Theo Argitis: Election 2025 is the most consequential campaign since 1984
Once in a generation, we get an election where we reimagine the kind of economy we want. Let’s hope our presumptive PMs choose wisely, writes Theo Argitis, editor-at-large for business and economics at The Hub.
LIBERAL.CA AND FACEBOOK PHOTOS
Liberal Leader Mark Carney, left, and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, right. Both leaders ‘appear to share a desire to reshape the country’s economy to one that is more resilient, more self-sufficient, and less vulnerable,’ writes Theo Argitis
A question that journalists, pundits, and politicos like to ask each other during federal elections is which past campaign does the current one resemble most.
Because 2025 will be a very consequential election, the 1988 free trade campaign often comes up as a point of comparison—and for good reason.
But I’d argue that 1984 is the closer parallel.
That campaign had more of a sense that the ground was shifting—that a new economic framework was beginning to take shape. Much like the way things feel today.
And I’m not talking about the political outcome.
By the early 1980s, the country had been battered by years of stagflation, high unemployment, and labour unrest. Canadians had grown disillusioned with top-down fixes like wage and price controls and national energy programs.
The 1984 campaign marked the end of that postwar consensus around government intervention in the economy. It rewrote the fiscal rulebook, moving Canada away from a spend-heavy, deficit-tolerant mindset toward one that prioritized restraint. It also marked the beginning of a shift toward market liberalism and deeper economic integration with the United States that set the tone not just for Brian Mulroney’s government, but for the Liberal governments of the 1990s and 2000s, Stephen Harper after that, and even the first half of Justin Trudeau’s tenure.
1984 was the turning point.
Today, it feels like we’re at another turning point. And the rich irony is that we seem to be looping back to the 1984 debate, as if caught in some kind of time inversion straight out of a Christopher Nolan movie.
Canada is pulling back from U.S.-centric trade dependence and reasserting a version of economic self-sufficiency—echoing some of the pre-1984 instincts we thought we’d left behind.
Both Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal leader Mark Carney appear to share a desire to reshape the country’s economy to one that is more resilient, more self-sufficient, and less vulnerable.
Both are leaning into rhetoric that underscores a more nationalistic stance, adopting slogans such as “Canada Strong” for the Liberals and “Canada First” for the Conservatives.
Carney is promising an “All-in Canada” approach to economic policy, emphasizing state intervention to advance the national interest. He’s proposed using government resources—and a dose of counter protectionism—to reinvent two major sectors: autos and housing.
Poilievre, for his part, is offering his own version of self-sufficiency, rooted in resource nationalism and a drive to supercharge Canada’s competitiveness through tax cuts, deregulation, and policies aimed at repatriating capital.
I’d hesitate to divide their approaches along neat ideological lines.
