The PQ=GOP for French people -

The PQ=GOP for French people



Whoah. I smells me another mini-psychodrama a-brewin’.

Andrew Sullivan, noted  gay Roman Catholic Libertarian blogger, had a zinger on his site today. While discussing how the Republican fringe (and, by extension, the Republican Party) is much louder than it is important, he said the following: “A reader recently made a very interesting reference. He said he believed that the GOP was morphing into the American equivalent of the Parti Quebecois. It is essentially a regional party now–representing the South in the national discourse. And its rhetoric seems divorced from any desire to actually hold responsible public office. So Republicans, like the Quebecers, tend to use politics as a means for disruption or protest or threat or veto.”

I won’t say much on this–far be it from me to stand in the way of a good péquiste-GOP-gay Roman Catholic Libertarian flame war. However, I’d argue that the PQ has always been a regional party–one with aspirations to be otherwise, of course, but a regional party all the same. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Bloc Québécois, in that it’s a federal party that represents a regionally based electorate. The Bloc, unlike the PQ, really and honestly has no desire to actually hold public office (though it’ll do so in a pinch.) And Duceppe et al. also know a thing or seven about disruption, protest, threats and (de facto) vetoes.

Filed under:

The PQ=GOP for French people

  1. the math on theGOP works better the other way. Democratic support is far more concentrated.

    The more interesting trend south of the border is dis-alignment. The number of people who identify themselves as independent or just don't care about politics keeps rising. That is the trend most likely to come north.

    • How stupid of me. I missed the joke.

      Very good.

  2. "Andrew Sullivan, noted gay Roman Catholic Libertarian blogger…"

    You forgot "dumb." Andrew Sullivan is really, really really dumb.

    • LOL.

      I don't happen to agree mind you, but still.


      • C'mon. He's always the last one to figure out what's going on.

  3. "far be it from me to stand in the way of a good péquiste-GOP-gay Roman Catholic Libertarian flame war."

    I'll bet your editor gave you the rest of the day off for fitting that in. Well played, sir!

  4. What's the French word for teabag?

      • LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        (I see the Intense Debate filter has a notwithstanding clause.)

      • Tasse? TASSE? C'est un SAC, 'crisse…

    • Poche de thé – au Canada-français. There is also "t'es poche" (you're dumb).

      Elsewhere in the French world, it's sachet.

  5. Yeah, I saw that and I thought, hmm, he means BQ, but can't be bothered to find out the difference. Sullivan's indifference to anything not American or British belies his international reputation. As Foreigner says (the commenter, not the band), he's about half as smart as he thinks he is, and less informed.

    • But now that you mention the band, it probably won't surprise you to know something popped into mind…

      "I'm a stranger in my own house
      I've got the keys to the door
      But I'm still locked out
      I'm a stranger in my own house
      I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow this house down
      Can't be a stranger in my own house"

      • Seriously, we're renaming you "Sean Aptholm."

        • Better than the usual a–hol- I get!

    • I take your point, but still. Isn't "can't be bothered to find out the difference" a bit harsh (on the particular point of the Bloc/PQ distinction). Sure, there's a difference, and the Bloc is the more apt analogy, but c'mon. Sullivan is after all an American writer, and while clearly the difference is material, is it really that crucial to his larger point? I don't know. It seems to me that the difference between the PQ and the Bloc in the context of the larger point that he's trying to make about the Republicans is more of a nuance than anything. Don't the PQ and the Bloc both "tend to use politics as a means for disruption or protest or threat or veto"?

      • Well, while I agree with most of what you say, the PQ actually aspire to governance. I think that's a big nuance.

  6. Andrew Sullivan calls himself a Burkean or Oakeshottian conservative, not a libertarian. Which is for the better, since no reasonable person acquainted with the facts would describe Sullivan's politics as big or small-l libertarian.

    Bang on with the BQ vs. PQ point. It's quite possible that that's what the reader who made the observation had said, and that Sullivan is making an error in reporting–him not being sufficiently familiar with Canadian party politics.

    • Even if it's a reference to the Bloc, the comparison isn't apt all. The Bloc never intended to form the government, it only runs candidates in one province, it has no supporters outside the province and most importantly, Bloquistes aren't bull goose loony.

      • Though, like the GOP, it's most fervent followers are.

  7. Interesting chart.

  8. I think Sullivan meant the Bloc, but due to an ignorance of Canadian politics failed to understand that the PQ is a provincial party and not a federal one. It's an understandable mistake as the US doesn't have separate state and national parties.

    Be that as it may, he's still wrong. The Bloc has never wanted to hold "responsible public office", and their raison d'etre is to represent Quebec. If they could be compared to any US party in history, it would be the Dixiecrats – that at least conserves the regionalist aspect.

  9. I think the PQ is becoming more like the NDP.

  10. The BQ is kind of like the GOP for Québecors/Québecois, except the BQ isn't a dysfunction group of insane fear mongers

    I guess they aren't that similar on second thought…

    • "except the BQ isn't a dysfunction group of insane fear mongers"

      Of course the BQ is, they want to separate from a country that gives them absolutely everything they want while Alberta & Ontario pays for it.

      • Wanting to separate, though, is a totally different kettle of fish from people talking about death panels, birthers, &c &c &c. And the BQ doesn't dispute the democratic legitimacy of whatever party is in power at the time.


      • Perhaps some BQ members prefer national self-determination to handouts?