Is the political philosophy of America's founders to blame for our cultural mess? Consider Canada

The argument, in a nutshell, is that Canada was not founded on what many refer to as classical liberalism, as was the U.S. Many of its founders rejected classical liberalism in favor of integralism (a government strongly integrated with Christianity).

Canada was formed as an alternative to the United States and perhaps even a “counterAmerica.” Consequently, most Canadian assessments of the U.S. and of its constitution have usually been negative. In general, the U.S. was regarded as “too big, too unmanageable and too violent.”

But look how that turned out.

A counter-argument would be that Canada went left socially because of the leakage of classical liberal ideas from the U.S. and Europe. Still, the fact that they were founded integralist carries weight against the idea integralism is some kind of magic cultural cure pill.

History is complex and provides no knockdown arguments. But, as the statements above illustrate, English Canada has roots in those who rejected American individualism and instead accepted a privileged church, “peace, order and good government,” and a stress on the “common good.”

…

Historically, English Canada has rejected American liberalism. Some remnants of this primal commitment are still shown in a strong welfare state, especially a state health system. But now it goes far beyond any U.S. state in its commitment to abortion, transgenderism, “medical assistance in dying,” and other modernist views, and especially in seeking to drive from the public realm those who dissent from the new morality. Quebec, with very deep Catholic roots, has gone much further.

He gets some things right, but I don't think the ultimate cause of moral and spiritual decline in either country is an inevitable fruit of competing political philosophies. We see the same decline all over the West, and no two countries in the Western tradition have replicated political philosophy. (I guess the British commonwealth countries would tend to have similar political philosophies, but France, Germany, and all the other European countries do not.)

So yes, it is true that Canada defines itself in terms of how we are not like Americans. That is true.

Despite that, however, culturally in the 40s and 50s, Canada and USA were almost identical. What happened to bring about change?

There are many threads.

After the war, a lot of people threw off religion of any kind (and pursued the good life after the horrors they endured). Ongoing wars in Korea and Vietnam didn't help.

In addition, in the religious world, the new evangelicals had enough of religious war and wanted a kinder gentler Christianity.

• In the USA, that was resisted by fundamentalism or fundamentalist instincts in many denominations.
• In Canada, it was non-existent, except in tiny pockets with very little influence or strength.

I would hasten to add that this was not the only factor but if you think it is a non-factor, I think you are wrong.

There was the growing influence of John Dewey's approach to education and the concept of compulsory state education. That started (I think) in the thirties, and took a long time to percolate down to the nation, but the religion of the state became the dogma of the schools

And lately, I would say the leveling power of the internet in the last twenty years has reshaped society profoundly.

Bottom line, I think there is a difference between Canada and the USA in political philosophy and national ethos, but that doesn't mean that either country should have ended up inevitably where it is today. Many other factors came into play.

We see the same decline all over the West, and no two countries in the Western tradition have replicated political philosophy.

…and

Many other factors came into play.

This is one of the many reasons integralism and various ‘Christian nationalist’ variants are not going to fix the U.S., much less the entire West.

It’s a sort of circular situation. If there was enough public support for basically re-Christianizing the West, there would no longer be much of a need to re-Christianize it. It would have already happened—but not from the top down.

Respect for human rights and rule of law (‘democracy’+’republicanism’) in the West means there is really no top-down scenario without violent revolution. Any movement back toward a cultural consensus that is even vaguely Christian has to be grass roots.

And if that happens, who needs institutional official Christendom in government?

So, as convenient and simplistic as it may sound, the answer is ultimately genuine conversions to the faith (not compliance conversions).

—Not that believers should give up on holding positions of power or using legitimate governmental/political pathways to mitigate problems where we can. But tossing out the ‘American experiment’ in favor of a new order doesn’t ultimately make any sense.

(Unless you’re Jesus Christ(!). He can and will do it with perfect results (in due time). It’s doubtful any humans, including the Church, could do it with even slightly improved results.)

I am wondering if our political structure comes into play. We are a two party system, which is unique in the West and practically unique in the rest of the world. Also, I believe we are the only country that the populace directly votes on the leader of the country. I maybe missing a country here, but typically you vote and the ruling party than votes on the prime minister position, sometimes through a coalition if one party does not have control. We have a country that is almost perfectly divided 50:50, across two parties, and we see a constant flip flop between Congress and the Executive Branch with deep entrenched idealogical ideas controlling the party.

The countries whose politics I follow most closely, the USA, Canada, and the UK, are all basically two party systems. Canada has a large third party, but the best it has ever done is shore up the Liberals when they are in a minority position as they are now. The same is true in Britain.

There is obviously a difference between the Westminster system and the American system. Both have pluses and minuses. If you are suggesting that tinkering with the structure would lead towards some kind of political solution of the social problems we are facing, I don’t agree. The problems aren’t inherent in the systems.

There was the growing influence of John Dewey's approach to education and the concept of compulsory state education. That started (I think) in the thirties, and took a long time to percolate down to the nation, but the religion of the state became the dogma of the schools

I believe this is why it does matter how "friendly" our elected officials are toward Biblical morality. That is also why I find it alarming that so many are trying to make the idea of Biblical morality scary by broadening the definition of Christian Nationalism. I would think we as Christians should be more concerned about atheistic nationalism which is very much a force within the political realm.

I would think we as Christians should be more concerned about atheistic nationalism which is very much a force within the political realm.

Absolutely, but we can't overcome that by denying that there is such a thing as Christian nationalism or that it is a philosophy that should also be opposed.

Don, I agree with you. I am saddened however by those Christians who think the solution to some of the extremes of Christian Nationalism is to promote and elect those who are not just promoting atheism but who are anti-Christian.

I am more concerned about the compromise of the church through the influence of Christian Nationalism than the compromise of the church by those who are atheists/anti-Christians. Although, i would say that I am more concerned by the influence of an atheist/anti-Christian Worldview on our country than I am from those who promote Christian Nationalism.