- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 1, 2004

Within the next year or so, Canada could elect its most pro-American leader in memory. In the first part of a two-stage electoral transition, this week the Conservative Party, led by free market economist Stephen Harper, reduced Prime Minister Paul Martin’s all-powerful Liberal Party to minority government status.

After governing Canada without serious challenge for the past 11 years, the Liberals replaced long-time leader Jean Chretien with Mr. Martin late last year. During the 1990s, the Chretien government was ideologically compatible with the Clinton administration. During the 2000 presidential race, the Canadian ambassador to Washington undiplomatically voiced support for Al Gore’s candidacy.

From 2001 onward, the Chretien government did little to hide its antipathy to the Bush administration’s nominally conservative policy prescriptions. On one occasion, a senior Chretien aide referred to President Bush as “a moron.” Mr. Chretien, himself, privately regaled fellow Liberal legislators with jokes at President Bush’s personal expense.

Mr. Chretien’s initial response to the events of September 11, 2001, was viewed as underwhelming, particular in contrast to Britain’s Tony Blair. Mr. Bush subsequently excluded Canada from the list of countries he thanked in his Sept. 20, 2001, speech to Congress.

Mr. Chretien also disagreed with Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Mr. Chretien’s position mirrored the sentiments of most Canadians and, today, an even greater number are pleased that Canada stayed out of the Iraq war. However, Stephen Harper rhetorically trod the Blairite path in support of the president’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein.

As leader of the new Conservative Party — the product of a merger between the ideologically squishy Progressive Conservative (PC) party and Mr. Harper’s larger, more ideologically robust Canadian Alliance party — Mr. Harper has unapologetically pledged closer ties with the United States. For Mr. Harper, improved Canada-U.S. relations are not simply a pragmatic concern driven by important north-south trade.

Rather, it constitutes an opportunity for Canada to be a more reliable ally, a better friend, both rhetorically and substantively. He seeks to alter Canada’s legendary invisibility in political Washington. Mr. Harper would significantly increase Canadian defense spending, raise Canada’s ambassador to Washington to Cabinet status, and form a U.S.-Canada customs union.

The Liberal campaign centered on hyperbolic attacks at Mr. Harper’s support for tax cuts. Mr. Martin implied lower taxes were un-Canadian and disingenuously claimed leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets would usher in an American-style state of nature where Canada’s poor, elderly and sick are left to fend for themselves.

While U.S. conservatives and libertarians wouldn’t recognize the American polity as often and erroneously described beyond its borders, such nationalistic appeals are notoriously effective. After all, the average Canadian has always defined himself in negative terms, i.e., “not being American.”

Surprisingly, Mr. Harper was injured, but not fatally, by the Liberal charge he was too pro-American. Historically, the Liberal Party has done well in national elections based in part on its fondness for playing the anti-American card. But the 2004 campaign was a little different.

The difference reflects, in part, the Liberal government’s own credibility problems stemming from a litany of political corruption scandals. It also reflects a gradual evolution of the Canadian electorate’s attitudes and values.

Today, Canadians look more kindly on free trade, economic competition, and wealth creation than in the past, while they are somewhat more skeptical of big government solutions to social and economic problems. In truth, Canadians more closely resemble Americans than they once did.

Mr. Harper’s campaign exploited this opening to good effect with promises to cut taxes, limit increases in government spending, end corporate welfare, and withdraw Canada from the Kyoto climate accord. He also proposed to attack Canada’s democratic deficit with an elected Senate, fixed election dates, referenda, and a more decentralized federation.

Mr. Harper is a rarity among national Canadian leaders. A genuine policy wonk, he has reflected long and hard about the role of government in society. In most areas, he recognizes that less, rather than more, government is the better option.

Coming 15 years after Mr. Harper helped lead a grass-roots exodus away from the last PC government to a new small-c conservative party, his party’s solid showing serves as a neighborly reminder that adherence to principle can pay off electorally.

Today, the Conservatives are politically relevant and are nicely poised to exploit the inevitable traumas that will befall a Liberal minority government dependent upon the left-wing New Democratic Party for political survival. Occurring so close to home, is it too much to hope Mr. Harper’s achievement will also embolden Mr. Bush’s past commitment to limited government?

Patrick Basham is senior fellow in the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide