History of Prime Ministers in Canada - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: History of Prime Ministers in Canada (/showthread.php?tid=5437)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: History of Prime Ministers in Canada (/showthread.php?tid=5437)
Pages:
1
2
History of Prime Ministers in Canada - j-monster - 02-10-2005
Just found this site where the blogger has posted a couple of very interesting topics on the history of Prime Ministers in Canada, and how in recent years PMs have in general become Catholic, French-speaking Quebecers, whereas from Confederation to around the 1960's politicians with a wider spectrum of backgrounds rose to become PM.
Check it out... I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
http://www.polyscopique.com/blog/archives/000745.html
http://www.polyscopique.com/blog/archives/000746.html
- fingernailsonhull - 02-11-2005
Back in the 1997 election, the Reform Party tried to bring this up to the Canadian public. As of late, the PMs have been coming from Quebec which calls into question how greatly they can represent the entire nation. It didn't go over well. It was perceived as an attack on place of birth; which is a big no-no in Canada.
- Stephen Dame - 02-11-2005
Trudeau famously shattered the mold like "a stone through a stain glass window." Since him, you don't necessarily have to be a Catholic from Quebec, but you do have to speak both languages and politic a little left while governing a little centre if you want the top job.
Until somebody comes along and smashes the new mold, A Mulroney figure from the West or East for instance (*cough* Bernard Lord*cough*) It's gunna stay that way... and I've got no problem with that really.
The early history of PM's lingers with Orange Order intolerance, ethnic divisions and patronage on a scale we can't even comprehend today. Hard to judge it from here, a seperate time and place, but I don't think anybody would benefit from a return to the old days.
And I have to challenge this guys assessment of history. "Diverse?" From 1867 to 1911 the country was governed by three guys, with four caretakers in between. Two of them Scots, (And the second one was just filling in for five years until John A sobered up) the other guy the first French Canadian born PM. You can argue that their LONG terms and top-down way of governing were needed to build the country, but there was nothing diverse about it. On the other hand, since 1984 we've had two protestants, (Both English) two catholics (Both French) and one PM who happened to be a woman. I'd consider that varied.
Lately, the best men for the job, the guys who politics and chance have smiled on, have happened to be from Quebec (where the political and activist heart of Canada has always been, on account of its minority status, quiet revolution etc.)
This guy reminds me a lot of those Reform ads that were already mentioned. His opinions are valid, but they're a dangerous off-shoot of the anti-french NB COR party of the early 90's IMO. He's got an agenda and a website, good for him... bad for tempered, intelligent politics.
If you want to change things, don't complain about "them," either join or create a movement that can better things for all of us.
This guy is on the thin edge towards ethnic politics and hate.
Here's hoping the next great Liberal politician is from Quebec (The next leader will be French Canadian according to tradition) just to piss off this guy and Neaderthals like him.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-11-2005
Stephen is right, and our blogger is full of shit.
The blogger is begging the question. He begins with the observation that prime ministers since Pearson have been Catholic, makes the assumption that this trend reflects Catholic support for Catholic candidates, and then concludes that one must be a Catholic to be elected prime minister.
No evidence is offered to support the contention that Catholicism is the deciding, or even a supporting, factor. The one bit of evidence he dredges up is a small excerpt from a much larger document, which is presented as if it is the author's major conclusion, which it is not. Furthermore, this evidence doesn't actually support the conclusion; the author does not make any conclusions re the religious affiliations of the candidates.
Let's review the actual history of electoral contests since Pearson. My earliest political memory is watching Clark defeat Mulroney at the Conservative convention in 1970-something, so I'll start there:
Trudeau (Catholic) vs. Clark (Catholic): the Catholic candidate wins a minority government!
Clark (Catholic) vs. Trudeau (Catholic): the Catholic candidate wins again!
Turner (Catholic) vs. Mulroney (Catholic): the Catholic candidate wins yet again!
Mulroney (Catholic) vs. Turner (Catholic): again, that Catholic guy wins!
Campbell (Protestant) vs. Chretien (Catholic): the Catholic guy wins! It's a conspiracy!
Chretien (Catholic) vs. Manning (Protestant): again, it's a conspiracy!
Chretien (Catholic) vs. Day (Protestant): those damn papists!
Martin (Catholic) vs. Harper (Protestant): conspiracy! conspiracy!
From this, one thing is immediately clear: the blogger is talking about history, but his view is ahistorical. He cites Trudeau, Clark, and Mulroney as examples of a trend, where no trend of Catholic support for Catholic candidates existed. His real concern is with the popularity of one prime minister, and his immediate successor.
Did religion play a role in Chretien's success? Not in the defeat of Kim Campbell; Mulroney had succeeded in destroying his party so thoroughly that an NDP government was elected in Ontario's next provincial election and the west went for a new party called "Reform." Neither was it important in the defeat of Manning, whose Reform party was tarnished (despite a purge) by extremists within its ranks.
Stockwell Day dug his own grave. The study of the 2000 election, which our blogger cites, also observes that values had little impact and "the impact of religion should not be overstated." (Our blogger chose not to quote that....) Although the study tries hard to absolve Day, it can't escape the conclusion that his support came primarily from ideologues and that non-ideological voters supported the status quo, which happened to be a Catholic prime minister. Many Canadians (more than one in four), the authors observe, viewed the Alliance ideology as too extreme.
That leaves Harper. Do you really believe that religion lost him the election?
Dame is right on one other important point: "This guy is on the thin edge towards ethnic politics and hate."
What we're seeing here smells a lot like scapegoating: the suggestion that a group of people (conservatives) are being held down by a minority that enjoys unfair supremacy. I'm not going to discuss the ideology in which scapegoating is essential. That would be inflammatory.
- Stephen Dame - 02-11-2005
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Trudeau (Catholic) vs. Clark (Catholic): the Catholic candidate wins a minority government!
Clark (Catholic) vs. Trudeau (Catholic): the Catholic candidate wins again!
Turner (Catholic) vs. Mulroney (Catholic): the Catholic candidate wins yet again!
Mulroney (Catholic) vs. Turner (Catholic): again, that Catholic guy wins!
Campbell (Protestant) vs. Chretien (Catholic): the Catholic guy wins! It's a conspiracy!
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. It's kinda like when both boxers are wearing White trunks.And you're dead on about religion mattering little in Canadian politics, this fellow just chooses to see it a certain way.
But wasn't Clark a Protestant? I thought Maureen converted him?
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-11-2005
Stephen Dame Wrote:But wasn't Clark a Protestant? I thought Maureen converted him?
I dunno. I remember he was Canada's youngest prime minister, but I don't remember what his religious affiliation was at the time.
- j-monster - 02-11-2005
Stephen Dame Wrote:This guy is on the thin edge towards ethnic politics and hate.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:What we're seeing here smells a lot like scapegoating: the suggestion that a group of people (conservatives) are being held down by a minority that enjoys unfair supremacy. I'm not going to discuss the ideology in which scapegoating is essential. That would be inflammatory.
I'm not so sure about that. I don't see how this blogger's posts or opinions are that close to ethnic politics and hate, nor do I see any scapegoating in his comments. I think he's just noticing trends given the recent facts of who our PM's have been... and it's hard to argue the trend that PM's lately have been Catholic, French speaking Quebecers... and posing some theories that make some sense. He certainly doesn't present his theories as hard, iron-clad facts. Also, if his posts are close to hate, surely you would expect him to say that it is a bad thing that so many PM's lately have been Catholic, French speaking Quebecers, but nowhere does he say or even imply that. Besides, if you think he has a prejudice against Catholic, French speaking Quebecers becoming PM, that would be rather ironic considering the blogger himself is a Catholic, French speaking Quebecer... n'est-ce pas?
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-12-2005
Nice try, but you somewhat missed the point. Which was, initially, that his theories (and here I use the word "theory" loosely) make no sense. They are put forward without a scrap of evidence or logic.
He does not merely observe that Prime Ministers have tended to be Catholic, French-speaking Quebeckers, he proposes that it is necessary to be a Catholic to be elected prime minister because, he supposes, Catholics vote for Catholics. There is no basis for either claim.
Observations are one thing; no one disputes that prime ministers have tended to be Catholic, French-speaking Quebeckers starting with Trudeau. The conclusions one draws from the observations are the problem. "Theories" are grounded on evidence and on conclusions that can be logically drawn from the evidence. Begging the question and making post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, I'm afraid, doesn't cut the mustard.
When you suppose, with no evidence, that recent conservative defeats are attributable to Catholics voting for Catholics, you engage in scapegoating. And your own ethnicity and religion have nothing to do with it, as any student of anti-Semitism (for example) knows.
I think it notable that you're concentrating on the scapegoating question. Is this because you can't actually argue that there is a scrap of real support for this clown's conclusions?
Asserting that his ideas make sense won't make it true. Evidence might help. Try finding some.
- j-monster - 02-12-2005
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:He does not merely observe that Prime Ministers have tended to be Catholic, French-speaking Quebeckers, he proposes that it is necessary to be a Catholic to be elected prime minister because, he supposes, Catholics vote for Catholics. There is no basis for either claim.
Uh, no, he does not propose it is necessary to be a Catholic to be elected prime minister, he says today it is more likely that prime ministers elected in Canada will be Catholic... big difference. And in your earlier post you say the blogger offers no evidence, then you contradict yourself by discussing evidence he did include. And nowhere did he claim that the religious background of voters was THE major conclusion of the study, but he did say that the study's conclusion shows that people's religious background does play a role in people's voting decisions, whether they expressly plan it that way or not. Which makes sense... one's religion (or lack thereof if one is an atheist) is inevitably tied in to one's beliefs and values which people use to make their political choice... to claim otherwise or ignore its impact is naive.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:When you suppose, with no evidence, that recent conservative defeats are attributable to Catholics voting for Catholics, you engage in scapegoating. And your own ethnicity and religion have nothing to do with it, as any student of anti-Semitism (for example) knows.
cratch: When did he or I suppose that recent conservative defeats are attributable to Catholics voting for Catholics? Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney were conservatives, no? And neither I nor, I would claim, the blogger, would be foolish enough to blame Catholics voting for Catholics as the only reason (or even a large reason) why Liberals have won the last few elections.The blogger makes no distinct tie between recent prime ministers' religious and political party affiliations. Nor does he discuss who or what is to blame for recent conservative defeats, because it isn't the point of his posts. Therefore it's curious that you read those two topics into his posts when they clearly aren't there.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:I think it notable that you're concentrating on the scapegoating question. Is this because you can't actually argue that there is a scrap of real support for this clown's conclusions?
Asserting that his ideas make sense won't make it true. Evidence might help. Try finding some.
Ah yes... the "I disagree with this person's ideas so I'll patronize him and talk to him as if he were a child" argument. I'm not going to comment on what I think of that as a debating tactic... because THAT would be inflammatory. :wink:
- VioletlightHeron - 02-12-2005
I think the arguement the blogger was making was that the Quiet Revolution and its attendent effects on the secularization of society are a parital explanation for the voters attraction to liberal, French-speaking Catholics from the province of Quebec. Like Dame and the bloggers said, the Quiet Revolution caused an evolution in Quebec's place in Canada from a insular province to a activist pro-statist one. The blogger was also pointing out how the Quiet Revolution got its start when the Catholic Church started losing its institutional power and people started thinking in more secular terms. Furthermore, I dont see anything inherently anti-Catholic in his piece. He's simply theorizing that while the power of the Catholic Church has declined and voters who were previously inclined to vote for politicians who shared the Catholic Church's belief system switched their allegiances to politicians who shared and advocated their belief that government was the new secular tool to spread good in society. He wasn't making a judgement whether one or the other was better or somehow more superior, he was simply giving his theory as to why voters made their choices. Personally, I think statism is the wrong way to go. I believe its one of the reasons why the Liberal government finds itself up to its neck in scandals because they've confused doing good of the people with doing themself a favor. Statism only encourages this flaw if not checked with a healthy skepticism of the ability of government to re-order society to produce fairness and justice.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-12-2005
j-monster Wrote:And in your earlier post you say the blogger offers no evidence, then you contradict yourself by discussing evidence he did include.
Ah, no. Any discussion of his evidence from me has been to point out that his evidence is false. Nowhere have I acknowledged the validity of any evidence he offers. (He offers none, except for his dishonest quote from that study.) So, he offers no valid evidence.
j-monster Wrote:And nowhere did he claim that the religious background of voters was THE major conclusion of the study, but he did say that the study's conclusion shows that people's religious background does play a role in people's voting decisions, whether they expressly plan it that way or not.
I'm not saying he expressly claimed that the major conclusion of the study is that the Catholic vote won the 2000 election for the liberals, but he certainly overstates the importance of that conclusion to the study and he dishonestly excludes other conclusions of the study that tend to refute his point of view.
Also, your claim that the study shows that religious background plays a role in voting decisions isn't precisely true. The study notes that a certain religious group showed a weak tendency (54 %) to vote Liberal, which helped the Liberals win the 2000 election. It does not conclude that religious background plays a role in elections in general; in fact, the author suggests the opposite.
j-monster Wrote:
Here's the central drive of his argument: that non-Catholic candidates have been defeated because a large Catholic demographic voted their religion.
Or are you actually trying to suggest that his observing this trend and then concocting reasons for it does not function as an explanation of conservative defeats? Sorry, but it's not possible to discuss reasons for recent Liberal party victories without simultaneously discussing the reasons for conservative defeats. They're two sides of the same coin.
j-monster Wrote:Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney were conservatives, no?
This painfully embarrassing problem afflicts his argument, not mine. His attempt to align Catholic voting with Liberal ideology is somewhat undercut by his using conservative victories as evidence of Catholic dominance in politics. Oops.
j-monster Wrote:Ah yes... the "I disagree with this person's ideas so I'll patronize him and talk to him as if he were a child" argument.
So suggesting that you actually cite evidence to support the argument is treating you like a child? You still haven't done that; you're attempting now to cut down what I say but you still haven't offered a valid argument, or any evidence, that the Catholicism of prime ministerial candidates since Pearson has been important to their success. And that's what you need to do, because the burden of proof here is on you.
- fingernailsonhull - 02-12-2005
This argument is getting a little bit sarcastic. Excellent. However, there is one point I would like to clarify. It was mentioned earlier that there is no evidence that Catholics vote for Catholics. This is simply untrue. I am a Political Science student and I have taken numerous courses on Canadian politics and Canadian voting behaviour. Through the years, there has been a very strong causal relationship between religious affiliation and who you cast your ballot for. This weakened somewhat through the latter part of the 20th century, but a well-defined relationship remains. It is not a hard and fast rule that Catholics will vote for Catholics or Protestants will vote for Protestants, but it is more likely. Having said that, I personally do not believe there is any explainable reason for this current trend of Catholic, francophone, PMs from Quebec. It's sort of an anomaly if you ask me. The most populous province is Ontario and it contains about 1/3 of all the seats in the House of Commons. Unless I'm mistaken, the Liberal party chooses their leader based on a vote by delegates from each riding association. This would give Ontario the most votes. I think this eliminates the possibility of some sort of Quebec conspiracy. But what the hell do I know? I'm only a student.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-12-2005
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Furthermore, I dont see anything inherently anti-Catholic in his piece.
Nobody has said that his piece is inherently anti-Catholic. Dame and I simply observed that it leans that way.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:He's simply theorizing that while the power of the Catholic Church has declined and voters who were previously inclined to vote for politicians who shared the Catholic Church's belief system switched their allegiances to politicians who shared and advocated their belief that government was the new secular tool to spread good in society. He wasn't making a judgement whether one or the other was better or somehow more superior, he was simply giving his theory as to why voters made their choices.
He's not theorizing, as I pointed out above, because this involves evidence and logical thought, both of which are absent from his posts. He's speculating. There's an important difference.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-12-2005
fingernailsonhull Wrote:I am a Political Science student and I have taken numerous courses on Canadian politics and Canadian voting behaviour. Through the years, there has been a very strong causal relationship between religious affiliation and who you cast your ballot for.
At the party level: Catholics tend to vote Liberal, and Protestants tend to vote Conservative (for reasons other than the weak ideological speculation offered by the blogger.) This does not necessarily mean that Catholics support Catholic prime ministerial candidates, although of course the same tendency means that Liberal candidates are more likely to be Catholic and therefore to enjoy Catholic support. Also, predominantly Catholic ridings are more likely to raise Catholic candidates who will enjoy the support of their predominantly Catholic constituency.
I'd suggest that to observe that Catholic candidates (more likely to be Liberals) enjoy the support of Catholic voters (more likely to vote Liberal) for reasons of religious affiliation, rather than for other, coincidental reasons, is to confuse cause and effect.
(Even suggesting that Catholics vote Liberal because of their Catholic beliefs confuses cause and effect, by the way.)
I don't believe that adequate evidence to propose a causal relationship actually exists. You would need solid exit poll data showing that Catholics voted for Catholic conservative candidates in ridings where they were opposed by Protestant Liberals, that is, that they voted against traditional values and national trends where the deciding factor was the candidate's religion.
And of course, this tendency doesn't necessarily drive election outcomes; there are usually many other factors at play which turn out to be much more important -- especially in contemporary elections.
fingernailsonhull Wrote:Having said that, I personally do not believe there is any explainable reason for this current trend of Catholic, francophone, PMs from Quebec. It's sort of an anomaly if you ask me.
Actually, I'd suggest that it reflects a tendency of the parties to choose candidates with appeal to Quebec voters, i.e. bilingual candidates and probably francophones. This is because Quebec is the second most important province electorally, and because Ontario voters tend not to penalize francophone candidates in the way that Alberta voters might. That's Occam's razor at work; he's dead, and doesn't need it, so I like to borrow it now and then.
I'd speculate that this is likely to change: Quebec is a lost battleground at present because it tends to elect Bloc candidates. Ontario is now the critical battleground, and Quebec has become almost irrelevant.
I'm wasting far too much time on this. But thanks for making the discussion more interesting.
- j-monster - 02-13-2005
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:j-monster Wrote:
Here's the central drive of his argument: that non-Catholic candidates have been defeated because a large Catholic demographic voted their religion.
Or are you actually trying to suggest that his observing this trend and then concocting reasons for it does not function as an explanation of conservative defeats? Sorry, but it's not possible to discuss reasons for recent Liberal party victories without simultaneously discussing the reasons for conservative defeats. They're two sides of the same coin.
Yes, I am actually suggesting that his observing the trend of Canada electing Catholic, French-speaking Quebecers and suggesting (not "concocting") reasons for this does not function as an explanation of conservative defeats... you seem shocked by this for some reason. He is absolutely making no connection between party affiliations and religious affiliations... for you or anyone else to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:j-monster Wrote:Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney were conservatives, no?
This painfully embarrassing problem afflicts his argument, not mine. His attempt to align Catholic voting with Liberal ideology is somewhat undercut by his using conservative victories as evidence of Catholic dominance in politics. Oops.
Are we even reading the same thing? He is not attempting to align Catholic voting with Liberal ideology... he merely points out the trend of the background of recent PM's, regardless of what party they represent. Why read something into his post that isn't there?
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:j-monster Wrote:Ah yes... the "I disagree with this person's ideas so I'll patronize him and talk to him as if he were a child" argument.
So suggesting that you actually cite evidence to support the argument is treating you like a child? You still haven't done that; you're attempting now to cut down what I say but you still haven't offered a valid argument, or any evidence, that the Catholicism of prime ministerial candidates since Pearson has been important to their success. And that's what you need to do, because the burden of proof here is on you.
Tone, my friend... it's all about tone. If you had said something like "I do not see any proof for his conclusions in his post", then that would be one thing, but to make a snide remark like "evidence would help, try finding some" is totally disrespectful, whether you think it is or not. As for saying the burden of proof is on me... uh, when did this become a legal trial? I heard you say in another post here that you wasted too much time on this... well so have I. Obviously we disagree on the conclusions of this blogger, so whatever, right? Thanks for the discussion.