Advice for the New Canadian Tory Leader

The possible result

Scott Gilmore of MacLean’s has offered 10 helpful suggestions that, he maintains, would “guarantee” the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada a win.

Never take advice from an adversary. They will not vote for you anyway, and they do not have your best interests in mind.

Gilmore’s ten suggestions:

1. “Stop fetishizing rural Canada”

2. “Be Canadian.”

3. “Understand demographics”

4. “Have some shame”

5. “Respect parliament”

6. “Believe in climate change”

7. “Believe in free markets”

8. “Believe in individual liberty”

9. “Have a plan to share”

10. “Want to be prime minister”

And, unnumbered, but inserted at the end: “Ovaries.”

It should be obvious from the subheads that Gilmore is not about helping the Conservatives; these are just thinly disguised criticisms.

“Stop fetishizing rural Canada.” Eerily echoing the classic “when did you stop beating your wife?” “Fetishizing” is not a neutral term.

The Conservatives do appeal more to people outside the largest urban centres, with significant caveats: they blow out the other parties in Calgary and Edmonton, both among Canada’s largest metro areas. In Quebec, they do best in Quebec City. They often dominate the suburbs of Toronto. The current mayor of Toronto, like the last one, is a Tory. If, then, there is a rural/urban split, it may be more a Liberal than a Tory problem.

It is also hard to believe that the Conservatives do not want more votes from the cities. Are they really “fetishizing” rural voters at the expense of such an appeal? Gilmore would need to give evidence of where and how this is so.

Grant for the sake of argument that the Tories seem to pay more attention to rural concerns than either the Liberals or the NDP. If the Tories too concentrated on the cities, where would that leave the rural voters and their concerns? Is it really good for democracy if all the parties are saying the same thing and favouring and ignoring all the same groups?

“Be Canadian.” Suggestion two accuses the Conservatives of not being a national party, of caring only for the West. This is the same criticism the Tories level at the Liberals: that they are not a national party, having no representation in either Alberta or Saskatchewan. The Tories have no representation in Newfoundland or PEI; but these are smaller provinces. Regionalism is a standard and longstanding Canadian problem, affecting all parties. It would be great if one of them could unite the country. A feat last accomplished by Stephen Harper.

But the same issue arises here as with the urban/rural divide: if both the Liberals and Tories tend to favour Ontario and Quebec, and neglect the West, is that really better? And is it better to take this matter out of the hands of voters?

“Understand demographics.” This is the stock appeal to youth: “Be the party of the next generation, not just our grandparents’ generation.” It presupposes that young people are as a body further to the left than older people, and they will remain on the left as they age. Both premises are dubious. There are indications that the youngest among us are starting to buck the politically correct dogmas of their elders. Political pendulums swing, and not being sensitive to that can be a good way to march yourself right off a cliff. Ask the UK Labour Party.

There are also lots of indications that the average person moves rightward in their politics once they start a family, assume a mortgage, and get more skin in the social game.

This second factor gains more significance in a time when we are not reproducing at replacement level. And, as someone has observed, people with conservative values tend to have more children. Over time, all else being equal, the centre of political gravity is at least as likely to shift to the right.

“Have some shame”? This is a call for honesty in politics. Which is a good point for all politicians, certainly not just Tories, and increasingly important. Yet this is an argument against the rest of the points Gilmore is advancing: it is an argument against tacking and trimming one’s ideological principles for electoral gain.

It seems to me that the tendency to do so is what held Scheer back in the last election. Sincerity and consistency is what is giving Sanders his surge over Elizabeth Warren. In the current climate, with social media catching you out when you prevaricate, it is better to own your beliefs.

It would be especially effective against Justin Trudeau, who now comes across to most Canadians as deeply insincere.

“Respect parliament.” This too speaks to a real problem. The Canadian parliament has become a monkey show unbefitting a democracy. It is a national disgrace. However, it is the Liberals who created the problem, by giving Chretien as leader the power to reject candidates he did not like. This makes the party leader a dictator over their caucus. Unfortunately, the same disease has infected the Conservatives. But it is clearly not as bed; for Andrew Scheer was forced out rather easily. It is also Michael Chong, on the Conservative side, if as a private member, who has tried to rectify this imbalance.

“Believe in climate change.” Besides the appeal to dishonesty—one should not choose one’s beliefs for electoral advantage, but on the evidence—this is even bad advice in electoral terms. The Liberals, NDP, and Greens are all in on climate change, competing over who can sound most extreme. Even if a majority of Canadians support strong government measures here, that majority is therefore split three ways. The Conservatives, by holding back, are in a much stronger position if this becomes the key issue in an election.

The same problem is seen again here as in so many of Gilmore’s proposals: it would leave the three major parties—four, counting the BQ—holding the same position on an issue on which there is considerable room for disagreement, leaving Canadians disenfranchised.

Besides the anti-democratic effect, this is a formula for unrest. It was the same sense of being denied a choice, over Charlottetown and Meech Lake, that led to the rupture of the Progressive Conservatives a generation ago. It was the same sense of being denied a choice that led to Brexit. Heck, it was the same sense of being denied a choice that led to the American Revolution.

“Believe in free markets.” This is cynical, claiming that the Tories must not believe in free markets if they do not support a carbon tax. Whatever the merits of alternative proposals, a carbon tax imposed to alter the market forces is not a free market solution. The free market approach would be to leave it to consumers if they want to pay extra for “green” products. Some clearly will.

“Believe in individual liberty.” The Tories according to Gilmore care too much about “who I sleep with, what I smoke or what gender I choose.” But that is the Tory position: they do not care about such things. They do not want to raise these issues. They do not want the government involved. It is the left that has been raising these issues. It is also the left that has been aggressively infringing on individual liberty over the years on each of them: now you MUST march in pride parades, you MUST cater gay weddings, you MUST use whatever pronouns a transgender demands, you MUST NOT smoke, you MUST NOT vape, and so forth.

“Have a plan to share”: i.e., release a clear and detailed platform. I think this, at least, is good advice for Tories. Not that voters care that much about the details of a platform. But otherwise they are inevitably going to be accused of having some “hidden agenda.”

“Want to be prime minister.” In other words, abandon all Tory principles, or you will lose.

So much for Gilmore’s call for sincerity. I think he is right there, and so wrong here. People are not so easily conned as they once were.

The trick is that you have to stand up and defend your beliefs. This was Reagan’s secret, and Margaret Thatcher’s, and Bernie Sanders’, and Winston Churchill’s. That is what we have leaders for.

“Ovaries”: in a healthy, egalitarian, non-sexist society, it should be anathema to make one’s sexual organs a qualification for office. But even in practical terms, how well did it go for the Tories last time they tried that gimmick? Kim Campbell—worst defeat in Canadian history. How well did that go for the NDP? Compare how Audrey McLaughlin or Alexa MacDonaugh did electorally with Ed Broadbent, before them, or Jack Layton, after them. How well did it go when the REpublicans chose Sarah Palin as VP candidate? How well did it go for the Democrats when they chose Geraldine Ferraro? Worst presidential defeat since 1936. How well did it go when they chose Hillary Clinton as their nominee?

It is usually a gimmick, usually involving advancing some woman beyond her level of competence just because she is a woman. Voters know it is a gimmick, and tend to recoil. They are not the stupid rubes the commentariat thinks them to be.

My own advice for the next Tory Leader:

1. Speak French.

2. Lean libertarian as ground on which Tories can unite and appeal to new voters.

3. Be sincere.

4. Defend your views aggressively with the press.

5. Try a moderately disruptive tone rather than smiling conciliation. Tap the populist discontent.