Like The Hub?
Join our community.
Join

Karamveer Lalh: Poilievre is right about Canada’s problems. He should embrace optimistic conservatism for solutions

Commentary

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has shown a rare skill at illuminating complex issues and spotting emerging fractures within the fabric of Canadian society.

His message, that “Canada is broken” and that gatekeepers are preventing it from being fixed, has clearly resonated with Canadians and highlighted areas in need of significant reform.

But while American conservatives have travelled all the way from Ronald Reagan’s “morning in America” to Donald Trump’s “American carnage,” the challenge for Poilievre will be not following that path and constructing a vibrant and optimistic vision for Canada’s future.

This is a turning point for Poilievre and it calls for optimistic conservatism.

At its core, optimistic conservatism should be understood as an affirmation of human agency. It’s anti-fatalistic. Progress doesn’t depend on our present circumstances but our capacity to envision and strive for a better future. The promise of possibilities, the canvas of a world not yet materialized, fuels humanity’s loftiest ambitions.

Optimism and the recognition of human agency serve as the twin pillars of flourishing societies. When we nurture and harness the potential of each individual, we can create the collective conditions for growth and prosperity. The positive psychology can actually manifest in improved economic and social outcomes. Societal decline, by contrast, often mirrors a loss of this optimism, surrendering the belief in the power of human action and spurring a descent into negative-sum conflict.

We’re starting to see some of this thinking creep into Canadian life. Growing concerns about stagnant living standards, the housing crisis, and other contemporary challenges have led to a looming pessimism that’s reflected in polling which tells us that a lot of Canadians think the present is worse than the past and the future is even more bleak.

Poilievre is right to seize on these sentiments. It’s a key reason for instance that polling indicates he’s popular among younger Canadians who are most affected by these deteriorating trends. Yet as much as this cohort is searching for the recognition of its challenges, it ultimately wants more: a message and vision of a better future.

Herein lies the case for optimistic conservatism. It advocates the view that we are not merely passive actors buffeted by life’s circumstances but active participants shaping our destiny. This philosophy fosters creativity, innovation, and resilience, encouraging a proactive response to adversities. Optimistic conservatism, in short, embodies Charles Krauthammer’s famous adage: “decline is a choice.”

Far from being a mere philosophical discourse, it is a pragmatic approach to policy-making. Take the existential threat of climate change, a reality we can no longer deny or sideline. While the danger to our planet is real, surrendering to pessimism is not the answer. Instead, it is through the application of human ingenuity that we can ultimately solve such a problem. The proposition that we can harness nuclear energy to tackle global warming is a testament to this optimistic outlook, a beacon of hope that we are not defenseless in the face of looming adversity.

This outlook is contrasted with the rising tide of pessimism, particularly among young liberals, that poses a substantial challenge to a cultural ethos of agency and optimism. While their activist zeal is commendable, their perspectives often stumble into a quagmire of negativity and zero-sum thinking, which is evident in their discourses surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and wealth redistribution.

In their pursuit of addressing societal inequities, many left-wing activists advocate an inherently pessimistic view of value, perceiving it as a finite resource to be merely shuffled around, not multiplied or expanded. This perspective creates a societal deadlock, obsessively focusing on the question of need without entertaining the prospect of want. Put differently: it reflects a scarcity mentality rather than an abundance agenda.

In contrast, optimistic conservatism posits that value creation is not a zero-sum game. It stresses the capacity for innovation and wealth creation, fostering new value and opening new horizons of possibility. It envisions a future where individuals, through their unique talents and hard work, can contribute to societal progress and fulfil their own aspirations.

This vision doesn’t ignore systemic issues or advocate unbridled individualism at the cost of community cohesion. Rather, optimistic conservatism seeks to strike a balance between individual agency and communal responsibility, underscoring the empowerment of individuals within the framework of a harmonious society.

Empirical evidence backs this philosophy, illustrating a positive correlation between optimism and improved mental health, productivity, and problem-solving abilities. The prevailing mental health crisis among liberal youth could be significantly mitigated by fostering this optimistic outlook, steering them away from zero-sum thinking towards a more constructive, value-creation approach.

So, what does an optimistic future look like? It envisions thriving economies propelled by innovation and wealth creation, societies bound by shared values and mutual respect, and individuals empowered to carve their destinies. It anticipates a future brimming with hope, prosperity, and fulfillment. It will be a testament to the power of human agency.

To manifest this vision, optimism must come to be reflected in government and public policy. This means using positive rhetoric in political discourse, cultivating an educational ethos that encourages a growth mindset, and supporting entrepreneurial ventures that create new value.

Optimistic conservatism draws inspiration from a philosophical bedrock that values freedom, responsibility, and personal growth. These are ideas and values that are much needed today. Poilievre may be uniquely positioned to bring expression to them. It would good for him and good for the country.

J.L. Granatstein: Remembering Canada’s costly fight for Sicily

Commentary

Eighty years ago today, the Allies invaded Sicily, defended by Italian and German troops. In the invasion force were the 1st Canadian Division and the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade, some 20,000 soldiers ready for their first full-scale operation after three years in England.

The Canadians reached Sicily in two convoys, one of which had three ships sunk by U-boat torpedoes, and lost 58 soldiers, forty of the division’s 25-pounder artillery pieces, 500 trucks, the headquarters’ wireless equipment, and Major-General Guy Simonds’ baggage. The division’s chief engineer, Geoffrey Walsh, remembered that he had to loan socks to the 1st’s commander.

The 1st Field Company, Royal Canadian Engineers, built this 100-foot-long Bailey bridge across a river near Straorini, Sicily, in 4 1/2 hours on the opening day, Sept. 3, 1943, of the Allied invasion of Italy. The bridge was blown up by retreating Germans. Credit: Jack H. Smith/Canada. Dept. of National Defence/Library and Archives Canada/PA-177088.

The invasion proceeded well nonetheless. The Canadians and British troops, under General Bernard Montgomery’s 8th Army, landed on the southeastern shore, the Americans to the west. There was light opposition on the beach, with Italian troops surrendering quickly in the face of overwhelming force—“They hadn’t got their heart in it at all,” one soldier said. The Canadians moved inland over rugged terrain with steep hills and winding narrow roads, and the constant heat, dust, and malaria-carrying mosquitoes soon began to wear down the men. After three days, Montgomery recognized that the Canadians, not yet inured to the climate, needed a few days rest. Supplies came forward, carried by “liberated” mules.

Moving forward on July 15, the leading units bumped into the Germans, a small blocking force from the Hermann Goering Division. The Wehrmacht had better machine guns, well-trained mortar men, and deadly 88mm guns that pierced the lightly armoured Sherman tanks, and in this first engagement the Canadians suffered 27 casualties. The next day at Piazza Armerina, a town best known for wonderful Roman mosaics, Panzer Grenadiers blocked the advance for a day until the Loyal Edmonton Regiment took the town. At Valguarnera, the enemy in battalion strength fought stubbornly, and it took two brigades—and 145 casualties—to drive them back. But the Germans had noticed; Field Marshal Albert Kesselring reported to Berlin that his Grenadiers called their opponents “‘Mountain Boys’ [who] probably belong to the 1st Canadian Division.”

For the next two weeks, the 1st Division fought over the steep hills and through the deep ravines of central Sicily. It seemed that every turn in the winding roads had a German machine gunner or two, each blown bridge a defended obstacle to be overcome, each small town a platoon of Germans to inflict casualties and another delay. So too did dysentery, diarrhea, and malaria in the towns that Brigadier Bruce Matthews, the division’s artillery commander, called “filthy & smelly beyond description.” At Assoro, the Germans held the high ground and prepared to fight. There the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment swung wide, found a higher peak, and scaled it at night. The dawn revealed the Germans eating breakfast, and the Canadians poured their fire into them. Well-trained, the enemy recovered quickly, even the cooks fighting back, and their artillery pounded the Canadians. Soon counterattacks began, and the Hasty Pees were hard-pressed but hung on. The German defence of Assoro had been completely disrupted.

At nearby Leonforte, the 2nd Brigade’s Loyal Edmonton Regiment fought into the town, but the Germans counterattacked in force and cut off the Eddies. Brigadier Chris Vokes organized a flying column of tanks, anti-tank guns, and infantry to bust into Leonforte, free the Edmontons, and, after heavy fighting, finally liberate the town. Two days of battle had cost the 1st Division 275 casualties.

At Agira, 25 kilometres to the southeast, the Germans were again ready in strength. Simonds unwisely sent one battalion after another into the attack; each assault crumbled under the mortar and machine gun fire, and the Three Rivers Regiment lost ten tanks to the 88mm guns. Simonds persisted, using a heavy artillery barrage and tanks to support the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry in taking their first objective. The Germans promptly recovered and drove off subsequent assaults. But when a company of Seaforth Highlanders climbed a 100-metre ridge that dominated their position, and when the Loyal Eddies took another ridge west of Agira, the Germans had to retreat. Again the cost was heavy, but this was a major victory.

The Sicilian campaign was nearing its end. The Americans under General George Patton had stormed through the western island, freed Palermo, and were moving east quickly. The British had advanced in parallel with the Canadians, and in Rome the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini had been toppled. Only northeast Sicily remained in German hands.

For the Canadians, only one major attack remained. In the level valley of the Simeto River Simonds created a striking force consisting of an armoured regiment, a reconnaissance squadron, an infantry battalion, a battery of self-propelled artillery, and anti-tank guns. The Three Rivers and the Seaforths commanders coordinated their plans, the infantry and tanks “married up” company for company, and the two COs, riding in the same tank, led their troops into action on August 5. The Germans’ 3rd Parachute Regiment, taken by surprise, fought to the last man against the dismounted infantry and the Shermans, but the attack succeeded with cannon and machine gun fire. The Seaforths had lost 43 men in a battle that demonstrated that army and infantry cooperation worked and could be mastered. General Simonds had learned something too.

Kesselring and the German high command sensibly accepted that Sicily had been lost and, on August 10, one month after the invasion, began a superbly executed withdrawal to the Italian mainland. They had put four divisions into Sicily’s defence and lost 11,600 soldiers. The Allies had suffered 19,000 killed, wounded, and captured from the dozen divisions they employed. It was a victory, but a costly one.

The 1st Canadian Division and the 1st Armoured Brigade had proven themselves in battle, but they too had paid a steep price: 562 killed, 1,664 wounded, and 84 taken prisoner. They had learned it was no easy task to fight the Wehrmacht. The task now for the Canadian troops and their Allies was to carry the war to the mainland, to an Italy now under the complete control of the Nazis. The bloody war would continue.