One of the ways politics gets confusing is how we use the term liberal. Officially it means two things: freedom (both economic and social) and an ideology to describe political parties. Most everyone agrees with the first (freedom), the second is now coming to an end. To better understand, let’s look at history.
Stage I
Government was initially run by a single person, typically some dictator or a king. People went about their day in accordance with sovereign views until things changed in the late 1600s. That’s when Britain overthrew its monarch and made elected parliament supreme. France soon followed and later came the US.
In the early days, parliament took only two forms—one designed by the British and another by the French. In Britain, there were two parties, Conservatives and the Whigs. They took electoral turns while the other played loyal opposition. No matter what the government proposed, the other’s job was to object. If government said raise taxes, they said “no way”; if government said let’s have Sunday shopping, opposition said “not a chance.” Under this system, before any bill could pass it had to be thoroughly thought out and fought over. Kind of like an argument going on inside your head.
In early France, everyone advocating for change sat on the left side of the chamber and those preferring things stay the same sat on the right. Terms we still use today. Again, with this system there were proposals and objections—just like with the Brits.
Stage II
A second stage came when the Whigs changed their name to Liberals and adopted an ideology. As a party they stood up for two things: social freedom away from the Bible and the creation of a welfare state. Remember, the separation of church and state was a large part of democracy but much of religion remained within law. And at the time, economic productivity was just reaching the point where a welfare state was even possible.
The hallmark of this movement occurred in 1904, when Winston Churchill crossed the floor to join the governing Liberals and usher in Britain’s first welfare state. Then as time went by, more cons wanted to join in. They were called progressive conservatives.
Common beliefs
Within any political system there are always three boxes. A wide one along the bottom—to represent what everyone believes—and two more on top, to show differing views.
In Canada, our common beliefs rectangle is pretty thick. There’s little of Christianity left within our system and we boast a pretty robust welfare state. So at least in our country, the Whig agenda has won. Liberals are currently finishing things off through doctor-assist (Bible), legalizing dope (Bible), and beefing up CPP (welfare state). After that, there isn’t much left. So where do we go when we mostly agree? And what’s the new difference between liberals and cons?
Stage III
Going forward leaders will be more about competency than ideology, and issues will be more individual than according to theme. Yes, parties will be different but not along Whig-Liberal lines. Conservatives favour eliminating unnecessary business regulations but shouldn’t everyone be doing this—they’re unnecessary. They’re also big on personal responsibility, but even under left-wing governments I don’t qualify for welfare. So no matter the stripe, there’s only so much dough to go around.
In Ontario, Doug Ford campaigned against McGuinty-Wynne debt but is this Liberal policy? Paul Martin ran 13 federal surpluses and belongs to the same party. Wynne privatized hydro and invested heavily in R&D. Couldn’t conservative government have done the same thing? And how about Alberta’s NDP fighting for pipelines?
When NAFTA was redrafted, it was strictly business. Any party could have done it. Same goes for banking regulations, privacy laws, and increasing the minimum wage. And like it or not, other than maintaining or increasing the welfare state, when it comes to economics, we’re looking for optimal standard of living. So no matter your slant, it must work within human nature. Raising taxes too high makes the gifted give up, and no economy can operate like that.
Summary
In Canada we’re pretty lucky. We’ve never been overly religious so resistance to social change was soft. For example, conservatives opposed gay marriage and 10 years later passed it into their party platform (making the argument gone for good). We’ve also been fortunate financially, which made building a welfare state rather easy.
Today’s challenges are postmodernism on the left and US-style wackos on the right. Liberals seem to be linking to some PM causes and for some reason crazies like the prospect of lower taxation. In both cases it’s important to vote down the middle. I don’t know enough, but postmodernists seem to lack brainpower and may be riding on the Whig-Liberal’s good name. I doubt it’s something I’ll fight for. Likewise, I don’t understand the American beef against social programs. Isn’t government supposed to operate monopolies?
Bottom line: we’re mostly good people who all want the same thing. Yes, we get divided by what goes on in the States but they’re not us. Down there it’s a different situation that varies by a lot. Up here life is mostly good. Let’s hope we don’t wreck it.
See also Left is for Liberal and Conservatives.