It’s time for Canada’s conservative movement to stop focusing on what’s wrong and to start making things right. And I make that plea as someone who fully understands that for those of us who believe in free enterprise, smaller government and individual freedom, lots of things are going wrong.
Where have all the Liberals gone? Based on recent by-elections, it would appear they’ve migrated to the Greater Toronto Area. Unable to win in the Quebec by-elections of a few months ago, now struck down in northern Saskatchewan and almost defeated in the Liberal stronghold of Vancouver Quadra, only Toronto seems enamored of Canada’s “Natural Governing Party.” And despite its size, Toronto does not a majority party make.
Recently, on the editorial pages of the New York Times, William Kristol argued that the biographies of candidates will play only an ancillary role in determining the next President of the United States this fall. [i] Reading his editorial, my thoughts turned to the central role that biography is currently playing in determining the Democratic nominee. Absent a meaningful divergence between the candidates on a substantive policy issue, the media (induced by the candidates themselves) has turned Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton into living symbols of the aspirations of a race and gender respectively. Voters, however, seeking to evaluate whether these candidates are truly capable of representing these communities, have turned to their autobiographies, hoping to find stories within that commune with their own tales of hardship.
There are those in my gown town who believe that every political idea expressed in the Anglosphere originates in the United Kingdom. This belief draws indignation from the city’s colonial contingent, which champions the contributions of non-Britons from Rand to Kymlicka. However, we colonials are forced to admit that, particularly over the past thirty years, it has typically been in Britain where global shifts in political attitudes have first been fully expressed in political platforms.