Is the Victory of Canada's Liberals Because of or Despite of Keynesianism?

I see a number of pundits who ascribe it to anything but the fact that Trudeau has vowed to run a $10 billion Canadian dollars deficit for the next three years.

CNBC pundits seem to think that it was because Trudeau and the Liberals stand for 'change; but this change is non-economic evidently. CNBC mostly seems to think that the Canadians voted for the Liberals to a sweeping majority despite their vow to deficit spend not because of it.

"Canada's Liberal leader Justin Trudeau rode a late campaign surge to a stunning election victory on Monday, toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives with a promise of change and returning a touch of glamor, youth and charisma to Ottawa."

"Canada's major television networks projected a majority for the Liberals, a turn in political fortunes that smashed the record for the number of seats gained from one election to the next. The Liberals had been a distant third place party in Parliament before this election."

"The projected win ends the Conservatives' nine-year run in power and reflected a political shift away from Harper's brand of fiscal and cultural conservatism."

"Trudeau, 43, the photogenic son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, pledged to run a 10 billion Canadian dollars ($7.7 billion) annual budget deficit for three years to invest in infrastructure and help stimulate Canada's anemic economic growth."

"This rattled financial markets in the run-up to the vote and the Canadian dollar weakened on news of his victory."

"Trudeau has said he will repair Canada's cool relations with the Obama administration, withdraw Canada from the combat mission against ISIS militants in favor of humanitarian aid and training, and tackle climate change."

"Trudeau vaulted from third place to lead the polls in the final days of the campaign, overcoming Conservative attacks that he is too inexperienced to govern to return to the Prime Minister's residence in Ottawa where he grew up as a child."

"When the time for change strikes, it's lethal," former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said in a television interview. "I ran and was successful because I wasn't Pierre Trudeau. Justin is successful because he isn't Stephen Harper."

http://www.newsweek.com/trudeau-sweeps-liberals-victory-canada-385119

So the voters just want change for the sake of change? I looked to see Nick Rowe's reaction or anyone else at his Worthwhile Canadian Iniative and no one has anything to say about it yet.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/

Sumner is characteristically claiming victory for libertarianism in the results.

Yesterday's win for the Canadian Liberals was a huge win for libertarian policies in North America:
One other industry may gain from the Liberal landslide. Canadian marijuana stocks including Canopy Growth Corp., Aphria Inc. and Mettrum Health Corp. may gain as Trudeau has said he will legalize and regulate marijuana, Dundee Capital Markets analyst Aaron Salz said in a Tuesday note to clients.

"Trudeau's vow to legalize and regulate marijuana the 'right way' has set in motion the single most important catalyst for the marijuana space," Salz said.

"Next year California will probably vote to legalize pot, creating a drugtopia on the coast of North America from San Diego all the way up to the Alaska/Russian border. Pot will be legal in a vast area of 5 million square miles, encompassing 90 to 120 million people (depending on the votes in other states.) And don't forget that Mexico moved in the direction of legalizing pot a few years ago, but was dissuaded by the Bush administration."

"Polls show that 60% of young Republicans favor pot legalization, which makes the momentum seem unstoppable."

"In another big win for libertarianism, California recently adopted a right-to-die law. The Canadian Supreme Court created a similar right in 2015. Once again, there is a distinct West Coast bias towards libertarian policies (Alaska is still debating the issue)"

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/the_libertarian_5.html

So I guess Sumner is also presuming that the victory was despite the promise of deficit spending not because of it.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones sees the glass as half empty as the Trudeau Administration will likely still be pro Keystone pipeline.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/10/justin-trudeau-canada-climate-change-keystone-pipeline

I'm not a fan of single issue verdicts. Because he is for Keystone he's a bad guy? But then I feel better. The author, Suzanne Goldberg, was smart to frame it the right way for me.

"Justin Trudeau is better on climate than Stephen Harper. But he's no Barack Obama."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/10/justin-trudeau-canada-climate-change-keystone-pipeline


As long as we agree that President Obama is the gold standard of stewardship on the environment I'm totally with her.