Soon after becoming prime minister of Canada in 2015, Justin Trudeau confidently told New York Times Magazine that the country had no core national identity, and that was a good thing.

“There are shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state,” Trudeau asserted. His post-national experiment aimed to elevate Canada as an alternative model of citizenship for the world, one that eschewed history and a mainstream identity. An ad campaign from the state broadcaster, for example, featured the slogan “It’s not how Canadian you are, it’s who you are in Canada.”

The results of this experiment have not been harmony but gunfire, arson, and interethnic violence. Cosmopolitan obsessions and social media make it impossible to ignore the passions of distant conflicts. Those passions are fast replacing Canada’s distinct cultural bonds that once allowed its citizens to recognize each other as brethren.

Fueled by the fever of the Israel–Hamas war, antisemitic insurgents have set upon Canada’s long-established Jewish community, setting fire to synagogues, firing upon Jewish schools, parading through their communities, and throwing up Nazi salutes. Meanwhile, Hindu temples have been attacked by radicals who call for the creation of Khalistan, a Sikh breakaway state in India.

Along with inflation, affordability, and failing healthcare services, the wave of violence has helped make Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government one of the most unpopular in the country’s history. The failure of Trudeau’s post-nationalist fantasy has led Canada into crisis—but it also has opened an opportunity for Conservatives, who are poised to regain power for the first time since 2015 in next year’s federal election.

When last in government, the Conservatives pursued balanced budgets, expanded market access, tax cuts, and a moderate cultural agenda. Most importantly, the Conservative government shepherded Canada through the Great Recession relatively unscathed, helping to ensure the party maintained its reputation even as Trudeau ousted them in 2015.

But the crisis of post-nationalism will not be met with mere sound economic policy. This time around, their challenge will be nothing short of restoring a sense of shared identity to the world’s second-largest country.

In meeting this political challenge, Canadian conservatives have resources to draw upon. Though Canada lacks a grand tradition of political philosophy like its British and American counterparts, the legacies of its best prime ministers offer examples of statesmanship and good governance.

Chief among these is Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister, whose legacy Conservatives have long claimed and defended. Macdonald was the great man of Confederation, the process by which Britain’s remaining North American colonies joined in union to become a self-governing dominion of the Empire in 1867.

Although Macdonald’s reputation has been persistently attacked over the last decade, primarily for his role in upholding the system of assimilating Indigenous children, Macdonald himself remains a popular figure in the Canadian imagination. Conservatives’ new cultural policy could be grounded in his political vision.

When Macdonald signed the British North America Act, which founded the dominion, Canada was to be a united nation of English and French speakers, with a strong federal government loyal to the Crown and the Empire. Nearly one hundred years after Confederation in 1964, the Conservative MP Heath Nelson MacQuarrie summed up Macdonald’s influence:

We do not have many political philosophers in Canada, and we Conservatives can claim that John A. Macdonald was one of them. . . . When others saw only narrow, small confines for the little political communities of what was then British North America in the middle of the 19th century, he saw a transcontinental dominion and he made his vision a reality.

Macdonald and his ministers saw Canada as a distinct people within the Empire, birthed from language and history, and indebted to both. He saw a people united by languages, the parliamentary political system, history, holidays, and the vast, beautiful land itself. A revived Macdonaldian and new Conservative cultural policy need only reflect that vision of Canada, and the will to use federal power to solidify it.

So what might a reinvigorated Canadian Conservative Party look like today? The role of Canada’s federal government has changed tremendously since 1867, when it served to provide credit for financing national development. It also served to levy tariffs on imported goods as a means of raising revenue and protecting Canada’s fledgling industry under Macdonald’s “National Policy.”

In 2024, the federal government’s primary role, in addition to its own basic functions, is to distribute federal transfer payments to Canada’s ten provinces and three territories. These payments that fill out the budgets of provincial governments are the linchpin of Canadian federalism, and the money comes with strings attached. The federal government also provides funding to city governments, a host of NGOs, museums, and postsecondary institutions, many of whom are partially or fully dependent on that money.

Conservatives should implement a new National Policy for the twenty-first century. While the previous era of small-government Conservatives may baulk at such an initiative, they should remember that Canada’s constitutional preference is for peace, order, and good government, as written into the founding documents of Confederation.

They could start by restoring many of the statues of Macdonald and other historical figures that have been toppled by mobs or removed by city governments that need federal funding. These monuments will remind Canadians what they value and which legacies they consider worthy of commemoration.

The Conservative policy could mandate that federal money apportioned for cultural output adheres to the vision of a distinct Canada, whether the recipients be museums, NGOs, or historical societies. The federal government already appoints trustees to the board of museums under its jurisdiction, as well as the national research chairs who guide the studies of universities, and Conservatives should focus on appointing the right people to those posts.

Citizenship guides and ceremonies need to be revamped to reflect the Canada envisioned at its founding, rather than a post-national one. Progressives pride themselves on Canada’s being a multicultural country, but Toronto is no more multicultural than Sydney or New York: high levels of multiculturalism make no Western metropolis unique anymore.

Ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities should always be free in Canada to practice their traditions, but citizenship should come with the obligation to recognize what makes Canada distinct. In Macdonald’s era, it was loyalty to the Crown and Empire that made Canada a distinct dominion of British America. Today, the Anglo-American world’s sovereign countries are still linked by English-speaking culture that crosses the Atlantic.

The importance of reawakening Canadian identity goes beyond Canada’s borders. If post-nationalism endures, Canada’s foreign policy could deteriorate from a steady partner to the United States and its allies to an ambivalent one at best. Trudeau’s own foreign affairs minister has stated that the demographics of her Montreal ridings compel her to take a tougher stance on Israel.

The stakes are high, globally and on the continent. Dissident, high-profile supporters of the Liberal Party who prioritize diaspora politics and a hardline stance on Israel above all have pledged to revolutionize the party when Trudeau leaves office. The passions that animate interethnic street violence could very well force their way into Parliament.

The results of that shift could only worsen the current upheaval caused by Trudeau’s post-nationalism. In October, for example, a Pakistani migrant was arrested by the RCMP on the suspicion that he planned to travel to New York City and murder scores of American Jews on the anniversary of 9/11.

This threat could explain why Donald Trump has said that the soft Canada–United States border, which recently has become a gateway for illegal activity, must be fixed for him to lift his warnings about imposing 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods.

Even though it is the longest border in the world, the social and economic stability in both Canada and the United States and the familiarity between the countries have so far meant it could remain relatively undefended. Such a tariff regime would fall hard on both Canada and many American states. If the post-national crisis is not reversed, its effects could spread across the border and undermine Canada’s status as a trusted friend.

At the crossing between British Columbia and Washington State, the sixty-seven-foot-high Peace Arch bears the following words “Children of a Common Mother. . . . Brethren Dwelling Together in Unity. . . . May These Gates Never Be Closed.” In Trudeau’s post-national Canada, many Canadians worry about how long those phrases will ring true.

After all, when a sense of common identity erodes, friendliness turns to contention, and contention sours to conflict, suspicion and uncertainty.

“My affections, my family are here. All my hopes and my remembrances are Canadian; and not only are my principles and prejudices Canadian, but . . . my interests are Canadian,” Macdonald said. Only when Canadians can speak these words confidently again can it be a good national neighbor and strong, stable country in its own right.

In this time of renewed nationalism, there is no better moment for Canadians to dare to be Canadian once again. Conservatives may be its only hope.