Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada - Essay Example

Analysis paper Gad Horowitz’s 1966 seminal piece “Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation” from The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, vol. 32.             The article about the Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An interpretation is derived from the Canadian Journal of Economics and political science. It was published by the University of Toronto Press, for the Canadian Political Science Association. The article was written by Gad Horowitz started from 1935 to 1967. The main subjects tackled in the article are the Canadian economic conditions, bibliography, periodicals, economics and political science. The article actually highlights some simple facts. For instance, it mainly flourishes in Canada and languishes in United States as brought out by Hertz. In other words, the different adaptations of Hertz mainly compete or have more attention in Canada.             There are various debates, which have been held concerning the Hartz-Horowitz interpretation of the conservatism, liberalism and socialism in Canada. The article is very important because it provides various simple explanations for some striking differences between the Canadian and American politics. The article argues that the interpretation can be understood better as a form of neo-Marxism. This paper will analyze the interpretation written by Hart, concerning the conservatism, liberalism and socialism in Canada. It will mainly touch on the core arguments of Hertz concerning the conservatism, liberalism and socialism in Canada. In addition, the paper will compare the difference of conservatism between Canada and America as brought out by Horowitz. It will also provide both positive and negative assessment of Horowitz’s argument in his essay about the conservatism, liberalism and socialism in Canada. The main argument Hartz- Horowitz explained that in Canada, socialism is a very important or significant political force though it is far from the national power. However, he explained that in the United States, organized socialism is totally dead. In other words, he exclaimed that the United States of America does not have organized socialism while in Canada; socialism is a valued factor in political force. Horowitz argues that in Canada, the relative strength of socialism is closely related to the relative strength of toryism. The main approach used by Horowitz is to consider the new societies founded by the Europeans as fragments. Therefore, he considered the French Canada and the Latin America as feudal fragments because they were found by feudal or tory bearers which include, organic, hierarchical community and corporate values. This means that their departure from Europe was before the liberal revolution. On the other hand, he considered the English Canada, United States and the Dutch South Africa as bourgeois fragments because they were founded by the liberal individualism bearers. Horowitz exclaimed that socialism is an ideology that combines both rationalists-egalitarian ideas concerning liberalism with the corporate-organic-collectivist ideas about toryism. He further explains that both the fragments escape from socialism in different ways. In the feudal fragment, the corporate-organic-collectivist component of socialism is present because it is part of the feudal ethos while the radical-egalitarian is absent or missing. The bourgeois fragment the situation is vise versa. The radical-rationalist-egalitarian is present while the other component is missing.  Horowitz argued that English Canada can be considered as a fragment of American liberal society that lacks the feudal or tory heritage thus missing the socialist ideology. He compares Canadian domestic struggle with the version of the American struggle. He also said that the liberal society of the English Canada is seen as a tory touch, “…etched with a tory streak coming out of American Revolution…” Hertz claimed that there are various un-American characteristics in English Canada that are related to the availability of toryism. Furthermore, he pointed out various features of the Canadian history. He argued that the English Canada political elites and business elite tend to use the state’s power in order to develop and control the economy. He explained that the pre-revolutionary America was a liberal fragment though it had insignificant traces of toryism and had very weak feudal survivals. In the American setting, the revolution did not struggle but swept the traces away leaving them as a memory. Hertz explained that being an American meant being a bourgeois liberal while French Canadians were pre-Enlightened. Therefore, he claimed that being a Boer means being a pre-Enlightenment bourgeois Calvinist. He explained that the United States has a weakness of misunderstanding the appeal of socialism to the third world. The main reason for this is because United States has no memory of the medieval community. He explained that it cannot understand the appeal of socialism to nations mainly consists of the promise of continuing the corporate ethos in the process of modernization. He claimed that the Americans react with hysteria, messianism and isolationism. In addition, he explained that due to the fact that the English Canada is the most imperfect of the fragments, it is not a one-myth culture. The ideological diversity is not yet buried under the absolutist liberal nationalism in the English Canada. He claimed that the English Canada does not express an uncomprehending intolerance within and beyond its borders. In addition, he explained that in English Canada, it is possible to consider various values without affecting the all-silencing cry of treason. Horowitz explained that Canada is displayed as calm, mediating and peacemaking. However, this role is considered to be related to the un-American, the tory and socialist characteristics by the Americanizing liberals. They also consider it as an unnecessary imperfection in the English Canadian wholeness. Therefore, the domestic politics in English Canada is also linked with the imperfections. Hertz therefore argues that the non-liberal British have entered into the English Canadian society with the American liberal elements. He explains that Canada is mainly influenced by both the Britain and United States. Hertz also clarified that liberalism is the dominant element in the political culture of the Canada. However, it is not solely but accompanied by legitimate streams of socialism and toryism which has close relation to the essence or foundations of the nation, just as liberalism. He explained that the essence of the English Canada is both liberal and non-liberal. The Canadian conservative party is similar to the British conservative party but is not monolithically liberal unlike the Republicans according to Hertz. He claims that the ideology component in business oriented parties is liberalism and considered the Republican as always being liberal. He therefore, states that a conservative can either be liberal or tory, and is considered to be both liberal and troy. Canadian conservatives are viewed as right-wing liberals at some angle. The author also considered Canadian socialism as an un-American in two ways. First, he considered it as a un-America because it is a legitimate and significant political force in Canada. The other is that it does not compare to the American language of socialism. Hertz argued that the ideas of socialist immigrants from Britain to Canada were not sloughed because they match the political culture which has non-liberal components thus making socialism not to be alien. He explained that socialism in Britain and in Canada is well managed while in United States, it could not survive because it is an ideological environment. American socialism was considered alien in both ideological sense and in the ethnic sense. This is because it was formed by foreigners from Germany and other European continents. The foreigners sloughed off their socialist ideas since they were undergoing a process of Americanization. Socialism therefore was abandoned as one of the alien ethnical characteristics. Hertz argument clarifies that Canada and America have various differences in their conservatism liberalism and socialism. He claims that in America, socialism is not valued while in Canada, socialism is considered as an important factor in the political force. In addition, his main argument about liberalism is that in the United States, the liberal Democrats are at the left while in Canada, it considered to be a center party because at times it appears in left and sometimes also appears in the right. How the Canadian conservatism is different from the American conservatism Hertz explained that the Canadian conservatism party is similar to that of Britain. It is different from the American conservative party according to his interpretation. He claimed that the Canadian conservative party is not monolithically liberal. Hertz explained that America is a republican country while Canada is conservative in nature. He further explained that the Republicans are totally liberal while a Conservative is either liberal or a tory at a given time and is therefore considered as both liberal and tory. In addition, the Canadian conservatives have some British elements while the American Republicans don’t. The Canadian conservatives do not have American aura of strong individualism. The American conservatism is characterized to conserve only liberal values unlike the Canadian conservatism. Horowitz explained that Diefenbaker and Hamilton are western or agrarian Conservatives who are foreign elements in the Canadian conservatism dismissed as prairie radicals in the American type. Furthermore, they are also considered to be in the tory democratic tradition because they stress on the tory party as the champion of the people. Diefenbaker and Hamilton are also considered to have orthodox Conservative attitudes due to their attitudes toward the monarchy, the danger of the American domination and the British connection. Furthermore, the Conservatism of Diefenbaker is understood as an odd mixture of traditional conservative views and the attitudes captivated from western progressive tradition. Considering the phenomenon of Canada, regarding the red tory, he is a conservative who favors the CCF-NDP instead of liberals. As a socialist, he is considered to prefer conservatism to liberalism. In some level, he is seen as a conscious ideological socialist possessing some odd tory notions, or can be viewed as a conscious ideological conservative with odd socialist notions. In comparison to the American perspective, if such kind of affinities might exist in Socialists and republicans in U.S, it is ludicrous to make such point. Hertz’s main argument concerning the issue of conservatism is that Canadian conservatism is totally different from that of America. The socialists in Canada value conservatism while in America it is not valued. For instance, in America, the conservatism is mainly used to conserve the liberal values unlike in Canada. The positive and negative assessment of the article In the article, Hart clearly describes the importance of conservatism, liberalism and socialism in Canada. He explains both aspects as considered in the country. Furthermore, he compares the aspects between Canada and America. For instance, he explained that in the United States, the left-wing liberalism has always meant to be an opposition to the American life domination and expresses itself in the Democratic Party. Therefore, the business party is the Republican Party. On the other hand, in Canada, business is linked to both the liberals and conservatives. The liberal party does not represent opposition of the community to domination by the organized business in Canada. Moreover, he explained that in the United States, liberal states are on the left side while in Canada, liberal party is centered since it appears in the left at times and sometimes in the right.     In the aspect of socialism, in Canada, it is considered British, non-Marxist and worldly. Hertz therefore clarifies the difference between American socialism and Canadian socialism. In America, socialism is not valued as in America but is considered as a very significant factor in the political force in Canada. In addition, he also explained the difference in conservatism between the two countries. Even though he explained several issues, he also had several negative assessments in the essay. The main misunderstanding about the Hertz theory is that it is considered as a species of genus. He was mainly using various ideas to illustrate conservatism, liberalism and socialism between America and Canada. For several years, debates have been held that reveal various limitations and weaknesses concerning the interpretation of the socialism, liberalism and conservatism in Canada. The various basic weaknesses are normally seen by the treatment of the French Canada. In addition, the way in which he explained the variation among societies is considered to be very weak. His explanation concerning the failure of American socialism is mainly contra posed to the economic explanations such as American’s great success of its capitalism in the delivery of goods.  The explanations are not mutually exclusive and therefore should be conjoined. Horowitz essay is actually full of weaknesses though the article is very important and is being taught due to its important contents. In conclusion, Hertz used various approaches in order to bring out the concept of conservatism, liberalism and socialism. He explained several things concerning conservatism in both Canada and America. He also compared the aspect of socialism as considered in both Canada and United States. For instance, in Canada, socialism is considered as a significant factor in the political force but viewed as dead in United States. Moreover, Horowitz described liberalism too as a centered party in Canada while in the United States; liberalism is regarded to be in the opposition side of the party. In general, the Hartzian’s article highlights various facts in different aspects. The analysis mainly favors Canada as it duels much in most positive parts in Canada compared to United States. Hartz described how the liberalism, socialism and conservatism are important in Canada in his interpretation. He illustrated that the way conservatism is viewed in United States or the republicans is very different to the way it is seen by the Canadians. In addition, he compared the societies by considering them as fragments. For instance, he divided them into two groups; feudal and bourgeois fragments. Hartz compared Canada to Britain and America to Germany. The article is therefore clear concerning the differences between Canadians and Americans in relation to conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Read More