|
Evidently,
the Canadian chatterati's main objection to the new Conservative
Party of Canada is that it is likely to actually be conservative,
or at least somewhat more conservative than the erstwhile
Progressive Conservative Party was. The question is begged;
what ideological stance would these nattering nabobs prescribe
for the CPC? The probable answer in most cases would be
something like "fiscally conservative" (but
"compassionate") and "socially progressive"
(ie: liberal).
The
trouble is, we already have a party like that in Canada,
namely the Liberal party -- especially in its newly-minted
Martinite iteration. "Progressive Conservative"
was always an awkward oxymoron -- a self-contained contradiction
in terms. Philosophically, you can be one or the other,
but not both.
It
is of course possible to be fiscally responsible -- in
favor of balanced budgets, low taxes, free enterprise,
and keeping social program spending within the bounds
of affordability --while being pragmatic or liberal on
social issues, but that pretty much describes what it
is to be a Martin neo-liberal.
It
also explains why John Charest was so effortlessly able
to morph from being a federal Progressive Conservative
leader to Quebec Liberal leader, and more recently, how
Kings Hants MP Scott Brison could, in the course of a
single week, go from being a putative contender in the
coming race for the Conservative Party leadership, a to
a front bench member of the Liberal Party and Parliamentary
Secretary to the new Liberal Prime minister. Kind of boggles
the mind when you cast it in those terms, doesn't it?
The
fact is that both men were able to "rat," as
Winston Churchill described it when he did likewise himself,
without suffering any ideological dark nights of the soul.
They were liberals along, as are all "Red Tories,"
It also explains why Joe Clark, John Herron, Flora MacDonald,
et al. have bailed from the CPC. They're small-l liberals
too, although perhaps too invested in PC baggage to become
big-L Liberals.
I
for one welcome having more ideological clarity in Canadian
political life. The Conservative Party will coalesce at
a point further to the right on the spectrum than the
old PC Party occupied, while Jack Layton has been taking
the NDP further to the left, leaving the muddled middle
to the Liberals. If we lived in a rational universe, we
would be seeing right-leaning Liberals switching to the
CPC, centrist NDPers crossing to the Liberals, and liberal
leftists passing them in a reciprocal migration to the
NDP, leaving the fiscally right-tilting Martin regime.
Of course, politics is anything but rational, but I do
believe we will see such a realignment gradually occur,
although it won't happen overnight.
Boilerplate
conventional wisdom holds that the only way to get elected
to government in Canada is to crowd the ideological middle
-- the Liberal Party's home turf. There is more than little
empirical substance to that argument, but if that's to
be the case, what is the point? Do we really need three
crypto-liberal parties? Why not just throw in the towel
and declare a Liberal one-party state, dispensing with
the noisome tedium of party politics entirely? Just elect
your favorite Liberal representative every four years.
Subordinating
principle in a quest for power is hardly a commendable
agenda. It would be foolish to argue that liberal secular
humanism is not the dominant ideology in Canada nowadays,
but that's due in large extent to less than assiduous
advocacy of alternate positions. The best a "Progressive"
Conservative Party could hope for is short terms in government
when, once in a blue moon, the electorate gets fed up
with Liberal arrogance.
I'm
sick and tired of conservatives apologizing for being
conservative, and my fondest, (although not terribly optimistic)
hope for the CPC is that it will proudly articulate advocate
real conservative ideas without any foot-shuffling and
fudging. And that includes conservative social ideas.
Actually, especially conservative social ideas, since
little separates Conservatives from Martin Liberals on
the economic front.
If
electoral franchise is to be meaningful, it ought to stand
for more than Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee. It is said that
in democracies, the people get the government they deserve.
If Canadians decide to continue collecting Liberals ad
infinitum, well, that's its own punishment. The principled
role for the Conservative Party (and the NDP) is to provide
real alternatives and fight the good fight, letting the
chips and ballots fall where they may.
|
