by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
February 16, 2004
In my last column, I criticized Belinda Stronach for saying that the new Conservative Party of Canada needs to become a "bigger tent". In the same issue of CFP, Justin Boudreau took exception to what I had written, saying that a big tent is necessary in order to obtain power and, as Justin put it, "all the good policy in the world won’t matter if you can’t get elected."
Needless to say, I disagree. There have been successful small "c" conservative governments that have held power without diluting their principles by moving towards the middle. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mike Harris all come to mind. The three ended their leadership because they were required by law to do so (Reagan), being forced out by their own party (Thatcher) or because they wished to step down (Harris). None of them was voted out by their respective electorates.
Ronald Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush who said, "Read my lips, no tax increases"; then increased taxes and became a one-termer. He was succeeded by Bill Clinton who ran as a "New" (more conservative) Democrat. although John Major won an election after he took over from Maggie Thatcher, he moved away from Thatcherism and lost the 1997 to Tony Blair who ran as a member of "New" (more conservative) Labour. In Ontario, Mike Harris resigned and was succeeded by Ernie "now-you-privatize-it,-now-you-don’t" Eves, who headed straight to the middle and to political oblivion.
For obvious reasons, the tent can’t be too small; but opening it up to people who believe in everything and nothing is no guarantee of electoral success. Having a clear sense of direction, even a conservative one, and the ability to do what you say will do was enough to give Ontario’s Harris back to back majorities without increasing the size of the tent. By welcoming people who believe in all kinds of things, the Conservatives will be simply going back to the pre-Reform/alliance days when the PCs were not conservative but merely another centrist party who could come into power when the Natural Governing Party fell from grace. There is nothing wrong with this, especially now when we are being governed by the most corrupt government in the country’s history. But that type of party should not pretend to be conservative. If the tent does become big, perhaps the party should go back to its more proper oxymoronic Progressive Conservative label. Or change the name completely to something like the Liberal Light Party.
There is another reason why I disagree with Justin--a party in Canada does not have to come to power in order to have its policy implemented. It’s no secret that the Liberal Party is bereft of ideas and for years they took policies from the CCF/NDP, watered them down to make them more palatable to more Canadians and brought them in as their own. Most of Canada’s major social policies; the ones we take for granted such as health care, originated with the socialists. and since the 1960s, many Western governments began amassing large deficits. No one paid any attention to these until 1992 when U.S. third party candidate, Ross Perot, discovered them. From 1992 onward, the Liberals began stealing deficit reducing and tax lowering policies from the Reform/alliance. The left wing NDP has left its mark on the Canadian landscape even though they have never held power federally. a right wing conservative party could do the same.
I agree with Justin that the Conservative Party cannot just contain social conservatives. There is room for libertarian conservatives--those that don’t particularly care whether gays can get married or not. But I disagree with Justin when he defines Red Tories as being "centrist conservatives with a slightly socially conservative agenda". For starters, he proves my point--there is no difference between centrist conservatives and centrist liberals--they both occupy the centre. and when it comes to Red Tories like Belinda, she can hardly be described as "slightly socially conservative". She didn’t simply state that she was in favour of same sex marriage--she said that it was a "human right". That puts her in with those who are attempting to expand the concept of what is a human right in order to increase the control that the government has over the lives of its citizens. What’s next? The right to a condo? The right to a minimum income? The right to live in an obesity-causing Big Mac free world?
Belinda Stronach has allowed herself to be seen at the side of Bill Clinton. She really belongs with Jack Layton.