Playing the Indian Card

Tuesday, June 07, 2022

The Conservative Groundswell

 




The Pierre Poilievre campaign claims they have signed up over 300,000 new members to the Conservative Party through their website. The Patrick Brown campaign claims 150,000 more. The Poilievre figure alone more than doubles the number of members of the Conservative Party--without yet taking into account those signed up by the other campaigns, or who signed up directly, as I did, at the CPC website to participate in their leadership race.

Something important is happening in Canadian politics.

Rather than being impressed or acknowledging the historic nature of this groundswell, a panel of politicos hosted by the CBC warned that Pierre Poilievre was "playing with fire,” appealing to people who would not go along with a move to the centre for the next federal election.

Assuming Poilievre had to move to the centre for the general election.

No concern that it was dishonest to run on one platform for the leadership, and switch up for the general election. No concern that this large number of committed people supporting Poilievre deserved to be represented. The general public was, to these politicians, cattle, to be deceived and controlled. And this was spoken openly, and not hidden.

To be fair, you might argue that they are only being realistic; that to get the most votes, you need to straddle the ideological middle. However, this assumption, although it seems logical, is not borne out by the facts. Mike Harris in Ontario, Rob Ford in Toronto, Ralph Klein in Alberta, Francois Legault in Quebec, all proved highly successful in elections while maintaining a hard right position, at least rhetorically. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Harper, Donald Trump all were successful with a hard right stance. Erin O’Toole, Mitt Romney, John McCain all fell short lunging for the centre. 

It is a losing proposition for an opposition party to try to take the centre ground. What is considered the centre ground is largely defined by the party in power. If the electorate likes their policies, they are going to stick with the government. If they do not like their policies, they are still not going to see any reason to vote in a new party that promises the same policies

This is equally true for the left or the right. In the recent Ontario election, the Liberals and NDP agreed with the ruling Tories on everything. Result: win for the Tories. In 2015, Tom Mulcair’s NDP made a lunge for power by moving to the centre. Result: win for the Liberals, who ran uncharacteristically further to the left.

I assume political operatives know their business. They realize then that the idea that the Tories must move to the centre is electoral bunk. Rather, they are demanding it as an obligation to fellow members of the ruling class that everyone take the approved stand on all the issues, and not allow the common hoi polloi a say.

This is what “the centre” really means. It really means “the party line.” Only in such a situation can at leasthalf the electorate be declared “far right,” and "populism" be called "far right." That necessarily implies that “the centre” is actually well to the left on the spectrum of actual popular opinion.


No comments: