AHC: Socially Liberal US, Socially Conservative Canada

Quebec votes to leave Canada. After a few years they realize they can't survive as a country and join the US. Soon the eastern providence a join the US along with British Colombia.

The inland providences are mostly rural and stay independent

This even doesn't make sense. Why would Québec, of all provinces, decide that independence was not viable and that it had to join the United States? Why would Canada then proceed to fragment into its component provinces when there is no notable separatist movement in any of these others?

Most importantly, how does this relate to the subject being discussed?
 
I would argue that Canada has traditionally been more conservative than the United States, in that tradition and hierarchy have been more traditionally praised. I'd be willing to argue that Canada's social liberalization over the past half-century was as much aided by the switch of the hierarchy to social liberalism as by reaction against this hierarchy.

Yeah, I think you're onto something there.

In both the US and Canada, the public is more conservative on, for example, capital punishment, than are the media, academic, and bureacratic elites. So, insofar as the abolition of the death penalty in Canada reflects the opinions of any one social strata, it is those of the elites.

Same for a lot of the Charter issues. To the extent that there were any significant setbacks on the road to marriage equality in Canada, it was a result of politicians kow-towing to the social conservative whims of the general public(though I still think the campaign that convinced Ralph Klein to promise a veto on gay-marriage was not quite the spontaneous uprising he made it out to be. I mean, hundreds of unorchestrated phone calls specifically demanding that he invoke Section 33?)

Ofg course, sometimes the people push the other way, as happened with marijuana legalization in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and DC. Though that's arguably not really a social-liberalism issue, so much as a "Yeah, man, I wanna get stoned!!" issue.
 
Quebec votes to leave Canada. After a few years they realize they can't survive as a country and join the US. Soon the eastern providence a join the US along with British Colombia.
Out, vile theory! Vade retro Satana!

Quebec, a Catholic province full of Francophones interested in self-determination, is basically never going to join the Union except under military force, and even then you'd be in for a fight. As for the rest of Canada, "becoming the 51st state" is something raised in tones of horror up here.

"Canada willingly joins the Union" scenarios are ASB.
 
Free trade with the USA early. Therefore far far less manufacturing, therefore smaller cities, leading to much weaker economic growth and a client state like dependence on the USA.

A poorer nation with much smaller urban centres (Montreal would be it, perhaps alongside Halifax if we go free trade 1860s, until Vancouver becomes important for the Pacific) would absolutely be far more conservative.
I don't know about that. Historically, free trade was pushed by the Liberals, as part of a broader ideology of Continentalism: closer ties with the United States, and orientation away from Britain and The Empire towards a greater Canadian independence. The Liberals fought two elections over it and lost decisively both times, due to anti-American sentiment. A Canada that pursues free trade early would, by necessity, be a Canada that's less interested in The Empire and all the traditional British culture that goes with that, which is a breeding ground for earlier social liberalism.
 
I don't know about that. Historically, free trade was pushed by the Liberals, as part of a broader ideology of Continentalism: closer ties with the United States, and orientation away from Britain and The Empire towards a greater Canadian independence. The Liberals fought two elections over it and lost decisively both times, due to anti-American sentiment. A Canada that pursues free trade early would, by necessity, be a Canada that's less interested in The Empire and all the traditional British culture that goes with that, which is a breeding ground for earlier social liberalism.

And it's worth noting that Canada has become exponentially more socially liberal since Free Trade was passed in '88. Not that I think there's a connection(given that the US is generally less liberal than Canada), just that even at that late a stage, there was no real connection between reciprocity and US-style social conservativism.
 
Well, Electric Monk's theory is that early free trade would cripple Canada economically, leading to fewer and smaller cities of note, blunting urbanisation and thus social liberalism. I don't agree (obviously), but it's more nuanced than free trade = conservatism, so '88 isn't really applicable-- it's far too late for free trade to affect Canada in such a drastic sense.
 
How about carving off some of the more urban bits of Canada?

The Ontario Peninsula is at some point ceded to the USA at some point, and the USA snags the whole of Oregon Country.

The much reduced Canada would lack its two OTL population centers, resulting in a much more rural, more conservative Canada, while still remaining a viably independent nation.
 
Well, Electric Monk's theory is that early free trade would cripple Canada economically, leading to fewer and smaller cities of note, blunting urbanisation and thus social liberalism. I don't agree (obviously), but it's more nuanced than free trade = conservatism, so '88 isn't really applicable-- it's far too late for free trade to affect Canada in such a drastic sense.

Point taken about Monk's original economic analysis. On its own merits, I'm not sure what to make of it, since you have had certain upcroppings of social liberalism in largely agrarian jurisdictions. The United Farmers Of Alberta, for example, were pioneers in the women's suffrgae movement, and of course the CCF in Saskatchewan, while mostly known for economic reforms, also did stuff like...

In 1947, a year before the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Saskatchewan passed into law a bill of rights which was, and continues to be, unique. The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights covered both fundamental freedoms and equality rights. In the first category, section 3 protected freedom of conscience, opinion and religion. Section 4 protected freedom of expression. Section 5 protected peaceable assembly and association. Section 6 protected against arbitrary arrest and detention. The second category prohibited discrimination in employment (section 8), occupations and businesses (section 9), property (section 10), accommodation and services (section 11), and professional associations and unions (section 12).

But yeah, squashing urbanization likely would throw a wrench into the general prospects for liberal values, especially as related to "morality" issues like censorship and gay-rights.

link
 
How about carving off some of the more urban bits of Canada?

The Ontario Peninsula is at some point ceded to the USA at some point, and the USA snags the whole of Oregon Country.

The much reduced Canada would lack its two OTL population centers, resulting in a much more rural, more conservative Canada, while still remaining a viably independent nation.

I assume by Ontario Peninsula you mean Southern Ontario?

You're not going to see a united Canada in that case. I guess there would still be a "Canada", but it would just be Quebec. Which, I suppose, could certainly remain a conservative place.
 
Also note that smaller cities and a weaker manufacturing base will cripple unions (at least outside all but a few places). Now unions tended to be socially conservative yes, but their fiscally liberal policies have an effect in creating more social liberalism. Plus their members voted far more left than the population for a long stretch of time, that support base is gone too.

Ya know for a tossed off drunk and high theory, I'm kinda growing to like it. I do however agree that progressive farmers are likely but even IOTL that got absorbed into first the Conservatives and then the formation of the NDP.

However,
I don't know about that. Historically, free trade was pushed by the Liberals, as part of a broader ideology of Continentalism: closer ties with the United States, and orientation away from Britain and The Empire towards a greater Canadian independence. The Liberals fought two elections over it and lost decisively both times, due to anti-American sentiment. A Canada that pursues free trade early would, by necessity, be a Canada that's less interested in The Empire and all the traditional British culture that goes with that, which is a breeding ground for earlier social liberalism.

This is an excellent point.

So now of course I'd have to get into nitty-gritty: is it the 1860s/70s or the early 1900s? What POD works best to address the above issue and marry it to mine? I believe these are surmountable obstacles, but I feel I don't know enough about pre-WWII Canada to really dig into it.


Edit: have a Conservative government prevent OTL free trade election and enter into a disastrous World War I that the UK loses. Liberal government wins and promptly brings in free trade USA. However the Liberals are also in power for the alt Great Depression, which wipes them out and the Conservatives are reborn.
 
Last edited:
Top