The Pace and Place of Change

February 24, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

“What’s your prognosis for 2024-25 regarding North American politics and what are the implications for the economy?”

That was a key question I faced, along with Angus Reid, in a panel discussion in front of a business audience this week. There were many directions our answers could take. The easiest answer is to segue from current polls to election outcome predictions and then to speculate about the economics. Currently, the polls have Mr. Biden and Mr. Poilievre most likely to win. There are many qualifiers. On the US side, pundits are focused on health and legal concerns. In Canada, it appears this might be “kick the bums out” time which Canadians seem to do in an election every decade or so. Still, with up to 19 months before an election must be called, it’s not hard to imagine how some combination of an improved economy, a Poilievre gaffe, and a defining Liberal campaign initiative might combine to see a different outcome. In Canada, I’d put the odds of the current polls holding at about 70-30 while in the US, we are closer to a 50-50 prognosis given all that might change. I am not a betting man but neither outcome is a sure thing.

But even if we knew the outcomes of what many are considering significant “change elections,” the implications of those elections for our economy depend on many other factors. In the US, the headlines are about the presidency, but many forget that the same ballot contains choices for the presidential ticket and all of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives as well as 34 of the 100 Senate seats, in addition to 13 state governorships and many other state and local positions. A Biden or Trump presidency looks very different if it is accompanied by a House and Senate controlled by their party or whether there is gridlock. (It’s worth reminding ourselves that gridlock is a feature, not a flaw, in the US constitutional arrangement as the founders designed it).

And then there is the question as to how much politics determines economics. To be sure, bad government can do great damage. But can good government really overcome problems created by global trade issues, inflation or interest rates set by global markets, or even domestic productivity levels? There are hosts of unknowns and factors quite unrelated to politics that will shape the economy of 2026 for which politicians will undoubtedly take credit if things work out well, but that aren’t really directly in their control.

As I prepared my notes for this panel, I wondered about the extent to which we get misled by thinking of elections as change events. Don’t misunderstand. They matter. Canadians know that a decade of government under the leadership of Justin Trudeau has very different implications than a decade of government under the leadership of Stephen Harper. But that’s after a decade and each having won three elections. True, you can’t win a second term until you’ve won the first election, but sometimes the change of any one election isn’t as immediate as it’s sold to be.

The phrase “politics is downstream from culture” has its own historical baggage, but at face value, it communicates an essential truth. Rarely does politics convince us of anything. Rather, we find in the candidates and parties we support an "expression of our own values and beliefs". Elections are occasions in which what is happening in the culture gets named and revealed. More than deciding matters, elections are occasions at which what already is happening gets revealed more clearly.

I’m not sure how useful it is if predicting the results of the 2024 US and (likely) 2025 Canadian elections is your objective, but I do think polls like the 2021 young leaders survey Cardus and the Angus Reid Institute collaborated on is probably more consequential than whatever “horserace polling” might emerge between now and election day in Canada and the US. That poll compared the perspectives of young (under 40) leaders with their older (over 40) counterparts. What was striking was that over half of those under 40 viewed the legacy of the older generation as negative with 29% suggesting their focus would be on “fixing the past mistakes of previous generations,” while an additional 29% suggested they would need “to start new and restructure society differently.” The present reshaping of our institutions may be more intentional than often is considered, even as we were reminded this week that statistically, millennials now outnumber baby boomers and are the most dominant population group in the country.

It would take books (there are several out there in fact) to outline the significance of the differences between a millennial and a baby boomer mindset, but let me just briefly mention a couple.

Technology is the most obvious. The use of new technology, and their lifestyle and economic implications, affect all demographic cohorts. Still, the biggest impact of technology isn’t what we do with it but what it does to us. Now that we are approaching two decades of the widespread use of smartphones, their effects on relationships, loneliness, and our mental health are becoming more obvious. Most would recognize that while politics might determine what is available (or not) online, and our economy is influenced by the dominance of technology stocks on the market, the real measurement of technology’s impact is neither in the political nor economic realm. Our elections and the consequent economics deal with the fallout of the values and choices we have already made.

Consider, for example, gender identity issues. Without wading into the particulars of this controversial cultural matter, it is telling (see the Meaningful Metrics section below for the data) that there is a stark difference in how an institution like the family and the responsibilities of parents are understood within different demographic groups. And it’s not just family. Our 2021 poll indicated that the majority of Canadians under 30 “define their relationship to the country in pragmatic terms: it’s where they live but they would not be opposed to moving elsewhere if opportunities arose elsewhere.” It’s more complex than that single data point captures but the understanding of patriotism, what a country is and why it should be defended, is understood quite differently. Some of the major problems they prioritise—climate change being the most prominent—are global in nature. The role and identity of their own country is secondary. They are citizens of the world before they are citizens of their own land.

So what’s the prognosis for politics and economics in the next few years? The take I offered the business audience this week was that change was likely, not because of the political candidates or campaigns that were going to happen, but because of what already is happening. I gave those remarks before reading pollster David Colleto’s musings about the political impact of millennials, suggesting that they have moved from “image-based voting” (which he suggests was a major factor in Prime Minister Trudeau’s electoral success in 2015) to “issue-based voting” (which translates to cost-of-living, housing, and inequality issues ranking top of mind presently).

There’s lots of nuance to unpack but the point for today is that while politics matters, it is as much a measure of other things than a decision on its own. Liberal democracy has proven relatively effective in translating core beliefs into tangible political priorities and mandates.  The negatives for all of the leaders on offer are relatively high and the complaint about whether “these are the best options we can come up with in a country of X million people” is frequently heard. There is certainly some validity to that. But to a greater degree, the choices we have mirror back to us our own values. For the most part, our leaders and our candidates reflect who we actually are collectively as a people. We usually get the government we deserve. And maybe the biggest takeaway from this election cycle might be that the mirror of politics reveals something about who we are as North Americans today that isn’t as flattering as we wish it were. Indeed, the pace and place of change isn’t always what we think it is.

WHAT I’M READING

Euthanasia Provided or Compelled?

Law Professor Brian Bird highlights the debate over whether St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver will be forced to provide euthanasia in spite of the institution’s historic and faith-based objections to the practice. Bird notes that euthanasia has gone far beyond the requirements of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that opened the door to it. The court determined that a blanket criminal code ban on euthanasia was unconstitutional. However, Bird argues, “concluding that providing euthanasia in certain circumstances should not be criminalised is not the same as concluding that it should be compelled, or must be provided throughout the health-care system.”

 Saving the Brand of University Education

This New York Times piece reports on a summit of university presidents worried about the 17% drop in Harvard applications (with similar numbers reported at other Ivy League schools) following the manner in which universities have handled debates about the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism. Administrators’ efforts to respond to the concerns of students, donors, and the public are facing an internal backlash from academics concerned that the measures are “going too far.” The story seems to be as much about “who is listening to whom” rather than a return to first principles which does not bode well for the efforts to save university education.

Marriage Benefits

University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox is causing some waves with his latest book, Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families and Save Civilization. The stats that show religious married couples have more sex than non-religious and unmarried couples prompted social media pushback. Some befuddled secularists went to great pains to try to make sense of the data which seemed so counterintuitive to them. It reminded me of a Cardus study, now almost a decade old, in which we examined medical journal reports. Our conclusion is right in the title: “Marriage is Good for Your Health”, something that many of us who have been blessed with good marriages know from experience and not just data.

The Science of Gender Intervention?

The Calgary Herald ran a column by Dr. Roy Eppean, a practising endocrinologist, which provides important international and scientific context for the debate about transgender procedures for children.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Overall, it seems the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick governments have fairly strong public support for their policies on children’s “gender identities,” surgeries, and so-called personal pronouns. That’s the headline of a recent Angus Reid Institute Poll. A closer look, however, does reveal definite generational differences. Those under 35 are between two and three times more likely to say that “parents should neither be informed nor have a say–it’s up to the child” than those over the age of 55. Quite apart from the issue at hand, the poll points to very different generational understandings of the nature of parenting and family.

TAKE IT TO-GO

I've Got No Beef with Promotion

You may have herd that we’re running a competition called Insights Ambassadors. (It’s explained in the video above in which my colleague Daniel makes a moo-ving explanation of how this works.) One loyal Cardus Insights reader who promotes this newsletter to their friends and colleagues will get dinner with me and five of their friends. That’s why the steaks have never been higher. Don’t use your preference for other meat to chicken out. Sure, Daniel is a bit of a ham on camera but I try not to roast him too much. He’s one of my colleagues who edits this newsletter to give it a bit of sizzle, so it’s best I don’t get too spicy with them. That said, I do hope you’ll participate in the contest. After all, you don’t want Insights readers to be rare, do you? Of course not. So, you need to promote this medium to them. And then I can say well done to all our Insights Ambassadors.

(This contest closed in March of 2024)