The Next Chief?
The domination of the Liberal Party in the 20th century has been remarkable. It’s obviously not just a series of a flukes or the fact that John A MacDonald hung Louis Riel. Since the Great Depression, the Conservatives have had only two breaks from Liberal rule (or, as they say in Alberta, “Liberal oppression”). Well, Joe Clark had a week or two, but I think that was more because Pierre Trudeau needed a vacation and people across Canada needed comic relief.
John Diefenbaker won in 1957, and Brian Mulroney won in 1984. In both cases, they ran to the left of the Liberals or, at the very least, in the same general vicinity of them on the political spectrum. One of the main reasons Diefenbaker succeeded in ’57 was because he indirectly promised people “Liberal government, without Liberals”. He was a Red Tory, in every sense of the word. He was seen as progressive because he was the only Conservative to vote in favour of family allowances when the Liberals brought it in. Sure, he was a paranoid ditherer, but he was a left-leaning paranoid ditherer.
So why is this relevant? Two reasons. First of all, there’s this head-scratching article in the Globe and Mail (slogan: “No headline too sensationalistic!”) under the headline “Harper faces split in party”. Apparently, Harper is trying to pack their leadership convention with right wing conservatives. I’m going to assume this is sloppy journalism because Stephen Harper is a lot smarter than this. I know some people feel Harper can win with a clear, right wing platform, but I don’t buy it. That might work for Bernard Lord or Belinda Stronach, but Harper is still associated with his reform-alliance days and if he doesn’t look moderate, there’s no way Ontario (or Quebec for that matter but we’re more likely to see Liberal seats in Calgary than Tory seats in Quebec, so why even worry about it?) will ever elect him. The absolute worst thing the Conservatives could do would be to say anything about abortion at their policy convention or in their platform. I don’t care if it’s a reasonable policy against late-term abortions than 70% of Canadians would agree with if they took the time to think about it. We saw what happened last time they mentioned the a-word: “STEPHEN HARPER WILL TAKE AWAY A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! CHARTER OF RIGHTS!!!! OVER MY DEAD BODY!!! COME HELL OR HIGH WATER!!!! LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR – HARPER IS GEORGE W BUSH!!!!” That will happen again, if they so much as touch the issue.
Despite this, we saw Calgary MP Jim Prentice announce he’ll vote in favour of Same Sex Marriage. I don’t think Jim Prentice will ever amount to much politically, but keep an eye on Belinda Stronach and James Moore. If we only get 3 or 4 Tories supporting the bill, the few who do will be see by Canadians everywhere as “moderates”. You don’t think when gay marriage has been around for a decade and the fabric of society hasn’t collapsed that those who opposed it will look backwards in the eyes of the majority? Just like Dief made a name for himself supporting family allowance, Stronach and Moore will be launching future leadership campaigns of theirs when they get up to vote for equal marriage this spring. Belinda’s a tough one to predict, but I’m absolutely positive that James Moore is going to be a future Prime Minister of this country. Maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20, but it will happen.
The domination of the Liberal Party in the 20th century has been remarkable. It’s obviously not just a series of a flukes or the fact that John A MacDonald hung Louis Riel. Since the Great Depression, the Conservatives have had only two breaks from Liberal rule (or, as they say in Alberta, “Liberal oppression”). Well, Joe Clark had a week or two, but I think that was more because Pierre Trudeau needed a vacation and people across Canada needed comic relief.
John Diefenbaker won in 1957, and Brian Mulroney won in 1984. In both cases, they ran to the left of the Liberals or, at the very least, in the same general vicinity of them on the political spectrum. One of the main reasons Diefenbaker succeeded in ’57 was because he indirectly promised people “Liberal government, without Liberals”. He was a Red Tory, in every sense of the word. He was seen as progressive because he was the only Conservative to vote in favour of family allowances when the Liberals brought it in. Sure, he was a paranoid ditherer, but he was a left-leaning paranoid ditherer.
So why is this relevant? Two reasons. First of all, there’s this head-scratching article in the Globe and Mail (slogan: “No headline too sensationalistic!”) under the headline “Harper faces split in party”. Apparently, Harper is trying to pack their leadership convention with right wing conservatives. I’m going to assume this is sloppy journalism because Stephen Harper is a lot smarter than this. I know some people feel Harper can win with a clear, right wing platform, but I don’t buy it. That might work for Bernard Lord or Belinda Stronach, but Harper is still associated with his reform-alliance days and if he doesn’t look moderate, there’s no way Ontario (or Quebec for that matter but we’re more likely to see Liberal seats in Calgary than Tory seats in Quebec, so why even worry about it?) will ever elect him. The absolute worst thing the Conservatives could do would be to say anything about abortion at their policy convention or in their platform. I don’t care if it’s a reasonable policy against late-term abortions than 70% of Canadians would agree with if they took the time to think about it. We saw what happened last time they mentioned the a-word: “STEPHEN HARPER WILL TAKE AWAY A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! CHARTER OF RIGHTS!!!! OVER MY DEAD BODY!!! COME HELL OR HIGH WATER!!!! LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR – HARPER IS GEORGE W BUSH!!!!” That will happen again, if they so much as touch the issue.
Despite this, we saw Calgary MP Jim Prentice announce he’ll vote in favour of Same Sex Marriage. I don’t think Jim Prentice will ever amount to much politically, but keep an eye on Belinda Stronach and James Moore. If we only get 3 or 4 Tories supporting the bill, the few who do will be see by Canadians everywhere as “moderates”. You don’t think when gay marriage has been around for a decade and the fabric of society hasn’t collapsed that those who opposed it will look backwards in the eyes of the majority? Just like Dief made a name for himself supporting family allowance, Stronach and Moore will be launching future leadership campaigns of theirs when they get up to vote for equal marriage this spring. Belinda’s a tough one to predict, but I’m absolutely positive that James Moore is going to be a future Prime Minister of this country. Maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20, but it will happen.
posted by calgarygrit at
5:29 p.m.
9 Comments:
Is it that outrageous that Harper would attempt to pack the leadership convention with right wingers? Throughout his career he has shown a greater interest in policy than politics. He even quit the Reform party because he had no patience for Manning's consensus building. An unyielding preference for policy is what defines an ideologue and in that way, Harper more closely resembles a Republican than a moderate Canadian politician.
Some may view Harper as resolute. To me he is inflexible.
By
Psychols, at 10:49 p.m.
I for one, hope Harper DOES try to stack his convention with wingnuts... it ensures he will be farther from winning the PM's job then he was in June, because Canadians have proven they will not elect a right-wing conservative government. It also means he alienates the "progressive" wing of the party.. and we've seen some of that in the Maritimes this week, with Harper loyalists trying to stack the rules in their favour in order to get their slate f delegates elected.
On the other hand.. I have trouble believing Harper will be that dumb - he needs to maintain a facade of being moderate.. because he must know that if the Convention does get stacked... all the other parties will have to do is point at his party and then point south and say, "you want a government like them.. do you want a yes-man for Bush?" and he'd get bloodied during the election campaign.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 11:50 p.m.
Actually in the old PC party Prentice was a pretty strong leadership candidate. My choices were Brison (since joined the Liberals) and then Prentice who I found to be extremely bright and much more charismatic than I would have guessed when I met him. I would not write him off.
And say what you will about Joe Clark, but no one else ever beat Trudeau - who you guys hold in such high regard. It has to be given that he did pilot the ship for only 6 months before plowing into a iceberg though.
RT
By
Bemused, at 10:28 a.m.
paul forseth of new westminster-coquitlam is apparently voting however this constituents tell him
By
ainge lotusland, at 4:58 p.m.
Guten Tag! Dis iz Blogette's ma-tha. Eye come from Europe! Eye tell you saamme-thing! Saamme-thing you mast hear!
(peering into crystal ball)
I see da future! I see Leebaral elek-shon plaatforme! I see Steevin Harpah iz eeeville American-lovah, Steevin Harpah iz frend wif Bush! Steevin Harpah iz going to deestroye healfe care. Ooh--dis iz inn-taa-ressting, krystalle ball say healfe care all-red-y dess-troye. Very inn-ta-ressting!
Ohhhhh! Krystalle ball say Leebaral use dis plaatforme many many time. Scheisse! Krystalle ball say Leebaral vin again. Scheisse!
Auf Wiedersehn!
By
Unknown, at 11:27 p.m.
To me, he appears to be more socially conservative than either Joe Clark or Brian Mulroney. It was the move towards the social right, under Harper, that caused me to re-examine my past conservative voting pattern and vote liberal in the last election.
I do not question Harper's ethics. He appears to believe whatever he says, and say what he believes. Consequently I disagree with my fellow Liberal supporters and suggest that it is not surprising that he would support socially conservative delegates to the convention. To him, he is standing by his beliefs.
The idea that the conservatives win whenever Canadians tire of Liberal irresponsibility is, in my opinion, valid to the extent that scandal, waste and bad press results in voter reconsideration. However, the opposition (i.e. Conservatives) must also present a viable alternative that is palatable to the majority. As Calgrit suggested, Harper probably cannot win in socially liberal Canada with a socially conservative platform. He may try to hide those views in an effort to become more electable but I suspect he will not.
By
Psychols, at 2:01 a.m.
Scott, how exactly did "Harper loyalists [try] to stack the rules in their favour in order to get their slate [o]f delegates elected"?
By
The Invisible Hand, at 2:18 a.m.
As I recall, It was a story prominently played on the CBC Radio News a couple of weeks ago now.. they were interviewing some members of the Conservative Party in Moncton who called themselves old-time or "traditional" Tories.. and how they were upset at how Harper-supporting delegates were trying to dictate how delegates should be elected, what they should be talking about via issues and so forth.. it was viewed as stacking the Convention with unquestioning Harper loyalists.. the report mentioned how a lot of these Tories got up and left the meeting in protest and disgust.
not a good sign for electoral success in the Maritimes and elsewhere in Canada if the old Progressive Conservative wing / Red Tory faction of the party is being shunted out and excluded as much as possible from the Conservative convention and policy-makng.. I would have thought the lessons of the last election would have been learned by Harper that he needs that vote if he has any hope of winning an election.
If the Alliance wing of the party wants ideological purity.. they will continue to lose elections.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 2:57 p.m.
It won't truly have effect, I suppose so.
By
escorts madrid, at 3:40 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home