[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

don't underestimate the power of populism in Canada, and don't overestimate the intelligence of the Canadian voter.

[crazy canuck]

The Conservatives are deluding themselves if they think the general electorate isnt paying attention to some of the leadership candidates saying they have things in common with Trump.

James Moore issued a warning to the candidates, about that, without phrasing it that way.  I wonder if it'll be enough to make some people reconsider their choice.  The way it's going right now, with an O'Leary - Bernier tandem as 1st and 2nd, we'll be stuck with Justin boy for a while.  At least, with Chrétien he was old enough that you knew he would retire eventually.  Now, with a PM younger than me, prospects aren't good

You have summarized my concern well.   To put it kindly the Conservatives have short memories and they have forgotten what it is like to have a Liberal party without any serious opposition.  To put it less kindly, too many within the party are so ideologically driven that they don't care.

don't underestimate the power of populism in Canada, and don't overestimate the intelligence of the Canadian voter.

I don't underestimate it.  I stomp on it whenever I can.  Hence my response to BB.  As for how the general electorate will vote - the one good thing to come out of the Trump presidency is that it has shown the world how that option turns out.

[Barrister]

I get it CC.

You want the Conservative Party to be an option to "keep the Liberals honest", but you actually don't believe in any particular conservative principles or values.  I've known this about you (and Malthus) for years and years.

[HVC]

In the last few decades conservative values seem to have boiled down to gays and minorietes are bad and the rights to abortion demolished. I voted for Harper when he was the best alternative but as he started to drift more to this ideal I couldn't in good conscious continue.

Fiscal conservativism is good, but social conservativism blights it, and seems to be winning.

[PRC]

Seems like an appropro article.

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/confessions-of-a-self-loathing-tory/amp/

Confessions of a self-loathing Tory

Scott Gilmore: I hate my party. It's time to build a new one that genuinely believes in liberty, equality and facts over ideology.

Mar 29, 2017 Scott Gilmore

This happens regularly: I pick up my phone and hear "Mr. Gilmore, thank you for your previous donations to the Conservative Party of Canada..." Before they can continue, I respond: "You picked the wrong day for this" and hang up. Because, inevitably, I will have just watched Brad Trost deny climate change, or heard Maxime Bernier's plan to send troops to the border, or read anything that plopped out of the mouth of Kevin O'Leary.

The Conservative leadership race has been hard to watch, unless you support the Liberals or any other political party in Canada —in which case it's been a laugh a minute. But for people like me, I am left wondering how I ended up in a party seemingly dominated by xenophobic, economically illiterate, populist buffoons.

After the improbable drubbing the Conservatives received at the hands of Trudeau, I had hoped the party would pull itself together. Understandably, voters ran from Harper's vision of a Canada with more jails, fewer refugees and less pot. This country has become far more cosmopolitan, multicultural, tolerant and socially liberal than it was a generation ago. And these social and demographic shifts can't be undone.

Which is why I had expected the Conservatives would recognize they needed to catch up with the rest of us. But if the bulk of its leadership candidates reflect the future of the party, Trudeau will be in power until the NDP finally gets its act together (i.e. forever).

The problem is that two different ideologies have been shoehorned into the husk of the Conservative Party of Canada. The old Reform/Progressive Conservative definitions are not entirely accurate— but roughly speaking one group is socially conservative and economically populist, and the other is focused on individual liberty and free markets. If we have learned anything useful from this leadership race it is that these two conservative philosophies cannot be reconciled.

While the majority of naturally conservative voters welcome refugees, believe in climate change, and don't care if the neighbour smokes weed, the majority of leadership candidates are actively opposed to all those things. And because this latter group dominates the CPC, and has for some time, we ended up here. The Liberals are sitting safely in power, espousing whatever patchwork ideology works best for them this year, while most Conservative leaders inexplicably race each other to the right, abandoning the center entirely. This leaves voters like me cringing as they are forced to make the ridiculous choice between Trudeau or Trost.

I have a proposal to change this.

Maybe it's time we just give O'Leary and Bernier and Pierre Lemieux and Ezra Levant what they want: a populist, nationalist, socially conservative party that focuses on older, rural, white, male, voters. There is a legitimate place for a party like that in Parliament, and they're welcome to own it.

And maybe it's time the rest of us conservatives acknowledged the merger worked in the short term, but eventually it exposed irreconcilable bedrock differences. And "uniting the right" is worth nothing if you must abandon your ideological values in the process. Maybe it's time we considered starting something new: a right of centre party that genuinely believes in individual liberty, that the state has no right to tell us who we can love, what we can smoke or what we can say—a party that doesn't want to put more people in jail, but rather believes citizens should be given every opportunity possible to defend themselves before the law.

This could be a party that believes in science and recognizes ideology should never trump facts—a party that acknowledges the reality of climate change. And a party that genuinely believes in markets and understands free trade can lift all boats, that economies evolve and while individual workers should be helped, industries should be allowed to die to make room for new ones. This would be a party that understands governments are lousy investors, voters should not be bribed with their own money, and a carbon price (not regulation) is the market solution to climate change.

Canada needs a party that wants to play a substantive role in the world, and is also willing to pay the entrance fee by spending more on our military, our diplomats and aid. This party would recognize that almost all of us descend from immigrants, that immigration built this country, and it should continue. We would acknowledge that all people are born equal, but not into equal circumstances. We would not tolerate that a child born onto reserves is less than half as likely to graduate high school as a white child born in the city, any more than we would tolerate open racism or sexism.

This would be a conservative party that believes in equality for all regardless of race, creed, language, sexual orientation, or gender —a party that doesn't see feminism as a left-wing plot, that doesn't worry if we don't share the same values, and is not frightened of everyone and everything.

Imagine a national party that believes we are obligated to take advantage of our strong economy and unparalleled good fortune by aspiring towards ambitious national projects, and not just tax cuts for the "struggling middle class". Imagine a party that recognizes government should not always be the solution of first resort for every problem that ails us, but also understands only the government can level the playing field before it gets out of the way.

All signs suggest the Conservative party is about to choose a leader who either doesn't champion these ideas, or actively opposes them. When that happens, those of us who do should finally consider building ourselves a new home.

I will do this: The week after the new leader is chosen, I will host three dinners for whoever wants to discuss this idea, in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The goal will be simple: Let's talk about whether Canada needs a new conservative party, and if so, how would we build it?

If you are also unhappy with what the Conservative Party has turned into, join me. Maybe no one else shows up. Maybe they do but no one agrees. Maybe we agree, but nothing happens. I admit, the odds of this succeeding are very small, but they are not zero. I believe it's worth trying. And, besides, I'm buying the first round of drinks.

UPDATE: Due to the sudden and overwhelming response to this column, Scott has set up a page where you can sign up to join one of these dinners here.

Scott Gilmore is a member of the Conservative Party, and married to a Liberal Cabinet member

[PRC]

I get it CC.

You want the Conservative Party to be an option to "keep the Liberals honest", but you actually don't believe in any particular conservative principles or values.  I've known this about you (and Malthus) for years and years.

The issue with the current Conservative party is that their conservatism seems to be defined by xenophobic intolerance and pettiness, there are no big ideas, or if their are big ideas they're not getting heard because the more vile messages have a louder volume.  I voted for Harper in the past, but the misanthropic ramblings of Kellie Leitch and not a few other Conservative party members has tarred the whole party with her brush.  I don't believe I could vote for any of the current batch in a general election.  Granted that could change, I've said in the past that Michael Chong appears to be the only one taking sense but he doesn't stand a chance of getting to party leadership. 

[HVC]

Scott Gilmore is a member of the Conservative Party, and married to a Liberal Cabinet member

Traitor!

[Josephus]

Meanwhile it's coming up on the 100th anniversary of Vimy Ridge, one of our great nation's finest hours.

To all those who fell. RIP.

[viper37]

Maybe it's time we just give O'Leary and Bernier and Pierre Lemieux and Ezra Levant what they want: a populist, nationalist, socially conservative party that focuses on older, rural, white, male, voters. There is a legitimate place for a party like that in Parliament, and they're welcome to own it.

2 problems with this.

One, I fit the demographic for such a party.  I find it insulting, again, at how city dwellers look at us.  Not interested in joining his movement on these premises.

Secondly, he has a point, but it still means many years of Trudeau because without that rural vote, we can't form a majority government, as evidenced by the past.  Not under the current rules, anyway.

[Maximus]

Seems like an appropro article.

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/confessions-of-a-self-loathing-tory/amp/

Confessions of a self-loathing Tory

Scott Gilmore: I hate my party. It's time to build a new one that genuinely believes in liberty, equality and facts over ideology.

Mar 29, 2017 Scott Gilmore

This happens regularly: I pick up my phone and hear "Mr. Gilmore, thank you for your previous donations to the Conservative Party of Canada..." Before they can continue, I respond: "You picked the wrong day for this" and hang up. Because, inevitably, I will have just watched Brad Trost deny climate change, or heard Maxime Bernier's plan to send troops to the border, or read anything that plopped out of the mouth of Kevin O'Leary.

The Conservative leadership race has been hard to watch, unless you support the Liberals or any other political party in Canada —in which case it's been a laugh a minute. But for people like me, I am left wondering how I ended up in a party seemingly dominated by xenophobic, economically illiterate, populist buffoons.

After the improbable drubbing the Conservatives received at the hands of Trudeau, I had hoped the party would pull itself together. Understandably, voters ran from Harper's vision of a Canada with more jails, fewer refugees and less pot. This country has become far more cosmopolitan, multicultural, tolerant and socially liberal than it was a generation ago. And these social and demographic shifts can't be undone.

Which is why I had expected the Conservatives would recognize they needed to catch up with the rest of us. But if the bulk of its leadership candidates reflect the future of the party, Trudeau will be in power until the NDP finally gets its act together (i.e. forever).

The problem is that two different ideologies have been shoehorned into the husk of the Conservative Party of Canada. The old Reform/Progressive Conservative definitions are not entirely accurate— but roughly speaking one group is socially conservative and economically populist, and the other is focused on individual liberty and free markets. If we have learned anything useful from this leadership race it is that these two conservative philosophies cannot be reconciled.

While the majority of naturally conservative voters welcome refugees, believe in climate change, and don't care if the neighbour smokes weed, the majority of leadership candidates are actively opposed to all those things. And because this latter group dominates the CPC, and has for some time, we ended up here. The Liberals are sitting safely in power, espousing whatever patchwork ideology works best for them this year, while most Conservative leaders inexplicably race each other to the right, abandoning the center entirely. This leaves voters like me cringing as they are forced to make the ridiculous choice between Trudeau or Trost.

I have a proposal to change this.

Maybe it's time we just give O'Leary and Bernier and Pierre Lemieux and Ezra Levant what they want: a populist, nationalist, socially conservative party that focuses on older, rural, white, male, voters. There is a legitimate place for a party like that in Parliament, and they're welcome to own it.

And maybe it's time the rest of us conservatives acknowledged the merger worked in the short term, but eventually it exposed irreconcilable bedrock differences. And "uniting the right" is worth nothing if you must abandon your ideological values in the process. Maybe it's time we considered starting something new: a right of centre party that genuinely believes in individual liberty, that the state has no right to tell us who we can love, what we can smoke or what we can say—a party that doesn't want to put more people in jail, but rather believes citizens should be given every opportunity possible to defend themselves before the law.

This could be a party that believes in science and recognizes ideology should never trump facts—a party that acknowledges the reality of climate change. And a party that genuinely believes in markets and understands free trade can lift all boats, that economies evolve and while individual workers should be helped, industries should be allowed to die to make room for new ones. This would be a party that understands governments are lousy investors, voters should not be bribed with their own money, and a carbon price (not regulation) is the market solution to climate change.

Canada needs a party that wants to play a substantive role in the world, and is also willing to pay the entrance fee by spending more on our military, our diplomats and aid. This party would recognize that almost all of us descend from immigrants, that immigration built this country, and it should continue. We would acknowledge that all people are born equal, but not into equal circumstances. We would not tolerate that a child born onto reserves is less than half as likely to graduate high school as a white child born in the city, any more than we would tolerate open racism or sexism.

This would be a conservative party that believes in equality for all regardless of race, creed, language, sexual orientation, or gender —a party that doesn't see feminism as a left-wing plot, that doesn't worry if we don't share the same values, and is not frightened of everyone and everything.

Imagine a national party that believes we are obligated to take advantage of our strong economy and unparalleled good fortune by aspiring towards ambitious national projects, and not just tax cuts for the "struggling middle class". Imagine a party that recognizes government should not always be the solution of first resort for every problem that ails us, but also understands only the government can level the playing field before it gets out of the way.

All signs suggest the Conservative party is about to choose a leader who either doesn't champion these ideas, or actively opposes them. When that happens, those of us who do should finally consider building ourselves a new home.

I will do this: The week after the new leader is chosen, I will host three dinners for whoever wants to discuss this idea, in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The goal will be simple: Let's talk about whether Canada needs a new conservative party, and if so, how would we build it?

If you are also unhappy with what the Conservative Party has turned into, join me. Maybe no one else shows up. Maybe they do but no one agrees. Maybe we agree, but nothing happens. I admit, the odds of this succeeding are very small, but they are not zero. I believe it's worth trying. And, besides, I'm buying the first round of drinks.

UPDATE: Due to the sudden and overwhelming response to this column, Scott has set up a page where you can sign up to join one of these dinners here.

Scott Gilmore is a member of the Conservative Party, and married to a Liberal Cabinet member

How would this be different, in principle, from the Liberal Party?

[Jacob]

Are you implying that xenophobia and social conservatism are the only defining features of conservatism in Canada?

[Maximus]

I'm not talking about ideologies, but about parties.

Would the things that set it apart be merely baggage, history and personalities or would there be fundamental differences?

[crazy canuck]

I get it CC.

You want the Conservative Party to be an option to "keep the Liberals honest", but you actually don't believe in any particular conservative principles or values.  I've known this about you (and Malthus) for years and years.

No, I want the Conservatives not to be swayed for the Reformer minority.  Preston manning took his ball and went home causing decades of damage.  I don't want the party to be taken over by the same kind of nonsense.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not talking about ideologies, but about parties.

Would the things that set it apart be merely baggage, history and personalities or would there be fundamental differences?

Historically the two parties agreed on a great many things.  Trudeau Sr. started the main divergence by turning to deficit spending even in good times.  Fiscal prudence is now the main area of contention and I would add climate change policy to the mix now.  And that is where I think the the differences should remain - who has the best public policy - not the sort of extremist nonsense being uttered by some of the Conservative candidates now.

[Oexmelin]

That agreement seems to be part of the current problem - in Canada, and elsewhere in the world. When left-wing parties and right-wing parties agree that government is management -- and above all,  budget management --, they have to distinguish themselves by over-investing other forms of public engagement and statement of values. It detracts from the sense of powerlessness that comes with deference to the iron cage of economics. It doesn't have to be this way. Trudeau Jr is successful right now because he is able to occupy that symbolic ground in ways Harper never could.

Quite apart from that impoverishment of the notion of politics however, which affects the Liberals and the Conservatives, what I am shocked by is the difficulty from the Conservatives to articulate a positive notion of community (which ought to be a Conservative centerpiece) without catering to libertarian and reactionary strands. And these strands seem to be heavily infused with a sort of petty and mean vindictive spirit - to show those degenerates / leeches who's in charge - they have had it too easy for too long. 

So, BB, what's a positive definition of community for Conservatives?