|
If there’s one thing conservative politicians in Canada should have learned by now it’s that you can’t make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends, which is why the attitude of the Conservative Party toward conservatives is so baffling. The latest example of this mind-set is found in spokesman Ryan Sparrow’s characterization of small-c conservatives as just another group of “stakeholders” with whom his party, and by extension the government, must contend.
The term “stakeholder” is a politically correct euphemism for “special interest group”.
Sparrow, it will be recalled, was suspended during the recent election campaign for suggesting that criticism of the government’s policy in Afghanistan by Jim Davis, father of a fallen Canadian soldier Paul Davis, was politically motivated. To his credit, Sparrow took responsibility for his questionable behaviour and apologized to Mr. Davis. Nonetheless, his return to good graces was so swift that he might as well not have been banished at all. Apparently interfering with the party’s message of the day was a greater sin than disparaging the parents of a dead Canadian soldier.
It’s tempting to dismiss Sparrow’s latest comments as yet another illustration of how the lack of age and experience is hurting the Conservative Party, but that would be too easy. In fact, the remarks accurately reflect the deep disdain certain key members of the Harper team have for conservative policies and their desire to marginalize and even purge conservatives from positions of influence throughout the party.
It’s a game that has been played before, with disastrous consequences for both conservatism and Canada as a whole.
Political scientists tend to treat the emergence of the Reform Party in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a simple manifestation of western alienation – a populist backlash against a political system that revolved around an Ontario-Quebec axis that barely tolerated the needs and wishes of those living in other provinces and regions of the country. That’s only part of the story though. Less appreciated is the conservatism of the Reform Party and the role it played in motivating people to join and become active. This spirit was not limited to fiscal matters either. Although there was always a strong aversion to deficits among Reform Party members, there was an equally strong resentment of the government’s campaign to impose a radically liberal social agenda on an unwilling population.
The mass migration of Canadian conservatives from the federal Progressive Conservative Party to the Reform Party in those years occurred in large part because the PC leadership of the day failed to recognize the importance conservatives to their party. Even after the disasters of the 1993 and 1997 general elections, Tory leaders refused to accept the obvious and seek some sort of reconciliation with conservative voters. Their stubbornness and stridency did more than seal the fate of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada; it did serious harm to the conservative brand in Canada too.
Could history follow the same course once again? It’s not likely. There is no contemporary equivalent to the Reform Party, nor is there any serious discussion of creating one. Conservatives today are more mature and more sophisticated than they were then. They are not prepared to repeat the mistakes of the past by breaking apart the political party that was so painstakingly reassembled just a few short years ago. Be that as it may, there are cracks within the party that could develop into serious divisions if not dealt with wisely.
So far, the Conservative Party caucus has been remarkably disciplined in following the strategic and tactical decisions of the Prime Minister’s closest advisors, but this discipline should not be confused with loyalty. Many caucus members have been startled and angered, not just by the ease with which the Prime Minister has distanced the party from certain conservative practices and policies, but the ostentatious manner with which he has done so. Grassroots conservatives who supported Stephen Harper’s campaign to lead the newly unified Conservative Party and who came out in force to ward off a challenge to his leadership at the 2005 convention in Montreal are also beginning to stir.
Influential conservatives outside the party are beginning to speak out too. Commentators such as John Williamson, Gerry Nicholls, Link Byfield, David Warren and others (dare I count myself among such an illustrious and expanding group?) have been writing about the Conservative Party’s precipitous flight from conservatism with increasing vigour. Add to the list all those who aren’t in the public eye, and the number of conservative opinion-makers and activists annoyed with the Conservative Party becomes ominously large. These aren’t the usual blowhards claiming that Canada in now a homosexual country either. These are responsible and respectable professionals, dedicated to advancing the cause of conservatism in Canada – with a Harper-led Conservative Party if possible; without it if necessary.
They are, in short, exactly the kind of conservative supporters Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party need, but seem so determined to push away.
It may well be that a Conservative Party can’t get elected without the support of voters who occupy the middle of the political spectrum, but it can’t get elected without the support of conservative voters either. The unique challenge for Conservative Party strategists, therefore, is to develop and articulate a conservative vision that appeals to those middle-of-the-spectrum voters, not to invent new and innovative ways to prove that the Conservative Party isn’t very conservative after all. The former invites new supporters to enter the conservative tent; the latter risks losing as much support on the right as the party gains on the left. This is no zero-sum gain either since the party would be sacrificing, not just its base, but its soul, in pursuit of something that it can never comfortably be – a small-l liberal party. If that were a recipe for success, Conservatives would have been in power most of the 20th century in Canada instead of Liberals.
Rather than gloating over the ersatz success of the recent election campaign, delegates attending this week’s Conservative Party convention in Winnipeg should be reflecting on the future of their party and whether it has anything more to offer Canadians than the mere fact that it isn’t the Liberal Party. If it doesn’t, maybe it’s time for conservatives – including conservative caucus members – to rethink where their loyalties lie.
After all, loyalty unrequited is sycophantism, and I for one am no sycophant.
 |
