Why Bernier Lost

 

Maxime Bernier did surprisingly poorly in the recent byelection in Portage-Lisgar. I, for one, thought he had a good issue with abortion. He should, in theory, have been able to shear off much of the Conservative base in a strongly conservative riding. But he actually did less well than the relatively anonymous PPC candidate who ran last time.

On reflection, I think this Illustrates that the real issue in the minds of voters is not this or that current controversy, but the question of sincerity. It may have been too apparent to the voters that Bernier’s new opposition to abortion was a political ploy, not an expression of his convictions. He had previously supported abortion. He was obviously running in Portage-Lisgar out of opportunism, not some love of the neighbourhood. And it must be said, in general, Bernier does not radiate sincerity. He does not come across as dishonest, but as unspontaneous.

Poilievre, by contrast, generally sounds like he believes what he says. This distinguishes him from his predecessors, O’Toole and Scheer. O’Toole was obviously dishonest. His positions were obviously chosen for political effect, not out of any conviction, betraying those who supported him as a “True Blue Tory.” And Scheer gave the same impression by colluding in the backrooms with the milk lobby to take down Bernier, and by trying to fudge his position on abortion when challenged.

This explains why Poilievre is not threatened on the right by Bernier the way O’Toole was, yet is also doing better on the left than O’Toole or Scheer, despite their attempts to pander in that direction. Because the people who will vote against Trudeau want, above all, sincerity, not this or that political promise.

In the US, this was Trump’s strength. He is not particularly right-wing, but the right wing would die for him. People love him because he seems to say just what he thinks. 

RFK Jr. has the same aura about him.

Some people, it is still and always true, prefer being lied to. They are terrified by anyone who seems to speak truth. This is the cause of Trump Derangement Syndrome. These people will want a Biden, because he is predictable and capable of lying soothingly with a straight face. These people will like Trudeau because, with his dramatic training, he will smile and speak of “sunny ways” and make anything sound superficially plausible.

Which group is larger? The good people who want truth, or the bad people who want the comforting lies? The last US election suggests it is about 50/50. I suspect it is 1/3 for either side, and 1/3 in the middle trying to avoid taking a stand.

Bernier Raises the Scarlet Letter A

 

He said it.

Maxime Bernier has firmly grasped the third rail of Canadian politics, and is running in Portage-Lisgar on the issue of abortion.

This was predictable fallout from the US Supreme Court voiding Roe v. Wade. In fact, I predicted it. Canada always looks south. If the US is debating abortion, Canada has to.

It is also a shrewd move, and puts the Conservatives in a difficult spot. Bernier is proposing a very moderate restriction, one that has public support. It will be hard for the Conservatives to oppose it without losing a possibly significant portion of their base. 

On the other hand, the Liberals have already signalled their desire to run on the issue of abortion instead of corruption, loss of freedom, or the economy. If they give any hint of supporting Bernier’s position, the Tories play into their hands.

Polls suggest the majority of Canadians favour such a restriction on abortion as Bernier proposes. So why is this a winning issue for the left, and a losing one for the right? 

The calculation is that, while most people favour restrictions, they do not feel that strongly about it. The issue is unlikely to determine their vote. On the other hand, those who want abortion, although a minority, make this their most important issue--due to a guilty conscience. So, on balance, it is a lose-lose for the right.

Except for Bernier. He has nothing to lose, sitting at 3-4 percent nationally in the polls, and everything to gain.

One can sympathize with Pierre Poilievre, now caught between a rock and a hard place. If I were he, I would say nothing unless challenged. But he will be challenged. Challenged, I would respond that the Conservative Party and a Conservative government would not introduce any bill restricting abortion. 

But would Conservatives be allowed to support a private members’ bill?

Then he should answer yes. Conservative MPs should have the right to vote with their conscience on any private members’ bills. Now let’s talk about more urgent issues.

This will lose Poilievre some support among the pro-abortion crowd.

But it is also a test of his honour and his leadership. Is he just another political hack, or does he have principles?