Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre. Photo courtesy Pierre Poilievre/X.

How did the Conservative Party lose an election defined by nationalism? Traditionally, it is conservative parties that frame themselves as the defenders of the nation’s values, culture, and identity. Yet, in 2025, when Canadians felt that these were threatened, they turned to the Liberals. The explanation for this incongruity is that Canadian conservatism was bled of the communitarian ethos that once made it distinctive. This ceded ground to the Liberals to position themselves as the party of the nation.

Sixty years ago, conservative philosopher George Grant wrote in his landmark Lament for a Nation that without a notion of order, conservatism is nothing but the defence of property rights and chauvinism. For Grant, Canada was a conservative country, and distinctive of its conservatism was this notion of order: a communitarian ethos that promotes the interests of the national family. The survival of individual Canadians necessitated cooperation with the larger community, and the survival of Canada as a country when faced with American expansionism demanded a strong state.

The relative success of socialist parties and movements in Canadian history—as compared to the United States—is often connected to this communitarian ethos. While rugged individualism and liberty is a central feature of the American national narrative, the philosophy behind Canada’s national identity has been one where survival, freedom, and progress are collaborative endeavours.

The occasion of Grant’s lament was the loss of the Diefenbaker Progressive Conservatives to Lester Pearson’s Liberal Party in the 1963 federal election. Diefenbaker had opposed placement of American Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil as an........

© Canadian Dimension