Pulling the Foot Out

 

Pierre Poilievre has made a serious mistake, in condemning Christine Anderson. He now risks losing enough voters to Maxime Bernier to take away his chance of beating Trudeau. Even if this does not happen, we know from past experience that moving to the middle does not get you any more votes. It gives people no reason to vote for you. Ask Erin O’Toole. Ask Andrew Scheer. Ask Tom Mulcair. Ask Mitt Romney. Ask John McCain. It is a losing strategy.

What Poilievre should have said is something like this:

“Christine Anderson is a democratically elected representative of the German people. Not to entertain and to respect her shows contempt for the German people, our good friends and allies. It does not mean we agree with all her views. Cooperating with those with whom we sometimes disagree, on matters of agreement, is the lifeblood of democracy. It is the lifeblood of civil society. Much of the ill-will and suffering in Canada today is caused by a Prime Minister who refuses to even speak with those with whom he disagrees, who simply calls them names and slanders them, as ‘racists or ‘misogynists’ or ‘antisemites’ and the like. 

This man who danced around in blackface with his tongue out and a banana stuffed down his trousers.

We Conservatives do not want that kind of Canada, nor that kind of world. We respect people, the people of Germany and the people of Canada, and we welcome those who come here from abroad.”

Poilievre has now stupidly missed his chance. I guess he thought he could duck the issue by having the statement sent out by someone in his office, and just to one reporter, Brian Lilley. Lamely playing right into Trudeau’s accusation that the Conservatives hide their true feelings behind claims they “just didn’t know.” That backfired, because everyone noticed it anyway, it painted Trudeau in the right and the Tories in the wrong, and it made him look like a coward.

Now that he has not immediately dissociated himself from it, he will not be able to convince anyone he is sincere in doing so, that it was some advisor going rogue. He will just look more cowardly, less principled, and callous as well. He will also be throwing Brian Lilley under the bus. He cannot afford to alienate the few members of the media not already trying to destroy him. He will not look like a leader.

I suspect his failure to either acknowledge the statement by his operative, or dissociate himself from it, reflects indecision. He and his office do not know what to do. Yet this too now makes him look weak and cowardly. He cannot stay silent now, and he cannot dissociate himself from the controversy. He put his foot in it.

He has t take full responsibility, and apologize. People will respect him the more for it. It worked for JFK after the Bay of Pigs. It is something I firmly believe as a teacher: if you do not know the answer, you immediately own up to it. If you gave the students the wrong information, you immediately own up to it. Indeed, if you are a good human being, and you realize you have done something wrong, you immediately own up to it. That is what real leadership looks like.

He should issue something like the following statement:

"I regret deeply my lack of respect last week, expressed through a member of my office, but with my knowledge and consent, for Christine Anderson, a duly elected fellow parliamentarian and representative of our friends, the German people. I cannot endorse all her views. That is not the point. We are all individuals, and have the inalienable right to our views, and to express them freely. We do not have to always agree with each other to support and love one another, to work together to build a better Canada and a better world—a lesson I wish our present Prime Minister would learn. I must humbly remember it too. I apologize to Ms. Anderson, a fellow democrat and believer in human freedom, and to the German people, for my lapse in judgement. And I pledge to try to do better."

If Poilievre is a good man, and a leader, he will say something like this.

But I don’t expect him to.

Poilievre Takes the Canadian Conservative Leadership

 

The good news continues to build. Pierre Poilievre has won the Tory leadership with over 68% of the vote.

The talking heads on CBC of course insist that he cannot win an election. He has to “pivot to the centre,” and his positions have been too radical to do that.

But if he is going to pivot to the centre, what was the point in dropping Erin O’Toole? What was the point of electing O’Toole instead of McKay? What is the point of voting Conservative instead of Liberal? What is the point of even voting? Do we all just leave it to the entrenched elite and the deep state to carry on as they have always carried on, without any awkward disruptions? The particular politicians in power just put a smiley face on the same policies, deluding the people into thinking they have made a choice and have a say.

Pivoting to the centre is not just immoral. It is bad electoral advice for the right or those out of power. The need is to make your point. The need is to lead.

Poilievre seems to be a great communicator. That is the essence of all great leaders. That is the essence of Zelenskyy in the Ukraine today. That was the essence of Winston Churchill. That was the essence of Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher. That is the essence of Donald Trump. Trump did not win by moving to the centre; he moved the centre to him. He reoriented the public agenda. If you cannot inspire, you cannot lead.

And another secret: you cannot be a great communicator if you have nothing to say. A great communicator must always have a message that sounds startling, new, radical. This was the tragedy of Boris Johnson. With magnificent pipes, after Brexit, he had no message.

Poilievre is a great speaker. He is great, like Thatcher and Reagan, perhaps better, at explaining economic concepts in clear terms. In his speech last night, there was the great illustration of ten loaves of bread, and ten dollars in the economy. Make that twenty dollars, and there are still only ten loaves of bread.

Yes, those he opposes say he sounds harsh. That’s how you always sound if you are winning the argument. To those who are losing, you are always going to seem worse than Hitler. As Harry Truman had it, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and to them it sounds like hell.”

Poilievre is also great at social media, like Trump, so that he can bypass the media gatekeepers. The lack of this talent has hindered Maxime Bernier.

It turns out his wife is also photogenic and great at giving a speech, at least based on her performance last night.

During CBC’s coverage, Chantal Hebert noted that Poilievre is more comfortable in French than any Conservative or PC leader since the later incarnation of Joe Clark. In the leadership vote, he carried every Quebec riding but six, running against a prominent native son. His wife is also fluent in French.

He necessarily has a united and energized party behind him. Nobody’s going to soon start an internal insurrection against someone who commands 68% of the party membership; it would be political suicide. And any party opposition to him is not united: 17% for Aitchison and Charest, on his left, and 14% for Lewis and Baber on his right. Either side would rather see Poilievre than the other.

I rather hope Trudeau is arrogant enough to call a snap election this fall or spring. This would follow the old Stephen Harper playbook of defining an opponent and taking him out before the public got to know him. So he and the Liberal operatives might think this clever.

I think it would be a grave misjudgment of the moment. The Conservatives are all fired up, and it feels like a movement—Poilievremania.

A Sinking Ship

 

Garner

One more sign that the Patrick Brown campaign is in trouble: Maclean’s magazine reports that Michelle Rempel Garner is considering running for the provincial Conservative leadership. Having supported Brown, and given his unprecedentedly sharp attacks on Poilievre, I suspect she realizes she has no future now in the federal party. Whether or not she runs provincially, she says she is no longer actively supporting any leadership campaign. This leaves Brown with the support of only one sitting MP. 

Meantime, the Poilievre campaign is accusing Brown’s campaign of buying votes, and calls for an investigation. I don't know whether they have a smoking gun, but I bet they’re right. Brown has a shady reputation, and I doubt there has been any groundswell of popular support for him, a relatively obscure candidate. More likely there has been some deal-making with ethnic voting blocs.

Charest Lights Himself on Fire, Hoping to Bring Down the Conservative Party with Him?

 

After this interview, it is clear that if Jean Charest wins the Tory leadership, the party will split. He is actually falsely accusing Pierre Poilievre, Candice Bergan, and Andrew Scheer of breaking the law. They and their supporters could hardly stay in the same party with him.

What is he thinking? Is he only in the race as an agent provocateur or Fifth Column?

Lewis Is In

 

Leslyn Lewis has entered the Conservative leadership race. I did not think she would, since she is fishing in the same pond as Pierre Poilievre, and he has a much better shot than she. But she adorns the race. She ran a strong third last time, coming from nowhere. Obviously an impressive campaigner.

Jean Charest is expected to declare tomorrow, and he is also an extremely impressive candidate. You could hardly get more highly qualified: former party leader, former cabinet minister, former deputy prime minister, former long-term premier of Quebec, fluently bilingual.

For the sake of a good race, I would also love to see Michael Chen come in.

Erin O'Toole as Seen from a Semi's Rear View Mirror

 

Pierre Poilievre

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.

The Canadian Dictatorship

 

Senator Batters

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.

We must end this power.

O'Toole Swings for the Bleachers, and Hits a Pop Fly

 

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. 

A Blood Libel and a Public Lynching

 

The freshly-minted leader of the Canadian Conservative Party, Erin O’Toole, is suddenly in serious trouble. People are calling for his resignation. Unfortunately, he came dangerously close to semi-publicly telling the truth about Indian residential schools.

Of course, once found out, he quickly walked it back and denied everything. But in such cases, repentance is not enough. There can be no forgiveness or reconciliation. Ever. 

The now-exposed racist actually said that the schools were intended to educate the Indians.

Imagine that—schools intended to educate. Who could have imagined such a lie?

No, in Canada, on pain of losing your job or even imprisonment, one must believe an elaborate conspiracy theory: that the Indian schools were actually always and solely, if secretly, intended for genocide—the term used repeatedly and insistently by one panelist in reaction to O’Toole’s blasphemy.

An odd sort of genocide, of course, considering that there are far more Indians in Canada now than there have ever been. They are the fastest-growing segment of the Canadian population.

And the founding document O’Toole was referring to, written by Egerton Ryerson, explicitly states that the students in the proposed residential schools were to be taught reading, arithmetic, geometry, history, chemistry, writing, drawing, music, bookkeeping, religion, and morals. That does sound rather like an education.

The “genocide” is supposedly “cultural genocide.” Nobody dies in this sort of genocide; a seeming contradiction in terms. That is, the schools were supposedly an effort to destroy Indian culture. To support this claim, the old quote was wheeled out by a panelist, that they were intended by “some politician” to “kill the Indian in the man.” 

No Canadian politician ever said anything close to this. It is a misquotation instead of US General Richard Henry Pratt, the founder of Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania. What he actually said was “kill the Indian; save the man.” And in the speech where he said this, he pointed out that residential schools would not do this.

If the intent were ever to destroy Indian culture, fairly obviously, it would not have been the Indian bands themselves who demanded and partly funded them. The obvious way to do that, as Pratt pointed out, would not have been to set up separate schools for Indians; it would have been to integrate the Indians and have them attend the public schools. Rather, the residential schools were an attempt to retain a distinct Indian culture. It was taken for granted from the start that, having graduated, the students would remain on the reserves and live apart. That may have been a mistake; but it was the opposite to the common claim.

Modern radical leftists may be upset that the schools taught religion and morals. They may assert that this at least was an attempt to subvert Indian culture. Apparently they think Indian culture had no morals, and morals are a bad thing. This is both depraved and historically ignorant. Ryerson, in the founding document, specified that pupils attend the church of their own denomination, not that of the official denomination of each residential school. He could take it for granted, rightly, that Indians were Christian. Indeed, when the British took possession of Canada after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, their first act in order to ensure peace with the Indians was to formally guarantee them the right to keep their Catholic priests. The first Protestant church in Ontario, in turn, was probably that built in Brantford by Mohawks emigrating from New York State. Without benefit, at the time, of clergy.

The current delusional attitude towards our history is profoundly prejudicial to Indians, and, at the same time, an extreme example of hate speech against Canadians of European extraction.

And the CBC, taxpayer-funded to provide information and sustain public discourse, is instead openly censoring and suppressing public discourse.

An Early and Tentative Endorsement

Rumour is that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are planning a big spending Throne Speech when Parliament comes back from prorogation.

This makes sense. The BQ has said they will vote no confidence. The Conservatives can be expected to as a matter of course. Promising lots of new spending on some of the NDP’s priorities is the obvious way to make it hard for the socialist party to vote against them. The NDP are reputedly strapped for funds in any case, and probably would not want an election.

But there are also rumours that the Liberals actually want to go to the people. Promises of big spending can also be to get votes. If they aren’t voted out, they retain the right to call an election unilaterally—on the premise that such an ambitious new programme needs a mandate.

Why would they want an election now, in the midst of the WE scandal?

Perhaps because worse is to come, and they know it. Perhaps also because, as things stand, it looks as though the US will soon have a COVID vaccine, and the UK will soon have a vaccine, and China, and Russia, and Canada will not. I don’t know the details, but it looks to me as though the government was counting on a co-production with China, and China double-crossed them and is keeping it all for themselves. Now they’ve missed the boat on reserving other most promising vaccines, and there will be hell to pay.

If they can get in a quick election call by the end of September, they might make it to the ballot box before the debacle becomes obvious. Bad as their prospects might look now, they might soon look worse.

If all this is right, it seems urgent to back Erin O’Toole. Wexit and the PPC may have more attractive platforms for many, but the priority this time around may be to prevent the promised spending spree. And, indeed, prevent a spiral into open conflict like we are seeing in the US. It might be the moment for a moderate figure like O’Toole.

O'Toole's First Test

Derek Sloan

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. 

See it for yourself:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=250111502808327

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.”

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.

Poilievre and the Bottom Drop Out

Something has to be going on behind the scenes in the Tory leadership race.

It was not so surprising that Jean Charest took a pass, after earlier reports from Tom Mulcair that he was definitely in. But then Rona Ambrose dropped out right after him. Weird; Charest dropping out gave her a clearer field. And now Pierre Poilievre—who had already put together a powerful campaign team, and booked the hall for his kickoff in just a day or two. Obviously a sudden change of heart. Yet he must have seen his own chances boosted in turn by the other two not running.

These were, other than Peter MacKay, the three candidates with the best chance of winning the leadership.

Are they really all dropping out to hand it to MacKay?

That does not seem right. Politicians crave power.

MacKay has obvious vulnerabilities. His French is weak; Quebec and Ontario consider this critical. That’s most of the country. He is from the Red Tory wing, the smaller wing of the party ideologically. The party split in the past over that distinction. He is not from Western Canada, where most Tories live and where separatist sentiments are growing. These are natural bases from which to mount a challenge. His own regional base, in Atlantic Canada, is relatively small.

One would expect other politicians to see a strong opportunity here, as the standard-bearer of Quebec, of the West, of the libertarian wing, of the social conservative wing. Yet the big guns are not interested.

At the same time, the Tory leadership at this moment should look highly desirable: there is every chance of winning the next election against a weak and wounded incumbent.

So some vital piece of information has to be missing. Something that Poilievre, and Ambrose, and perhaps Charest, know, that we do not know.

Another surprising and unexplained thing happened just before all this: the sudden resignation of Stephen Harper from the party fund. Harper made a sudden move; and then all these other sudden moves in his wake. Perhaps that is out clue.

The obvious reason why Harper resigned was in order to become involved in the leadership contest. He could not do that from his official post. Rumours were that this was to block Charest. But it seems uncharacteristic of such a cool, self-controlled man as Harper if this was personal.

More probably the problem was not with Charest specifically, but with what he seemed to represent: a reverse takeover of the party by its old Progressive Conservative wing. But on these grounds, Peter MacKay should look about as concerning. He too, like Charest, is a former PC leader.

So why then wouldn’t Harper throw his support behind Ambrose or Poilievre, either of whom look like they have a good shot at defeating MacKay? And why, if such support was pledged, would they immediately drop out of the race?

Because, perhaps, none of these are adequate alternatives.

As a practical matter, all these candidates have their flaws. While Poilievre is more likely to appeal, say, to the right wing of the party, that just gets us back, it seems, to where we were with Scheer.

So Harper, and now Ambrose and Poilievre, are perhaps holding off for another anticipated candidate, someone of greater stature, someone better positioned to unite the party and win the next election.

Who might that be?

Only one name comes to mind.

Stephen Harper.

Don't hold me to it--but it looks like the simplest explanation.

Charest Out

I’m disappointed that Jean Charest is not going to run for the Conservative leadership.

On the other hand, I can understand why he decided to stay out. There was obviously fierce opposition to his bid. So, even if he did take the post, he would have to deal with a disunited party.

All the Way with Jean Charest?

The new frontrunner.

Peter MacKay has, as expected, entered the Conservative leadership race. He becomes the front runner. 

I am not keen on Peter MacKay.

He won the Progressive Conservative leadership years ago by cutting a secret backroom deal with David Orchard. The deal was, in large part, that he would not, under any circumstances, allow the PCs to merge with the Canadian Alliance.

This was in May, 2003. In October, 2003, MacKay merged the party with the Canadian Alliance.

It was a historic display of lack of principle.

Why would we want such a man as prime minister?

To be clear, I was delighted at the party merger. The real problem was the original pact with Orchard, which sold out the party and the conservative movement for personal ambition. But this was then compounded by the breach of trust.

MacKay is all about MacKay.

One pressing issue in the current leadership race is that the new leader must be ready to hit the ground running, to assume the prime ministership at any moment. This is a minority government situation. There will be little time to find their feet, little time to introduce themselves to the public.

This looks like a MacKay strength, because of his long resume; but his conduct as PC leader suggests otherwise. He won a leadership, and within a year surrendered it. It looks as though he really had no idea or plan for what to do with it.

It looks as though he is not temperamentally a leader.

Also in the race, so far, are Pierre Poilievre and Erin O’Toole.

Poilievre looks great in parliament; he is fluently bilingual, and has Western roots. Yet I fear he is handicapped by this vital consideration, that the new leader be ready to assume command. Poilievre’s talent is in opposition. One remembers John Diefenbaker: the segue into government is not an easy one, it is in many ways an opposite role, and Dief turned out not to have the personality for it.

Poilievre would have made better sense last time, when the task appeared to be to rally forces for a long haul in opposition.

He might be great, but it’s a bit of a shot in the twilight.

I like O’Toole. However, he too is not ready for this. He only came third last time, in a weaker field. His government experience is as Minister of Veterans Affairs, not a major portfolio. He has no natural regional power base—coming up through the military means he is not really from anywhere.

Jean Charest has not announced, but rumours are swirling around him.

I like Jean Charest. He has at least as impressive a resume as MacKay; and it includes actual governing experience, as Quebec premier.

Yet there seems to be a lot of resistance to him within the party. I think there is a special resentment, in the West, towards there being so many national leaders from Quebec. They feel, by comparison, excluded.

One can sympathize, but in pragmatic terms, Quebec is important; it has a lot of seats. The Tories already have the West secured; Atlantic Canada is not seat-rich; and Ontario too likes leaders from Quebec, while Quebec is not impressed by leaders from Ontario.

Somebody has crafted a pre-emptive assault by pointing out that Charest has been advising Huawei. This supposedly makes him a Manchurian candidate. Kind of like Trump with Russia.

I’m not impressed by this claim either. My greatest criticism of the current, Trudeau, government, is that it has been trying to hector other countries on how they should conduct their business. Given Canada’s lack of either financial or military might, this does no good for anyone, and only harm to Canadians. I’d rather stick to trying to be friends to everyone, and being fair to everyone. And doing business with everyone.

Stephen Harper, rumours say, also strongly resists Charest’s bid. He has just resigned from the Conservative National Fund, reputedly so he is free to work against Charest.

I think this is a matter of protecting his legacy; if Charest wins, it will no longer be Stephen Harper’s party. It will be the old Progressive Conservatives again.

I too would prefer it to remain in Harper’s mold. And, frankly, I am probably not going to vote Conservative next time, with Charest or any of the others here as leader. But this is also an indication of how competent a leader Charest is. MacKay too comes from the old PC, yet Harper does not so fear him.

At this point, I think the CPC would do best to choose Charest.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Politics

And if you don't like this face, I have another one...

It is alarming how everyone in the media is going after Andrew Scheer for being Catholic. This injection of religious prejudice is something Canada has not seen before—at least until they went after Stockwell Day. And for good reason. In a nation nominally divided about 50/50 Protestant/Catholic, it is profoundly dangerous to civil peace.

The Canadian balancing act.

Not to mention being discriminatory. JJ McCullough makes a good point: imagine the blowback if the media similarly went after Singh for his Sikh beliefs. Indeed, if Scheer were Muslim, this line of criticism would violate the notorious M-103, prohibiting “Islamophobia.”

It also seems to me that this attack encapsulates, quite probably intentionally, terrible practical advice to the Tory party. There is a substantial part of the public who agree with Scheer and the Catholic Church on these issues, roughly 50%, quite aside from the 50% who are nominally Catholic, and may be poked awake to that allegiance. And they are being represented by no other party. A fifty percent vote in Canada guarantees a perpetual majority. The last thing the left should want is for the Conservatives to run on being conservative.

Unfortunately, we cannot count on either the Canadian Conservatives or Andrew Scheer showing either courage or common sense on this matter. Class allegiances seem to trump either self- or public interests.

Scheer was recently asked, not for the first time, “Do you believe that being gay is a sin?”

And he answered:

“We made it very clear during the election, in the last few months and years, that our party is inclusive. We believe in equality of the rights of all Canadians. My personal opinion is that I respect the rights of every single Canadian. And my personal commitment is to stand up — that is my personal opinion — my personal commitment to Canadians is to always fight for the rights of all Canadians, including LGBTQ Canadians.”

The correct answer, for a faithful Catholic, would be a simple “no.”

It is hard to believe Scheer does not know this. 

No, the Catholic Church does not believe, and has never believed, that being attracted to the same sex, “being gay,” is a sin. Homosexual ACTS are sins; the distinction is fundamental.

Nor does believing that homosexual acts are sins mean that, in the words of a recent Global story, “you believe that a significant number of your fellow citizens — even some whom are legislators — are morally deficient, defective.”

This is a gross misunderstanding not only of Catholicism, but of morality itself. Homosexual acts are sinful; so are fornication, masturbation, or using most forms of birth control. So is gossiping, or swearing, or getting drunk. And so on. All of which puts the average person with homosexual inclinations pretty much in the same boat as the average person generally. Nothing very special here about being gay. We all have temptations to sin. The greatest sin, to Catholicism, would be asserting that one is without sin.

It is worth noting that prominent homosexuals have historically most often found the Catholic Church their spiritual home: Andy Warhol, Oscar Wilde, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tennessee Williams, Evelyn Waugh.

Equally obviously, believing that homosexual acts are sinful does not require making them crimes. Nobody is calling for laws against masturbation, or gossip. Crime and sin are very different issues, and this is obvious as can be from the Biblical outset: Jesus was crucified by the state as a criminal. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, unto God what is God’s.”

All of this is no doubt too complicated to go into in a scrum outside a committee room; but why could Scheer not have simply and accurately answered “no”?

The real problem with Scheer is not his beliefs, but that he cannot be honest and straightforward. Even when it is to his benefit. He gives the constant impression of having a hidden agenda; because he has a hidden agenda. In his own mind, he is in the business of conning the people. That is what is hurting him.

We see something similar emerging in the US Democratic primaries. It took far longer than I thought it would, but Elizabeth Warren seems now to be slipping, and Bernie Sanders gaining, on this issue. Asked about her health care plans requiring higher taxes, Warren keeps giving evasive answers. Sanders responds, “of course they will. Nothing is free. But …”

This is the secret of Sanders’ remarkable impact last cycle, and also of Trump’s success. They don’t show contempt for the public. They don’t try to con. “I’m a socialist.” "What's bad about being friends with Russia?"

This is something of which Scheer seems incapable. And he is of course not alone; most of the politicos and the political commentators think along the same lines. They are uniformly urging him and the Conservatives to either change principles or lie more strenuously. Seeing Biden’s prospects fade further south, Michael Bloomberg is putting himself forward. The idea is that, as a “moderate,” he would have the best chance against Trump. 

I suspect that calculation is no longer going to work. If people do not remember what you used to say, they can now look it up. Flips are flops. Principles matter.

Not at all incidentally, this is largely the same problem causing such turbulence for Pope Francis. He always prevaricates, no doubt thinking this is the smart thing to do to keep everyone happy. Instead, this is leading to growing rifts within the Church.

Compare the Catechism of the Catholic Church, produced by popes JPII and Benedict. We can go to it and see exactly what the teaching of the church is on homosexuality. Without it, how would we have countered the false charge that Catholics think being gay is a sin?

Ambiguity on principle is a principal tool of the Devil. It is why John the Baptist came, “to make the ways straight for the Lord.”

St. John the Baptist