Monti, L. “The New Liberalism” 
The New Federation 4.2 (1994): 10-12.

The New Liberalism
by Lorne Monti

The signs are all there: bell bottom pants are back in fashion, so too are peace symbols; the retro look in motorcycles is popular; the Americans have elected a Democratic president; casual sex is making a comeback, protected as it might be; and the Grits have returned to power in Canada. All that is missing are a few mood rings and some lava lamps and it could be the sixties all over again! Could this signify the dawning of a new Golden Age of Canadian liberalism?

In recent times, liberalism has been strategically misrepresented as libertinism by its opponents. This has been a convenient misnomer for it portrays liberals as wanton profligates with rapacious appetites for spending money, particularly other peoples’ money, extravagantly on quixotic causes. In fact, liberalism is nothing more than open-mindedness.
	In theory, it is the ascension of debate over dogma. It’s a utilitarian rather than a doctrinaire approach to politics, which is constantly open to new ideas. Rather than being fettered by an inflexible orthodoxy, it seeks the best solution to a problem. This flexibility is evidenced by liberalism’s evolution over the centuries. Once the philosophy of laissez-faire economics and mass governmental decentralization, it has become the advocate of an effective central government managing, not controlling, a mixed economy. It’s this flexibility which has allowed it to pick and choose the best theories of other movements, while still adhering to its own fundamental, democratic principle, represented best by the Benthamic maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number.
	Unfortunately, it’s this flexibility which keeps liberalism in a constant state of transition and makes it difficult to define in absolute terms. Liberals, like Canadians, are more apt to define themselves by what they are not. They are not elitists; they are not dogmatists; and they are not exclusionists. “Liberals prefer the middle option between stagnation and revolution,” writes Blair Williams in Towards a New Liberalism: Recreating Canada and the Liberal Party. After the spectacular failure of the special-interest driven politics practiced in Canada during the past decade by the recently deposed Conservative government, Canadians may be making a refreshing move back to the idealism of egalitarian politics – not that everyone who voted Liberal in the last election did so for this reason. But it is certainly a wonderful opportunity for liberalism to try and achieve its potential.
	By applying rigid doctrines to political philosophies, both the NDP and the Conservatives practiced what John Stuart Mill denounced as the “assumption of infallibility.” And recent events have demonstrated the Canadian electorate did not share this opinion with either side.
	If the Left and the Right, like religious fundamentalists, seem always to have the answer before the question, then a liberal tends to have the opposite problem. Often liberals have no idea of their opinion on an issue until they’ve considered all the points of view, looked at all the sides, discussed all the options and then picked a solution – occasionally even the right one. This often projects an impression of instability or weakness, and can cause decision making to be intolerably slow. Frequently, in uncertain times, people want absolute answers immediately. Liberalism’s shortcoming is that it can’t always perform this task effectively.
	This may have all changed, however. Now liberals possess the Red Book with policies arrived at through debate, consultation and consensus, and, like the Canadian Tire Catalogue, subject to change without notice if a better idea comes along.
	The question is whether there is a new manifestation of liberalism in Canada.
	According to Peter Donolo, communications director for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Liberalism is a pragmatic, centrist approach to politics which puts people before statistics while still maintaining fiscal responsibility. It is this last point which is the new theme in the Liberal anthem and which distinguishes it from the liberalism of the past. Although, as well known political observer as author and historian, Jack Granatstein, points out this doesn’t constitute a new liberalism, it’s the party, “simply assessing the public mood and recognizing what has to be done.”
	Nevertheless, the theme runs like a leitmotif throughout the speeches of Liberal cabinet ministers from Marcel Masse to Paul Martin and, given the current debt crises in Canada, it may be a welcome addition to the liberal repertoire.
	Liberals revere government and regard it as the noblest mechanism for social change. Contrastingly, Conservatives often see it as an impediment to progress. Unlike the past, the new liberalism recognizes the limits of government. Modern Liberals realize that it is impossible for government to redress every social malady. “When governments are called upon to do everything, there are two inevitable consequences,” explained Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Marcel Masse, at the National Conference on Governmental Affairs. “One is that government will fail and fall into disrepute. And the second is a loss of a sense of civic responsibility and initiative.”
	Their reverence for government is the major impetus for the latest drive to “get it right,” in the words of Minister Masse; and to do this while respecting the prime directive of fiscal responsibility. This accounts partially for the massive seven part agenda, put forward by the Minister, outlining the government’s plan to reform the workings of government at both the national and provincial levels.
	Reforms already put in place are the reduction of ministerial staffs, up to 68 members in the case of the Human Resources Ministry, and the elimination of ministerial Chiefs of Staff. To paraphrase Prime Minister Chrétien, the bigger the ministry, the smaller the minister.
	Liberals tend also to have a high regard for the civil service. Whereas the Conservative ministerial Chiefs of Staff acted as political commissars ensuring public policy reflected government ideology, their elimination may restore some autonomy to the workings of the public service, thereby providing the government with an increase in policy options.
	To a movement or a party which venerates government as do the Liberals, it is paramount that government is held in the highest esteem in order to be regarded as legitimate. The cynicism with which government is currently viewed is a function of a general perception that it caters to special interests and not the average citizen. Taxation is one sphere in which the Liberals will need to return to their traditional philosophy.
Liberals have always used the taxation system to equalize societal income disparities. This has made for a stable society which has avoided the vast concentrations of wealth common in countries like Brazil. Tory taxation ideology maintained that the untaxed excess wealth of the privileged class would eventually trickle down to the middle class in the form of an invigorated private sector economy. This never happened. In fact, wealth became more concentrated in fewer hands in Canada. Because the Tories introduced a regressive tax like the GST, while dropping the tax rate of the wealthiest members of society, the government was perceived as biased. This perception stigmatized the government as the enemy of the common citizen, and taxpayers began a massive evasion of paying taxes: the black market, smuggling and the underground economy, to name a few familiar examples. As a partial consequence, government revenues dropped noticeably.
	It will be the task of the Liberals to restore confidence in the taxation system, not by raising taxes as they may have in the past, but by redistributing the burden more equitably. They can begin by lowering the tax rates on the working poor and the middle class and by restoring progressivity to high family incomes. Some of the measures contained in Martin’s budget such as ending the $100,000 capital gains exemption and reducing to 50 per cent the tax deduction for business lunches and entertainment were steps in that direction. This is in addition to their pledge to replace the GST. It is hoped these reforms will go a long way in restoring the image of impartiality to the taxation system.
	In view of recent events, Conservative bashing has become an ignoble occupation, yet it can be said that their greatest success was convincing ordinary Canadians that their interests could be met best by advancing the cause of the business class. This is the delusional doctrine of trickle-down economics which has been repudiated throughout North America. In fact, as numerous statistics have consistently indicated, Canadians watched the greatest transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the wealthy elites.
	This was all done in the name of Adam Smith – a liberal philosopher long ago abandoned by Liberals – and the doctrine of laissez-faire economics. It’s not that there is anything inherently bad about Adam Smith; the problem rests in adhering to an ideology despite the obvious failure of the approach. Unfortunately, dogmas tend to be closed to discussion. And whether it was the economy or the constitution, opponents of the government were more often met with ad homina like “enemies of Canada,” than unbiased arguments.
	Similarly, the Left was equally intolerant of debate as it devised its own virulent doctrine now well known as political correctness. The federal NDP struggled between being politically relevant or being politically correct. Mistakenly it chose the latter and lost the former.
	It should be clear by now that dogmatic politics has not been productive for Canada. Canadians are most successful when they embrace a liberal philosophy of self-sacrifice, not self-interest. There is no sense in blaming the Tories for the hardships of the eighties. They were the perfect government for a self-obsessed, baby boom, “me” generation and their selfish yuppie philosophy.
	Perhaps now we are experiencing a renaissance of egalitarianism, a return to the notion that co-operation and self-sacrifice can improve conditions for all members of a society. Americans moved toward liberalism when they elected a Democratic president. The traditionally doctrinaire, gender-biased feminist movement is moving toward tolerance, in the person of Naomi Wolf, by renouncing victim-feminism for a humanistic, power-feminism and becoming relevant in the process.
	Whether members of the Liberal Party are actually liberals is yet to be determined. In fact, political observers like Jack Granatstein question whether there is actually even a new liberalism at work. Professor Granatstein observes that the makeup of the cabinet is primarily survivors of Trudeau liberalism. He does concede, however, “being in opposition for nine years does clear the air a bit, and chasten the survivors.” This has lead to a different tone in Ottawa, less imperious than Brian Mulroney’s and the Conservatives’. Although nothing more than a change in style, he admits it’s an important one.
	The test for the party will be whether it can remain populist without being commandeered by intellectuals, theorists and bag-men. 
Granatstein foresees another more threatening problem: Quebec. “It seems to me that if (Prime Minister) Chrétien doesn’t win the referendum in Quebec when it comes, then his career is over, because there’s no way English-Canada will permit a French-Canadian to be the negotiator with a separating Quebec.”
	This would most likely precipitate the fall of the Liberal Party as well, for the new tone of the administration is closely linked to the personality of the Prime Minister. In Canada, as elsewhere, politics is a cult of personality. Whereas Trudeau liberalism was defined by reason over passion, Chrétien’s liberalism is characterized by humanism over dogmatism.
	Canadians have moved toward humanism in the Liberal Party. It is a brief window of opportunity. Failure is to return to a political environment of self-interest. The Bloc is exclusionist, Reform is regionalist, the NDP is socialist, and the Conservatives were elitist. Therefore, by default, the Liberals have become populist.
	It may be naive to believe that a party can raise itself above the petty partisanship of politics. But perhaps it happened once, in a time not too long ago, in a place not too far away called Canada.

Lome Monti is a Contributing Editor of The New Federation

Defining Liberalism

William Gladstone, the great British Liberal, was a tory MP until he was about fifty years of age. Gladstone probably stated what liberalism is probably better than anyone has before or since: “trust of the people tempered by prudence; Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” If alive in Canada today, he might well describe democratic socialism as ultimate trust only in government, not people. He’d probably find the Reformers to be indistinguishable from the Tories: Conservatives with populist wigs and moustaches.
	Liberalism, by one very broad definition, is the culmination of a development that goes back to the Hebrew prophets, the teachings of the pre-Socratic philosophers, and the Sermon on the Mount, from all of which there emerged a sense of the importance of human individuality, a liberation of the individual from complete subservience to the group, and a relaxation of the tight hold of custom, law and authority.
	The emancipation of people has come to be seen as a unique achievement of Western culture – its very hallmark. Liberalism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a liberating force. It stood against cruelty, superstition, intolerance and arbitrary government. Liberals worldwide fought, and many died, for the rights of men (though not always women) and nations.
	As the twentieth century draws to a close, liberalism as a distinctive organized political movement unfortunately exists only in Western societies, traditionally its historical home. Liberal parties do not flourish except for the Democratic Party in the U.S.A. and the Liberal Party in Canada. In other countries such as Italy, Japan and Australia, the party called Liberal is a party of the right or sometimes of the extreme right. North America seems to be the only part of the developed world in which liberal parties have not been replaced on the left by social democratic parties.

David Kilgour, from his article “The Liberal Opportunity” in Towards a New Liberalism: Re-creating Canada and the Liberal Party, edited by Cleo Mowers (ORCA: 1991)