Why Harper Won; How He Can Lose

"Just after the last election I wrote a piece I didn't publish about why the Conservatives won and how they could lose. Rereading it I think it still applies. jcm"

AN UNCERTAIN TRUMPET - - WHY THE LIBERALS LOST

AND HOW THEY CAN WIN AGAIN

At the end of 2005 Canada was an economic leader among the world’s richest nations. In March 2005 the International Monetary Fund praised Canada for the fastest growth rate and strongest budget position among the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Italy and Canada. While assisting allies in suppressing terrorism, Canada avoided joining the war in Iraq. Issues of redress to aboriginal peoples and those discriminated in the past were being resolved by negotiation and, apart from the sponsorship scandal in Quebec there was little to trouble the Canadian public. In short, Canada was successful both at home and abroad.

So how is it that the incumbent party, running for re-election in a time of good government and prosperity, lost? And lost, not to a party historically rooted in Canadian ideals, but rather to a party radically opposed to the (highly successful) status quo.

Stephen Harper, now Canada’s Prime Minister, is no Joe Clark. Mr. Harper spent his early political years on the far right wing of Canadian politics. He called for Canada to join the war in Iraq and described Canada as a Northern European welfare state “in the worst sense of the word”. Other Conservative MP’s have similarly extreme views. Harold Albrecht, MP for Kitchener-Conestoga claimed same sex-marriage could wipe out society in just one generation. Cheryl Gallant, MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke said the beheading of hostages in Iraq was “absolutely no different” from abortion. Ms. Gallant wrote to constituents telling them Christian phobia was taking over Canada and warning of coming persecution of Christians in Canada (this in a country where Christians make up 84% of the population and are an overwhelming majority of MP’s, MPP’s, judges, civil servants and police). The point here is not to ridicule the Conservatives for their views but rather to point out how extreme, odd and radical those views are. For such a political party to win in a nation not beset by extraordinary problems raises the question of what did the incumbent do wrong? How could the Liberals lose to people like Cheryl Gallant?

The Liberals lost because people did not know what, if anything, the Liberals stand for. The problem is not that people know the Liberal message and reject it (that may be the NDP’s problem) - - rather people have no idea what Liberals stand for and so think the Liberals are too weak to govern.

In the 2006 election the Conservatives focussed on a very limited, and very clear, message - - change, trust, values. Everything they said was related to, and spoke of, that message. The Liberals, by contrast, talked of specific issues - - the underlying message had to be inferred from the Liberal position, on say, child care. Voters did not, or could not, infer a message that way. The caricature of the Prime Minister as Mr. Dithers was unfair. But this caricature stuck because, absent a unifying message, Liberals appear to be dealing with everything ad hoc.

And because the Conservatives had a theme, they sounded consistent. Worse, having a theme when the Liberals had not, the Conservatives set the parameters of public debate - - values related to government contracting, gay marriage and punishment of criminals. Values, in the last election did not deal with poverty, social justice or to not giving tax breaks to already wealthy Canadians.

During the election I heard a leading Liberal explain to party workers that it was hard for Liberals to get a message out because the Liberal party position is usually “yet, but”. Issues are so complex that Liberals cannot take a simple position - - what a misconception! The implementation of simple concepts can be hard - - murder is wrong but books are written on the laws of homicide - - but simple concepts are simple. The Liberal message must be clear, simple and understood.

Voters must know the Liberal party stands for something and what that something is. “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle” (1 Corinthians 14: 7-9). If the Liberal party is to defeat the Conservatives in the next election, it must offer a clear choice. To win the Liberals must:

define their message

attack their opponents

defend and support their leader

inspire their voters

These seem to be obvious points but they were overlooked in the recent past.

What is the Liberal choice and how does it differ from Conservatives? Winston Churchill set out the core of Liberal priorities when he served as Minister of Social Welfare in the Liberal Asquith government in 1911. “To raise people up from poverty. To reconcile private interests with public rights. To attack monopoly. To reward enterprise, but not with untrammelled privilege and preference. To exalt the individual over ruler or regulation. To expand freedom at home and abroad. This is our liberalism. This is the signature of our society.” As a summary of Liberal values this is as good a statement as any. The Conservatives and Liberals hold very different views of the country. Liberals support shared responsibility, shared opportunity and a fair chance for everyone to choose how they want to live. Conservatives favour concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves, economically, but socially Conservatives favour more control over the choices people are allowed to make. Liberals have a message - - freedom from want, freedom to choose, freedom to be what you want to be. This is just one way to frame the Liberal message, but it is a simple, clear and concise message that explains the Liberal policy on everything from gay rights to child care to taxation of capital gains. And it illustrates just what Liberal values are and lets Canadians see Liberals are consistent and fit to lead.

The Conservatives focus on values was very successful in the last election but it was focussed on a remarkably narrow set of issues - - gay rights, a small scale (and despite the noise, it really was small scale) corruption scandal in Quebec, gun ownership and, to a lesser degree, sexual morality. Because values and trust were framed by the Conservatives, Liberals looked weak. Yet, in truth, for example, gay marriages was not a real issue - - it is clear the Courts will mandate it under the Constitution. Gun control was also more apparent than real - - Liberals were not taking guns from hunters and Conservatives were not allowing widespread ownership of handguns. Swingers’ Clubs, while salacious copy for the tabloid press, is hardly an issue of national importance. Abortion, while a simmering issue, was never openly addressed by the Conservatives and the corruption scandal, ultimately, is being dealt with by the police and the Courts. The “values” issues raised by the Conservatives were mainly smoke and mirrors.

But Liberals do have real values that affect Canada as a whole; and here the debate favours the Liberal party. By example, poverty is a values issues; health care is a values issue; taxation of capital gains is a values issue; treatment of First Nations is a values issue. On all these issues the Liberal position is far more popular, far more Canadian, then the Conservative position. If put clearly to Canadians, Liberals will win on values. It is worth nothing that Americans, who elected George Bush, when asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the US said “greed ad materialism” (33%) and “poverty and economic justice” (31%) twice as much as gay marriage and abortion (Zogby Internation 11/12/04 Press Release). Liberals must broaden the values debate.

Conservatives will try to keep values as their own preserve by references to God. In his victory speech Stephen Harper said “God Bless Canada”, clearly acknowledging support from the religious right and claiming, implicitly, the moral high ground. As the Cabinet appointments have show, however, claiming the moral high ground while actually governing is no easy task.

Liberals do not need to hide their faith. Most Canadians have strong religious beliefs and Liberals gain nothing by pretending that faith does not inform their views. This does not mean turning the Liberal party into a religious organization. But, it is possible to express personal faith and convictions about public policy while respecting the pluralism of Canadian democracy.

So, for example, in dealing with minimum sentencing and progressive taxation, Liberals can show their faith (if it be so), illustrative Liberal values and shows that the Conservatives cannot suggest that God is a member of their party by citing Luke 12:48:

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

On “Conservative” issues, Liberals can and should speak. Liberals should say the rights of hunters be respected. Liberals who hunt should let the public know - - banning handguns does not suggest shotguns will be taken away from people in the Ottawa Valley. On abortion Liberals should recognize the moral ambiguity and say abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Policies to make it possible for children to be raised by their mothers combat abortion and promote a real freedom of choice. The Liberal commitment to political inclusion, expansion of economic opportunity and fair compensation for work done all speak to “values”.

Liberals must not be shy. Liberals cannot hide their light under a bushel. Liberals can win the next election. But not unless Canadians know what Liberals stand for. An uncertain trumpet will not rally Liberal forces - - Liberals should let forth a powerful blast that will take down the walls set up by the Conservatives.