Pundits are continuing to analyze and dissect the recent dramatic implosion of the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. Fingers will be pointed, conclusions will be reached and lessons learned. But I have my own opinion about why Canadians turned their backs on the Conservatives, and it all comes down to economics.

Of course, the infighting, the miscommunication, the jealousy and betrayals certainly wreaked havoc on the campaign and weakened the party considerably. But unless you are a political junkie, you probably did not follow most of that, and I suspect the electorate saw very little of it.

In the end, it was simply about two very different economic visions of the country. And at the heart of these opposing visions was the role of the state and its place in the economy.

These are old questions that economists have debated for centuries: can the state, through its tax-and-spend powers, have a positive and transformative impact on the economy, or does it disrupt economic activity by crowding out private investment? The profession at large is highly divided, and one vision gains dominance over the other at regular intervals.

For instance, after the Great Depression, the Keynesian vision dominated politics from the early 1940s to about the mid- to late 1970s. It collapsed under the weight of the oil crises in 1973 and 1979, and a more conservative ideology rose to prominence under U.S. president Ronald Reagan and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, which then dominated the political landscape for the next three decades.

But after one vision dominates the political landscape for 30 years, the electorate becomes weary. Toward the end of the Keynesian era, they associated the more liberal era with large deficits and bloated governments, although deficits are more often the result of a bad economy than they are the cause of it. But it did not matter: after three decades, voters were ready to embrace a new way; it was simply time for change. In Canada, this led to the electoral victory of Brian Mulroney in 1984.

Now, after three decades of ideologically conservative rule, often dominated by austerity policies, the electorate has also had enough. Now they associate it with austerity, income inequality, the one per cent and economic misery. It was time once again for a new way.

Change of vision

Yet, unlike many pundits, I think it was not simply a desire for change from a tired government after nine years in office. Maybe, just maybe, it was a desire for something much bigger: a change of vision.

The Liberals under Trudeau read the electoral mood perfectly. They sensed this might be time for renewal. They embraced and spoke openly of deficits after years of austerity hysteria, and proposed an exciting role for the state – one where the state actively promotes growth and prosperity when the economy is depressed.

There is a parallel here with other countries. Anti-austerity parties are doing well all over the world: in Greece, the Syriza party won fresh elections, and in Spain, the Podemos party is riding high. In Portugal, the anti-austerity party is gaining ground, in the U.K., Jeremy Corbyn has reinvigorated the Labour Party, and in the U.S., a once obscure Bernie Saunders is giving Hilary Clinton quite the run for her money. In many other countries, the left is slowly awakening from its deep slumber. Note that this all happened on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the book that started it all: John Maynard Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936).

Closer to home, in Canada, the NDP was in first place in many polls for a long time, up until they advocated the same austerity policies as the Conservative Party. This is when they began their free fall and the Liberals, with their message of infrastructure spending, started to rise in the polls. Canadians were tired of the austere vision of the state.

Deficits no longer taboo

There is a vital lesson here: slowly, the idea that deficits are bad is no longer gaining traction. In fact, deficits is no longer the taboo word it was even a year ago.

There will always be detractors. I have seen far too many ridiculous comparisons to Greece since the elections than I care to admit. Canada is not Greece nor will it ever be. Yet this has not prevented many from predicting gloom and doom.

But what is even more ridiculous is the harm that austerity parties have inflicted on the electorate over the last three decades, through high rates of unemployment and increased income polarization, contributing to the sad state of secular stagnation in which we now find ourselves. The astonishing thing about all this is that it was achieved with zero empirical support.

There is no support for austerity. Zero, nil, none, zilch.

It is too soon to know for certain if this is part of another 30-year cycle of Keynesian prosperity. But one can hope, of course.

Louis-Philippe Rochon is an associate professor at Laurentian University and co-editor of the Review of Keynesian Economics.