By Arthur Weinreb
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Writing in Canada Free Press last week, former National Citizens Coalition vice president Gerry Nicholls wrote about the election gag law and Stephen Harper. In his column, Nicholls wrote that when Harper was president of the NCC, he vigorously opposed the Liberal government's attempt to curtain free expression by fighting the gag law. Nicholls then went on to criticize Stephen Harper for not only failing to repeal the election gag law since becoming prime minister but of further restricting free expression by limiting the amount of money that individuals can contribute to a candidate or a political party. Nicholls states that the reason for these financial restrictions are the same as those that the Liberals gave for the gag laws and quotes the Conservatives as saying that their purpose is to "eliminate once and for all the influence of rich, wealthy individuals from the political process".
Within hours of this column being posted, a letter to the editor came in. The letter writer listed all the good things that Harper and the Tories have done since coming to power in early 2006 and chastised Nicholls for criticizing Harper on the grounds that Harper is better than the alternative; Stphane Dion and a return of the Liberals.
Those of us who are conservative and have written critical pieces about the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader not being conservative enough have seen these types of letters before. They always come in when one of us accuses the Conservatives of abandoning conservative principles and drifting into the political area occupied by the Liberals in an attempt to broaden their appeal.
As I have written in the past, the cause of conservatism in Canada was damaged by the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. Had to two parties remained separate, the PCs would have ultimately come back after Joe Clark's departure to provide a credible alternative to a country deeply disenchanted with the Liberals. And the Canadian Alliance would have remained as a sort of NDP of the left. Most of the vast social programs that define Canada as a country originated not with the Liberals that were in power for most of the last century but with the CCF/NDP. Had the two right of centre parties remained separate, Stephen Harper or whoever the leader of the Canadian Alliance would have been might have written Paul Martin's budget instead of Jack Layton. But all that as they say, is history.
It is ironic that many conservatives who are of a view that the Conservatives should not be criticized because they are better than the Liberals are the same people who criticize the CBC, the Toronto Star and other media outlets as having a left wing and Liberal Party bias. It's wrong for that media (especially the taxpayer funded CBC) to simply act as a mouthpiece for the Liberals. And it is equally wrong for conservative writers and media, such as they are in Canada, to act as cheerleaders for Stephen Harper and his party no matter how far to the left they drift.
What seems to be lost in all of this is that when conservative leaders act like conservatives and follow their principles, they do quite well. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mike Harris are all examples of conservatives who won multiple elections while holding true to their conservative principles. Although Mike Harris didn't have to deal with many of the social issues that the federal government does, it should not be lost on anyone that he won two majority governments while espousing conservatism in a province that is hardly overflowing with rednecks. A classic example of Mike Harris' Ontario could be seen by comments that were often made by CUPE Ontario head Syd Ryan. During the Harris years, Ryan was constantly moaning about what the evil Harris was doing to "the poor working people; the poor working people", ie unionized workers. The reality was that although these workers did work, they were very well paid for what they did and were sick and tired of paying high taxes to governments that had the philosophy of "if it moves, tax it; if it refuses to move, subsidize it". Mike Harris could never have obtained one, let alone two majority governments without the support of many of Ryan's "poor working people".
Too many conservatives seem to settle for a CINO (conservative in name only) party rather than truly work to have a party and a government that espouses true conservative principles; one whose attitudes on gag laws and financing laws is based upon principle and not on which way the wind is blowing or whether they are in opposition or in government.
If the Conservatives insist on becoming a Liberal-light party, perhaps we should just bring the Liberals back to power. If Canadians want a left of centre government we should at least be entitled to the real thing.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement