A
afransen TO
Guest
Moderates who told pollsters they would back the new party are now waking to the reality of the right-wing agenda
LINDA MCQUAIG
Over the weekend, the new Conservative party lost its most attractive feature — the fact that it was leaderless.
In recent weeks, as the Conservative party apparently attracted the support of many Canadians keen to punish the scandal-ridden Liberals, pundits have marvelled at how well the new party has done "even without a leader or a platform."
This suggested that the lack of a leader and a platform were drawbacks, rather than, in this case, the party's hardest assets.
Since the controversial marriage of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance last fall, the merged creation — the Conservative Party of Canada — has been able to present a rudderless, baggageless image.
Before the merger, the Alliance, with its overtones of U.S. hard-right Republicanism, had provoked something akin to revulsion among voters in Ontario and Quebec.
But here was something new and unformed. Canadians could impose on this shapeless mass of putty whatever wild fantasies they had of a dream political party. It could embody the national vision of a John A. Macdonald, the fiery populism of a John Diefenbaker and the gravitas of an Abe Lincoln.
Of course the potential for national vision, fiery populism or gravitas dimmed considerably when the deadline passed and the only candidates who'd tossed their hats into the ring were ... Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach.
Still, there was an air of possibility, of fresh prospect. Perhaps out of this process would emerge a curious hybrid, a mutant strain that was somehow resistant to the more extreme right-wing ideas that seemed to afflict so many in the Alliance's huge western rump.
Certainly, the leadership race provided an entertaining sideshow that diverted attention from what the party might actually stand for.
Instead, attention focused on the glitzy, glamorous Belinda phenomenon; for the first time, a Canadian political figure made the cover of an American supermarket tabloid.
Oddly, controversy flared around Stronach's lack of political experience — even though the public would clearly be delighted to consider a political neophyte who had truly excelled in some other arena.
Oh, yes, I know Stronach ran Magna. Except that, by all accounts, she didn't really.
I don't mean to discriminate against those who inherit billion-dollar empires. But if they run for public office, surely there will be questions about their ability to relate to ordinary folk.
It might have been more impressive if Stronach had worked as a clerk in Magna's filing department, or made it in the outside world as a waitress.
With no real accomplishments, Stronach's lack of political experience — even lack of political views — became pretty much the centrepoint of her campaign.
She declined to answer whether she would have supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying she wasn't a military expert. This revealed an astonishing lack of interest in the world.
The one candidate with cabinet experience, former Ontario health minister Tony Clement, seemed to attract little public interest.
But, alas, a political party can't go on forever without a leader or an identity.
Now that Stephen Harper has been chosen, the hard part begins. All those moderate Canadians who happily told pollsters they were supporting the unformed new party are now waking to the realization that they are rallying behind a man who scorned Kyoto, wants to privatize medicare and was keen for us to fight in Iraq.
Once that sinks in, those same moderates might find themselves sniffing around Jack Layton's NDP.
I'll confess that conservatism has never been my cup of tea; I don't like its embrace of inequality. But there's a strain of conservatism (sometimes called Red Toryism) which also includes an emphasis on the common good. In a Red Tory scenario, the rich still run things and enjoy the lion's share of the spoils, but they're expected to pay attention to the well-being of the whole community — to ensure, for instance, that those beneath them in the social order get some education, medical attention and even something to eat.
This might seem like a minimum for a civilized society. But the "new" conservatism associated with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan actually rejects this focus on the common good, favouring a more survival-of-the-fittest approach.
Regrettably, this new conservatism has become the spirit of our times, inspiring the rollback of our social welfare programs by both Liberal and Conservative governments in Canada. But it has found its clearest expression here in the policies of the Canadian Alliance, Harper's old party.
It looks like the new Conservative party is poised to become the new battering ram for this pernicious ideology. Sadly, the days of the new party being nothing but an amorphous blob seem numbered.
LINDA MCQUAIG
Over the weekend, the new Conservative party lost its most attractive feature — the fact that it was leaderless.
In recent weeks, as the Conservative party apparently attracted the support of many Canadians keen to punish the scandal-ridden Liberals, pundits have marvelled at how well the new party has done "even without a leader or a platform."
This suggested that the lack of a leader and a platform were drawbacks, rather than, in this case, the party's hardest assets.
Since the controversial marriage of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance last fall, the merged creation — the Conservative Party of Canada — has been able to present a rudderless, baggageless image.
Before the merger, the Alliance, with its overtones of U.S. hard-right Republicanism, had provoked something akin to revulsion among voters in Ontario and Quebec.
But here was something new and unformed. Canadians could impose on this shapeless mass of putty whatever wild fantasies they had of a dream political party. It could embody the national vision of a John A. Macdonald, the fiery populism of a John Diefenbaker and the gravitas of an Abe Lincoln.
Of course the potential for national vision, fiery populism or gravitas dimmed considerably when the deadline passed and the only candidates who'd tossed their hats into the ring were ... Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach.
Still, there was an air of possibility, of fresh prospect. Perhaps out of this process would emerge a curious hybrid, a mutant strain that was somehow resistant to the more extreme right-wing ideas that seemed to afflict so many in the Alliance's huge western rump.
Certainly, the leadership race provided an entertaining sideshow that diverted attention from what the party might actually stand for.
Instead, attention focused on the glitzy, glamorous Belinda phenomenon; for the first time, a Canadian political figure made the cover of an American supermarket tabloid.
Oddly, controversy flared around Stronach's lack of political experience — even though the public would clearly be delighted to consider a political neophyte who had truly excelled in some other arena.
Oh, yes, I know Stronach ran Magna. Except that, by all accounts, she didn't really.
I don't mean to discriminate against those who inherit billion-dollar empires. But if they run for public office, surely there will be questions about their ability to relate to ordinary folk.
It might have been more impressive if Stronach had worked as a clerk in Magna's filing department, or made it in the outside world as a waitress.
With no real accomplishments, Stronach's lack of political experience — even lack of political views — became pretty much the centrepoint of her campaign.
She declined to answer whether she would have supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying she wasn't a military expert. This revealed an astonishing lack of interest in the world.
The one candidate with cabinet experience, former Ontario health minister Tony Clement, seemed to attract little public interest.
But, alas, a political party can't go on forever without a leader or an identity.
Now that Stephen Harper has been chosen, the hard part begins. All those moderate Canadians who happily told pollsters they were supporting the unformed new party are now waking to the realization that they are rallying behind a man who scorned Kyoto, wants to privatize medicare and was keen for us to fight in Iraq.
Once that sinks in, those same moderates might find themselves sniffing around Jack Layton's NDP.
I'll confess that conservatism has never been my cup of tea; I don't like its embrace of inequality. But there's a strain of conservatism (sometimes called Red Toryism) which also includes an emphasis on the common good. In a Red Tory scenario, the rich still run things and enjoy the lion's share of the spoils, but they're expected to pay attention to the well-being of the whole community — to ensure, for instance, that those beneath them in the social order get some education, medical attention and even something to eat.
This might seem like a minimum for a civilized society. But the "new" conservatism associated with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan actually rejects this focus on the common good, favouring a more survival-of-the-fittest approach.
Regrettably, this new conservatism has become the spirit of our times, inspiring the rollback of our social welfare programs by both Liberal and Conservative governments in Canada. But it has found its clearest expression here in the policies of the Canadian Alliance, Harper's old party.
It looks like the new Conservative party is poised to become the new battering ram for this pernicious ideology. Sadly, the days of the new party being nothing but an amorphous blob seem numbered.
oke: