In her September 22nd column Lysiane Gagnon goes after the Bloc Quebecois for their relentless attacks on Harper’s conservatives claiming that they are conjuring, “dark visions of a country suffering under the iron rule of a Conservative Party that would be free to implement its frightening hidden agenda.” According to Gagnon the Bloc Quebecois also claim to be the only party can stop a conservative majority.
On the first claim the BQ is correct, but on the second they are not the only party capable of stopping stop the Conservatives. Strategic voting for any other party, with the exception of the Greens could thwart a Conservative majority.
Gagnon would have us believe that Harper has under gone some sort of conversion to where he is a moderate Tory. She ignores the fact that Harper has an extensive political resume and that his dispositions and beliefs are a matter of public record. We already know that Harper is not a federalist, he believes in minimal government and is a good friend to privatization and deregulation.
Even as a minority prime minister he could not squelch his ultra right policy ambitions and has given alarming indications where he would take the country if he won a majority. He has granted
Harper’s conservative roots are not Canadian but rather American. He is more akin to US Republican style politics and he is closer to neoconservatism than traditional conservative values. He is also an ideologue- and unlikely, as Gagnon claims, going to suddenly move to the political center. For ideologues, agendas come before people and Harper does have an agenda!
To refer to him as a “Tory” as she does is a bit of a stretch as one of his first actions after unifying the right as the Conservative Party of Canada was to make it clear Red Tories were not welcome. This new party is very much dominated by Reform/Alliance values with the addition of social conservatives. To claim that Harper has assembled a “big tent” coalition, heavy on moderates, as Mulroney did is fatuous nonsense.
Gagnon states a “a counterargument can be made that a majority Conservative government would be more centrist than a minority.” Why would a majority government be more centrist when it would have absolute freedom to go where it wants? In the real world the best way to insure centrism is a minority government
Gagnon would have us believe that a Conservative majority would be self-regulating,… “promoting policies that appeal to mainstream voters, … they must always stay close to that center and avoid issues that would alienate a large plurality.” Majority governments are not self-regulating and an explicit example is the Mulroney government. Awarded with the largest Parliamentary majority ever he made a mess of it. His failed constitutional machinations led to the birth of the Bloc Quebecois. His mismanagement of our asymmetrical federalism led to a profound Western alienation that led to the birth of Western separatist parties and the Reform party and he ultimately destroyed his own party after two terms.
Mulroney had a golden opportunity to establish a conservative dynasty and he blew it simply because he could was not content to be a moderate conservative introducing measured change. The Mulroney legacy still haunts the Canadian political landscape, and the political distortions brought about by it are still with us. Thanks to Mulroney Canadians have a justifiable hesitance to trusting a Conservative majority. This is one of the main reasons Harper was granted only the stingiest of minorities when the wanton incompetence and corruption of the Liberal party should have propelled him to an easy majority.
Gagnon contends that this new Conservative party “is much more centrist than Reform was” and that Harper is no longer the right-wing ideologue he was in the eighties and is now a “relatively moderate pragmatic Tory.” She offers no proof of this and she ignores that his ultra-right views are now held in check by his having to lead a minority government.
It is totally bizarre that Gagnon would naively prescribe a self-regulating Conservative majority for
As political commentator she ignores two very important facts. The first is that political roots give a very good indication of where a given politician would take the country. As stated Harper’s inclinations are a matter of public record and given a majority he would most certainly revert to his rooted beliefs.
Secondly, she ignores the fact that party structure in this era matters little. In a majority government the power is centralized in the PMO. Parliament becomes irrelevant. It is well documented that individual MPs, moderate or otherwise, cannot influence party policy and Harper has already shown his autocratic nature.
If Canadians want to see Parliament revitalized our best option is minority government such that no party can have a runaway agenda and parties are forced to work collegially rather than in bitter partisanship. This might just initiate a new era of political maturity for the country.
Yes, Harper wants to establish a political “dynasty” but at whose expense? Canadians are being asked to take a needless risk at a time when the very fabric of the country is threatened. Recent history demands that we avoid majority governments as they have too often not served us well.
The time is now for our political physicians to first heal themselves and engender a new confidence and trust in our political processes and show their willingness to sustain the Canadian dream.
Stumble It!