I can’t recall where I read this lately, but I remember well what it said. If someone could pinpoint it to me, I’d be more than grateful.

It was an article on floor-crossing in Canada versus floor-crossing in the United States. For those who do not know what floor-crossing is, according to Wikipedia the term is defined like this: “In Canada, the term “crossing the floor” is used exclusively to refer to switching parties which occurs occasionally at both the federal and provincial levels.” So the accurate term for the United States would be “party-switching”, which is also used in Canada. But if you ask me, both idioms are interchangeable.

Now, obviously the differences in formulation are not my point. The article in question was referring to the fact that floor-crossing/party-switching is far more common in Canadian federal/provincial Assemblies and Parliaments than it is in the U.S. Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) or State Houses across America. Upon discovering this political factual allegation, one might wonder about the possible explanations for such an important differentiation between the behavior of MPs in Canada and the behavior of American Representatives and Senators. That person would most likely engage in close scrutating of elected officials in both countries and try to make out a conclusion from his/her observations.

But if you ask me, that person would NOT be looking at the right places.

You see, when I started reading about it all, I instantly began thinking about the reasons explaning that vivid discrepancy between both countries’ elected officials’ behavior. And I came to a possible conclusion which I’m going to share with you here on KR. It’s nothing official or extremely thought out, but you’ll see that it makes sense. And it has much to do with national philosophy and very little to do with elected officials’ behavior. Take note, however, that my theory only addresses the ideological kind of party-switching, and NOT the opportunistic kind, which is probably as common in the U.S. as it is in Canada.

If you look closely at the political parties of each country, you can observe one thing in Canada which is virtually inexistent in the United States. What is the most obvious thing that Canadian political parties impose on their members and elected officials, and that the American political parties do not?

Party lines.

Canadian political parties impose party lines that their members (and especially elected ones) have to abide by and adhere to if they want to keep their membership card and be a member in good standing. Party lines are, officially, the core beliefs and some specific ideological elements shared by most party members (and sometimes decided by the party leader). In comparison with the Canadian way, the two biggest political parties in the United States, the Republican party and the Democratic party, have no party lines at all.

Everybody knows that anybody can change their mind, as time goes by or as we gather new information on an issue. This is particularly true in politics, and is reflected in Canada by floor-crossing political stunts. Since both main political parties in the United States don’t impose any kind of party line at all -they don’t even issue membership cards-, their “members” and elected officials benefit from a lot more wiggle room if they change their mind on an issue, on a person, or on an event. Plus, the behavior of political parties in the United States is way different from the behavior of political parties in Canada.

Unlike their northern counterparts, U.S. parties act on the “one big tent” principle, which entails that everybody is welcome in their ranks. And membership cards can’t be revoked or torn to pieces since they don’t exist. In the United States, say you’re a Republican, and you are one. Say you’re a Democrat, and it’s the same. No need to fill any paperwork. You are what you say. No need to prove you think a certain way or the other, which leads to very well-defined “wings” in both parties. Republicans and Democrats alike both have very clear rightist, leftist and centrist “wings” in their ranks. Or if you prefer, “radicals”, “softs” and “moderates”. Plus, most of the time, the party officials and leaders let their elected members (in Congress or wherever) vote freely, so they can say what’s on their mind without having to “toe the party line”.

Canadian political parties, however, take a much more “exclusive” approach. While there are still left, right and center “wings” in each and every of them, they’re much more blurry and harder to tell apart. Canadian political parties tend to be monolithic in their ideologies, which will drive more people out of their ranks (and subject to join another party reflecting their views better) and will concentrate the party message into one and only one party line. If you don’t fit in, you are free to go and we don’t want you among us. That’s more or less the message Canadian political parties tell their members, and once again, especially their elected ones.

That’s where national philosophy kicks in. The “one big tent” principle that drives American political parties is directly inspired from the United States’ “melting pot” national philosophy. Anyone who wants to fit in, fits in. The United States have always regarded immigration that way. Whereas Canada, the country of cultural communities and multiculturalism, acts exactly like that when it comes to political party inclusion or exclusion. It’s not hard to see at all.

All this also explains very well why another political phenomenon that is quite common in the United States is almost impossible in Canada. RINOs and DINOs, which respectively stand for “Republican In Name Only” and “Democrat In Name Only” are totally inexistent in Canada because of party lines and the urge to fit in. Which in turn makes me think that Canadian politicians are probably more eager and comfortable with the idea of stepping on their own beliefs and their own thoughts (or occulting them and keeping them hidden) to accomodate a party line than American politicians. While RINOs and DINOs in the United States are sometimes treated as pariahs by their own party’s “members”, they can still be part of that same party, which prevents switching. The fact is that a lot of American politicians stand with a party because of only one or two strong beliefs, particularly in the “moral issues” area, while they often disagree on most of the party’s platform. But because no one can kick them out, they stay in. That’s why we have Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats, which are free to thrive in their own beliefs and convictions because of the absence of party lines. And if they really can’t be classified into one party or the other, they can always go Independent.

So because of all that, I’d be tempted to say that yeah, floor-crossing IS more of a Canadian thing.

And if Canadian political parties were more inclusive, like those down South, Belinda Stronach would have no reason for leaving the Conservatives for the Liberals… except sheer opportunism.

But that’s another story.