Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Conservative Party’s national convention in Vancouver this past weekend is how united the party appears to be coming out of it. After all, one might expect that the first convention after a bruising electoral defeat would be a time of recrimination and division (see Mulcair, Thomas J.) rather than of positive policy debates and a general atmosphere of unity. Yet even the most divisive issue of the convention, the move to a position of neutrality on gay marriage, was resolved with support from a clear majority of the grassroots members and most of the party leadership.

But make no mistake: despite the appearance of harmony, old ideological divisions remain. Nearly a third of the delegates voted against the same-sex marriage motion and while most of them weren’t surprised by the result, that didn’t make it any easier to swallow. It’s not the first time they’ve lost an argument within their party, and there probably will be further efforts to marginalize their influence over the party’s core values and policies.

Even their longstanding champion Jason Kenney and his fellow caucus social conservative Andrew Scheer supported the motion, dashing any hope that one or both of them might defend traditional marriage as a leadership candidate. Although the convention also defeated an attempt to pass a resolution supporting euthanasia, something similar will likely get a strong push at the next convention, after doctor-assisted suicide has been legal for two years. And social conservatives will find no more sympathy within their party for their opposition to abortion than they did during Stephen Harper’s reign as leader. In fact, they will probably find less from the next generation of Conservative political leaders like Calgary MP and potential leadership candidate Michelle Rempel, who reportedly told the national policy committee that there was “no place for me in a Conservative Party that opposed abortion.”

Since its inception the modern Conservative Party of Canada has made little effort to satisfy the policy objectives of its social conservative constituency. Operating on the assumption that the socons would much rather have a Conservative government than a Liberal or NDP government, the party under former Prime Minister Harper sought to placate them with family-friendly tax and childcare policies, or by allowing private member’s motions and bills that sought to modestly strengthen legal recognition for the unborn. Harper’s repeated declaration that his government would not reopen the abortion debate “as long as he was Prime Minister” always held out the possibility that the debate would be had after he left. Now he has, but the debate looks farther off than ever.

Kenney remains the best hope in caucus of a reliable advocate for social conservative causes, even after his support for the same sex marriage motion prompted Saskatoon Conservative MP Brad Trost to suggest that he might enter the leadership race to provide a more dependable ally. Regardless of who – if anyone – becomes the socon candidate, the party would be wise to tread carefully when dealing with them. The gay marriage motion did not trigger open revolt because it simply recognized the legal reality in Canada and positioned the party as neutral on the issue. Such compromises are much harder to make when it comes to life-and-death issues like euthanasia or abortion. While some members may feel that they have no place in a Conservative Party that opposes abortion, the eventual leader would do well to remember that there are many Conservatives who feel the same way about a Conservative Party that actively supports abortion and euthanasia. In these circumstances it is not hard to imagine another major schism within Canadian conservatism.

So as the leadership race unfolds over the next year, the Conservative Party will be in a delicate situation. The various factions of the party, kept in line by party discipline during the past decade, are going to take the opportunity to have their say, and there will be no lack of ambitious candidates willing to act as their spokespersons. It may be wise and appropriate for the party to move forward on issues which are internally reconcilable and which have been enshrined in Canadian law, but it is risky to move too far, too fast, because this could offend the larger “conservative movement” within the party. It may or may not be pro-life, but it is universally opposed to rapid, radical social change.

The debate on same-sex marriage at the convention was masterfully handled and the result was a carefully crafted compromise that respected the equally sincere beliefs of both sides. Throughout and beyond the leadership race, this is the sort of compromise that must be replicated in order to prevent the party from cracking up along its internal fault lines. If one side goes too far too fast, or the other digs in their heels too much, then whoever wins the leadership might well end up leading only half a party. If one side keeps asking the other “Where you will go?”, they might instead find themselves asking “Where did you go?”

~

Jason VandenBeukel is a PhD student in Canadian politics at the University of Toronto.