If Liberals are so smart why do they lose so goddam always?

[crazy canuck]

I mean Canada isn't that unique in centrism dominating--in fact America has a much stronger and longer tradition of that very thing. There have been vanishingly few times that any political faction that has strayed significantly far from the center has achieved Federal power in the United States. The two major factions always had radical elements but were anchored by groups that tend towards more centrist views, all the way back to 1789--the yeoman farmers of the Democrats and the "commercial interests" (for lack of a better term) of the Federalists/National Republicans/Whigs/GOP Republicans.

Depending on how you argue it there may only be 2 to 4 good examples of Presidents who strayed into actually heading a genuinely radical coalition.

Just because the NDP exists to the left, does not mean the Liberals are a centrist party.

[Grey Fox]

They can be. The Overton window is allowed to go left.

[Sheilbh]

The problem with that comparator is the Liberals are not really a centrist party.  They definitely veer left - eg taking all the good ideas from the NDP.

But within the tradition of left-wing parties that is still weird. The US is also an exception here.

It's like if Lloyd-George's Liberals or the Radicals survived. Most left-wing parties either come from a Marxist tradition with some form or other of a concept of "socialism" - and normally a conscious decision to take the parliamentary/non-revolutionary route, or they come from a labour movement developing a political/parliamentary wing. That covers almost every party of the left in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and much of Latin America too (though there's obviously more broad left/Popular Unity style coalition building there).

I can't think of another example of a 19th century incrementalist liberal party seeing off a challenge from the left. I wonder if the reason that happened in Canada - and maybe the US too? - is geography. A lot of energy on the left was through the farmer-populist style left? Which provided more of a counterweight to urban workers or workers in extractive industries which are really prone to unionisation/class struggle?

[crazy canuck]

The problem with that comparator is the Liberals are not really a centrist party.  They definitely veer left - eg taking all the good ideas from the NDP.

But within the tradition of left-wing parties that is still weird. The US is also an exception here.

It's like if Lloyd-George's Liberals or the Radicals survived. Most left-wing parties either come from a Marxist tradition with some form or other of a concept of "socialism" - and normally a conscious decision to take the parliamentary/non-revolutionary route, or they come from a labour movement developing a political/parliamentary wing. That covers almost every party of the left in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and much of Latin America too (though there's obviously more broad left/Popular Unity style coalition building there).

I can't think of another example of a 19th century incrementalist liberal party seeing off a challenge from the left. I wonder if the reason that happened in Canada - and maybe the US too? - is geography. A lot of energy on the left was through the farmer-populist style left? Which provided more of a counterweight to urban workers or workers in extractive industries which are really prone to unionisation/class struggle?

I suppose part of the issue then is what constitutes the left. I would argue that a lot of social democratic policies have been incorporated by "liberal" parties such that it is hard to really distinguish amongst them in modern age.  I think that is a sign of how successful social democratic movements have been. That might be where the US becomes the outlier - it has not really become as entrenched there.  A good example is a lot of Americans still recoiling in horror at the thought of single payor "socialized medicine". Whereas much of the rest of the liberal democratic West consider it perfectly normal and the better system.

[crazy canuck]

They can be. The Overton window is allowed to go left.

Sure, and that is where I say the majority of voters in Canada and other places outside the US are now.  Which is why I proposed the question to be, why is the US the outlier.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose part of the issue then is what constitutes the left. I would argue that a lot of social democratic policies have been incorporated by "liberal" parties such that it is hard to really distinguish amongst them in modern age.  I think that is a sign of how successful social democratic movements have been. That might be where the US becomes the outlier - it has not really become as entrenched there. 

Yeah I'm not meaning to be pedantic over who is or isn't on the left. I can absolutely accept that's where the Liberals are.

It's worth splitting out a little though - because I think what seems unusual to me is that Canada was a country that had democratic institutions and party politics at the turn/early decades of the 20th century. In countries that also had democratic institutions at that point the traditional left party now will trace its routes to those origins of either a socialist/social democratic movement or a union movement. There is a process where working class socialist/social democratic/union parties take over on the left from (and often absorb chunks of) liberal parties that were middle class, but often passing social reform laws.

There'll be loads of countries that are democratic now and don't have a left party with that type of heritage because they didn't have multi-party politics during that transition period in the early 20th century. I find it interesting that that shift doesn't seem to happen in Canada in the same way - that's not me slurring the Liberals as a left-wing party or damning them for coming from the wrong class background

It's just something I'd not really thought of and it seems odd and interesting. All of my suggestions - Quebec, prairie populism - are literally just guesses as I have no idea

A good example is a lot of Americans still recoiling in horror at the thought of single payor "socialized medicine". Whereas much of the rest of the liberal democratic West consider it perfectly normal and the better system.

I think so on socialised care, but it's not universally single payer by any means. Most of continental Europe has some form or other of social insurance model (France, Germany, Belgium), some have universal private care (Netherlands, Switzerland). The thing that marks out the US is just not having a universal system of whatever type which is very weird - plus the fact that they spend so much more on health than almost anyone else

[Josquius]

The clue is right there. Because there are more than 2 parties, the centrist Liberal party can claim to be paty of moderates, seeing off challenges from both the left and the right. The problem the Democrats face is that they have no such leftwing equivalent. So they need to create one by disowning/throwing out the progressives from their party. By doing, they stand to gain more than they lose. Because right now, many Republicans think the progessives in the Democratic party ARE the party. By splitting into two, they can at least show waverers they are not the same.

This is a terrible idea. I don't even know where to start.

The success of the Liberal Party of Canada is quite an outlier though around the world.  Name me one country with a large "centrist" party that wins a lot of elections.

In the UK the rise of Labour quickly ate into the support for the centrist Liberals, who themselves are now the third party after merging to form the LibDems.

Maybe a product of Canada doing pretty well this past decade?
I'd say it did used to be the case in the UK sort of, with every party fighting for the centre, the tories only finally winning an election when they abandoned their unpopular right wing policy and elected a Blair clone as leader, entering into a coalition with the lib dems with the help of the global economic crisis.
They then gradually drove the country into the ground which helped to make politics far more divided again.

[crazy canuck]

The clue is right there. Because there are more than 2 parties, the centrist Liberal party can claim to be paty of moderates, seeing off challenges from both the left and the right. The problem the Democrats face is that they have no such leftwing equivalent. So they need to create one by disowning/throwing out the progressives from their party. By doing, they stand to gain more than they lose. Because right now, many Republicans think the progessives in the Democratic party ARE the party. By splitting into two, they can at least show waverers they are not the same.

This is a terrible idea. I don't even know where to start.

The success of the Liberal Party of Canada is quite an outlier though around the world.  Name me one country with a large "centrist" party that wins a lot of elections.

In the UK the rise of Labour quickly ate into the support for the centrist Liberals, who themselves are now the third party after merging to form the LibDems.

Maybe a product of Canada doing pretty well this past decade?
I'd say it did used to be the case in the UK sort of, with every party fighting for the centre, the tories only finally winning an election when they abandoned their unpopular right wing policy and elected a Blair clone as leader, entering into a coalition with the lib dems with the help of the global economic crisis.
They then gradually drove the country into the ground which helped to make politics far more divided again.

The Liberal party dominance in Canada has occurred for many many decades. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I can't think of another example of a 19th century incrementalist liberal party seeing off a challenge from the left. I wonder if the reason that happened in Canada - and maybe the US too? - is geography. A lot of energy on the left was through the farmer-populist style left? Which provided more of a counterweight to urban workers or workers in extractive industries which are really prone to unionisation/class struggle?

I don't want to overstate it because there are multiple factors--but a major one is "the land." In Canada and the United States just about everyone could acquire land if they wished. That is not the case in Europe, by the 18th century just about all the good quality land in Europe was controlled by the wealthy or at the very least the "middle class" (in the old British sense i.e. the quasi-wealthy who let the land out to tenants.) I think leftism is much harder to take hold when many of the working class are landowners.

[crazy canuck]

I suppose part of the issue then is what constitutes the left. I would argue that a lot of social democratic policies have been incorporated by "liberal" parties such that it is hard to really distinguish amongst them in modern age.  I think that is a sign of how successful social democratic movements have been. That might be where the US becomes the outlier - it has not really become as entrenched there. 

Yeah I'm not meaning to be pedantic over who is or isn't on the left. I can absolutely accept that's where the Liberals are.

It's worth splitting out a little though - because I think what seems unusual to me is that Canada was a country that had democratic institutions and party politics at the turn/early decades of the 20th century. In countries that also had democratic institutions at that point the traditional left party now will trace its routes to those origins of either a socialist/social democratic movement or a union movement. There is a process where working class socialist/social democratic/union parties take over on the left from (and often absorb chunks of) liberal parties that were middle class, but often passing social reform laws.

There'll be loads of countries that are democratic now and don't have a left party with that type of heritage because they didn't have multi-party politics during that transition period in the early 20th century. I find it interesting that that shift doesn't seem to happen in Canada in the same way - that's not me slurring the Liberals as a left-wing party or damning them for coming from the wrong class background

It's just something I'd not really thought of and it seems odd and interesting. All of my suggestions - Quebec, prairie populism - are literally just guesses as I have no idea

A good example is a lot of Americans still recoiling in horror at the thought of single payor "socialized medicine". Whereas much of the rest of the liberal democratic West consider it perfectly normal and the better system.

I think so on socialised care, but it's not universally single payer by any means. Most of continental Europe has some form or other of social insurance model (France, Germany, Belgium), some have universal private care (Netherlands, Switzerland). The thing that marks out the US is just not having a universal system of whatever type which is very weird - plus the fact that they spend so much more on health than almost anyone else

On the first point, interesting thought.  I think it is fair to say that what moved the Liberals left was the creation of a formal party of left in the early 30s (the CCF which then became the NDP).  That may be why Canada generally has a much more left leaning political outlook as compared to our friends to the South. But for a party on the left the Conservatives and Liberals might well have gone the way of the modern day Republicans and Democrats - essentially right wing parties throwing platitudes to left leaning concerns.

On the second point, yes - thanks for the clarification on the single payor point.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Another key factor IMO is there was no American leader that ever tried to take us truly left. FDR is vilified by many on the right for introducing a number of social welfare reforms, but the truth is FDR probably more than any other man of the 20th century insured that socialism would never have political sway in the United States. Most likely given his popularity if FDR had been more of a David Lloyd George type the entire country's Overton Window would be much further left now, probably as much as Canada's. At the same time some of that goes back to land--the radical branch of Liberal party politics Lloyd George emerged from had as a major focus land ownership reform--a hallmark of leftist policy, and there was just never any serious need for that in the United States. We have lots of land and it was historically usually quite cheap.

[crazy canuck]

Another key factor IMO is there was no American leader that ever tried to take us truly left. FDR is vilified by many on the right for introducing a number of social welfare reforms, but the truth is FDR probably more than any other man of the 20th century insured that socialism would never have political sway in the United States. Most likely given his popularity if FDR had been more of a David Lloyd George type the entire country's Overton Window would be much further left now, probably as much as Canada's. At the same time some of that goes back to land--the radical branch of Liberal party politics Lloyd George emerged from had as a major focus land ownership reform--a hallmark of leftist policy, and there was just never any serious need for that in the United States. We have lots of land and it was historically usually quite cheap.

The counter example though is Canada. Lots of land but the CCF was born on the prairies. Right in the heart of where the available land is located.  Left-wing politics appealed to the farmers. Which is I think dramatically different from what happened in your country.

[Valmy]

Another key factor IMO is there was no American leader that ever tried to take us truly left. FDR is vilified by many on the right for introducing a number of social welfare reforms, but the truth is FDR probably more than any other man of the 20th century insured that socialism would never have political sway in the United States. Most likely given his popularity if FDR had been more of a David Lloyd George type the entire country's Overton Window would be much further left now, probably as much as Canada's. At the same time some of that goes back to land--the radical branch of Liberal party politics Lloyd George emerged from had as a major focus land ownership reform--a hallmark of leftist policy, and there was just never any serious need for that in the United States. We have lots of land and it was historically usually quite cheap.

The counter example though is Canada. Lots of land but the CCF was born on the prairies. Right in the heart of where the available land is located.  Left-wing politics appealed to the farmers. Which is I think dramatically different from what happened in your country.

Not true. The farmers were a pretty radical group in some ways. They backed William Jennings Bryan and others. FDR is the one who protected their farms and gave them subsidies and they supported him in a big way.

It was only with the culture wars in the 1960s that the farmers became reactionary.

[crazy canuck]

Another key factor IMO is there was no American leader that ever tried to take us truly left. FDR is vilified by many on the right for introducing a number of social welfare reforms, but the truth is FDR probably more than any other man of the 20th century insured that socialism would never have political sway in the United States. Most likely given his popularity if FDR had been more of a David Lloyd George type the entire country's Overton Window would be much further left now, probably as much as Canada's. At the same time some of that goes back to land--the radical branch of Liberal party politics Lloyd George emerged from had as a major focus land ownership reform--a hallmark of leftist policy, and there was just never any serious need for that in the United States. We have lots of land and it was historically usually quite cheap.

The counter example though is Canada. Lots of land but the CCF was born on the prairies. Right in the heart of where the available land is located.  Left-wing politics appealed to the farmers. Which is I think dramatically different from what happened in your country.

Not true. The farmers were a pretty radical group in some ways. They backed William Jennings Bryan and others. FDR is the one who protected their farms and gave them subsidies and they supported him in a big way.

It was only with the culture wars in the 1960s that the farmers became reactionary.

Interesting

How did the 60s turn farmers from socialist into reactionaries?

[Jacob]

Interesting

How did the 60s turn farmers from socialist into reactionaries?

It's a good question. Same thing seems to have happened in Canada.