Basham responds

Patrick Basham has responded to Harper's letter to the Washington Times. Basically, he laments the sidelining of libertarianism both here and south of the border. I once thought libertarian politics was going to be a surefire recipe for success at some point in the future.

Now, I am not as sure.

Is libertarianism destined to be perpetually regarded as a can't-miss prospect?

From today's Globe and Mail:

Memo to Canadian Conservatives: Go Big or Go Home

Canadians are almost universally viewed as polite versions of Americans. That sense of reserve translates into a distinct political style. American elections are loud and bruising. From our perspective, it seems that Canadian elections are comparatively sombre affairs. But it's worth asking: Are Canadian conservatives too damn polite for their own electoral good?

The most recent example of crippling Canadian politeness comes by way of Stephen Harper's lengthy Dec. 11 letter in The Washington Times. The letter was a response to my recent campaign commentary on the Canadian election. I had said that Mr. Harper was pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. His response was disheartening: He used evasions and weasel words to both affirm and deny every item on the list. If he plans on driving down the middle of the road during this campaign, conservatism may be roadkill by Jan. 23.

Is Canada's homegrown conservative brand fundamentally different from the less polite American version? At first blush, it looks that way.

Since the United Empire Loyalists chose Crown over country two centuries ago, this Tory fragment has led Canadian conservatism in a kinder, gentler direction than its revolutionary American cousin. From protectionist tariffs to the introduction of a minimum wage, to subsidized arts and multiculturalism, Red Tories repeatedly embraced an interventionist role for the state in Canada's economic and cultural life.

The populist Reform Party's appearance on the national scene in the 1990s promised to revitalize conservatism. In the short term, it had some success. Today's Conservatives, however, remain too accepting of a stumbling health-care system and too inclined to defend politically expedient cuts in sales tax rather than economically significant cuts in income tax. Conservatism Lite is an improvement on Liberal drift, but it is much lighter fare than the red-meat conservatism south of the border. Right?

Wrong. Similarities between American and Canadian conservatism as practised outweigh the differences. A Republican Congress and a Republican President are responsible for record levels of spending and massive budget deficits, as my colleague, budget expert Chris Edwards, details in his new book, Downsizing the Federal Government.

The "big government conservatives" holding court in Washington in recent years are comfortable - unnervingly so for fiscal conservatives and libertarians - with tariffs on steel, duties on softwood lumber, a larger role for the government in education, and a greater role for the state in health-care provision.

A generation ago, a very different brand of conservatism - an optimistic, robust, limited government conservatism - became the Republican Party's electoral trump card. But today's Republicans are dependent on the loyalty of Christian conservatives.

Consequently, Republicans find themselves comfortably ensconced in power. Yet, in limited government circles, it is increasingly asked, "To what end do these 'conservatives' hold office, beyond extending the reach of government into the country's schools, churches and bedrooms?"

Canadian conservatism's long-term electoral growth could take root in a more enthusiastic and rigorous commitment to the anti-nanny state, as American conservatism discovered during the Reagan era. Whether it is taxation, health care, education, drug policy, or junk food consumption, the over-regulation of Canadians' lives will be a long-term political loser.

Survey research finds that Canadians and Americans think alike on a variety of policy matters. In both countries, a significant vein of untapped libertarian sentiment exists beneath the stretched and thin skin of the partisan body politic.

Electoral results mask these similarities. In the U.S., Republicans have become very good at winning elections. They do this by talking a very good conservative game during the campaign. In office, they are barely distinguishable from the Democrats.

Canadians, meanwhile, are rarely given a choice between nationally competitive parties that offer different positions on the size and scope of government. As political consumers, Canadians can only choose among the ideological selections presented to them.

A more impolite response by Canadians to their electoral fate might prompt the Conservatives and Stephen Harper to exhibit the courage of their alleged convictions. The good news is, there are still six weeks left to offer people real change.