In my previous column, I described how a political phenomenon I call Harpertism modified the ideological underpinnings of Canadian conservatism. Now, I'll show how Harpertism resonated with Canadian voters - and changed conservatism as we know it.
After the 2004 federal election, the Conservatives continued to adjust the public's impression of right leaning political ideology. An important lesson had been learned on the campaign trail: Liberal scare tactics about a so-called "hidden political agenda" on issues like abortion and gay marriage had successfully swayed disgruntled Liberals, provincial PCs and right-leaning independents from voting Tory. Even though Paul Martin's Liberals were held to a minority, it was clear Canadian voters still didn't trust the Tories.
Hence, the Conservatives watered down their ideological component to mesh with a wider net of viewpoints. Targeted tax credits were favoured instead of broadbased tax relief. Patient wait times guarantees replaced the bogeyman of private health care. The Universal Child Care Benefit became a reasonable alternative to the Liberals' national daycare strategy. Calls for a crackdown on crime resonated with voters across ideological lines.
The Liberals also made a huge strategic blunder: the 2006 campaign was a near-carbon copy of 2004. Voters weren't buying it this time around, as Harpertism had created a more moderate Conservative party. You can't go back to the same political well if the water has already dried up. The Liberals didn't realize this, and paid for it.
The Conservatives have been in power ever since. They've won three straight elections (2006, 2008 and 2011), and have their long awaited majority. Harper will serve as prime minister for a minimum of nine years - and possibly longer. His image has dramatically changed, his oratorical skills have vastly improved, and he has the look and feel of a leader. Canadians are getting more comfortable with the Tories in power.
So, why are pundits and commentators still speaking out about the Harper government? Those who have been civil in their critiques (including Gerry Nicholls, Keith Beardsley, Tom Flanagan, and me) are badly outnumbered by the aggressive and often demeaning media voices. Everyone has their own reasons. In my case, it was nothing personal; rather, it was because of what I believe Harpertism has done to Canadian conservatism.
For all the talk about the Harper government being "Reformatories," "neo-conservatives," "extreme conservatives" and so on, none of it is true. Only an out-of-touch left-winger (and we have plenty of them in Canada) could say this with a straight face. Rather, I'd argue Harpertism has led to a new type of political philosophy: Tory centrism.
Wait a second. Hasn't Canadian conservatism always been centrist? Yes - but there's been nothing quite like this. Rather than wiping out Red Toryism for good, the Harper Conservatives balanced it with Blue Toryism (the historically ignored component). This created a middle-of-the-road conservatism that, unlike the Red Toryism of old, is much harder to define in pure ideological terms. Tory centrism occasionally leans to the right on issues like crime and the military, but has had plenty of mushy centrist positions: increased spending on government programs, less respect for fiscal prudence, and the disappearance of social conservative values.
After the 2004 federal election, the Conservatives continued to adjust the public's impression of right leaning political ideology. An important lesson had been learned on the campaign trail: Liberal scare tactics about a so-called "hidden political agenda" on issues like abortion and gay marriage had successfully swayed disgruntled Liberals, provincial PCs and right-leaning independents from voting Tory. Even though Paul Martin's Liberals were held to a minority, it was clear Canadian voters still didn't trust the Tories.
Hence, the Conservatives watered down their ideological component to mesh with a wider net of viewpoints. Targeted tax credits were favoured instead of broadbased tax relief. Patient wait times guarantees replaced the bogeyman of private health care. The Universal Child Care Benefit became a reasonable alternative to the Liberals' national daycare strategy. Calls for a crackdown on crime resonated with voters across ideological lines.
The Liberals also made a huge strategic blunder: the 2006 campaign was a near-carbon copy of 2004. Voters weren't buying it this time around, as Harpertism had created a more moderate Conservative party. You can't go back to the same political well if the water has already dried up. The Liberals didn't realize this, and paid for it.
The Conservatives have been in power ever since. They've won three straight elections (2006, 2008 and 2011), and have their long awaited majority. Harper will serve as prime minister for a minimum of nine years - and possibly longer. His image has dramatically changed, his oratorical skills have vastly improved, and he has the look and feel of a leader. Canadians are getting more comfortable with the Tories in power.
So, why are pundits and commentators still speaking out about the Harper government? Those who have been civil in their critiques (including Gerry Nicholls, Keith Beardsley, Tom Flanagan, and me) are badly outnumbered by the aggressive and often demeaning media voices. Everyone has their own reasons. In my case, it was nothing personal; rather, it was because of what I believe Harpertism has done to Canadian conservatism.
For all the talk about the Harper government being "Reformatories," "neo-conservatives," "extreme conservatives" and so on, none of it is true. Only an out-of-touch left-winger (and we have plenty of them in Canada) could say this with a straight face. Rather, I'd argue Harpertism has led to a new type of political philosophy: Tory centrism.
Wait a second. Hasn't Canadian conservatism always been centrist? Yes - but there's been nothing quite like this. Rather than wiping out Red Toryism for good, the Harper Conservatives balanced it with Blue Toryism (the historically ignored component). This created a middle-of-the-road conservatism that, unlike the Red Toryism of old, is much harder to define in pure ideological terms. Tory centrism occasionally leans to the right on issues like crime and the military, but has had plenty of mushy centrist positions: increased spending on government programs, less respect for fiscal prudence, and the disappearance of social conservative values.
These are right-wing ideas? It is to laugh. (Even so, the PM's powerful speech last week in Davos supporting capitalism, pension and immigration reforms, and trade liberalization was encouraging. I'm watching with interest.)
Some commentators have correctly noted aspects of this massive ideological shift in Canadian conservatism. The bulk have concentrated on Harper's supposedly overbearing nature and all-powerful death grip over the party, however. I'm not sure why. Every leader leaves an imprint on a political party, and influences its direction. Do you honestly think Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien sat back and let their Liberal rivals walk all over their ideas? Please.
Harper can be heavy-handed and often desires complete loyalty, but he's not unique. He remembers the difficult times for Canadian conservatives: the unite the right campaign, the Democratic Representative Caucus during Stockwell Day's tenure as Alliance leader, and clashes between Blue and Red Tories. He left politics for a reason, and wasn't going to stand for another round of internal party strife. It's his way or the highway.
So far, it has been his way. Tory centrism has become part of Canadian political life. Many Conservative MPs and candidates have adapted this proven model of success. Canadian voters, who tend to be moderate on most issues, like the fact the Tories are also quite moderate. Our political landscape has changed - and politics as usual has disappeared into the sands of time.
Some commentators have correctly noted aspects of this massive ideological shift in Canadian conservatism. The bulk have concentrated on Harper's supposedly overbearing nature and all-powerful death grip over the party, however. I'm not sure why. Every leader leaves an imprint on a political party, and influences its direction. Do you honestly think Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien sat back and let their Liberal rivals walk all over their ideas? Please.
Harper can be heavy-handed and often desires complete loyalty, but he's not unique. He remembers the difficult times for Canadian conservatives: the unite the right campaign, the Democratic Representative Caucus during Stockwell Day's tenure as Alliance leader, and clashes between Blue and Red Tories. He left politics for a reason, and wasn't going to stand for another round of internal party strife. It's his way or the highway.
So far, it has been his way. Tory centrism has become part of Canadian political life. Many Conservative MPs and candidates have adapted this proven model of success. Canadian voters, who tend to be moderate on most issues, like the fact the Tories are also quite moderate. Our political landscape has changed - and politics as usual has disappeared into the sands of time.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author:Michael Taube
No comments:
Post a Comment