Young people increasingly embrace conservatism

One of the most intriguing recent political trends in North America is the growing support for conservative parties among young people. Once a reliable source of overwhelming support for the elections of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, a rising share of the youth vote is trending towards candidates such as Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre. Young people voting for conservative politicians could be dismissed as just a backlash against failed economic policies, but there are indications of a more fundamental shift to embracing at least some conservative values.

Canadian youths now support the Conservatives more than any other party, a development not seen in decades, if ever. According to an Abacus poll, 36 per cent of Canadians between 18 and 29 years old would support the Conservatives versus 27 per cent for the NDP and a paltry 19 per cent for the Liberals. Nor is support for Poilievre’s Conservatives just a backlash from the failing fortunes of youths under the Trudeau regime. An Environics polls found young people in Canada would vote for Trump more than any other age group: 28 per cent of Canadians between 18 and 34 years old prefer Trump versus 13 per cent for those 55 and over and 27 per cent between 35 and 54.

Faced with a health-care system that’s clearly broken in Canada, youths have fewer qualms about involving the private sector than older generations who were raised to believe that publicly-provided health care was a fundamental Canadian value. A recent poll by Leger published in Le Journal de Quebec found that 44 per cent of youths 18 to 34 years old support private delivery of health-care services, the mirror image of the views of people 55 and over who oppose it. Meanwhile, youths in the United States identify as having more conservative views than their parents even more than millennials did 20 years ago, with the largest shift among young men.

Rising support for conservative politicians and initiatives among young people reveals several trends. Most obviously is that many of today’s youths reject the radical woke agenda espoused by a small but vocal minority. When confronted with the reality of an economy that’s not generating the jobs, incomes and housing they desire, these youths prioritize results over ideology, especially immigrant youths who came to Canada for economic reasons. The importance attached to results is driving many youths even to question the usefulness of democracy. In his 2023 book The Fourth Turning Is Here, historian Neil Howe cites polls that one in four young Americans would prefer a dictatorial president unconstrained by Congress while only one in 10 Americans over age 65 agree.

Howe’s analysis is based on the proposition that historical movements move in cyclical ebbs and flows rather than by extrapolating straight lines. This is intuitively easy for me to understand after a career specializing in the study of business cycles. It’s well known that there are regular cycles in financial markets and the economy, partly because long periods of prosperity and bullish financial conditions lull the next generation into under-estimating the risks of a downturn. This complacency inevitably precipitates the sort of risky decisions that trigger a slump. As economist Hyman Minsky wrote, “Success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure… Stability leads to instability. The more stable things become and the longer they are stable, the more unstable they will be when the crisis hits.”

Cyclical analysis is also useful in understanding political trends instead of just assuming history continues on a linear trajectory. For example, for years it seemed inevitable that support for Quebec separatism would rise inexorably until independence was achieved. Instead, support peaked during the 1995 referendum then steadily evaporated as younger generations had more pressing priorities than independence.

We see the same cyclical phenomenon play out in the political preferences of today’s youths, even if conservatives still represent only a minority and their longer-term commitment to conservative values remains uncertain. Instead of reinforcing the left-wing bias of youths that helped propel Obama and Trudeau to power, youths are reacting against the status quo that ignores their pocket-book concerns. These shifting attitudes of young people could help reshape North America’s political landscape in ways few would have thought possible a decade ago.

Author:

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #PhilipCross ConservatismYoungPeople YouthPoliticalViews

Up Next

UK Government And Media Spread Disinformation About Southport Killer, Evidence Suggests

Don't Miss

Time to End Supply Management

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Is There Any Canadian Province More Proud of their Premier Today…

Business / 8 hours ago

Trump signs executive order banning government censorship

International / 8 hours ago

Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from World Health Organization

Business

Our energy policies have made us more vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs

Published on January 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jason Clemens

As Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Monday, threatens to impose tariffs on Canadian exports including oil and natural gas, the calls from some Canadian politicians and analysts for greater energy trade diversification grow louder. However, these calls highlight a hard truth—Canada has repeatedly foregone opportunities to reduce our dependence on the United States by cancelling already approved pipelines and failing to approve new pipeline and LNG projects that could have increased our access to global markets.

The U.S. is not just Canada’s largest energy customer—it’s nearly our only customer. In 2023, 97 per cent of crude oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports were sent south of the border. This dependence on the U.S. for exports leaves Canadian producers and the Canadian economy exposed to policy shifts in Washington and even state capitals.

Consider Energy East, a pipeline proposed by TransCanada (now TC Energy) to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Atlantic Canada. The pipeline would have reduced Atlantic Canada’s reliance on imported oil and opened export markets for Canadian oil to Europe.

However, in 2017 the Trudeau government introduced new criteria for evaluating and approving major pipeline projects, and for the first time assessments included not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from constructing the pipeline but also emissions from producing and using the oil it would transport. Later that year, TransCanada suspended its application for the project, effectively cancelling it. The CEO of TransCanada blamed “changed circumstances” but many observers recognized it was a combination of the new regulations and opposition from Quebec, particularly the City of Montreal. Consequently, the refineries in Atlantic Canada continue to rely on imported oil.

A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.

Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.

Meanwhile, Canada currently has no operational infrastructure for exporting liquified natural gas (LNG). While LNG Canada, the country’s first LNG export terminal, is expected to become operational this year in British Columbia, it’s long overdue.

Indeed, several energy companies have cancelled or delayed high-profile LNG projects in Canada due largely to onerous regulations that make approvals uncertain or even unlikely, including the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in 2017, the $9 billion Énergie Saguenay LNG project in 2020, Kitimat LNG in 2021 and East Coast Canada LNG in 2023.

This all adds up to a missed opportunity, as global demand for LNG increases. If governments in Canada allowed or even facilitated more development of LNG facilities, Canadian companies could supply high-demand regions such as Asia and Europe. Indeed, during Europe’s 2022 energy crisis, Germany and several other countries turned to Canada for reliable LNG supply, but the Trudeau government rejected the requests.

The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Since 2011, 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada but only one—LNG Canada Phase 1—is nearing completion, more than 12 years after it was announced. Meanwhile, as of January 2025, the U.S. has built eight LNG export terminals and approved 20 more, securing its position as a global LNG leader.

Years of inaction and regulatory roadblocks have left Canadian energy producers overly dependent on a single trading partner and vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies. The looming threat of tariffs should be a wake-up call. To secure its energy future, Canada must address the regulatory barriers that have long hindered progress and prioritize the development of infrastructure to connect our energy resources to global markets.

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on January 18, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.