The Conservative Party of Canada is undergoing an identity crisis as it seeks to replace the brief interregnum of Andrew Scheer. As the left has moved away from the values of free thought and expression, the conservatives have paid at least lip service to the importance of these freedoms. However, the main stream media has embraced the new orthodoxy of the intersectionalist left that believes only (their) politically correct views should be aired. .Repeatedly, the Conservatives have found themselves between a rock and a hard place in that allowing free speech in their ranks leads to terrible press. There are a good many pundits who blame the election loss on social conservatives, and their recommendation is to tighten control further. But this risks shrinking the big blue tent because they believe there are more who believe in the mainstream orthodoxy than those who don’t. .If the Conservatives are to have any hope of winning, they will need to keep the tent as big as possible; a daunting task at the best of times. It is no simple feat to unite fiscal conservatives, social conservative, free enterprisers, libertarians, red Tories, monarchists, environmental conservatives, urban and rural, and now a growing contingent in the West increasingly prepared to turn on federalism altogether. More freedom, not less would be the way to go..Stephen Harper used a top down, stick to the talking points style of leadership; and it worked for him, at least until it didn’t. He was aided by the fact that Westerners were tired of losing due to vote splits and the NDP was strong enough to split the Liberal vote in Toronto and Quebec. Times have changed..Andrew Scheer attempted to follow this style of leadership, but without the intellectual authority of Harper, his ham-fisted approach led to the creation of the People’s Party. Without appearing to believe in what he was saying on almost any topic, his insistence that his personal beliefs on moral issues wouldn’t affect public policy was unconvincing. .During a CTV interview last week, prospective leadership contender Richard Decarie stated his belief that being gay is a choice and that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. He was criticized by other leadership hopefuls and MP Michelle Rempel said she plans to ask the leadership organizing committee to disqualify him on the basis of his comments because she is “beyond tired” of the party being “hijacked” by this type of bigotry. Apparently the party agrees and the leadership organizing committee has vowed to assess whether a would-be candidate’s views align with the party’s principles. .Whatever one’s views on homosexuality, abortion or other moral issues, these statements indicate the same old, heavy-handed top-down style of leadership which hasn’t worked for the past five years. To put it generously, the odds of Decarie winning are slim, so why not give party members the freedom to reject him? Liberals regularly engage in censoring speech but Conservatives are supposedly in favor the enlightenment maxim, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”.Westerners voted for Andrew Scheer in record numbers, not because they endorsed his leadership style, but because they were intent on getting rid of Justin Trudeau. It didn’t happen. It’s unclear if they will remain loyal to a party that doesn’t represent Western concerns particularly well and won’t allow their MPs any freedom to represent their constituents. Why should Westerners continue to back a milquetoast party for the sole purpose of getting rid of their hated opponent, when they can’t even win? .In this volatile climate, the ‘Big Blue Tent’ might do well to remember the advice of the Archbishop of Split de Dominis during the 70 Years War religious conflict that tore the Holy Roman Empire apart, “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”. .Essentials are the few things most agree on: lowering the deficit, conservative fiscal policy and economic policy (minus supply management). The few things the federal government was intended to do. .Figuring out the essentials is the easy part. The hard part is determining how to handle the non-essential issues. The heavy handed, top-down, approach risks narrowing or splitting the tent. A better way to expand the tent and win elections would be to allow at least a measure of liberty. Allow MPs the freedom to take positions on other issues as best meets the needs of their constituents and their own conscience. This would necessitate reducing the size and power of the leader’s office, something no leader wants to do once they have the job..More diffuse sources of policy influence and less concentration of power would lead to better policy and more inclusion in an even bigger tent..Would-be Conservative leaders should drop the old management style which risks shrinking the tent, offer more freedom to broaden its appeal, and draw the party’s diverse factions together in common cause. This is a tall order on both scores, but necessary if the Tories hope to remain united and win. Or they can continue to tread the well worn path to the cheers of the CBC, the People’s Party, and Wexit.
The Conservative Party of Canada is undergoing an identity crisis as it seeks to replace the brief interregnum of Andrew Scheer. As the left has moved away from the values of free thought and expression, the conservatives have paid at least lip service to the importance of these freedoms. However, the main stream media has embraced the new orthodoxy of the intersectionalist left that believes only (their) politically correct views should be aired. .Repeatedly, the Conservatives have found themselves between a rock and a hard place in that allowing free speech in their ranks leads to terrible press. There are a good many pundits who blame the election loss on social conservatives, and their recommendation is to tighten control further. But this risks shrinking the big blue tent because they believe there are more who believe in the mainstream orthodoxy than those who don’t. .If the Conservatives are to have any hope of winning, they will need to keep the tent as big as possible; a daunting task at the best of times. It is no simple feat to unite fiscal conservatives, social conservative, free enterprisers, libertarians, red Tories, monarchists, environmental conservatives, urban and rural, and now a growing contingent in the West increasingly prepared to turn on federalism altogether. More freedom, not less would be the way to go..Stephen Harper used a top down, stick to the talking points style of leadership; and it worked for him, at least until it didn’t. He was aided by the fact that Westerners were tired of losing due to vote splits and the NDP was strong enough to split the Liberal vote in Toronto and Quebec. Times have changed..Andrew Scheer attempted to follow this style of leadership, but without the intellectual authority of Harper, his ham-fisted approach led to the creation of the People’s Party. Without appearing to believe in what he was saying on almost any topic, his insistence that his personal beliefs on moral issues wouldn’t affect public policy was unconvincing. .During a CTV interview last week, prospective leadership contender Richard Decarie stated his belief that being gay is a choice and that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. He was criticized by other leadership hopefuls and MP Michelle Rempel said she plans to ask the leadership organizing committee to disqualify him on the basis of his comments because she is “beyond tired” of the party being “hijacked” by this type of bigotry. Apparently the party agrees and the leadership organizing committee has vowed to assess whether a would-be candidate’s views align with the party’s principles. .Whatever one’s views on homosexuality, abortion or other moral issues, these statements indicate the same old, heavy-handed top-down style of leadership which hasn’t worked for the past five years. To put it generously, the odds of Decarie winning are slim, so why not give party members the freedom to reject him? Liberals regularly engage in censoring speech but Conservatives are supposedly in favor the enlightenment maxim, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”.Westerners voted for Andrew Scheer in record numbers, not because they endorsed his leadership style, but because they were intent on getting rid of Justin Trudeau. It didn’t happen. It’s unclear if they will remain loyal to a party that doesn’t represent Western concerns particularly well and won’t allow their MPs any freedom to represent their constituents. Why should Westerners continue to back a milquetoast party for the sole purpose of getting rid of their hated opponent, when they can’t even win? .In this volatile climate, the ‘Big Blue Tent’ might do well to remember the advice of the Archbishop of Split de Dominis during the 70 Years War religious conflict that tore the Holy Roman Empire apart, “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”. .Essentials are the few things most agree on: lowering the deficit, conservative fiscal policy and economic policy (minus supply management). The few things the federal government was intended to do. .Figuring out the essentials is the easy part. The hard part is determining how to handle the non-essential issues. The heavy handed, top-down, approach risks narrowing or splitting the tent. A better way to expand the tent and win elections would be to allow at least a measure of liberty. Allow MPs the freedom to take positions on other issues as best meets the needs of their constituents and their own conscience. This would necessitate reducing the size and power of the leader’s office, something no leader wants to do once they have the job..More diffuse sources of policy influence and less concentration of power would lead to better policy and more inclusion in an even bigger tent..Would-be Conservative leaders should drop the old management style which risks shrinking the tent, offer more freedom to broaden its appeal, and draw the party’s diverse factions together in common cause. This is a tall order on both scores, but necessary if the Tories hope to remain united and win. Or they can continue to tread the well worn path to the cheers of the CBC, the People’s Party, and Wexit.
