Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Modern conservatism has been going through an identity crisis.

While U.S. President Donald Trump’s election may seem to have been the catalyst for this soul-searching, it’s not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power four decades ago. Such leaders don’t come along very often. When they do, they leave an imprint that – unless their successors take heed – can become a rut.

That is exactly what has happened to conservatism in the anglosphere countries, including the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia. The Reagan-Thatcher years were characterized by supply-side economics, free trade, deregulation and downsizing the welfare state. Support for these policies became the measure by which conservatives defined themselves.

Story continues below advertisement

What many self-proclaimed conservatives seem to have forgotten is that Mr. Reagan and Ms. Thatcher were products of the postwar expansion of government intervention in the economy and the personal lives of individuals. Reaganomics and Thatcherism, hence, sought to restore balance between the responsibilities of the state and the individual.

Mr. Reagan and Ms. Thatcher were not, strictly speaking, conservatives at all. They were in fact classical liberals, placing the onus for success on the individual. Ms. Thatcher’s notorious 1987 declaration that “there is no such thing as society” epitomized this philosophy.

Inspired in part by the big bangs Mr. Reagan and Ms. Thatcher set off in their countries, former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney also embraced privatization, deregulation and free trade. Where he broke with the Reaganites and Thatcherites was on supply-side economics. Mr. Mulroney introduced the goods and services tax, without which Jean Chrétien’s Liberals might never have been able to balance the budget.

Somewhere along the way, conservatives went off track. Tax cuts, deregulation and free trade became ends unto themselves without any consideration for their consequences for working-class citizens. Inevitably, the latter revolted. The result was Donald Trump’s election to the White House in 2016 and Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.

Those events thrust conservatism into the full-on existential crisis from which it has yet to emerge. Conservatives should not let this crisis go to waste. They should embrace it as an opportunity to reconnect with their past while modernizing conservatism for the 2020s.

As the federal Conservative Party embarks on choosing its next leader, it must first settle on what it stands for. That has become increasingly hard for Canadians to figure out in recent years as the party put developing talking points over policy development. The party’s 2019 election platform was a visionless potluck of empty promises. It sure wasn’t conservative.

Some Conservatives have come to recognize the need to get serious about policy, at least in abstract terms. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has aligned himself with the “reform conservative” movement that has emerged in the United States. It emphasizes social mobility as the focus of policy and suggests a more activist role for government in ensuring equality of opportunity through wage subsidies and German-style apprentice programs.

Story continues below advertisement

It’s a good start. But Canadian conservatism needs to be more than a carbon copy of whatever becomes of its U.S. counterpart. Since John A. Macdonald and Georges-Étienne Cartier, Canadian conservatives have always made national unity a core value. They have believed that Canada – despite its regional, linguistic and ethnic differences – is much more than the sum of its parts. That without a shared purpose, Canada might not exist.

Conservatives also believe in something called Canadian society, defined by common values and goals that set us apart as Canadians. Conservatives do not believe that Canada is a country with “no core identity,” much less the world’s “first postnational state,” as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau so strangely told The New York Times in 2015.

Conservatives believe Canada has a very clear core identity. It is an outgrowth of the “peace, order and good government” clause in the British North American Act of 1867 that has made this country’s institutions so strong and its politics so much saner than those of most of its developed-world counterparts. It is an extension of our linguistic and cultural duality, which has always led us to favour honourable compromise over ideological or moral victory. It is the mindset with which we now seek reconciliation with Indigenous nations.

That’s why Conservatives seeking to use a leadership contest to shift the party in a populist direction or purge the appeasers (otherwise known as moderates) should first look in the mirror. Because the person looking back probably isn’t a conservative at all.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies