Future of Conservatism Series, Part III: A New Ensemble for the Spring Leadership Season

Grant A. Brown
February 28, 2020
In the past month’s anti-pipeline protests and blockades, Andrew Scheer seemed to find his voice at last. But for him it is too late. The Conservative Party of Canada is choosing a new leader. Much advice has been received, often urging the party to slide to the left. But perhaps its future hinges on a leadership candidate who brings a fresh set of clothes to the spring season: intelligence and courage. Maybe the key is to ignore the left-wing pundits and activists, ditch the focus groups and spurn the consultants. How about picking a leader who displays a keen mind guided by conservative principles and steadied by political bravery? That would be a new ensemble indeed. Grant A. Brown has something to say on the subject.

Future of Conservatism Series, Part III: A New Ensemble for the Spring Leadership Season

Grant A. Brown
February 28, 2020
In the past month’s anti-pipeline protests and blockades, Andrew Scheer seemed to find his voice at last. But for him it is too late. The Conservative Party of Canada is choosing a new leader. Much advice has been received, often urging the party to slide to the left. But perhaps its future hinges on a leadership candidate who brings a fresh set of clothes to the spring season: intelligence and courage. Maybe the key is to ignore the left-wing pundits and activists, ditch the focus groups and spurn the consultants. How about picking a leader who displays a keen mind guided by conservative principles and steadied by political bravery? That would be a new ensemble indeed. Grant A. Brown has something to say on the subject.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter
Play Video

I won’t pretend to know how the Conservative Party of Canada can win the next election, but we are all familiar with the formula for losing. The Conservatives lose when they basically agree with the Liberals on the big issues of the day – on climate change, on immigration, on identity politics and censorship of the politically incorrect, on the path to reconciliation with First Nations – while trying to finesse a slim victory through tailoring policies to ever-narrower niches based on focus-groups and detailed polling. Resting electoral success on a smorgasbord of boutique benefits makes the party look unprincipled and grasping, like it wants power too much and therefore can’t be trusted with it. This formula is anything but inspiring; it’s dispiriting in its cynicism. It leaves the party feeling uncomfortable trying to sell a near-Liberal agenda to its base, while looking weak and unconvincing trying to sell its boutique policies to the swing voters. 

In the end, victory for the Conservative Party (and its PC predecessor) has usually come only when voters are truly sick and tired of Liberal malfeasance. This time around, however, there is no evident magic-bullet issue or Liberal scandal for electoral victory. Even if one were to appear, it remains unknown and even then is likely to change before the next election. If that’s how the Conservative Party is to win, it rests on pure hope, and hope is not a tactic, let alone a strategy. Left-wing parties in Canada win elections not by advancing great policies, but by selling hope and charisma (while demonizing their opponents). They sell the sizzle, not the steak.

What should the well-dressed Conservative be wearing this leadership season? Conservative Party main contenders Peter MacKay, Marilyn Gladu and Erin O’Toole.

The Conservative Party, however, is congenitally incapable of winning on sizzle. It needs to counter the left not with an inept version but with a serious, thoughtful alternative. It needs a leader who leads and shapes rather than follows public opinion. The movement needs someone with principles and conviction, and the ability to sell them to the public; someone who isn’t ashamed of advocating non-CBC-approved ideas. Bold, intelligent leadership isn’t sufficient to win an election, but it is necessary for a political party that is chronically perceived to be oblivious to the zeitgeist.

To win, the party needs to change the minds of a certain percentage of voters, shifting them from slurping the pabulum they are constantly fed by other political parties and the media to chewing on the hard truths they need to hear. Political success is not about finding the votes or moving to where public opinion is and pandering to it. It’s about winning portions of the public over, converting the persuadable middle to better ideas. That requires courage derived from success in intellectual combat, which together may also yield a third needed characteristic: staying power. Flashy slogans and talking points would be out, depth and thoughtfulness in. There are intelligent arguments in support of conservative principles; we need political leaders who’ll start articulating them.

Pierre Trudeau, for all his faults, was a leader. He pulled voters to his way of thinking. Brian Mulroney, though often an opportunist, was somewhat of a leader, taking principled and unpopular stands with the GST and free trade (which, for you young readers, used to be controversial) and selling them on their merits. Preston Manning was a leader when he was on his favourite themes of fighting the deficit and debt, advocating Senate reform or standing up to Quebec. Manning didn’t gain power, yet he was so persuasive at arguing the need to curb spending and control interest costs that the Chretien-Martin Liberals had no choice but to adopt his policies in the mid-90s. Manning and Stephen Harper also spent years pushing a harder federal line to prepare for the next referendum on Quebec separation, with eventual success.

Selling the sizzle: Hope and charisma have historically been the Liberal’s winning combination.

Therein lies an important lesson for Conservative Party members who will select a leader in the coming months: be less concerned between now and the next election about forming government and more interested in exercising influence, in changing the direction of the country’s political discussion. The NDP has never formed the Government of Canada, yet nearly everything in its platform from the 1960s has been implemented. That’s influence!

Moreover, the reduced NDP caucus today still has a better chance than the Official Opposition Conservatives of influencing the direction of policy – on pharmacare, on pipelines, on homelessness, and so on. The NDP has succeeded by doing the hard work of selling its misbegotten ideas through repetition and conviction over a long period of time. Which party forms government matters a lot to career politicians, but it shouldn’t matter so much to the rank-and-file. What should is the long-term impact of the leader they select. A “safe” leader who won’t spin the dial even if elected is worse than a bold leader who moves the needle in opposition. A party that is not lucky enough to be a country’s default ruling organization should choose substance over electability every time. That sounds hard, and it is. But it can work.

If policy influence outside government is the goal, it’s hard to beat the NDP record: Tommy Douglas, “the father of Medicare” (top), and current NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh (bottom), who holds the hammer in the Liberals’ minority government.
If policy influence outside government is the goal, it’s hard to beat the NDP record: Tommy Douglas, “the father of Medicare” (top), and current NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh (bottom), who holds the hammer in the Liberals’ minority government.

This next point might be hard for Conservative stalwarts to hear, but Harper was not a leader. He was certainly competent, was arguably the most adept minority prime minister in Canada’s history, and took a principled stand on key foreign issues – like Israel and Russia. But he achieved nothing special or lasting. Harper won a narrow victory because the Liberals blew themselves up with the Sponsorship Scandal, and then it took him two more tries to gain a majority. Once in power, he did practically nothing to change Canada’s political and economic cultures, the way Margaret Thatcher did in the U.K. and Ronald Reagan did in the United States. Everything Harper did was undone within a year or two of Justin Trudeau’s victory, except for the two points he knocked off the GST. Despite having little to lose (most voters would simply never regard him as nice), Harper didn’t even ram through a couple of controversial pipelines or highways as a legacy.

Brown - Inset 6 (below)
Unlike iconic conservative leaders British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan (top), Prime Minister Stephen Harper (bottom) did not leave a lasting mark on Canada’s political or economic culture.
Unlike iconic conservative leaders British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan (top), Prime Minister Stephen Harper (bottom) did not leave a lasting mark on Canada’s political or economic culture.

If Conservatives want to halt the march of the left-wing agenda, they need more than a competent and semi-electable manager. I’m going to offer some suggestions for what members should look for in their next leader. None should be seen as a litmus test in itself, the way marching in Pride parades and apologizing for the sins of our forefathers are for the left. They are, rather, ways that a leadership candidate could signal that he or she is a politician apart from the pack – a leader with the intelligence and courage to bend the political conversation in a more conservative direction.

To begin with, I’m looking for a leader who fights back on the “climate emergency” hyperbole. He or she doesn’t have to be a fully-fledged denier (although that calumny will be flying, of course). He or she doesn’t have to know the science well enough to refute “real climate scientists” in detail. But he or she should at least read a book or two about the subject, and know the remarkable range of views among credentialed scientists. They are not a monolith. He or she should know that most of the alarmist rhetoric goes well beyond anything supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I’ll settle for someone who sensibly points out that there is no imminent crisis, so we don’t have to panic and we can take time to work things out in an orderly, peaceful, economically non-destructive manner.

More important, I’ll settle for someone who unashamedly stands up for Canada’s oil and natural gas industry, pointing out that the best contribution we can make to reducing global CO2 emissions consists in selling our energy commodities to Asia to replace their vast coal-fired power generation. Pointing it out and, more, arguing it persuasively and in enough depth to be credible with well-educated voters.

Brown - Inset 7 (above)
How can the next Conservative leader fight global climate change? By helping to replace Asia’s dirty coal-fired power plants (top) with cleaner-burning, exported Canadian natural gas (bottom).
How can the next Conservative leader fight global climate change? By helping to replace Asia’s dirty coal-fired power plants (top) with cleaner-burning, exported Canadian natural gas (bottom).

And then – the crux – sticking to the position thanks to a team with the sophistication to have pre-armed the leader with arguments and evidence to counter the guaranteed denunciations that will rain down upon them for months and years. It can be done; conservative leaders around the world are doing the same on equally controversial issues. This mindset would be decidedly unlike leadership candidate Peter MacKay’s pathetic climb-down from his entirely defensible tweet supporting the Edmonton counter-demonstrators who peacefully dismantled the railway blockade, aptly described here.

Putting our energy sector to use reducing global emissions was the right message in 2019, but Andrew Scheer was afraid to sell it. His policy announcements were mincing and weak, mumbled once or twice and then forgotten. On big issues like climate change, a leader must unveil and then defend his or her position years in advance of an election campaign to have a chance of bringing voters around against a chorus of alarmist rhetoric. Kim Campbell, Mulroney’s hapless appointed successor who led the party to its historic wipeout in the 1993 federal election, almost had it right when she said election campaigns are no time to debate serious issues

What she should have said (and perhaps meant) is that an election campaign is not the time to start discussing important policy issues – especially when taking unfamiliar positions. Ground needs to be broken, seeds need to be planted, and tender shoots need to be nurtured long before the harvest can be brought in. The aforementioned Reagan, for example, spent virtually his entire life preparing to wage the central campaign of his eventual presidency – rolling back Soviet tyranny and global Communism – and at least one-third of his lengthy career openly campaigning on that subject. Reagan was an exceptional case, of course. But asking a principled Canadian Conservative leader to develop, unveil and then stick to a theme for, say, three or four years between federal elections isn’t unreasonable. It’s simply necessary.

‘Elections are no time to debate serious issues:’ Prime Minister Kim Campbell had a point − the time to debate serious issues is now, before the next election.

I’m also looking for a Conservative leader who fights back on illegal immigration. Immigration has been sold to Canadians as the remedy to our demographic problems, a solution to our pending labour shortage. But it can only be the solution if the vast majority of immigrants are willing and able to enter the labour force quickly, and remain productive for decades. If we are bringing in more dependents via family reunification and illegal border-jumpers who have no employable skills and speak neither French nor English, we will only worsen our demographic problems and further fray our social fabric. Accordingly, conservatives should be less fussed about the absolute number of immigrants than with the proportion who fall into the economic class.

Conservatives also need to recognize that working immigrants are among the more conservative members of society. They can become party voters. Here, too, there is much potential for a principled and courageous leader backed by an intelligent team, for there are examples worldwide to draw on to illustrate the legitimacy of and need for controlled immigration based on the national interest. A left-of-centre government in New Zealand has even done so. Canada’s left-wing parties are, in fact, out of step not only with ordinary Canadians but most national governments around the world.

Canada’s next Conservative leader should be prepared to stand up for immigration that’s in the national interest, and against illegal immigration.

I’m looking for a Conservative leader who is vocal against “woke” culture and intersectional victimology. These are the most divisive and destructive ideologies going, pitting everyone against everyone. Some individuals are more privileged than others; but those privileges rarely track demographic traits very well. The solution to educational, nutritional, housing, and other deficits is to fix those deficits where they occur rather than to punish whole classes of allegedly “privileged” people in a failed attempt to equalize outcomes after the fact. The obsession with women as victims is especially nonsensical in an age when women make up majorities not only in post-secondary education but numerous professional fields.

A leader who loudly and proudly proclaims allegiance to conservative principles of justice – that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that fundamental justice places the onus of proof on the prosecution, and that the accused is entitled to make full answer and defence after the prosecution has closed its case – is badly needed. Gerrymandering the justice system to produce a priori “desirable outcomes” in favour of women or Indigenous people is a debasement that conservatives should never sink to.

Reconciliation with First Nations is critical. I’m looking for a Conservative leader intelligent enough to know there’s no quick fix, but that it is a generational project. You can’t mend broken families and crushed lives from the residential school system, among other largely disastrous paternalistic policies, by issuing apologies and throwing money at band councils. More and more First Nations are realizing that improving their lot requires participation in the national and global economies.

Reconciliation at work: Conservative leaders, like Premier Jason Kenney, seen here with Alberta First Nation Chiefs, must find ways to ensure Indigenous Canadians can participate fully in economic progress.

A serious Conservative leader would encourage this evolution by championing tribal leaders who sign benefit agreements with land-use projects of every type: tourism, forestry, mining – and yes, oil and natural gas from ground to processing facility to port. Like everyone else, Indigenous Canadians benefit most from the dignity of work leading to self-sufficiency. That’s conservatism at its finest.

I’m looking for a Conservative leader who isn’t afraid of Rebel News, who doesn’t run over their reporters with buses and get their security to manhandle them, but who actually engages with them and, thereby, their large following. I say this not because Rebel News is the best outlet in the world, but because it isn’t. The left will hate it when you talk to them – but the whole point of your leadership is that you don’t let the left push you around.

We need a leader who wants to sell the conservative message at every opportunity, and shuns none. Even Ron McLean had the courage to give an interview to Rebel News on the matter of Don Cherry’s dismissal, and both parties acquitted themselves rather well. Conversely, I’m looking for a leader who will call out the CBC on its reporting biases, someone who goes on the offensive against the CBC’s hatchet-jobs.

Mild-mannered Andrew Scheer may have won the last leadership race, but Maxime Bernier’s principled stand on major issues made him the more courageous Conservative.

Numerous other courageous and sensible stands could be adduced. It certainly isn’t necessary for a Conservative leader to take a contrarian position on every issue facing the public. Critically needed is a leadership hopeful who takes an intelligent, courageous, conservative, contrarian position on one or two issues – in part to prove it can be done. Last time, Maxime Bernier adopted a principled conservative stand against agricultural supply management and for free markets. That was not a huge deal in itself, but it defined him as a leader unafraid of intelligently slaying sacred cows. More than the policy itself, that is likely what nearly half the party’s membership responded to when Bernier ran. The timid half went with Scheer, won the day, and lost the battle.

Were a Conservative Party candidate to adopt even one of the positions suggested above, it would signal independence of thought and strength of character. Wouldn’t that be refreshing to see in a political leader? Refreshing, and unique, for that person would be the only such federal party leader in a field of opportunists, panderers, utopians and venomous ideologues. Courage, intelligence and principle could become a suit of armour amongst the riotous costumes of the left-wing clowns. At minimum, such a person would lead a far more effective and influential opposition. And with a little luck, he or she might just sweep the field.

Grant A. Brown has a DPhil from Oxford University and an LL.B. from the University of Alberta, taught applied ethics and political philosophy at the University of Lethbridge, practised family law, and currently runs a B&B in Stratford, Ontario.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Why Canada Needs For-Profit Nursing Homes

The infirm and chronically ill seniors who live in long-term care facilities are among Canada’s most vulnerable populations. So too, it seems, are the executives and investors who own and operate many of those nursing homes. The first group is vulnerable to disease and neglect. The second is suffering from aggressive ideological attacks by unions, left-wing academics and politicians who casually accuse them of being greedy “dehumanizing” villains, and are now plotting the expropriation of their entire business. Peter Shawn Taylor seeks to clear the air in this thoroughly reported account of how Canada’s long-term care sector really works.

Future of Conservatism Series, Part VII: Memo to Politicians: We’re Not Your Pet Projects

Canadian conservatives have most of the summer to ruminate on what they want their federal party to become – as embodied by their soon-to-be elected leader, anyway. Acceptability, likability and winnability will be key criteria. Above all, however, should be crafting and advancing a compelling policy alternative to today’s managerial liberalism, which has been inflated by the pandemic almost beyond recognition. Mark Milke offers a forceful rebuttal against the Conservative “alternative” comprising little more than a massaged form of top-down management.

How Architecture Lost its Way in the Modern World

Architecture and its cumulative result – our built environment – affects every aspect of our daily lives. Yet most of us rarely talk about it. And despite ultimately paying for it all, the ordinary person has almost no input into the process or the outcome. Some believe the discipline veered horribly off-track in the last century. Informed by over 50 years of professional experience, Vancouver-based architect Oberto Oberti weaves professional insights, aesthetic judgment, philosophy and memory into an impassioned plea for the restoration of timeless aesthetic values and the individual’s needs to the centre of 21st century architecture.

More from this author

Hit the Bench: Beverley McLachlin’s Reputation Takes a Dive in Retirement

When Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin stepped down in 2017, she was regarded as one of the most consequential jurists in Canadian history, largely due to her court’s activist approach to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Her career arc was also widely considered a triumph of progressive feminism in the face of an entrenched legal patriarchy. That reputation is due for a re-assessment. Grant A. Brown sifts through the evidence of McLachlin’s autobiography and various post-retirement missteps, and unearths what he feels is a surprising lack of principle, objectivity and sound reasoning.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections vs. Ezra Levant: A Faux Pas de Deux

Secret video recordings. Former counter-terrorism policemen interrogating a lone journalist over his recent book and promotional lawn signs. Insults and accusations of bullying. Potentially draconian fines and even jail time over spending $501 or more on a perfectly legal service that thousands of businesses use daily. Grant A. Brown chronicles Act I of the tragicomic battle between free speech warrior Ezra Levant of Rebel News and the Commissioner of Canada Elections – and warns that free speech rights for all of us are again under threat.

Justin Trudeau’s Job-Killing Climate Change Plan

If climate catastrophe doesn’t get us in the long run, it seems our own prime minister is fixin’ to do so right now. Gone are even lip service to jobs and development; now it’s all about getting Canada to “net-zero emissions” at literally any cost. Thousands of jobs going up in smoke is just a typical day’s work. Grant A. Brown sifts through the 17 “top priorities” in Justin Trudeau’s grandiloquent “mandate letter” to his new environment minister and unearths the utopian scheme shrouded under the unfocused haze. Brown also shows that the “gender-based” employment impacts our woke prime minister is so eager for are already happening – and the results ain’t pretty.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.