitution to shift greater jurisdiction from the current federal government to the current provinces would solve any significant problems, and with the divisiveness we already see I can see that making existing problems worse.
I'm not a fan of the British North America Acts (AKA: The core of the Canadian Constitution), or how the constitution was set up to facilitate less accountable resource extraction for the British Empire, or to allow the Catholic Church to maintain control over healthcare and education in specific regions of the colonies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary?title=British%20North%20America%20Act
Municipal governments are Provincial corporations under the Canadian system. That is a whole other conversation whether they should be created as separate governments that aren't dictated to by provinces.
I don't like how provinces were gerrymandered to be north-south even though the existing nations and populations were east-west. This gerrymandering was done to grant southern interests control over northern resources -- those who primarily benefit from the resource extraction are not the people who are harmed by the pollution and other costs of that extraction. With Nunavut being created by splitting from North West Territories, my long-term hope is that the same can happen with provinces to allow the different populations in the True North to become strong and free of southern governments.
Canadian Constitutional change via the new amending formula was made deliberately hard with Canada Act 1982 in order to block various movements at the time (In Britain and elsewhere). Prior to that act it was the British parliament that passed any changes to the “Canadian” constitution.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11/contents
https://www.docip.org/en/oral-history-and-memory/historical-process/
Any real change to Canada’s outdated and foreign systems will require the current silos of the hierarchical political brands be broken down. Provinces and the feds can't even get together to realistically discuss what is happening with the southern separatists (USA), so constitutional modernization isn't even close to being on the table.
BTW: Here is a video about the extremely outdated natural of the US constitutional, with Canada being very similar (in some ways worse, given the Canadian constitution was written by the British and not by inhabitants of this continent).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C3Yrwwwr1s
As a young Liberal this rings so true for me. The merging of the Conservative and Reform parties was a reduction in the conservative ethic in Canada and it pushed young people like me to align with other parties as the PCs became straight C and lost the P. There’s a Red Tory in me and a lot of young Canadians but we let ourselves forget that our politics have that nuance
You might dig our https://red-tory.com podcast
Thanks! Taking a listen to the pilot and at least from the first 5 minutes “rejection of ideological rigidity” and sense-making is exactly what I’d hoped for! Looking forward to listening more
Another angle to this. I appreciate the education.
First time I've ever heard the idea that conservative thinking is at the root of Canadian liberal and progressive ideas. An interesting read for me ... would probably have the current bunch of Conservatives (without the "Progressive" prefix) seething with indignation.
I think the argument belies the idea that Canada in one of he most educated countries in the world. Ideas are debated but within a fundamental construct that Community and society exist that all may thrive. The charter of rights has free speech but not to the detriment of other canadians. And that no individual deserves more stature than others and the collective health of society is more important than an individual grievance. There is no room for a Karen. Canada is not built upon the same defrence to property rights as the US. And Canadians are proud, individual and wary.
Question for Americans:
If an invasion of Canada were given the green light, how would you feel?