Brownout

 

I have to admit to a sense of satisfaction about Patrick Brown being tossed out of the CPC leadership race by the party. It feels as though justice has been served.

There is a danger of the leadership race being manipulated by the party brass; this seems to have happened in the last race, which selected Erin O’Toole. On the other hand, candidates cannot be allowed to flout the rules, either; as seemed to happen when Patrick Brown won the Ontario leadership, or when Mulroney beat Clark for the federal job. And in Brown’s campaign, something smelled wrong. Why and how would a mere small-city mayor get so many new party members signed up, when his platform was indistinguishable from that of a much higher-profile candidate, Jean Charest? Not to mention Brown’s prior history of political jiggery-pokery. 

It feels like a much cleaner Conservative party with Brown out of the running.

Charest can hope to get the lion’s share of Brown’s support, if we count only votes that were not bought. This will allow him to mount a stronger challenge on the first ballot. But he was always likely to be a Brown voter’s second choice, and get those votes on a later ballot; or vice versa, had Brown outpolled him on the first. And the bought or fraudulent votes from the Brown campaign will probably just evaporate; improving Poilievre’s chances. If he does not take it on the first ballot, Baber’s and Lewis’s voters are likely to have him listed as a later choice. All Charest can still hope for is some of Aitcheson’s supporters. And there is no way Charest is going to lead on the first ballot.

Barring some upset, that looks like a wrap for Pierre P.

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.

Patrick Brown Runs for Ontario PC Leader

Kelly McParland is criticising Patrick Brown in the National Post for entering the current Ontario PC leadership race. McParland is arguing that Brown is wrecking the party.

I utterly disagree. I think Brown both has every right to run, and has made the choice that is most honourable and best for the party in doing so.

Really, at bottom, isn’t McParland’s argument against democracy? Shouldn’t matters be decided, when possible, by open popular vote, and not in backrooms?

As McParland agrees, Brown was railroaded. He seems to have been unjustly accused. Yes, in the circumstances, the party was right to dump him: time before the next election was short, and they could not know whether this might only be the first of more accusations.

Now it seems that will not be the case, and re-evaluation seems proper.

McParland says, “politics is unfair, and Brown knew politics was unfair when he decided to become a politician. So he needs to accept and submit to that unfairness now.” This is a fundamental philosophical error: mistaking an “is” for an “ought.” We might as well argue that, since there will always be murders, there ought to be no penalty for murder. Brown, like anyone, has a moral right to defend himself against injustice, and, in doing so, he is defending everyone else against such injustice at the same time.

But is he, in doing so, wrecking the party?

Given these circumstances, the worst thing Brown could have done was to stay out of the leadership race. A lot of people then would suppose that any new Tory leader was not legitimate, because Brown was dumped unjustly. It looked, many said, like an “inside job,” a coup. For what sinister invisible powers was one really voting for, then, if one voted Tory?

By running, Brown prevents this impression from taking firm hold. If he wins, he wins. If he loses, as seems far more likely, the new leader won the leadership fair and square. The party members could have stuck with Brown, and they chose otherwise. He is legitimately no longer the leader. On that basis, the party can come back together. Ghosts exorcised.

I think Brown owed it to the party to run. This clears the air. I find it sinister that anyone would think otherwise

.

Brown Down

So Patrick Brown has resigned.

There is something very wrong here. Only two women have come forward, anonymously, with accusations. No corroborating evidence. On that basis, just about anyone could take just about anyone else out of public life. Or rather, realistically, in the present climate, anyone can take out any man in public life. It is hard to believe no rival party could dig up even two partisans prepared to anonymously lie about their opponent. When such lies never have negative consequences for the accuser.

Perhaps, of course, there is more we have not heard. There is one reason to believe this is not just a political hit job: if it were, it would have been better for the Liberals or NDP to pull it just before the election, as was done to Roy Moore, instead of now, with four months still to go.

But even if the accusations were true, at least from what I have so far seen, Brown does not seem to have been guilty of anything more than misjudgment or social awkwardness. During a drunken party ten years ago, he had a young volunteer down on a bed and was kissing her. But, according to her, he stopped once she made it clear this was not consensual, and never tried anything like it again. Another girl says he asked her for oral sex. She said no. He drove her home. In both cases, he and they were single; no adultery involved. And yes, all were of age.

And there is worse: The Globe and Mail is actually raking Brown over the coals for denying the allegations. How dare he? Of course, all accusations must be true, so long as they are by women against men, and that man is not named Clinton. Global News has called his resignation, which came within hours of the allegations, “tardy.”

It seems we are now into full mass hysteria. Witches are suddenly everywhere. If they deny they are witches, that is proof positive. It only shows how far the rot has gone. In fact, all men are witches.

Perhaps some good will come of this. For one thing, it is so far over the top that it may cause some folks to sober up. For another, I must confess, my first reaction to hearing that Brown had stepped down as Ontario PC leader was a heartfelt prayer of thanks. He had been acting dictatorially in the nominations process, and had abandoned the traditional Tory policies in order to offer about the same platform as the Liberals. It looked like a cynical move: those to the right had nowhere else to go, and he might more easily pick up votes in the centre.

That may be clever politics, but it speaks of someone without principles. It is never a good idea to elect someone without principles to high office.

Now perhaps the party will offer up a better candidate, with time enough to go before the election.

I suspect that is part of why Brown was out so fast. He ran and won as an outsider. He had not made many friends within the party with his strong-arm tactics. He had no ideological base. So he had little personal or ideological support once it looked in the party's interest to dump him. As surely it was. Better to dump him now than risk this controversy getting worse, with less time to find a new leader.