When the vote on Capital punishment came up in the Commons, Trudeau said that if capital punishment were to be retained, he would make sure that there would be hangings. In my limited experience, most Canadians, when confronted with the hard facts of capital punishment, are reluctant to "pull the lever." Many may like the idea, but not the act. They are, in Nietzsche's turn of phrase, "pale criminals."
He wasn't wrong. There were 11 men on Death Row in Canada in 1972 and three were scheduled to hang the week after the moratorium vote. Canada had always followed the British practice not lingering on Death Row after sentence, it was 90 Days, Dead or Reprieved. The hangman, Arthur Ellis (the trade name of the Dominion Executioner) had been engaged.
Bourreau is correct. The Dominion Executioner was traditionally based in Montreal at Bourdeaux Prison as Montreal was then Canada's largest city. He travelled to other provinces by train on a by-appontment basis.
Bourreau is correct. The Dominion Executioner was traditionally based in Montreal at Bourdeaux Prison as Montreal was then Canada's largest city. He travelled to other provinces by train on a by-appontment basis.
Morley Callaghan wrote a short story about an executioner who goes around the country(presumably Canada) hanging people, and the misfortunes that befall him in a town where people sympathize with the condemned man.
The reality was not far off, Arthur English, aka Arthur Ellis who was Dominion Executioner from 1913 to 1935 ended his career after a botched hanging and decapitation of a female condemned. He died in poverty and alcoholism in Montreal 3 years alter.
The friendly townsman and the hangman go fishing together, and then later during the mob attack, the hangman gets hit by one one of the fish they caught, presumably thrown by his erstwhile fishing buddy.
The reality was not far off, Arthur English, aka Arthur Ellis who was Dominion Executioner from 1913 to 1935 ended his career after a botched hanging and decapitation of a female condemned. He died in poverty and alcoholism in Montreal 3 years alter.
From historically problematic films, we often got the idea that the locals liked to come out for a jaunty day of good executions, but this was not always the case. Certainly, the guillotinings of the The Terror had an often bizarrely festive tenor, but one of the motivations for the reformed law in the UK in the 19thC was the realisation that crowd participation did not always sanction state judicial murder, but to the contrary. Execution in seclusion precluded public protest against the sentence in situ. In this case the "pale criminals" (reference to my previous post) were not the public, but those executing the sentence and state power.
From historically problematic films, we often got the idea that the locals liked to come out for a jaunty day of good executions...
According to the 1970s kids' book It Happened In Canada, following the execution of Louis Riel in 1885, the rope was cut up into little pieces which were sold as mementos, and when they ran out of rope, they just procured another one and cut it up into more pieces for sale.
Not sure who exactly was behind this entrepreneurial endeavour, or if it even happened at all. It Happened In Canada was a knock-off of Ripley's Believe It Not, and maybe not the most ironclad source of info. I don't doubt that Riel's execution was a source of jubilation in certain quarters.
Apparently, It Happened In Canada was a newspaper feature, running from the late 60s to the 80s. I don't think we ever got it in Edmonton. I only ever saw that one book.
France continued public executions by guillotine until 1939 when they were moved inside the prison. The change was sparked by a surreptitious (and illegal) filming of the event and reports that the spectators behaved badly such as dropping their handkerchiefs in the executed man's blood for souvenirs.
I can't get past the Post's paywall, but can pretty much guess what the article is saying. And I'd probably agree, insofar as "Laurentian elite" does describe an actual phenomenon, with the further caveat that that phenomenon was present in elected governing circles in Alberta, even prior to the 2010s. Nancy Betkowski, Jan Reimer, Anne McLellan and Stephen Mandel being just three of the most high-profile examples.
I think we have probably reached the point where “Laurentian” means nothing more than “not a Conservative Party member”…
Eh, I think Ibbitson did actually describe a dominant tendency in Canadian political culture, one that has a bit more of a solid identity than just non-Conservative.
One of the reasons I'm not entirely skeptical is that, for well over a decade prior to his coinage of the term, I think I was aware of the tendency, and hence had the jolt of recognition when I read his description.
Where I had a real issue in his book was with his predictions, eg. Quebec as a forthcoming bulwark of NDP support.
I remember the presentation John Ibbotson gave when he coined that term.
Where did he give the presentation?
One discrepancy I found interesting in his book was that, in his list of Laurentians, he mentioned George Grant, but not Diefenbaker, even though Grant's most iconic work is a defense of John Diefenbaker. I'm assuming Dief's indifference to Quebec's aspirations within Canada might be one thing that precluded him from the canon. IIRC, both Pierre Trudeau and his nemesis Rene Levesque were included, presumably in part due to both caring about the future of the "French fact" in Canada.
I suppose one way of putting this is whether there is any broadly liberal tendency in Canada that shouldn’t be described as Laurentian - if not, then the term seems to lose meaning.
I can see Laurentian as possibly describing a political culture but if so I would think more along the Montreal-Ottawa political culture exemplified particularly by the Trudeaus and their circle. And obviously there is overlap between this and say the liberal/Liberal political culture in Toronto but I’m not sure it is the same culture…
One of the reasons I'm not entirely skeptical is that, for well over a decade prior to his coinage of the term, I think I was aware of the tendency, and hence had the jolt of recognition when I read his description.
Prior to hearing Ibbitson's term, my reference points for the same thing coulda been summed up as "post-1967 optimism", with Habitat, the metric bug, Nic et Pic etc as the pop-cultural touchstones.
I suppose one way of putting this is whether there is any broadly liberal tendency in Canada that shouldn’t be described as Laurentian - if not, then the term seems to lose meaning.
I have wondered if the concept, such as it is, would include prairie leftists, eg. Tommy Douglas and Allan Blakeney, who basically supported all the same things as the Trudeau Liberals, but, to my lights, don't quite seem to fit into the same milieu. I THINK Ibbitson includes Douglas in his list, though he also argues that the Laurentian consensus supported free-trade in 1988, which Douglas would likely have opposed had he lived to see it.
And, of course, Allan Blakeney was among the biggest culprits in the neutering of the Charter, which would put him at odds with the liberal consensus, at least as it eventually emerged.
I can see Laurentian as possibly describing a political culture but if so I would think more along the Montreal-Ottawa political culture exemplified particularly by the Trudeaus and their circle. And obviously there is overlap between this and say the liberal/Liberal political culture in Toronto but I’m not sure it is the same culture…
I think Ibbitson considers the representative cities to be Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and the geographical outlier of Vancouver. If you were to compare the sociopolitical outlook in those places to, say, southern Alberta or even the Ontario 905, the difference possibly becomes clearer.
Or compare the people who supported the early 90s constitutional accords to those who opposed them(the latter including both western rednecks and Quebec sovereigntists, though PET and his followers are an interesting anomaly in that regard. Ibbitson seems not much inclined to parse the difference between trudeauite and mulroneyite federalism.)
I remember the presentation John Ibbotson gave when he coined that term.
Where did he give the presentation?
One discrepancy I found interesting in his book was that, in his list of Laurentians, he mentioned George Grant, but not Diefenbaker, even though Grant's most iconic work is a defense of John Diefenbaker. I'm assuming Dief's indifference to Quebec's aspirations within Canada might be one thing that precluded him from the canon. IIRC, both Pierre Trudeau and his nemesis Rene Levesque were included, presumably in part due to both caring about the future of the "French fact" in Canada.
I think Ibbotson focusses on the cultural differences between the very élitist Grant and the small-town Diefenbaker, not the substantive connexions. This blinding is becoming more frequent in Canadian politics, and the campaign people are focussing on the just-folks/snotty élite distinction for partisan purposes.
Given the history of the Conservatives and Liberals-- both coalitions with strong regional characteristics-- there is a superficial attraction to this focus on the cultural aspect, and I wonder if Ibbotson has not fallen into this comfortable trough (I'm almost finished his book on Diefenbake & Pearson, where he seems to enjoy the differences).
I wonder if Ibbotson would not be better advised to look at the urban/rural divide in Canada and how that perhaps transcends regional differences. He's a far better writer than his Globe columns would suggest.
Just for the record, in The Big Shift, Ibbitson doesn't mention Diefenbaker directly, but his exclusion of Dief, while including Grant, is kind of The Dog That Didn't Bark.
I think Ibbotson focusses on the cultural differences between the very élitist Grant and the small-town Diefenbaker, not the substantive connexions.
Yeah. But it's interesting, because in Lament For A Nation, Grant himself postures as the voice of small-town Canada, moaning about how Diefenbaker had been vilified by the urban sophisticates.
As you say, the aesthetic distinction between an elite and a folksy milieu might have something to do with the omission of the Chief, but I also think it helps that Grant went on to oppose the Vietnam War and endorse the NDP in that era, both very "Laurentian" positions to take. Whereas Diefenbaker, despite his earlier fire-breathing over nukes, took no stance against the Vietnam War(as far as I know), and in fact lambasted antiwar US leftists who came to speak in Canada, among other reactionary stances. And he obviously never endorsed the NDP.
Plus, whatever views the neo-loyalist Grant may have had on the abolition of the Red Ensign, he seems to have kept to himself. Diefenbaker, memorably, did not, thus making himself a hero to all those who resented the loss of British cultural dominance and the rise of pluralism in Canada.
I wonder if Ibbotson would not be better advised to look at the urban/rural divide in Canada and how that perhaps transcends regional differences. He's a far better writer than his Globe columns would suggest.
In The Big Shift, Ibbitson mischievously implies that Canadian conservatism is now heavy with multicultural and immigrant voters, while liberalism is overrun with old-stock downtowners whining about not getting the respect they deserve from "those Sikhs out in Brampton" et al.
Ibbotson's framework doesn't easily fit the NDP but the NDP has always been outside the Laurentian Consensus. Let me be clear: certain NDP ideas are inside the Comsensus but if and only after they have been usurped by the Liberal Party. The Labour and union side of the NDP has always been disdained by the urban professional annd business manager oriented Laurentian Consensus. The Waffle side is more acceptable as it is less focused on economics and more New Left.
Our present view is also coloured by the leftward drift Canadian nationalism took beginning in the 1970's. This was based purely on the fact that US nationalism was right-wing.
Trudeau, Levesque, and George Grant taken together are improbable members of a meaningful political consensus… undoubtedly they have some things in common (especially if you’re only considering two of them at a time) but there are also really serious differences in broad political outlook.
I’m sure that at some level Ibbitson is describing something real in terms of the evolution of Canadian politics but he seems to be focusing only on the similarities that interest him and completely papering over the differences that don’t interest him.
Ibbotson's framework doesn't easily fit the NDP but the NDP has always been outside the Laurentian Consensus. Let me be clear: certain NDP ideas are inside the Comsensus but if and only after they have been usurped by the Liberal Party. The Labour and union side of the NDP has always been disdained by the urban professional annd business manager oriented Laurentian Consensus. The Waffle side is more acceptable as it is less focused on economics and more New Left.
I'm wondering where you would put Bob Rae in relation to the Consensus. I think it's safe to say that, these days, he fits in pretty well with liberal establishment circles, but was that equally true when he was still a New Democrat? And if there WAS a switch in outlooks, at what point did it occur? Only when he changed parties?
And, by the way, wasn't economics the defining issue of the waffle back in their heyday? Specifically economic nationalism of the protectionist variety.
Our present view is also coloured by the leftward drift Canadian nationalism took beginning in the 1970's. This was based purely on the fact that US nationalism was right-wing.
Which is another reason why George Grant makes an awkward inclusion in Ibbitson's pantheon. Insofar as the liberal left now values individual rights and autonomy, that's something Grant was quite hostile to, believing(as he stated in LFAN) that as a result of insidious American liberalism, homosexuality will become more acceptable in Canadian society. And, of course, he was notoriously anti-choice, viewing abortion also as US-style individualism run amuck.
But he opposed American nukes and the Vietnam War, and appeared to be talking about a uniquely Canadian political tradition, so that was enough to get him a following on the left.
Neo-Loyalism, even if directed against the USA, probably wouldn't go down so well today, in the era of post-colonialism and critical race theory.
Trudeau, Levesque, and George Grant taken together are improbable members of a meaningful political consensus… undoubtedly they have some things in common (especially if you’re only considering two of them at a time) but there are also really serious differences in broad political outlook.
Well, that trio might seem a little more homogeneous when contrasted with Preston Manning, whose theory of federalism basically amounted to "Hey, if Quebec wants to leave, let 'em go, so we won't have to keep seeing French everywhere in Canada, and we can sue their asses off for their share of the debt and federal property."
That being said...
I’m sure that at some level Ibbitson is describing something real in terms of the evolution of Canadian politics but he seems to be focusing only on the similarities that interest him and completely papering over the differences that don’t interest him.
I basically agree. Ibbitson seems eager to cast his net as wide as possible, and ends up blurring some fairly important distinctions. The Pierre Trudeau who blasted Meech Lake and Charlottetown as capitulations to petty provincialism would likely object to being in the same pantheon as Brian Mulroney, but there Ibbitson has them both.
It's hard to know what Grant would have made of Manning/Reform, given that he died in 1988 before that pheomenon really got underway. But as you say Grant was a hardcore cultural conservative, especially toward the end of his life (Technology and Justice), and in terms of simple matching up of beliefs by the end of his life he was probably closer to Reform than any other party on the issues that mattered to him. Whether they would have had anything to say to each other at a cocktail party is another issue...
Part of the bigger issue here is a broader realignment of politics on some issues over the last 50 years. I actually wonder if some of what Ibbitson thinks of the Laurentian consensus is in part a generational thing. The federal Liberals are (oddly enough) the strongest advocates for continuity in this sphere but even so much has changed since the days of Trudeau pere.
Trudeau, Levesque, and George Grant taken together are improbable members of a meaningful political consensus… undoubtedly they have some things in common (especially if you’re only considering two of them at a time) but there are also really serious differences in broad political outlook.
Well, that trio might seem a little more homogeneous when contrasted with Preston Manning, whose theory of federalism basically amounted to "Hey, if Quebec wants to leave, let 'em go, so we won't have to keep seeing French everywhere in Canada, and we can sue their asses off for their share of the debt and federal property."
That being said...
I’m sure that at some level Ibbitson is describing something real in terms of the evolution of Canadian politics but he seems to be focusing only on the similarities that interest him and completely papering over the differences that don’t interest him.
I basically agree. Ibbitson seems eager to cast his net as wide as possible, and ends up blurring some fairly important distinctions. The Pierre Trudeau who blasted Meech Lake and Charlottetown as capitulations to petty provincialism would likely object to being in the same pantheon as Brian Mulroney, but there Ibbitson has them both.
That's Ibbotson's schtick as a columnist. First, construct a composite stereotype that has wide recognition and applicability, Second, pander to that stereotype by saying a few edgy things about 'those Brampton Sikhs' etc. Third, paper over any obvious gaps in the stereotype by ignoring self-contradictions. Fourth, make an edgy prediction that still panders to the audience.
It's just stereotypes and pandering to the audience.
It's almost as bad as the hackneyed formula for election prediction columns. All possibilities get a single column predicting them. If you're improbably right like the NDP in Quebec in 2011, you're a visionary. If you're wrong, nobody cares.
Bonus points if you can put your own issues in print. His constipated columns over the dissonance between his free-market neoliberalism and discomfort with cultural conservatism (ibbotson has said he is gay) are a case in point.
Once you see the method you recognize the formula immediately and it's all dreadfully hackneyed.
It's hard to know what Grant would have made of Manning/Reform, given that he died in 1988 before that pheomenon really got underway. But as you say Grant was a hardcore cultural conservative, especially toward the end of his life (Technology and Justice), and in terms of simple matching up of beliefs by the end of his life he was probably closer to Reform than any other party on the issues that mattered to him. Whether they would have had anything to say to each other at a cocktail party is another issue...
Ted Byfield editorialized in the 90s that, for all the adulation he got from the nationalist left, Grant was essentially a SoCon, very much in line with Byfield's own chesterbellocian values.
Which was true, and I think given his unyielding opposition to abortion, and that the NDP was thoroughly pro-choice by the early 90s, I think Grant in the Manning era might have been vainly clutching to the Liberals, in the hope that they would remain tolerant of "pro-lifers" in their ranks, and maintain their opposition to further Americanization of Canada.
But if Reform had really had a serious long-term plan for implementing social conservatism, and, on the other hand, remained commited to a semi-generous welfare-state and(least likely) relative disengagement from US foreign policy, he almost certainly woulda found a home there.
And what I've basically described is original(*) Red Toryism, which, all the romanticism aside, never had a hope of surviving into the last quarter of the 20th Century.
(*) Which was the opposite of the meaning of the term as used now, where it means social liberalism combined with economic interventionism. Distributism would be a more structurally organized version of the same thing.
Bonus points if you can put your own issues in print. His constipated columns over the dissonance between his free-market neoliberalism and discomfort with cultural conservatism (ibbotson has said he is gay) are a case in point.
A few times in his biography of Stephen Harper, Ibbitson mentions that Mrs. Harper is often seen out and about in Ottawa, escorted by a certain male "friend", at the time a high-ranking cabinet minister.
...make an edgy prediction that still panders to the audience.
Ibbitson, writing in 2013, speculated that Quebec might lead an electoral reconfiguration of the Canadian left. I suppose it would have seemed like a plausible outcome at the time, though I do remember other fairly knowledgable commentators arguing in the same period that the Orange Wave was a protest vote that would be of little long-term import.
Because my wording might have been a bit ambiguous here...
Which was the opposite of the meaning of the term as used now, where it means social liberalism combined with economic interventionism. Distributism would be a more structurally organized version of the same thing.
What I meant was that traditional Red Toryism and Distributism are similar, and both are the opposite of "Red Toryism" as the term is used today.
Just saw where Danielle Smith is planning to introduce a major incursion into municipal jurisdiction, giving the provincial government the power to dismiss councilors and overturn bylaws.
Assuming this provokes any sort of backlash outside of the chattering classes(*), Nenshi as NDP leader would seem especially well-suited to harness the outrage, especially in the swing-city of Calgary.
(*) IOW, assuming that urbanites react to this the way that Torontonians reacted to Harris' megacity, rather than, say, the way Canadians in general reacted to Harper proroguing parliament.
Time to get this off my chest. If I see one more Globe and Mail article whining about productivity I am going to scream.
It's all a smokescreen for tax cuts.
We cut corporate taxes - productivity fell.
We invested in expansive post-secondary education, creating one of the most highly educated workforces in the world - productivity fell.
We added millions of more workers through immigration- productivity fell.
The only remaining factor and prime suspect is poor private sector management. Productivity is determined by work methods and capital goods and assets, both of which are controlled by management, not workers.
The unspoken culprit is lack of capital fund investment by management for over 40 years and excess diversion of corporate earnings into profits instead of investment.
As someone who, once upon a time, saw senior corporate management at work interacting with the government on issues outside their promotion-track, they were breathtakingly clueless on larger issues.
I have spoken with consultants who gave demographic presentations to corporate executives and their main comment was how much they needed a drink afterward. I fear that SPK's negative conclusion on them is rather more justified than I would like. The philosophy seemed to be short-term-gain-for-somebody-else's-pain.
Rex Murphy has died. I was generally unimpressed with him, his fabled wordsmithery always seemed rather forced, even allowing that the archness was part of the act.
I think some of his progressive fans felt betrayed when he bolted to the right in the early 2000s or so, but I had not by that point paid sufficient attention to him to know his previous ideological positions.
The earliest editorial I can consciously remember seeing by him was his obituary for Pierre Trudeau: "He was the man on the flying trapeze." Seemed like standard boomer Trudeaumania.
I'm personally a happy supporter of the Alberta oil sector, but from my brief skimmings of his pro-industry, anti-eco screeds, he wasn't saying much that was original, besides maybe his usual 50 dollar words.
Rex Murphy was beloved by a lot of his fellow Newfoundlanders before his hard turn to the right in his later years (I presume after that he continued to be beloved by a lot who agreed with him on those issues, but he lost many of us at that point).
I was trying to articulate my feelings about him to our multigenerational family group at supper tonight -- as someone who was never a huge fan, but respected him at one point. What I think was unique about Rex was that he rose to prominence on the national scene at a time when "stupid Newf" jokes were so absolutely part of the air and water in mainland Canada, nobody even considered they might be offensive. The stereotype that Newfoundlanders were dumb, uneducated, and inarticulate was just baked in to national assumptions (along with lots of other stereotypes of other groups, of course!). So for one of the most visible Newfoundlanders in national media to be someone who was so obviously -- even performatively -- intelligent, eloquent, and erudite, was refreshing to a lot of us Newfoundlanders. I think that was key to his appeal, at least here at home.
A lot of the local eulogizing of him that I've seen today acknowledges that, along with the obligatory "of course we disagreed with him on many issues in recent years."
Thanks. That puts Murphy in an interesting cultural context.
Yeah, I have at least one first-hand encounter with vitriolic anti-Newfoundlander prejudice. It was in early-80s Alberta, but I don't know the regional and cultural backgrounds of the particular bigot in question.
By the way, the obits and wiki are a bit vague on this, so...
Would you happen to know when Murphy started on CBC? I ask, because in the late 70s/early 80s, I heard what to my tweenish-suburbanite mind seemed like a veritably burroughsian editorial on CBC about a grocer somewhere who had been caught spraying his wares with a fake marijuana scent. The narrator ended with a chuckle and said "Tell that one to the judge!"
For years it stuck in my mind, but it wasn't until that I heard Murphy's voice about 20 years later that I thought it might have been him.
He may have done some work with the CBC in the 70s, but his main focus in the 70s and 80s was his own (unsuccessful) political career. I don't think he because a CBC regular until the 1990s.
I remember Murphy from Cross-country checkup, but was surprised to find out he wasn’t there until 1994. I was listening to it much more often with my parents in its earlier years. I think he had a column in the Globe for a while but I lost track of him at some point as his politics hardened into National Post territory. A bit like Robert Fulford, whose politics hardened in a similar way late in his career (or possibly “have hardened” - I don’t know if he is still active).
A bit like Robert Fulford, whose politics hardened in a similar way late in his career (or possibly “have hardened” - I don’t know if he is still active).
My 1980s social-studies textbook had an editorial by Fulford from the time of the October Crisis, attacking Trudeau's suspension of civil liberties. Which was actually a fairly courageous stand to take at the time.
But yeah, by the time he got to the Post in the late 90s, he was pretty obviously situated on the right. Maybe not the full aging-curmudgeon archetype that many others embodied, but the same general outlook.
I always thought Rex Murphy both overacted and overwrote.
In 2015, Tim Hortons did something or other offend the Alberta oil industry, and Murphy wrote a column denouncing Tims as "Starbucksian", which fails both for originality of the symbolism and for grammatical cleverness.
Towards the end, after announcing he would thereafter be foregoing the chain, he bitterly nostalgicized...
...I have been going to Tim Hortons since I had a dime for a donut and little feet to take me there.
Murphy woulda been seventeen when the first Tims opened.
A fourth suspect has been arrested in the Nijjar investigation, this time in Ontario. Apparently, he was already in custody for unrelated charges there.
And a few days ago, Melanie Joly said Canada stands by the claim of Indian involvement, and(or but?) also mentioned that the matter is still under investigation by the mounties.
Comments
He wasn't wrong. There were 11 men on Death Row in Canada in 1972 and three were scheduled to hang the week after the moratorium vote. Canada had always followed the British practice not lingering on Death Row after sentence, it was 90 Days, Dead or Reprieved. The hangman, Arthur Ellis (the trade name of the Dominion Executioner) had been engaged.
Morley Callaghan wrote a short story about an executioner who goes around the country(presumably Canada) hanging people, and the misfortunes that befall him in a town where people sympathize with the condemned man.
That's it! Going by memory...
"Ellis, you had one job...!"
According to the 1970s kids' book It Happened In Canada, following the execution of Louis Riel in 1885, the rope was cut up into little pieces which were sold as mementos, and when they ran out of rope, they just procured another one and cut it up into more pieces for sale.
Not sure who exactly was behind this entrepreneurial endeavour, or if it even happened at all. It Happened In Canada was a knock-off of Ripley's Believe It Not, and maybe not the most ironclad source of info. I don't doubt that Riel's execution was a source of jubilation in certain quarters.
Naheed Nenshi, Alberta's Laurentian elite
I can't get past the Post's paywall, but can pretty much guess what the article is saying. And I'd probably agree, insofar as "Laurentian elite" does describe an actual phenomenon, with the further caveat that that phenomenon was present in elected governing circles in Alberta, even prior to the 2010s. Nancy Betkowski, Jan Reimer, Anne McLellan and Stephen Mandel being just three of the most high-profile examples.
Eh, I think Ibbitson did actually describe a dominant tendency in Canadian political culture, one that has a bit more of a solid identity than just non-Conservative.
One of the reasons I'm not entirely skeptical is that, for well over a decade prior to his coinage of the term, I think I was aware of the tendency, and hence had the jolt of recognition when I read his description.
Where I had a real issue in his book was with his predictions, eg. Quebec as a forthcoming bulwark of NDP support.
Where did he give the presentation?
One discrepancy I found interesting in his book was that, in his list of Laurentians, he mentioned George Grant, but not Diefenbaker, even though Grant's most iconic work is a defense of John Diefenbaker. I'm assuming Dief's indifference to Quebec's aspirations within Canada might be one thing that precluded him from the canon. IIRC, both Pierre Trudeau and his nemesis Rene Levesque were included, presumably in part due to both caring about the future of the "French fact" in Canada.
I can see Laurentian as possibly describing a political culture but if so I would think more along the Montreal-Ottawa political culture exemplified particularly by the Trudeaus and their circle. And obviously there is overlap between this and say the liberal/Liberal political culture in Toronto but I’m not sure it is the same culture…
Prior to hearing Ibbitson's term, my reference points for the same thing coulda been summed up as "post-1967 optimism", with Habitat, the metric bug, Nic et Pic etc as the pop-cultural touchstones.
I have wondered if the concept, such as it is, would include prairie leftists, eg. Tommy Douglas and Allan Blakeney, who basically supported all the same things as the Trudeau Liberals, but, to my lights, don't quite seem to fit into the same milieu. I THINK Ibbitson includes Douglas in his list, though he also argues that the Laurentian consensus supported free-trade in 1988, which Douglas would likely have opposed had he lived to see it.
And, of course, Allan Blakeney was among the biggest culprits in the neutering of the Charter, which would put him at odds with the liberal consensus, at least as it eventually emerged.
I think Ibbitson considers the representative cities to be Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and the geographical outlier of Vancouver. If you were to compare the sociopolitical outlook in those places to, say, southern Alberta or even the Ontario 905, the difference possibly becomes clearer.
Or compare the people who supported the early 90s constitutional accords to those who opposed them(the latter including both western rednecks and Quebec sovereigntists, though PET and his followers are an interesting anomaly in that regard. Ibbitson seems not much inclined to parse the difference between trudeauite and mulroneyite federalism.)
I think Ibbotson focusses on the cultural differences between the very élitist Grant and the small-town Diefenbaker, not the substantive connexions. This blinding is becoming more frequent in Canadian politics, and the campaign people are focussing on the just-folks/snotty élite distinction for partisan purposes.
Given the history of the Conservatives and Liberals-- both coalitions with strong regional characteristics-- there is a superficial attraction to this focus on the cultural aspect, and I wonder if Ibbotson has not fallen into this comfortable trough (I'm almost finished his book on Diefenbake & Pearson, where he seems to enjoy the differences).
I wonder if Ibbotson would not be better advised to look at the urban/rural divide in Canada and how that perhaps transcends regional differences. He's a far better writer than his Globe columns would suggest.
Yeah. But it's interesting, because in Lament For A Nation, Grant himself postures as the voice of small-town Canada, moaning about how Diefenbaker had been vilified by the urban sophisticates.
As you say, the aesthetic distinction between an elite and a folksy milieu might have something to do with the omission of the Chief, but I also think it helps that Grant went on to oppose the Vietnam War and endorse the NDP in that era, both very "Laurentian" positions to take. Whereas Diefenbaker, despite his earlier fire-breathing over nukes, took no stance against the Vietnam War(as far as I know), and in fact lambasted antiwar US leftists who came to speak in Canada, among other reactionary stances. And he obviously never endorsed the NDP.
Plus, whatever views the neo-loyalist Grant may have had on the abolition of the Red Ensign, he seems to have kept to himself. Diefenbaker, memorably, did not, thus making himself a hero to all those who resented the loss of British cultural dominance and the rise of pluralism in Canada.
In The Big Shift, Ibbitson mischievously implies that Canadian conservatism is now heavy with multicultural and immigrant voters, while liberalism is overrun with old-stock downtowners whining about not getting the respect they deserve from "those Sikhs out in Brampton" et al.
Our present view is also coloured by the leftward drift Canadian nationalism took beginning in the 1970's. This was based purely on the fact that US nationalism was right-wing.
I’m sure that at some level Ibbitson is describing something real in terms of the evolution of Canadian politics but he seems to be focusing only on the similarities that interest him and completely papering over the differences that don’t interest him.
I'm wondering where you would put Bob Rae in relation to the Consensus. I think it's safe to say that, these days, he fits in pretty well with liberal establishment circles, but was that equally true when he was still a New Democrat? And if there WAS a switch in outlooks, at what point did it occur? Only when he changed parties?
And, by the way, wasn't economics the defining issue of the waffle back in their heyday? Specifically economic nationalism of the protectionist variety.
Which is another reason why George Grant makes an awkward inclusion in Ibbitson's pantheon. Insofar as the liberal left now values individual rights and autonomy, that's something Grant was quite hostile to, believing(as he stated in LFAN) that as a result of insidious American liberalism, homosexuality will become more acceptable in Canadian society. And, of course, he was notoriously anti-choice, viewing abortion also as US-style individualism run amuck.
But he opposed American nukes and the Vietnam War, and appeared to be talking about a uniquely Canadian political tradition, so that was enough to get him a following on the left.
Neo-Loyalism, even if directed against the USA, probably wouldn't go down so well today, in the era of post-colonialism and critical race theory.
Well, that trio might seem a little more homogeneous when contrasted with Preston Manning, whose theory of federalism basically amounted to "Hey, if Quebec wants to leave, let 'em go, so we won't have to keep seeing French everywhere in Canada, and we can sue their asses off for their share of the debt and federal property."
That being said...
I basically agree. Ibbitson seems eager to cast his net as wide as possible, and ends up blurring some fairly important distinctions. The Pierre Trudeau who blasted Meech Lake and Charlottetown as capitulations to petty provincialism would likely object to being in the same pantheon as Brian Mulroney, but there Ibbitson has them both.
Part of the bigger issue here is a broader realignment of politics on some issues over the last 50 years. I actually wonder if some of what Ibbitson thinks of the Laurentian consensus is in part a generational thing. The federal Liberals are (oddly enough) the strongest advocates for continuity in this sphere but even so much has changed since the days of Trudeau pere.
That's Ibbotson's schtick as a columnist. First, construct a composite stereotype that has wide recognition and applicability, Second, pander to that stereotype by saying a few edgy things about 'those Brampton Sikhs' etc. Third, paper over any obvious gaps in the stereotype by ignoring self-contradictions. Fourth, make an edgy prediction that still panders to the audience.
It's just stereotypes and pandering to the audience.
It's almost as bad as the hackneyed formula for election prediction columns. All possibilities get a single column predicting them. If you're improbably right like the NDP in Quebec in 2011, you're a visionary. If you're wrong, nobody cares.
Bonus points if you can put your own issues in print. His constipated columns over the dissonance between his free-market neoliberalism and discomfort with cultural conservatism (ibbotson has said he is gay) are a case in point.
Once you see the method you recognize the formula immediately and it's all dreadfully hackneyed.
Ted Byfield editorialized in the 90s that, for all the adulation he got from the nationalist left, Grant was essentially a SoCon, very much in line with Byfield's own chesterbellocian values.
Which was true, and I think given his unyielding opposition to abortion, and that the NDP was thoroughly pro-choice by the early 90s, I think Grant in the Manning era might have been vainly clutching to the Liberals, in the hope that they would remain tolerant of "pro-lifers" in their ranks, and maintain their opposition to further Americanization of Canada.
But if Reform had really had a serious long-term plan for implementing social conservatism, and, on the other hand, remained commited to a semi-generous welfare-state and(least likely) relative disengagement from US foreign policy, he almost certainly woulda found a home there.
And what I've basically described is original(*) Red Toryism, which, all the romanticism aside, never had a hope of surviving into the last quarter of the 20th Century.
(*) Which was the opposite of the meaning of the term as used now, where it means social liberalism combined with economic interventionism. Distributism would be a more structurally organized version of the same thing.
A few times in his biography of Stephen Harper, Ibbitson mentions that Mrs. Harper is often seen out and about in Ottawa, escorted by a certain male "friend", at the time a high-ranking cabinet minister.
Ibbitson, writing in 2013, speculated that Quebec might lead an electoral reconfiguration of the Canadian left. I suppose it would have seemed like a plausible outcome at the time, though I do remember other fairly knowledgable commentators arguing in the same period that the Orange Wave was a protest vote that would be of little long-term import.
What I meant was that traditional Red Toryism and Distributism are similar, and both are the opposite of "Red Toryism" as the term is used today.
Assuming this provokes any sort of backlash outside of the chattering classes(*), Nenshi as NDP leader would seem especially well-suited to harness the outrage, especially in the swing-city of Calgary.
(*) IOW, assuming that urbanites react to this the way that Torontonians reacted to Harris' megacity, rather than, say, the way Canadians in general reacted to Harper proroguing parliament.
It's all a smokescreen for tax cuts.
We cut corporate taxes - productivity fell.
We invested in expansive post-secondary education, creating one of the most highly educated workforces in the world - productivity fell.
We added millions of more workers through immigration- productivity fell.
The only remaining factor and prime suspect is poor private sector management. Productivity is determined by work methods and capital goods and assets, both of which are controlled by management, not workers.
The unspoken culprit is lack of capital fund investment by management for over 40 years and excess diversion of corporate earnings into profits instead of investment.
But oh no, we can't blame businesses can we?
I have spoken with consultants who gave demographic presentations to corporate executives and their main comment was how much they needed a drink afterward. I fear that SPK's negative conclusion on them is rather more justified than I would like. The philosophy seemed to be short-term-gain-for-somebody-else's-pain.
GO EDMONTON!
( ETA hidden text meanwhile, while we take a look at this, North East Quine, Purgatory host )
In case no one has done so already, I will report my post to the mods and I will abide by their decision.
Thanks.
I think some of his progressive fans felt betrayed when he bolted to the right in the early 2000s or so, but I had not by that point paid sufficient attention to him to know his previous ideological positions.
The earliest editorial I can consciously remember seeing by him was his obituary for Pierre Trudeau: "He was the man on the flying trapeze." Seemed like standard boomer Trudeaumania.
I'm personally a happy supporter of the Alberta oil sector, but from my brief skimmings of his pro-industry, anti-eco screeds, he wasn't saying much that was original, besides maybe his usual 50 dollar words.
I was trying to articulate my feelings about him to our multigenerational family group at supper tonight -- as someone who was never a huge fan, but respected him at one point. What I think was unique about Rex was that he rose to prominence on the national scene at a time when "stupid Newf" jokes were so absolutely part of the air and water in mainland Canada, nobody even considered they might be offensive. The stereotype that Newfoundlanders were dumb, uneducated, and inarticulate was just baked in to national assumptions (along with lots of other stereotypes of other groups, of course!). So for one of the most visible Newfoundlanders in national media to be someone who was so obviously -- even performatively -- intelligent, eloquent, and erudite, was refreshing to a lot of us Newfoundlanders. I think that was key to his appeal, at least here at home.
A lot of the local eulogizing of him that I've seen today acknowledges that, along with the obligatory "of course we disagreed with him on many issues in recent years."
Thanks. That puts Murphy in an interesting cultural context.
Yeah, I have at least one first-hand encounter with vitriolic anti-Newfoundlander prejudice. It was in early-80s Alberta, but I don't know the regional and cultural backgrounds of the particular bigot in question.
By the way, the obits and wiki are a bit vague on this, so...
Would you happen to know when Murphy started on CBC? I ask, because in the late 70s/early 80s, I heard what to my tweenish-suburbanite mind seemed like a veritably burroughsian editorial on CBC about a grocer somewhere who had been caught spraying his wares with a fake marijuana scent. The narrator ended with a chuckle and said "Tell that one to the judge!"
For years it stuck in my mind, but it wasn't until that I heard Murphy's voice about 20 years later that I thought it might have been him.
Good story/tribute here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/rex-murphy-bob-wakeham-obituary-1.7200299
I always thought Rex Murphy both overacted and overwrote.
My 1980s social-studies textbook had an editorial by Fulford from the time of the October Crisis, attacking Trudeau's suspension of civil liberties. Which was actually a fairly courageous stand to take at the time.
But yeah, by the time he got to the Post in the late 90s, he was pretty obviously situated on the right. Maybe not the full aging-curmudgeon archetype that many others embodied, but the same general outlook.
In 2015, Tim Hortons did something or other offend the Alberta oil industry, and Murphy wrote a column denouncing Tims as "Starbucksian", which fails both for originality of the symbolism and for grammatical cleverness.
Towards the end, after announcing he would thereafter be foregoing the chain, he bitterly nostalgicized...
Murphy woulda been seventeen when the first Tims opened.
And a few days ago, Melanie Joly said Canada stands by the claim of Indian involvement, and(or but?) also mentioned that the matter is still under investigation by the mounties.
Good God. Further research indicates that Tim Hortons didn't open in Newfoundland until 1977.