Canada tried to distance itself from the chaotic United States government in its recent federal election, only to land in perhaps the most American-style campaign it’s ever had: a two-party race.
I was thinking of that somewhat puzzling reality while David Schultz, an expert in U.S. politics, was speaking to international journalists about the widening polarization in his country.
Schultz, who teaches politics at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., said American politicians had lost any incentive to seek compromise because of how deeply divided voters had become along partisan lines.
Canada isn’t there yet. We have a parliamentary system where multiple parties are vying for power. “You’re forced to compromise,” Schultz said of the many countries, including Canada, where a sizable portion of the electorate are up for the taking of various political parties. “We’re not forced to compromise.”
And yet, despite that long-standing history, the Canadian election in April was remarkable in that voters effectively narrowed their choices to only the left-leaning Liberals and the right-leaning Conservatives.
The reason?
Again, the United States is a factor. As U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Canada’s sovereignty and economy, many voters made that issue their top priority and coalesced their support around the Liberals, which pitched itself as the strongest opponent of the Trump administration. Those voters were trying to prevent a splitting of the progressive vote, and the Conservatives from ushering into power.
But if the Trump threat is neutralized, does Canada’s parliamentary system return to its multiparty roots or remain on the course of deepening polarization the United States has already charted?
The American experience could serve as a case study. In the last few decades, Schultz said there’s been a fundamental shift in how that political system works.
By the 1970s, he said American political opinion resembled a bell-shaped curve, where the majority of voters occupied the center of the political spectrum. The parties were forced to find common ground to appeal to the many centrists.
But that’s changed. Schulz said public opinion now resembles a bimodal curve, where the vast majority of people are attached to one of two camps and everyone left in the center of that political spectrum is part of a shrinking minority.
Under this political climate, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a reason to appeal to the middle, he said. Since there’s few voters to win over, they can fan the flames of emotion and anger to rile up their sides. Bipartisan legislation is rare.
“There’s no money in moderation,” Schultz said.
He sees violence, such as the recent assassinations of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk and Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, as an outgrowth of that polarization.
“Everyone wants to say violence doesn’t work,” he said. “I hate to say it, but it works. That’s why it keeps going on.”
Think of the number of assassination attempts there have been on U.S. presidents, he said. Or the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that exacerbated partisan divisions.
“Bullets change the trajectory of history,” he said.
Schultz said many reasons have contributed to the widening political split in America over the decades – including social media bubbles that reinforce what people already believe, the proliferation of easily accessible guns and rising economic inequality.
Canada has encountered many of those factors, except for the broad availability of firearms that is a uniquely American experience.
