Just as I said late last night, you're 100% on point with this post. This is a very, very different Bloc than that of the Duceppe era (and especially the chaotic period under his successor Martine Ouellet). There's a certain, methodical process going on in the sovereigntist parties (BQ and PQ; not so much QS) and it has everything to do with (Quebec) Bills 21, 96, and 4 – and the controversial amendments forced into the new Official Languages Act at the federal level. If "winning conditions" don't exist for sovereignty, then sovereignty by litigation. They've never beaten Liberal governments when they've tried for it, and have always said they could beat a Conservative government (true).
A Bloc-Conservative Party alliance in the next Parliament could renew the politics of the Alberta-Quebec axis engineered and maintained by Mulroney until the demise of the Meech Lake accord. The growing sovereignty sentiments in Alberta and the living legacies on which the Bloc still draws, both cast Ottawa as the predator to be resisted, countered and contained.
"What replaced it was a very different party in its wake – a party not of separation but as the protector of the CAQ and Francois Legault."
They are, in effect, trading on diehard separatist voters the same way that the CPC is trying to leverage anti-vaxxers, potential PPC voters, and assorted culturally right wing but philosophically amorphous voters.
Yeah, I don't know. The Bloc supports a cultural nationalism, which isn't the same as social conservatism. The CPC is also their main rival in those more culturally conservative ridings that you mention, so it would be an awkward and inherently competitve and unstable union. Finally, the Bloc probably benefits when there's a Liberal government in Ottawa, which offers a simpler, more direct, and historically anchored foil for the nationalist party.
One is an exclusionary/defensive sense of self and community, based on the belief of holding a distinct culture, including history and language. The Anglophone and Allophone cannot belong, for example, and present threats.
The other is the sense that social values and practices should reflect tradition and order and show moderation, and that social change in the contemporary world has been too quick and detached from history. Importantly, it need not exclude others; they can be included if they share the same views.
An obvious point of difference is the role that the immigrant plays in each party.
For the Bloc and Quebec nationalists more generally, the immigrant is a general threat to their existence, hence the need for control, limitation, and integration.
For the CPC, it's more complicated. They may object to certain social practices and beliefs, but there isn't an overarching sense of the majority culture being at risk (i.e., no existential threat). There's also a sense of economic and electoral opportunity in welcoming new immigrants. (Compare Poilievre actively championing the credentials issue versus Blanchet, who defers to Legault on such matters, who in turn is ultimately ambivalent on the issue, caught between economic reality and cultural anxiety.)
In short, we're not talking tomatoes. It's actually apples and oranges.
I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but, with respect, it's a distinction that has eroded significantly. Just as the Bloc was once a party that championed numerous left of centre political ideas, the Progressive Conservatives used to be concerned about the introduction of different values but not about the loss of mainstream Canadian identity. The CPC are not those conservatives! And the CPC's current pitch is often to a group who feels the majority culture is threatened: by immigrants, by the 2SLGBTQ+IA and other groups, and by the re-evaluation of Canadian historical wrongs.
I think it's far more informative (and accurate) to start treating these movements as quite similar: advanced by a loud and largish minority out of a sense of cultural insecurity.
I'm not convinced. There is some overlap, for sure, but the argument reduces or minimizes strong ideological and policy differences for the sake of a simple analogy. The Oxford byelection tells you everything that you need to know: Poilievre's team wanted to bring a visible minority candidate who does outreach for the party into Parliament, and despite the candidate not being an obvious fit for the riding, most CPC voters followed the party's lead. (In fact, the CPC raised the anti-racism card in defending the candidate!) It's hard to imagine the BQ championing a similar candidate; speaking French is important, but there's more to the Quebecois identity than just that.
There's a broad popular literature on the CPC's visible minority outreach efforts that might be worth reviewing (remember Jason Kenney pre-Alberta implosion?). There's also a broad academic literature that addresses issues of nationalism and immigration, social conservatism, and populism. I would recommend Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Charles Taylor as good starting points on nationalism; James Farney has a great book on Canadian social conservatism and what makes it unique/distinct; and Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin have an interesting book, set in the international context, that explores the link between nationalism and populism - what they term national populism for a very specific reason (this might actually be closer to how the author is trying to depict the CPC). Harper's book on populism might also be worth reviewing. It lays out the basic strategy that Scheer, O'Toole, and now Poilievre have been trying to employ: appeal to blue collar workers and socially conservative immigrants while ignoring the higher educated and more wealthy.
If we were still in the world of the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance, I think the argument would be stronger. However, there's a reason these parties no longer appear on the ballot.
Finally, this sounds like a burner account for Evan. Authors should never read the comments on their work - it's not healthy. Anyone can discuss politics as strategy - it's the favourite past time of old men, after all! - but you should come prepared when discussing heavier topics like identity and ideology ;)
Well... Evan and I are both likely to be either flattered or take offence, depending on a range of factors. As I said, I understood the point that you are trying to make. I understand it really, really well, actually. I studied with Taylor, so in addition to having read quite a bit I had a front row seat in workshopping Sources of the Self. I'd even like to think that some opinions of mine had an impact, however, I don't truly believe this!
The problem, it seems to me, is that the folks who are currently "running" the CPC and the folks to whom they seem to be spending inordinate amounts of time appealing, aren't all that fussed about academic or philosophical distinctions. I'm not actually suggesting there isn't a difference in those categories, but as I survey the strategies, tactics and whatever the hell could be called a philosophy here, I see much that is extremely similar. In fact, I would say that what the Bloc, CAQ and CPC have very much in common (shared also by Ford, Smith, Moe and others to some degree) is an abandonment of ideology (and ideas) in favour of populist tropes and culture wars. The particular flavour of those culture wars may differ somewhat, but it is the fixation on these culture wars that matters. Including, ironically, the blatantly obvious false accusations of racism to cover the disingenuous actions of Khanna and Poilievre.
In other words, the similarities of these parties is very much more something we need to recognize rather than the differences that are largely academic.
a guy who studied under and supposedly influenced Taylor only follows and comments on one obscure cdn poli blog?
Also a guy who studied under and supposedly influenced Taylor dismisses academic discussions and distinctions despite Taylor's own life as an academic, political candidate and public servant showing how the academic and the practical can be brought together?
Just as I said late last night, you're 100% on point with this post. This is a very, very different Bloc than that of the Duceppe era (and especially the chaotic period under his successor Martine Ouellet). There's a certain, methodical process going on in the sovereigntist parties (BQ and PQ; not so much QS) and it has everything to do with (Quebec) Bills 21, 96, and 4 – and the controversial amendments forced into the new Official Languages Act at the federal level. If "winning conditions" don't exist for sovereignty, then sovereignty by litigation. They've never beaten Liberal governments when they've tried for it, and have always said they could beat a Conservative government (true).
A Bloc-Conservative Party alliance in the next Parliament could renew the politics of the Alberta-Quebec axis engineered and maintained by Mulroney until the demise of the Meech Lake accord. The growing sovereignty sentiments in Alberta and the living legacies on which the Bloc still draws, both cast Ottawa as the predator to be resisted, countered and contained.
This:
"What replaced it was a very different party in its wake – a party not of separation but as the protector of the CAQ and Francois Legault."
They are, in effect, trading on diehard separatist voters the same way that the CPC is trying to leverage anti-vaxxers, potential PPC voters, and assorted culturally right wing but philosophically amorphous voters.
Yeah, I don't know. The Bloc supports a cultural nationalism, which isn't the same as social conservatism. The CPC is also their main rival in those more culturally conservative ridings that you mention, so it would be an awkward and inherently competitve and unstable union. Finally, the Bloc probably benefits when there's a Liberal government in Ottawa, which offers a simpler, more direct, and historically anchored foil for the nationalist party.
Cultural nationalism/social conservatism?
To-MAY-to/to-MAH-to
One is an exclusionary/defensive sense of self and community, based on the belief of holding a distinct culture, including history and language. The Anglophone and Allophone cannot belong, for example, and present threats.
The other is the sense that social values and practices should reflect tradition and order and show moderation, and that social change in the contemporary world has been too quick and detached from history. Importantly, it need not exclude others; they can be included if they share the same views.
An obvious point of difference is the role that the immigrant plays in each party.
For the Bloc and Quebec nationalists more generally, the immigrant is a general threat to their existence, hence the need for control, limitation, and integration.
For the CPC, it's more complicated. They may object to certain social practices and beliefs, but there isn't an overarching sense of the majority culture being at risk (i.e., no existential threat). There's also a sense of economic and electoral opportunity in welcoming new immigrants. (Compare Poilievre actively championing the credentials issue versus Blanchet, who defers to Legault on such matters, who in turn is ultimately ambivalent on the issue, caught between economic reality and cultural anxiety.)
In short, we're not talking tomatoes. It's actually apples and oranges.
I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but, with respect, it's a distinction that has eroded significantly. Just as the Bloc was once a party that championed numerous left of centre political ideas, the Progressive Conservatives used to be concerned about the introduction of different values but not about the loss of mainstream Canadian identity. The CPC are not those conservatives! And the CPC's current pitch is often to a group who feels the majority culture is threatened: by immigrants, by the 2SLGBTQ+IA and other groups, and by the re-evaluation of Canadian historical wrongs.
I think it's far more informative (and accurate) to start treating these movements as quite similar: advanced by a loud and largish minority out of a sense of cultural insecurity.
I'm not convinced. There is some overlap, for sure, but the argument reduces or minimizes strong ideological and policy differences for the sake of a simple analogy. The Oxford byelection tells you everything that you need to know: Poilievre's team wanted to bring a visible minority candidate who does outreach for the party into Parliament, and despite the candidate not being an obvious fit for the riding, most CPC voters followed the party's lead. (In fact, the CPC raised the anti-racism card in defending the candidate!) It's hard to imagine the BQ championing a similar candidate; speaking French is important, but there's more to the Quebecois identity than just that.
There's a broad popular literature on the CPC's visible minority outreach efforts that might be worth reviewing (remember Jason Kenney pre-Alberta implosion?). There's also a broad academic literature that addresses issues of nationalism and immigration, social conservatism, and populism. I would recommend Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Charles Taylor as good starting points on nationalism; James Farney has a great book on Canadian social conservatism and what makes it unique/distinct; and Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin have an interesting book, set in the international context, that explores the link between nationalism and populism - what they term national populism for a very specific reason (this might actually be closer to how the author is trying to depict the CPC). Harper's book on populism might also be worth reviewing. It lays out the basic strategy that Scheer, O'Toole, and now Poilievre have been trying to employ: appeal to blue collar workers and socially conservative immigrants while ignoring the higher educated and more wealthy.
If we were still in the world of the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance, I think the argument would be stronger. However, there's a reason these parties no longer appear on the ballot.
Finally, this sounds like a burner account for Evan. Authors should never read the comments on their work - it's not healthy. Anyone can discuss politics as strategy - it's the favourite past time of old men, after all! - but you should come prepared when discussing heavier topics like identity and ideology ;)
Well... Evan and I are both likely to be either flattered or take offence, depending on a range of factors. As I said, I understood the point that you are trying to make. I understand it really, really well, actually. I studied with Taylor, so in addition to having read quite a bit I had a front row seat in workshopping Sources of the Self. I'd even like to think that some opinions of mine had an impact, however, I don't truly believe this!
The problem, it seems to me, is that the folks who are currently "running" the CPC and the folks to whom they seem to be spending inordinate amounts of time appealing, aren't all that fussed about academic or philosophical distinctions. I'm not actually suggesting there isn't a difference in those categories, but as I survey the strategies, tactics and whatever the hell could be called a philosophy here, I see much that is extremely similar. In fact, I would say that what the Bloc, CAQ and CPC have very much in common (shared also by Ford, Smith, Moe and others to some degree) is an abandonment of ideology (and ideas) in favour of populist tropes and culture wars. The particular flavour of those culture wars may differ somewhat, but it is the fixation on these culture wars that matters. Including, ironically, the blatantly obvious false accusations of racism to cover the disingenuous actions of Khanna and Poilievre.
In other words, the similarities of these parties is very much more something we need to recognize rather than the differences that are largely academic.
lol, i call liar!
a guy who studied under and supposedly influenced Taylor only follows and comments on one obscure cdn poli blog?
Also a guy who studied under and supposedly influenced Taylor dismisses academic discussions and distinctions despite Taylor's own life as an academic, political candidate and public servant showing how the academic and the practical can be brought together?
lol, it prolly is Even!
Okay, Evan ;)