Mathieu Bock-Côté: a Québécois conservatism

Most, if not all of you are familiar with the work of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. These thinkers have gained a massive following thanks primarily to young adults searching for an alternative to the progressive status quo.

These intellectuals have been successful in making thousands (if not millions) of people aware of the political issues and ideas of our era. However, Canada’s linguistic divide has the tendency of limiting the reach of francophone intellectuals who would otherwise have the potential of attracting a similar following. In this case, I am speaking particularly of Québec sociologist and professor Mathieu Bock-Côté.

A conservative sovereignist

First and foremost, Bock-Côté is a committed Québécois sovereignist. It is this foundational conviction that acts as the connecting thread of his political thought.

In his youth, he was an active member of the Parti Québécois (PQ), which eventually led to a role as one of the speechwriters for PQ Premier Bernard Landry. However, he became disillusioned with the way in which the party transitioned to civic nationalism following the infamous “money and ethnic votes” comments of former PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau.

Bock-Côté claimed that this civic nationalism, in which nationhood is defined merely by shared citizenship, would empty the movement of its meaning and eventually lead it to its dissolution.

Bock-Côté was one of the more influential critics of the PQ’s civic nationalism, which was largely discarded following the ascension of Pauline Marois as party leader.

He also criticized certain sovereignists for their tendency of defining the movement as uniquely social-democratic, depriving them of a possible coalition with conservative nationalists. To a large extent, it was these conservative nationalists who would end up voting en masse for the Coalition Avenir Québec in the 2018 election.

Bock-Côté was – and continues to be – in favour of a nationalism that attaches culture, history, language, and religion to the idea of national identity.

While not personally religious, he recognizes the role Catholicism played in forming Québec’s national identity. Bock-Côté is adamant that all individuals of any ethnic or cultural background are capable of becoming Québécois – so long as they fully integrate into Québécois society.

Bock-Côté was one of the more influential critics of the PQ’s civic nationalism, which was largely discarded following the ascension of Pauline Marois as party leader.

The PQ would go on to develop a virage identitaire (a transition towards focusing more on Québécois identity), which culminated in the creation of the Charter of Values. To simplify things, the Charter would implement religious neutrality of the state and prohibit state personnel from wearing conspicuous religious symbols.

It was controversial among certain members of the political elite and the media, but was supported by a majority of Québécois. The Charter was never adopted in the National Assembly, since the Parti Québécois lost the 2014 election and never held a majority while in government from 2012 to 2014.

A conservative in the philosophic sense

A conservative in the philosophic sense of the term, Bock-Côté does not oppose modernity, but is against what he describes as its “excesses.” This includes what he characterizes as a “radical individualism,” which has led to the breakup of the “collectivity.”

Bock-Côté is also in favour of re-evaluating the roots of Québec nationalism, specifically through a more balanced view of the period preceding the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s.

Bock-Côté opposes the politics of “racialism” associated with the radical left, which he believes to be a dangerous American importation incorrectly transposed to the Québec context. He links this racialism to the stifling of freedom of expression in the province, notably with the cancellation of Robert Lepage’s plays SLAV and Kanata.

He opposes what he considers to be Québec’s “New Right:” a mix of libertarianism and federalism geographically located in the Québec city region and most accurately embodied by Radio X’s Jeff Fillion.

This, on the grounds that they are for a “crazy capitalism” and disavow the importance of Québec’s cultural, historical, and linguistic singularity. Interestingly, several of Radio X’s hosts refer to Québec as “le dôme” (literally translated as “the dome”), a critique of what they perceive as the province’s tendency to “protect itself” from the cultural and economic innovation pursued in the rest of the world.

Bock-Côté is also in favour of re-evaluating the roots of Québec nationalism, specifically through a more balanced view of the period preceding the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s.

In his opinion, Québec nationalists have been too quick to discard this period, known as “La Survivance.” He considers that French Canadians admirably conserved their language and culture following the British Conquest of New France in 1760. He believes that Québec nationalists should embrace “l’enracinement,” a return to the roots of their identity as French Canadians in the context of a modern world that has evolved since the 1960s.

While Bock-Côté maintains a certain hope for the future of Québec independence, he acknowledges that the movement is in a weak position.

Bock-Côté considers Charles de Gaulle as the greatest political leader of the 20th century. Importantly, de Gaulle was a great believer in the idea of national sovereignty, making this perfectly clear in his 1967 “Vive Le Québec Libre” speech – an event Bock-Côté holds particularly close to heart.

While Bock-Côté maintains a certain hope for the future of Québec independence, he acknowledges that the movement is in a weak position. In his opinion, the window of opportunity for sovereignty opened by the Quiet Revolution has largely passed. He states in his book Fin de cycle that Québec has entered a “new cycle” not conducive towards the national question.

In addition to being a prolific writer, Bock-Côté is a frequent commentator of contemporary politics. He was highly critical of Philippe Couillard’s tenure as premier, considering him to be a “radical Canadian.”

He believes Québec’s Liberal party (PLQ) has been “ideologically colonized” by the federal Liberal party. In his opinion, the PLQ has partially adopted the Pierre Trudeau philosophy of multiculturalism and radical individualism, which relegates French Canadians as one minority group among others.

While supportive of several of François Legault’s positions (specifically on immigration and religious neutrality), he believes the current premier does not go far enough and espouses a “lukewarm” nationalism.

My encounters with Bock-Côté

I first stumbled on one of Bock-Côté’s columns in the Journal de Montréal titled “the Art to Mentally Dominate One’s Political Adversary.” In the article, Bock-Côté explains that the sovereignists have lost their previously held advantage in the province’s political debates following the 1995 referendum loss.

Since then, the federalists have been able to set the terms of political discourse, including in essential subjects such as immigration, language, and culture. The sovereignists –  in fear of inciting the wrath of the federalists – have subsequently avoided contradicting their adversaries on these questions.

Bock-Côté has been invited to several French talk shows, and has even been cited as a source of inspiration for Laurent Wauquiez, the leader of France’s main centre-right party Les Républicains.

According to Bock-Côté, many sovereignists have since attempted to curry favour from the federalists by becoming “good sovereignists” and disavowing the traditionally held positions of their movement. This reminded me of the relationship conservatives have historically had with progressives in the West.

Bock-Côté has written several books, some of which have managed to have significant reach in France. Le Multiculturalisme Comme Religion Politique (2016) is one of his major works. It chronicles the historical origin of the ideology of multiculturalism and its impact on current political debates. Bock-Côté has been invited to several French talk shows, and has even been cited as a source of inspiration for Laurent Wauquiez, the leader of France’s main centre-right party Les Républicains. He is also a regular columnist for the prestigious centre-right French newspaper, Le Figaro.

Through his podcasts La Vie des Idéesand Les Idées Mènent le Monde, Bock-Côté has introduced me to a number of fascinating francophone intellectuals, journalists, and politicians such as Christian St-Germain, Martin Lemay, Guillaume Rousseau and Alain Finkielkraut. Bock-Côté’s ability to gather interesting people together and getting them to talk about the issues of our time is incredibly laudable.

Disagreements

While I believe Bock-Côté’s take on conservatism offers an intriguing alternative to the classical liberalism usually espoused by American and Canadian conservatives, I am not in agreement with him on a number of issues.

For example, he has the tendency to treat the rest of Canada as a monolithic “anglo” block that allegedly has contempt for Québec. I believe he is incorrect: the majority of English-speaking Canadians – many of whom are made up of immigrant communities – are simply indifferent to Québec.

Additionally, I am in disagreement with him on the SNC-Lavalin Affair, in which he has defended the conduct of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

These critiques, however, do not take away from my respect for him or his work. Bock-Côté is an incredible thinker and I recommend his writings (and the many videos of him on YouTube) to anyone interested in having a deeper understanding of the world of ideas.