If for any reason you cannot find the paperback version of Playing the Indian Card at your favourite bookstore or online retailer, please ask them to carry it. Protest and picket the store entrance if necessary.
It looks as though Conservative leader Erin O’Toole is on his way out. No sure thing—only one third of the caucus voted to force a review. But he seems unlikely to survive such a lack of confidence even if he nominally wins a vote.
I feel relieved. Many objections might be raised to his leadership; his absence from the current Ottawa convoy protest makes him look irrelevant. But in my own mind, to be honest, there is just one. He ran for the leadership as a “True Blue” Tory, then pivoted. Not that I am any “True Blue” Tory. I am not a member of the party, and my own choice for the Tory leadership at that time would have been Jean Charest. But such blatant dishonesty in a politician should not be accepted. It showed contempt.
Pundits suggest the Conservatives are shooting themselves in the left foot: they must not cave to their right wing, as they appear to be doing now, or they are unelectable. There are just not enough conservative-minded voters in Canada.
I disagree. I used to think in those terms. I learned otherwise. I thought the Conservatives were waiving their chance of winning, in favour of rebuilding for the long term, by choosing Stephen Harper, a known hard-right ideologue, as leader. I thought the Republicans were losing their chance by choosing Ronald Reagan in 1980. Margaret Thatcher was also a hard-rightist; she did pretty well at the polls in the end.
The idea of catering to the polls is exactly wrong. So long as conservatives do this, they will always lose, because the media are against them, and the media have the dominant influence on the polls.
The only way the Conservatives can ever win is by choosing a leader who will lead: who will try to change the polls. Who will not accept the framing done by the media, but try to change the framing. Trump is a model: they can only win with someone able to appeal directly to the people. Whoever they choose, anyone who fits that profile, will automatically be condemned by the media as “extremist” and “populist.” Even a moderate like Trump.
They might as well go for Pierre Poilievre. Could make for an exciting next few years.
Conservative senator Denise Batters called this week for a review of Erin O’Toole’s leadership. Within a few days, Erin O’Toole had ejected her from the Conservative caucus.
This shows how dysfunctional the Canadian system has become. MPs and party members are supposed to choose their leader; the leader is not supposed to choose the MPs and party members. This is an innovation introduced, I believe, by Jean Chretien, based on the right of the leader to sign or refuse to sign the papers for parliamentary candidates to legally stand for office, and it makes Canada almost an elected dictatorship. It ensures that there is no serious discussion of issues in parliament.
We saw similar dictatorial conduct when Justin Trudeau rid himself of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
The latest poll shows the Canadian Conservatives increasing their lead. At the same time, the People’s Party of Canada is getting more attention, with the anti-Trudeau protests, and some polls show its support growing.
This violates conventional wisdom. The fear on the right has long been that splitting the conservative vote gives the government to the Liberals forever. The Reform Party in the 1990s and 2000s split the vote with the Progressive Conservatives. While they did, the Liberals looked invulnerable. The Wildrose Party in Alberta split the vote and allowed the NDP into power.
I think this conventional wisdom may be wrong.
The vote on the left has been split for generations, since the 1930s, currently between the Liberals and the NDP; yet the Liberals win power more often than not.
I think it matters HOW the vote is split.
The NDP actually helps the Liberals, by pulling the public debate to the left. Canadians, always wanting harmony and compromise, accordingly vote Liberal as the safe and centre, to keep the Dippers happy. For the same reason, that they always want compromise, they are eternally suspicious of the Conservatives. Aside from offending the NDPers, the Tories probably, unlike the middle-hugging Liberals, harbour some radical members with radical ideas—the frightening “hidden agenda.”
Why did the Reform Party not do the same on the left? Because the Reform Party was not ideological. The Reform Party/Alliance was not a ginger group pulling the conversation further right. It was more an expression of Western alienation. Preston Manning insisted the party was neither left not right; it was competing for the centre, nationally under the name “Alliance.” So it lacked the intent or ability to move the needle to the right. Instead, it simply split the conservative vote.
The Wildrose Party in Alberta was also not really ideologically distinct from the PCs. Rather, it existed as a right-wing alternative for those who thought the PCs were too long in power and had become arrogant and unresponsive, but could not imagine voting left-wing to oppose them. Wildrose existed to “send them a message.” It was competing for the same ideological constituency.
The PPC is more like an NDP of the right. Its platform is distinct from that of the Conservatives, and its appeal is national. Rather than splitting the vote, its existence may tend to legitimize the Conservatives in the eyes of the majority who want government from the middle: it will soak up the ideologues, making the Conservatives look less scary. At the same time, it shows that a significant body of people are upset with the current situation. The mushy middle will want to assuage their concerns. Moving the entire discourse in a conservative direction.
Look at it this way: O’Toole, Bernier; good cop, bad cop.
I find Erin O’Toole’s speech to the Conservative Party policy convention underwhelming.
He begins by saying we cannot count on scandals alone bringing down the Trudeau government. Then he lists Trudeau’s scandals, and points out how they make it urgent that the Trudeau government be defeated.
It is necessary, he says, to do more: for the Conservative party to be “bold” enough to “change,” so that it appeals to more Canadians. It needs “new arguments.”
Translation: he plans to run on the same platform as the Liberals, and count on the scandals to bring them down.
Even though he knows this is a failed strategy. It did not work for Scheer, and he has no better idea.
His argument against Jagmeet Singh and Yves-Francois Blanchet is simply that they cannot bring the Liberals down. No hint of a disagreement on policy. Indeed, he made a point of endorsing, speaking only in French, Quebec nationalism and Bill 101. And of seeking union support.
He did outline, in vague terms, a platform: “Canada’s Recovery Plan.” A Conservative government would create more jobs. A Conservative government would toughen anti-corruption laws. A Conservative government would boost funding for mental health. A Conservative government would build domestic capacity to produce vaccines and PPE. A Conservative government would bring the budget back into balance over the next decade.
It is the same platform as the Liberals; there is nothing there the Liberals, in government, would not do.
What government does not promise to create more jobs? What government does not intend to?
What opposition party in Canada has ever not promised to toughen anti-corruption laws? Mulroney did to defeat Turner. Chretien did to defeat Mulroney. Harper did to defeat Martin. Trudeau did to defeat Harper. It’s boilerplate.
Funding for health care? For a suicide hot line? The Liberals are at least as happy as the Conservatives to shovel more taxpayer money into mental health care. It is a payout to their natural constituency, the professions. There is precious little empirical evidence that mental health care as we know it actually helps anybody but the mental health care professionals. And their big idea is a suicide hot line? Where in Canada is there not already a suicide hot line? And what of mixed messages—a suicide hot line at the same time that we have government-assisted suicide? Sure sounds like cynical window-dressing—or an admission that we have no idea what we are doing.
Building domestic capacity for vaccines? What government around the world is not already doing this? The Liberals have already announced their plans, and funding.
Balancing the budget? Again, what government anywhere does not promise this? The Liberals have. Perhaps they have not promised a ten-year time line; but that hardly sounds ambitious.
There is no hint of ideology or ideological consistency here. More government money for this and that, while promising to spend less government money.
So the only pitch for voting Conservative is either greater Conservative competence or Liberal scandals.
O’Toole is making the traditional calculation among political professionals: that the way to power is to seek votes from the centre. It sometimes works; it worked for Tony Blair, or Bill Clinton. Ominously enough, both leading parties on the left. But I think the strategy is overleveraged. And does not work nearly so well for the right. It did not work for McCain, or Romney, or Joe Clark.
To begin with, the average voter is not motivated primarily by the issues. Professional politicians are, so they misread the public here. Issues change during the course of a government, most politicians are just reading the polls, and they do not keep their promises. The way most people vote, and the way they should, is by judging character. Who do they trust? Who seems capable of leading in a crisis? Who seems to care?
Abandoning principles is not a good character reference. Blowing with the wind is not a sign of leadership. A relentless smile may or may not convince anyone you’re a nice guy.
Second, if the Tories run on the same platform as the Liberals, they are running largely on a claim of greater competence. But an objective observer would expect more competence from the Liberal benches: this is their traditional strength. Because they are the “natural governing party,” they are the side most likely to draw smart young up-and-comers or people successful outside politics. The CVs of Conservative leaders are generally thinner than those of Liberal leaders. Compare Scheer, Clark, or Day to Pearson, Ignatieff, or Martin. Advantage Liberals.
Third, if the Tories run on the same platform as the Liberals, they are running largely on a claim of being more honest than the Liberals. But on what grounds can they make that claim, if they are abandoning their own principles in hopes of power? Instead, they will be suspected of some “hidden agenda.”
Fourth, the apparent centre is not the real centre. It is an artifact of the media, which controls the discourse, and of the positions raised by the various political parties. The Greens and the NDP pull the discourse in Canada to the left; and the media class is leftist. For a party of the right in Canada, this means an appeal to the centre is conceding every argument to the left right out of the gate, without resistance.
Fifth, if the Tories run on the same platform as the Liberals, conservatives are left with little reason to vote, and less reason to volunteer. It therefore does not follow that an appeal to the centre will bring in more votes than one with an ideological core. The 2015 election illustrated this: Mulcair, sensing a chance at victory, pulled the NDP to the centre. Trudeau, in third place, pulled left. Guess who won?
It is an old saw in the Liberal Party that they lose any time they “run to the right of the Tories.” Which is really to say, if the Conservatives seem to have the ideas; when the Liberal leader runs as a competent manager, without an ideological message: Diefenbaker beat St. Laurent as a firebrand, Mulroney beat Turner when Turner’s platform was little more than “invest in infrastructure,” Harper beat Martin when Martin seemed to have no coherent platform but good management: “Mr. Dithers.”
Sixth, people want leadership. A government that just follows the polls, as most governments do, is useless. Donald Trump did well by speaking his mind; as, in their day, did Reagan, Thatcher, Ralph Klein, Rob Ford.
This is the way conservatives win. O’Toole has no idea and no ideas. The hope for conservatives is Bernier and the PPC.
Only a day after Erin O’Toole won it, the Liberals and the media have sprung a snare for him that may well destroy his leadership of the Canadian Conservative Party.
They are demanding he throw one of his competitors in that race, Derek Sloan, out of caucus.
We will see, from how he handles this, whether O’Toole is a leader. The demand is outrageous on its face. His only good options are “no” or “hell no.” But either will take some spine.
The media and the Liberals want Sloan out primarily because, during his campaign, he put out a video saying Trudeau was botching his handling of the coronavirus, and asking whether Canada’s Chief Medical Officer, Theresa Tam, was working for Canada or for China.
This is declared “racist,” because Tam was born in Hong Kong. The charge is obviously absurd: had you not known Tam was born in Hong Kong, would you learn it from Sloan’s video? His argument is substantive. If you object to it, you need to object to the points he makes. He is accusing her of toeing the line from the WHO, and the WHO of being in China’s pocket. Another Canadian doctor, Bruce Aylward, a WHO official, has also been accused of this. Nobody has declared that racist; Aylward is not ethnically Chinese.
It is racist to exempt Tam from such criticism on the basis of her place of origin or skin colour. This is what Sloan’s critics, and O’Toole’s, are demanding. They are the racists, and O’Toole ought to call them out.
Had Sloan raised the issue of her place of origin, that too would have been legitimate. It ought not to be assumed that an immigrant has divided loyalty, but it is fair to suspect it. I know several fellow Canadians who have taken American citizenship. They reliably tell me and other Canadians that their true allegiance has not changed, they did so only for practical reasons.
It is discriminatory and absurd to suppose that Chinese-Canadians are peculiarly immune to such considerations. Indeed, I know Chinese-Canadians personally who are not.
If O’Toole attempts to remove Sloan from caucus for raising legitimate concerns and saying things that are objectively true, it will have dire consequences for Canadian liberties and Canadian democracy. It will also be a dire strategic error: pay that first bribe, and the Danes know where to come for more. You are not going to win anyone over.
To win the leadership, O’Toole made a direct appeal to social conservatives, promising them a place in his party. Their support—the support of Sloan’s voters—went to him on the final ballot as a result. He owes them. If he now turns on them, it will be a historic double-cross rivalling Peter MacKay’s cynical betrayal of David Orchard’s followers. Some people, like me, will never forget or forgive something like that.
Sloan also won 15% of the vote on the first ballot. A rookie MP, his personal following probably added nothing to that. Moreover, he was splitting the social conservative vote with another candidate, Leslyn Lewis. If O’Toole turns on Sloan, he alienates a large portion of his own party. So much for party unity.
And the social conservatives have an alternative. If O’Toole or the PCs push Sloan out of caucus, why wouldn’t he declare himself a member of Maxime Bernier’s PPC? Suddenly they have a voice in parliament, and Bernier has a high-profile Ontario lieutenant.
O’Tooke should respond to the attacks with “The Conservative Party, unlike the Liberals, is the party of free and open discussion. The leader does not even have the power to eject a member from caucus. We welcome a diversity of views. We are diverse as Canada is diverse. We are a home to all Canadians, and we listen to all. If you are in favour of honest discussion, you will find a home here too.”
Erin O’Toole is the new leader of the Canadian Conservative Party.
Not a stunningly good choice; but then, neither was Stephen Harper in his day. I think O’Toole was the best choice in the available field. The larger issue is that the contest looked rigged from the beginning to be a coronation for Peter MacKay. Other prominent candidates backed off from a run, as if either bribed or threatened. It looked as though O’Toole was allowed to run only for the semblance of a race; a mid-tier candidate, not thought to be a serious challenger, just plausible enough. Like the Washington Generals. So it looks like a deserved kick back against the party corruption to have given him the win. And against the contest’s organizers, and against the other candidates who backed out of the race.
O’Toole was the grassroots’ way to resist the party elite.
And even if he was not top-tier, O’Toole was a better pick than MacKay; and a better pick than the other two, inexperienced candidates. MacKay has no principles; he won the old PC leadership by cutting a backroom deal, then double-crossing his benefactor within two months. He also seemed to knife Andrew Scheer in the back; somebody showed up at a Scheer event during the last election campaign with a MacKay sign. That did not feel like a voice from the crowd; MacKay had been out of politics for a while, and nobody was hankering for him to come back. It looked like a paid political stunt. And an act of disloyalty during a campaign.
After the election, MacKay sank Scheer in a press interview by saying he had “failed to score on an open net” and that his views on gay marriage and abortion “hung around his neck like a stinking albatross.” Those images are too vivid not to have been carefully scripted; and not by MacKay himself, who does not have any way with words. It looked like calculated political assassination. And not over any disagreement on policy; it looked like pure personal ambition.
Such behavior, and such politicians, ought not to be rewarded with office.
Had MacKay won, party unity would also have been hard to achieve. Scheer loyalists would have reason to hate him; and so would social conservatives, whose views he had described as “stinking.” The entire right wing of the party might rightly be alienated, as he ran as an unabashed “Red Tory.” Quebec would have been disaffected, given his lack of interest in learning French.
I can at least imagine O’Toole as prime minister; I could never imagine Scheer in the role. And the thought of MacKay in the office was disturbing. O’Toole at least has the mein of a fighter, and a military background that suits that persona. If he’s no Trump, perhaps he’s not a low card either.
I watched the Canadian Conservative leadership debate in English last evening. It was quite dull. My impression was of people mouthing platitudes while trying to sound passionate about them. I found myself missing the cool of Stephen Harper, or Pierre Trudeau.
The one rather memorable moment was Lisa Raitt openly criticizing one of the candidates. As moderator, she came across as a Karen. Oozing assumed privilege. Pity; I used to like Lisa Raitt.
I feel nobody won. Presumably, that favours MacKay as frontrunner: nothing was shaken up.
On the other hand, I see an inherent vulnerability for MacKay. It is a common one for clear frontrunners: they tend to get the bulk of their support on the first ballot. If you like MacKay, you are probably already with him.
So if he does not win on the first ballot, he gets caught by someone back in the pack. That happened to Bernier last time. It happens a lot.
This is magnified this time because MacKay is on the leftward extreme of the candidates. His closest competitor, O’Toole, is to his right, yet to the left of the other two candidates. That means O’Toole can expect to get the support of their voters once they drop out.
Nor is there scope for any backroom deals and throwing of support at the last minute, given the preferential ballot system being used this time. Ideological affinities will matter more.
And O’Toole seems a credible enough candidate to, with the other two in the race, keep him from a first-ballot victory. Lewis seems to be making some waves too.
Who do I want to win?
I rule out MacKay from the starter pistol. He won the PC leadership years ago by cutting a deal with David Orchard, which he violated as soon as he became leader. I am glad he broke that deal; I was horrified when he made it. But it reveals him to be utterly without principle. I would not want to see him in any position of leadership.
I also resist MacKay and Lewis because they have not earned their places here. MacKay stands on his father’s shoulders. We have too much of that in our politics. And there can be little doubt that Lewis, a failed one-time candidate for Parliament, would not be on the stage were she not black and a woman.
Lewis is getting a lot of interest, and I have heard commentators praising her performance at the debate. I think that is the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Her head was down a lot to check her notes. Asked how she would expand the party’s appeal among minorities and millennials, she gave the usual bland nostrums about reaching out. This does not fit with her rightward program or the implied hope that, as a black immigrant herself, she would have special insight. She needed, I feel, a better answer. Sloan, more interestingly, cited some specific issues: drug addiction, homelessness.
That brings the choice down to Sloan and O’Toole. Of the two, O’Toole obviously has the stronger resume. More important than that, his French is better. I do not think a national party can afford a leader who cannot speak both official languages.
So O’Toole seems to me the best choice.
I have heard the criticism that O’Toole is opportunist, running further to the right than he did in the last leadership contest. I find it credible, however, that his personal opinions have genuinely shifted to the right since then. A lot of people’s have. I noted one consistency: he spoke in favour, in the debate, of closer ties with the CANZUK nations. This was a keynote of his last campaign.
I also think he shone in his apparent command of the new Canada-US-Mexico trade deal. He seemed able to correct MacKay on an important part of it. Impressive, since MacKay has served as Foreign Affairs Minister.
I now feel that O’Toole is the Conservatives’ best choice.
Posts
