History often speaks in coded messages, and the 1921 Canadian federal election contains vital lessons for today's Conservative Party as it considers the leadership style needed in 2025. According to historian Christopher Dummitt, the contrasting approaches of William Lyon Mackenzie King and Arthur Meighen in that transformative election year offer a blueprint for political success that remains remarkably relevant.
The Transformative 1921 Political Landscape
The 1921 election occurred during a period of profound social and political upheaval in Canada. It marked the first election where all adult women could vote, representing a massive expansion of the democratic process. The country was still reeling from the aftermath of the First World War, with ideological shockwaves from the Bolshevik Revolution and the memory of the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike fresh in public consciousness.
Canada's traditional party system had shattered during the war years. In 1917, the Liberal Party split over conscription, with half its MPs crossing the floor to form a Union government with the Conservatives. When Wilfrid Laurier died, the Liberals turned to William Lyon Mackenzie King, an unimpressive but conciliatory former labour mediator who seemed to offer solutions to class conflict, Quebec relations, and national unity challenges.
The old two-party system finally cracked in 1921 with the emergence of the Progressives, a now-forgotten political force that sprang from farmers' anger over high tariffs and protectionism. Suddenly, this new group became the second-largest party in Parliament, demanding nothing less than a complete transformation of Canadian politics itself.
Two Leadership Archetypes: King vs. Meighen
The leadership contrast between Mackenzie King and Conservative leader Arthur Meighen represents two fundamentally different approaches to political leadership that remain instructive today.
Arthur Meighen inherited leadership from wartime Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden. Brilliant, forceful, and widely admired, Meighen was also deeply controversial. He had driven several unpopular wartime policies including conscription, a heavy-handed Elections Act that helped Unionists win in 1917, and the nationalization of bankrupt railways—a process particularly despised by Montreal's business elite.
In contrast, Mackenzie King embodied pragmatic, consensus-building leadership. As lawyer-poet Frank Scott famously noted, King preferred to "do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters." He was an uninspiring speaker and physically unimposing, yet achieved remarkable results through what Dummitt describes as "prophylactic" leadership—excelling at preventing problems rather than creating dramatic solutions.
Lessons for Modern Conservatives
King's approach focused on avoiding offense, quietly co-opting enemies, and turning potential opponents into reluctant allies. He mastered the art of compromise while somehow still managing to achieve his objectives. This style proved remarkably effective in navigating the complex political landscape of 1921.
For today's Conservative Party and leader Pierre Poilievre, the historical parallel offers crucial insights. The ability to adapt to changing times while maintaining core principles emerges as the critical factor in political success. Mackenzie King understood that postwar Canada required a different kind of leadership than what had worked during wartime.
As Dummitt suggests, Conservative Party headquarters might benefit from making Barbara Messamore's new book Times of Transformation: The 1921 Canadian General Election mandatory reading. The work provides a fascinating deep-dive into this pivotal moment in Canadian history and reveals how leadership styles can determine political fortunes.
The fundamental question for today's Conservatives remains whether to embrace Meighen's forceful, principled approach or King's pragmatic, adaptive style. With Canada facing new challenges in 2025—from economic uncertainty to social division—the lessons from 1921 suggest that the ability to read the political code of the times may be more valuable than ideological purity or forceful rhetoric.
