John McDonald

Introduction

John McDonald is the greatest example of a person who desired to achieve a goal progressively, not abruptly. He was a man that “desire[d] to conserve….tradition, as the inherited wisdom of the past”[1]. An immigrant boy who came to a new land looking for his parents’ well-being, following them to a land where only God knew what would happen. His brother was killed, his parents were still poor and struggling, his need to live a better life was greater than his need to be a better man. His parents’ struggle showed him something he did not wish for himself, poverty. John McDonald later became the Father of Canada and his journey will be depicted in this essay. Moreover, his belief in the public is what made him supreme among all political figures of Canada to this day, his traditional conservative mentality is what led Canada to become one of the biggest, riches countries in the planet. However, there were some changes throughout time to his ideologies. Canada has suffered as a result, this essay will show how. Thus, this essay argues that McDonald’s vision for the common folk has not been fulfilled to its maximum potential as a result of a switch in political philosophies practiced in Canada. Today’s neo-conservative party has deviated from the Traditional Conservative ideology and has committed Canada to things McDonald would not have approved of (i.e., dependency on the US’ market or corporations).

Conservatism 1800s

In order to begin a discussion about conservative politics, one must understand concepts such as Confederation and the National Policy of Canada. The meaning of Confederation for Canada is directly tied to its identity as a nation, its hard work to collect all cultures within and create unity throughout, and to a tight connection with the world from “sea to sea”[2]. Pioneer Sir Alexander Campbell led the way to a progressive and consistent change in Canada that created order for its citizens, peace and safety. The Confederation of 1867 represented a union between the British and the established provinces in Canada such as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The connection meant that there was more of Canada to be explored, developed, utilized, as well as more to be exported in order to financially benefit the country.

More than 10 years after the fact, all of this exploring, connecting and developing was not serving Canada any good as its economy became stagnant[3]. There was no shortage of resources; to the contrary, Canada was a growing center of natural resources (i.e., timber). Still, the country was unable to compete with the already-experienced market and client-base of the United States. The National Policy became the framework of Canadian economic development but it took several decades for its benefits to culminate and profit. Protective measures and protectionist agendas were behind the policy and as tariffs were raised for products imported from the United States, Canadian young businesses suffered. The United States was ahead of the competition, at least with Canada, increasing tariffs the only viable solution for Canada[4].

The National Policy began to work its magic. Finally, income was beginning to come from the exports, the axis now being reached and the tariffs that were raised, even if it were at smaller profit margins that the United States, it served the country really good. The Transcontinental Railway System was started and it meant that there were no limits for Canada to export its goods or import cheaper goods than those coming from the United States, now there were no boundaries to the amount of business that Canada could conduct. Additionally, it meant that more people could opt to come to Canada and immigrate, working for the land and its economy. The boom came in the 19th century, finally the economy saw flourishing.

Conservatism represents the idea that Canada was not one to develop abruptly. It is a concept that guards the past and historical experience as the most valuable tool in any political affair and that by thinking before acting, having patience and solidarity for what is one’s, only one possible outcome could surface: success. Conservatism in Canada refers to this long-term, progressive journey that Canada has undergone to be what it is today. Today, it is filled with great economic strength, aided by its millions of occupants, and cherished for being a peace agent. Traditional conservatism implies exactly that: a loyalty to what is traditional and apathy towards what is liberal and modern[5].

Stephen Harper is a prime example of modern neo-conservatism while John McDonald is rendered an example of traditional conservatism. The party, either modern or traditional, believes in the rights of citizens, the right to lower taxes, greater “deregulation and increased privatization”[6]. Furthermore, conservative leaders believe in the balance of inequality by providing for those of lesser means. John McDonald’s experience could be said to have been one progressive decision-making that gradually led to victory. He literally had nothing when he came to Canada. His parents were only able to provide motivation, as they were definitely people of lesser means.

McDonald’s journey was comprised of struggles, goals without opportunities, and an ambition like no other, to help his parents live a better life. His parents worked hard to pay for his school and McDonald excelled. He even wanted to be a writer, but based on the financial pressure of his circumstances, his parents’ encouragement and his ability to excel at any task, he centered his mind and became a lawyer instead. As a lawyer, he helped those of lesser means. He saw Canada as his new motherland and wanted it to be in the best possible conditions.

McDonald continued to work hard and started thinking that there was a greater purpose for him, maybe in politics. Maybe the Confederation would have something to do with his inspired thinking, but he made it so that Canada became of the biggest, richest and safest countries in the world. Becoming a Prime Minister once was not in his destiny. He was such a powerful figure in our history that he had to do it twice. He was appointed, ultimately, three times but never lost sight of his goals. He became Canada’s father, the first PM to rule, and although he suffered a lot in the hands of his own people (i.e., talking about him and accusing him of taking bribes[7]), he continued to show his loyalty and dedication to the country that we now call Canada[8].

Traditional conservative thinking – this is what McDonald represented to Canada and the world. No one could have guessed that an immigrant boy would grow up to become Canada’s father (adoptive). He made Canada much stronger and, as any father would, provided it with the best possible resources to flourish and succeed. After buying land, with the stern help of the British Government, Rupert’s land was purchased, beginning a sequence of events that would enlighten Canadians even more so. He united Lower and Upper Canada, attempting to bring one collective culture to this great land. He later purchased BC, PEI and NWT and further united the country into one Confederation agreement.

Moreover, he took his responsibilities seriously. His ideals were to have a country filled with people, natural resources, united in one front towards success and open borders, accessible and approachable and, most of all, sustained. The role of conservatism, then, can be said to have been a huge one in the development of Canada. The competition was fierce, but with the right connections, Canada was able to grow slowly, yet gradually, acquiring land, expanding into the seas and allowing for immigration openness. It was the length of McDonald’s political activism that provided a foundation to ho[9]w Canada is perceived today around the world (although it may not be necessarily what is currently happening on the political fronts).

His inner need to make everyone equal inspired him on a daily basis; it gave him the strength to stay strong and motivated. It was also the support from Canadians that gave him the push he needed to keep on fighting for Canada’s expansion, exporting goals and sustenance. What was the impact of this traditional conservative agenda that McDonald represented? The answer to this question may not be so clear-cut. In one hand, traditional conservatism did contribute positively to the economic stability and slow, but gradual growth of Canada. On the other hand, it did not stay supreme long enough to see its true potential. In the efforts to convince Quebec to unite with the province of Canada, conservatism switched and started applying more neo-liberal principles[10].

This had a different impact in the development of Canada from the one originally planned by its father. No longer was the welfare state idea a priority, now Canada was driven by economic and financial goals primarily. It was no longer about supporting those with lesser means, now it was a country that looked to protect the rights of those with more means. In a way, McDonald’s vision was not realized. Although he was a businessman, this is true, he cared for those that couldn't care for themselves, like his parents once were and even himself. He built everything for business dealings but also considered those with lesser means. To the business advocates he provided the railway system, electricity, opened connections with the world for trade and allowed for those with capabilities and opportunities to reach their goal while never forgetting about those at the bottom. It was a matter of balancing inequality[11].

McDonald’s idea was different in that he believed in our differences and supported them financially in order to make us all equal. The new neo-conservative party, however, wanted closer ties with the US, a major economic player in the world, and wanted less focus on the commonwealth idea, reducing the government’s responsibilities towards it s people and providing no justification for it, except financial. Neo-conservative beliefs are all comprised around the transferring of responsibility from one government to another in order to avoid having to deal with the social sphere on a united level. Traditional conservative politics, however, did not believe this, they believed in social conformity, order, freedom and equality, of all, not just one group in society[12].

Although conservative principles are filled with a white-man perspective, it is reasonable to see how it was unable to stand strong in the face of so much immigration (ironically, what it encouraged may have become its downfall). Nevertheless, the vulnerability factor is not under and would be out of scope here. The foundation of the party was in the place; it wanted social welfare, benefits for all and equality. More resources started to take priority, and people become secondary in the new modern conservative thinking[13].

Hence, it can be argued that McDonald’s vision was not fulfilled to its fullest potential. Although systemic provisions are available today, the extent to which McDonald would have imagined is not representative; it has not reached that level of a true common wealth system. Ok, I admit that going as far as to say that his vision was completely fulfilled would be unfair. After all, he did agree to a Coalition. Neo-conservatism is the mixed philosophy with a focus on an economically-driven mentality that relents to share and would rather contain the acquired goods within a very few hands (i.e., mostly those with money already). Conservative principles are based on the sharing principle, the need to help the common folks, those with a lack of opportunity to create, attain and acquire wealth.

Neo-conservatism was adopted in the early 90s and its intent was to become a democratic economy. Canada would then see domestic policies as secondary to the overall goal of economy sufficiency. Anti-communist/socialist thinking was brought into the picture with an intense need to subsidize military operations and be prepared for war at all times. It is very easy to exemplify this with all of the problems we are seeing worldwide where ‘democracy’ is used to kill and torture others (much like religion, however, religion is also tied to either democracy or socialism, so there is a very thin line there as to why governments kill today). The NAFTA agreement Canada entered with the US and Mexico meant not only that borders would be open for trade, but also meant that those with a stronger economic presence would subdue weaker economies into being complacent with their terms of service and conditions of trade (i.e., higher tariffs, more American businesses and presence in the other countries – Canada and Mexico). With this agreement, McDonald’s ideal of a stable Canada has been diminished or devalued; there was a sudden interference from the country McDonald fought to purchase our land. It is as though the US is buying Canada bit by bit through corporations and corporative rights[14].

Tradition was devalued and replaced with modern, more selfish ideologies. But, it can also be inferred; moreover, that current conservatism has deviated from its original thinking, not just slightly, but greatly. It leaves the public thinking that the businessman McDonald once was may have left the wrong impression behind. He may have opened avenues to do business, but also made people believe that this is the most part of life. His ambition was great, his moral codes excellent, but his example may have left people at a loss. Again, this is just an inference, not a solid conclusion.

Understandably, Canada had to adjust to the new trends of capitalism, globalization; and, cash in on it. Today’s global economic pressures could have a lot to do with the reasons why conservative politics decided to switch up on us. Canada does have its exceptions, as it does not ally with the US in events of victimization against the weaker ones (i.e., Israel/Gaza). However, because the system of capitalism and no-liberalism is so strong, it could lead to the elimination of the conservative ideology all together. A replacement of some kind, Canada may one day forget about the commonwealth notion and prioritize economic sustainability over human rights. It may, this is not a conclusion.

John McDonald did what no other has or could do for Canada and those of lesser means. He set up a framework that is unlike no other in the world. One framework where the public is priority, where the government is committed to its people, and considers its needs important and the responsibility of the state. Traditional conservatism may be the very political foundation upon which Canada owes its development. To switch no, would be to dismiss the hard work of our political fathers, including John McDonald.

Conclusion

This essay then attempted to argue that Traditional Conservatism’s vision as set out by John McDonald may not have been fulfilled. The early goals’ potential of this party may not have been reached because of the sudden change in ideologies. Today, neo-conservative ideology does not prioritize the public but resists interactions with it. Today’s neo-conservative party partners with the US in the aim at dissolving Canada’s own economic stability and framework. Canada’s father wanted connections with other borders for trade but also wanted Canada’s economic stability without a dependency on any other country, especially the US. Canada’s father wanted immigration of people that would show solidarity to the country, harvest its land and further contribute to Canada’s economic stability without the dependency factor on any other country, including Britain.

McDonald wanted a moral code in business. He would advocate for corporate social responsibility by emphasizing the duty to care for those with lesser means. Hence, taxes and tariffs would go towards helping others from the low-income brackets and provide them with more economic opportunities. Yes, it continues to happen today; those of lesser means in Canada are protected via social welfare systems. However, the problem is when US corporations begin to work in Canada, profiting, and not paying its taxes to the Canadian government. This leaves it without the proper resources to care for the commonwealth notion of Canada’s original economic framework. By partnering with the US, and allowing it to run monopolies from our land, all Canada is doing is taking from the public and accepting rental fees for their land being used. There is no sense of common welfare anymore, and will cease to exist if American corporations continue to subdue our land. John McDonald would have wanted trade not complete dependence on the US for a living.

In sum, this essay has discussed the influential role of traditional conservatism on the development of Canada. This essay also discussed the confederation and its subsequent national policy and how these had a strong influence on how business is carried on today in Canada. Furthermore, this essay touched on some historical events that opened the way to John McDonald’s Canadian journey. Moreover, definitions of terms were provided to emphasize the differences and similarities between traditional and modern, neo-conservative party. Lastly, this essay compared McDonald’s vision for Canada to today’s neo-conservative ideologies and concludes that John McDonald’s vision has not been fulfilled to its fullest potential as a result of the convergence with neo-liberal principles. As a result of this change, there is a new framework of economics happening in Canada, a transformation from the public to the corporate, where the latter has more rights, and a country where dreams and immigration may be based on economic capability alone and not the common wealth.

[1] Giddens, Anthony. Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Stanford University Press, 1994.

[2] MURRAY, GEOFFREY S. "THE MEANING OF CONFEDERATION IN CANADA." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts (1967): 953-966.

[3] Colin Campbell and William Christian, Parties, Leaders and Ideologies in Canada (1996)

[4] Thomas Flanagan, Waiting for the Wave: The Reform Party and Preston Manning (1995)

[5] George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (1965)

[6] David Laycock, The New Right and Democracy in Canada (2002)