Conservative Leadership--Last Minute Prediction

The Favourite.

None of the candidates is what the times call for. What we need is a Canadian Trump, which means a Ralph Klein, a Jean Chretien, or a John Crosbie, a “common man” who comes across as a blunt straight shooter. And who speaks French as well as English. I don’t see anyone like that in the current race, or even in the wider party.

It is impossible to predict what is going to happen, because the balloting system makes polling meaningless. I think MacKay, O’Toole, and Lewis all have a chance of winning.

If MacKay wins, he probably wins on the first count. As the front-runner, he probably has all his natural support already. Anyone not voting for him first likely has some specific reason not to back him.

If he falls short, Sloan’s second-place votes probably go mostly to Lewis.

If this is not enough to give Lewis a win on the second count, and it seems unlikely to be, it’s a roll of the dice who will be in third place. Whoever is will be dropped from the next count.

If MacKay is in third, I expect his votes to go mostly to O’Toole, on electability. O’Toole wins.

If Lewis is in third, I expect most of her votes to go to O’Toole, and O’Toole wins.

If O’Toole is in third, his support might split evenly between MacKay and Lewis. He is ideologically between the two, and MacKay will get some support on electability. Tossup then between MacKay and Lewis.

Based on this simple calculation, I think O’Toole has, by a slim margin, the best chance to win.

We will see—perhaps before you get to read this.

The plucky challenger.

The Kinsella Tapes

CBC has apparently gotten hold of tapes of Warren Kinsella discussing his work on a backdoor social media campaign to smear Maxime Bernier,

Aside from any moral issues, this strikes me as evidence of gross political malpractice by Scheer's team.

First question: where do you suppose the CBC got the tapes?

Almost necessarily, from someone at Kinsella's firm, hoping to discredit the Conservatives.

It is as though the Scheer team handed a loaded revolver to a known enemy, and painted a target on their t-shirt. What did they expect?

Even apart from this, it makes dubious political sense to try to character assassinate the smaller party over to their right. Granted, the PPC might cause some vote splitting. At the same time, their presence forces the debate rightward, presenting the argument for policies near Scheer's on the spectrum, and making his own look more moderate. Slandering their views as "racist" risks tarring the Conservatives as well, by association. Just in case the adversary missed with that loaded pistol, Scheer's men had a loaded shotgun ready, pointed at their foot.

After all, Bernier a couple of years ago came within a few votes of becoming the Tory leader.

It's all so dumb it almost seems easier to believe Scheer is secretly a Liberal himself.

Sticking with Scheer

Some argue he just looks too much like a chipmunk to ever be prime minister.

Everyone is now out to get Andrew Scheer. Odd, since he was the most successful of the three big party leaders in the last election. Trudeau lost votes and seats. Singh lost votes and seats. Scheer gained both.

This, however, follows old and honoured Tory tradition. Since at least the dying days of Diefenbaker, they have ever been quick to form a circular firing squad at the hint of adversity.

It did the NDP no good to dump Mulcair after one election loss. It did the Liberals no good to dump Dion after one election loss. It may as well do the Tories no good again; unless perhaps they have some clear idea that a distinctly different sort of leader and leadership is required. A Churchill, say, instead of a Chamberlain. A Trump instead of a Romney or a Jeb Bush.

But I see no trace of this in the public reasons given for Scheer to go. They seem completely wrong, and harmful as advice. Scheer was a smiling face, and certainly tried to come across as a moderate. Yet according to all the pundits, he failed to do better because of his personal social conservative views, and because he was not enough like the Liberals on fighting climate change.

According to the rolling polls, this is wrong. What hurt Scheer most was simply the public prediction that he might win a majority government. That scared many on the left into the Liberal camp as a strategic move.

As to the Conservatives’ relatively weak showing in Ontario, I hear that their “vaunted ground game” did not materialize this time. As a local deputy returning officer on the day, I found it notable that they managed no candidate’s representative at my polling station for the count.

This strongly suggests that the problem was a lack of enthusiasm. The same thing that killed Romney. It was not that the Conservative platform differed too markedly from that of the NDP or Liberals. It was that it did not differ enough, giving ideologically-driven volunteers and voters little reason to come out.

It is often said by Liberals that they lose whenever they run to the right. We saw the same for the NDP in 2015: they veered towards the centre, the Liberals swung over to their left. The Dippers dropped to third, the third-place Liberals surged improbably to power.

People in general value sincerity and principle more than any specific ideology. This is ever more so in these days of democratized information, or, to use the journalistic cliché, “social media.” Witness the witless rise below the undefended border of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez.

But even going with ideological voting, and a cynical approach based on reading the polls, it makes the best sense for Conservatives to pull right and not left on social issues and climate change. One does not need a majority of the vote to get a majority government in Canada; one needs something approaching 40%. Four parties, the Liberals, NDP, Greens, and BQ, are splitting the vote that supports unregulated abortion, carbon taxes, special rights for transsexuals, laws against “hate speech,” stiffer gun bans, and so forth. Yet polls suggest that roughly half or even more of the electorate do not hold these positions. If any of these became the decisive issue in an election, and the Tories were the only party to vote for if you were on that side, it would actually mean a crushing Tory majority.

But even leave aside all partisan considerations, and consider the health of the Canadian democracy. How good a situation is it when a large portion of the electorate, perhaps even a majority, has no vote—that is, no party to vote for that represents their views? Not great for peace, order, or good government.

That this is so commonly now the case is why we see everywhere else the rise of “populist” parties. We are overdue in Canada—held back, I suspect, because in a way we were the first out of that gate, with Preston Manning’s Reform Party. That led to an unreasonable fear of “splitting the vote on the right.” So we have lapsed right back into the untenable situation that then forced Reform to form: the way, under Mulroney, there was nothing to choose between Tories and Grits, and no one to vote for if you were not keen on Charlottetown or Meech Lake and a new, unamendable, constitution.

If there is a problem with Scheer, it is that he is not forceful enough, fiery enough, in his public persona, to make a populist case. He radiates business as usual. The problem with his view on abortion in the TVA debate was not that he was opposed to abortion, but that he tried to fudge it and be on both sides of the issue. Same with climate change.

But suppose Scheer is jettisoned, who replaces him as Tory leader? Where’s our white knight? Maxime Bernier would have been best last time; but it is too late to turn to Bernier now. He has declared the entire Tory party corrupt. Were he to run, he would automatically lose the principled image that makes him appealing.

Peter MacKay? As a so-called “Red Tory,” a classic conservative, he would if anything further reduce the distance between the Liberal and Conservative platforms, exactly the wrong move by my estimation. MacKay notoriously has no charisma. And he is a model of the unprincipled politician: he captured the PC leadership by a backroom guarantee to David Orchard that he would never unite the PCs with the Alliance. Then he immediately moved to unite the PCs with the Alliance. Political dishonesty could not get much more butt naked than that.

Jason Kenney? He’s just been elected as premier of Alberta. It is way too soon for him to make the jump; it would look too opportunistic. Doug Ford? Same problem, plus his current unpopularity in any case. Brad Wall? Has the problem of not being bilingual. Lisa Raitt? Just lost her seat.

There are certainly possible stars in the caucus and beyond. Candice Bergen; Rona Ambrose; Erin O’Toole; Pierre Poilevre. But nobody seems an obviously better option than Scheer, or suggests a strikingly different style or approach.

Bad Advice for Scheer and the Tories

The spectre of populism.

In the wake of the Canadian federal election, the general consensus among the punditry has become that Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives lost.

This is in itself debatable. By several measures, Scheer did unusually well.

Moreover, the consensus is hardening that the reason they lost was that Scheer’s “social conservatism” was not marketable in the East. The Tories, if they ever want to win again, we are warned, need to get rid of any trace or hint or vestige of distaste for abortion or for gay marriage.

And that is what it amounts to, too; because the Tories already publicly support both abortion and gay marriage.

The proof everyone turns to is apparently Scheer’s fumbling of a question about abortion in the first French language debate.

I think this advice to the Tories is exactly wrong, and demonstrably wrong, given that this is what they are already doing.

They ought to go the other way. I don’t think they can do anything on gay marriage, and I don’t think anyone cares. Other than legislation to protect the conscience rights of individuals and religious groups who dissent from the practice. But they should come out for some modest restriction on abortion.

Steve Paiken’s preferred pollster on TVO, Advanced Symbolics, using newer technology and rolling polls, was extremely accurate on the final result of the election. And their polling suggested that the reason Scheer’s vote fell near the end of the campaign was simply that the media, he, and Trudeau were all saying that the Conservatives were poised to win. That scared a bunch of NDP votes over to the Liberals.

If Scheer’s awkward answer on abortion hurt him, I suspect it hurt him because of its timidity rather than because it revealed his support of unregulated abortion was not heartfelt. Not speaking plainly about such issues promotes a sense of a Tory "hidden agenda,” and an aura of dishonesty. That is what may be killing them.

Consider this comparison: for generations, in North America, socialists have not dared call themselves socialists, considering the term electoral death. So we had the Canadian socialists declaring themselves first “the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation,” then “the New Democratic Party.” No, not socialism: a “cooperative commonwealth.” A “new democracy”…

Then, in the last election cycle, Bernie Sanders came out and ran using the term openly. And suddenly among the Democrats, and among young people, everyone seems to want to be a socialist. It is as though a dam broke. All it took was honesty, and socialism went from something bad to something good, in the eyes of that society.

I expect it would work the same way for social conservatism in Canada. Everyone is afraid of being the first, and perhaps committing some social faux pas. But it is easy for a real leader to move that “Overton window.” In Canada, I suspect there is now a huge pent-up demand for it.

According to polls, only 32% of Canadians support unrestricted abortion, the present situation. And that number is declining. Yet currently all federal parties adamantly support unrestricted abortion. Let Scheer come out for some limited restriction on it, let this become a major issue, and the Tories get 68% of the vote. More than any government in Canadian history. The other three or four parties must fight over shards of the remaining third.

By normal political calculations, this ought to be a no-brainer.

Why hasn’t Scheer done this? Why haven’t the Tories? I think the bottom line has to be class consciousness. As a publisher friend of mine warned me, against any straying from the officially endorsed positions on life, the universe, and everything, “Sure, Jordan Peterson sold a lot of books. But nobody respects him anymore.”

Nobody? That is, members of his own class, the educated and ensconsed in academics, journalism, publishing, government, law, education—and politics. Nobody else really exists, to this elite. They think only of the people they socialize with, the members of their own class, and their status within this group.

Tom and Max

So Tom Mulcair is out, and it was not close.

By conventional political calculations, this seems like a big mistake. Someone might rise to the occasion, but the NDP has nobody waiting in the wings who looks as good. Mulcair also had only one election campaign; he deserved another chance.

But I don't think the NDP is really that interested in electoral success. Given the party's history, party activists are not there for a chance at power or sinecure. It is more like a club, to which people belong for the sense of belonging. One could also say it was for the sake of their political principles, but then, flaunting those principles is a matter of signalling morality, rather than actually getting anything done. Otherwise, they would be more concerned with getting elected.

Mulcair was never really a full member of this club. He rose through the Quebec Liberal Party. He did not know these people personally. They might have felt more loyalty to a losing leader who was one of them. But if Mulcair could not deliver power, and easily, there was no further excuse for him. It did not help that he tried last election to push them to the centre, allowing them to be outflanked on the left by the Liberals. This had to alienate the majority of party activists who were there for the sake of self-identity.

In the meantime, they watched the British Labour Party veer left by electing Jeremy Corbin, while Bernie Sanders was grabbing headlines in the US. They probably felt sidelined, out of the game they came to play.

So not only are they in the mood to dump Mulcair; they are in the mood to get some of their self-esteem back by embracing the Leap Manifesto.

I guess this also means they endorse assisted suicide, at least by example?

The next leader, whoever it is, will probably lead them back into distant third-party status. But this is where they feel most at home.

Turning now to the Conservative race: pundits generally seem to be consigning Maxime Bernier to also-ran status. I think this is wrong. I think he has the best shot of all the likely candidates.

First, to hold on to its bona fides as a national party, the party should not select someone else from Alberta. Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, and Preston Manning, in effect their last three leaders, were all from Wild Rose Country. That is a serious handicap for otherwise popular figures like Jason Kenney. Brad Wall, from neighbouring Saskatchewan, is not that much better off on this score.

Second, it looks as though Bernier will be the only Quebec candidate. He will surely be the most prominent. Quebec is a huge block of delegates, the second-biggest, and, unsurprisingly given the language differences, they tend to back a native son. Doing well in Quebec in the next election also matters to a lot of party functionaries elsewhere, who are in the business of trying to win political office. Many of them will support someone they feel could go toe to toe with Trudeau in a French-language debate.

Third, in early polling, the most popular candidates for the post are Red Tories, from the old PCs: Peter McKay, Tony Clement, Kevin O'Leary. Most party activists are probably Blue Tories. Maxime Bernier, a libertarian, has a good chance of becoming their standard bearer, and they might quickly rally to his side if it looks otherwise like a win by Peter McKay. In the meantime, the Red Tory vote may be split among several prominent candidates.

Then again, I cold be wrong. I never would have predicted Donald Trump.

The Case for Canadian Conservatism

The turnout in the last Canadian election was the lowest ever, under 60%.

I did not bother to vote myself—although I could have, by absentee ballot. Who cares? It seems to matter so little who wins, in Canada—the policies are the same regardless.

This suggests that Stephen Harper's main strategy, as leader of the Conservatives, is wrong.

Harper, following conventional Canadian wisdom, has been tacking to the centre, serene in the knowledge that there is nobody to his right to split the small-c conservative vote.

Mistake. As Karl Rove showed in George Bush's two election victories, and John McCain demonstrated by losing this year, when turnout is a major factor, covering the centre ground is not the best strategy. Often, the better idea is to fire up your own base. If you can get your supporters more motivated to come to the polls that the other side, you win.

This, surely, would have been the case this election year. With such low turnout, and Stephane Dion failing to light fires among his Liberal colleagues, had Harper been significantly better at inspiring small-c conservatives, he probably could have snagged his majority.

It is conventional wisdom that Canada is not a conservative country, that it is instinctively centre-left. If so, by being clear and conservative, Harper might have inspired two liberal voters to come out and vote against him for every one conservative he drew to the polls. But is that really true?

The West, we know, is perfectly amenable to “conservative” doctrines; Reform showed that, even if Diefenbaker didn't. But Ontario, supposedly the Liberal heartland, can also respond to a clear, consistent conservative message. Mike Harris proved that. Ernie Eves and John Tory, trying triangulation instead, have in fact done less well. This is “Tory Blue” Ontario we're talking about: home of the thirty-year provincial Conservative hegemony, not so long ago.

The Maritimes may have become addicted to Liberal equalization payments; but they are at heart deeply socially conservative. They are Canada's “Bible belt.” They ought to be reliably conservative in just the same way as the US South. Like the Atlantic provinces, the South bought the dole for a while, under the New Deal. But they have grown out of it. So could Halifax and St. John's.

This leaves Quebec. In Quebec, in recent history, ideology simply has not mattered—it has been overshadowed by the question of sovereignty. But, once a tipping point is reached, the Conservatives can represent that option just as well as the Liberals. The relative success of the ADQ in the last provincial election suggests there is some real appetite for a straight conservative option. On a full-blooded conservative platform, ADQ took 31% of the vote. Last federal election, in Quebec, the CPC took 21.7%. They are running well behind the conservative ideology per se.

Who does that leave? Nunavut?

All that is required, I suspect, is a leader who is a leader: who does not follow the present opinion polls, but seeks to change them. That's what Margaret Thatcher did, in Britain, that's what Churchill did, and that's what Ronald Reagan did in the US. That's what Mike Harris and Ralph Klein did in Ontario and Alberta. A similar leader really could do the same in Canada as a whole.