Author:
DALE SWIRSKY per jfh
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:11:03 06/13/03 Fri
Author Host/IP: d150-108-94.home.cgocable.net/24.150.108.94
WHY WON'T THE RIGHT UNITE?
Many in the national media seem perplexed, even miffed, that the Canadian
Alliance and the Tories cannot seem to "get their act together" and unite
for the sole purpose of defeating the Liberals. The media, however, devotes
scant attention to what this united right's policies or visions for Canada
would be, and this is why the media is quite unrealistic if it thinks that
the two parties cannot merge simply because they "cannot get their acts
together." To be taken seriously, any "Unite the Right" party must have
cohesive policies and a vision. It cannot credibly go to voters and say,
"Vote for us instead of the Liberals, and we'll tell you what our policies
are later." If the media thinks that because both the Tories and the
Alliance are right of centre that they can agree on common polices, then the
media doesn't know what each party is about, doesn't respect how deeply
rooted the differing beliefs are in each party, and doesn't understand how
each party's radically different vision of Canada means that each would
chart a profoundly different course for our country if elected as the
government.
An August '02 Environics study of CA and Tory supporters revealed the profound
value differences between each party's supporters. CA supporters much more
strongly identified with the traditional view of the family, with their
region, with the belief that it's an "eat or be eaten" world, that our
society and the world face an impending crisis, and that to avoid this
crisis society needs to change to adopt the values of the CA. True to its
predecessor's name, the typical CA supporter wants to radically "reform"
Canada and sees a Canada in dire need of these reforms.
Tory supporters, in contrast, much more strongly identified with a "live and
let live" approach to values, to identify with Canada as a whole, to be more
open to alternative lifestyles and non-traditional families, to other
peoples and other cultures, and while, as good right-wingers, most Tories
placed a strong emphasis on self-reliance, they were not strongly drawn to
the neo-conservative, "eat or be eaten" view which more Alliance supporters
shared. Where as CA members felt strongly called to change Canadian society,
Tories more strongly identified with the statement, "It's important to
understand Canada." Most Tories do not see our society in crisis and, (This
next point is my deduction, not the Environics survey's data) as a
consequence, do not wish to fundamentally change/reform how Canada is
constituted.
These differing values manifest themselves in numerous policy differences.
Part of the CA's "reform" package for dramatically altering Canada is to end
the Canadian Wheat Board's long time single-desk monopoly, to implement a
flat tax and citizens referenda if a percentage wish to have them, to have
equality among provinces in the Senate, to end official biculturalism,
multiculturalism, and the CBC, to, in fact, remove the federal government
from all jurisdictions not explicitly given to it in the BNA Act of 1867.
This would remove the federal government from the jurisdictions of training,
housing, education, and health care. According to Stockwell Day, Medicare
was to be preserved by a unanimous consent of the 10 provinces, not by
federal fiat. The CA indeed wishes to reform Canada. Its followers believe
passionately in the above policies, can make a good case for each of them,
and will not abandon them as these policies naturally flow from their
proponents' basic value system.
Tory policies, on the other hand, essentially aim to "conserve" Canada the
way it is by preserving what Tories believe has served Canada well:
multiculturalism, biculturalism, asymmetrical federalism, and selected
social programs. Tories see themselves as prudently "progressive" in areas
such as tolerance of non-traditional families, more aggressive debt
reduction, significant parliamentary reform, an elected Senate, not based on
the CA idea of provincial equality, but on the traditional Canadian idea of
regional equality, targeted tax cuts, especially to job-killing business
taxes, but a maintenance of Canada's progressive income tax system, and
expanded aid to students and farmers. Just as CA supporters passionately
believe that Canada needs their reforms in order to avert a crisis, Tory
supporters passionately believe that, while Canada needs to progress in
areas, it essentially needs to conserve its traditional values and
institutions and that we risk a crisis if we rock the Canadian boat in a
major way.
Given such a difference in the basic orientation of each party, polls which
indicate that sizeable percentages would "consider" voting for a united
right-of-centre party should not be taken seriously. Members of each party
would love to merge or form a coalition so long as it's their party's
values, policies, and vision of Canada which would be implemented should
government be won. However, given that each party's basic vision for Canada
is a fundamental threat to the other, it would seem obvious why the two
parties cannot "get their act together" and effect such a merger or
coalition.
Does this mean that we are destined to be ruled by the Liberals forever?
Unlikely, and not just because forever is a very long time. Just as the
media seems to misunderstand the profound differences between the two
parties, it also doesn't seem to have a very nuanced grasp of their support
levels and potential for growth. Just as there is the myth that the reason
the two parties cannot merge is because of their leaders' pettiness or the
parties' incompetence, so there is the myth that the two parties need to
form a coalition because the Alliance is stuck in the West and the Tories
are stuck in Atlantic Canada, and the myth that combining the right-wing
vote will defeat the Liberals. It won't, and hasn't in any poll that I've
seen in the last 10 years. Once these myths are dispensed with, then
it becomes apparent that the Tories could grow to defeat the Liberals.
Contrary to the media myth, the Tories do have significant support bases
outside of Atlantic Canada. They have seats in Quebec, Manitoba, and
Alberta, and have often been over 20% and a solid second in Ontario polls
taken over the past two years. The myth also holds that the CA is impregnable
in the West while the Tories are presented as being non-existent in the West,
despite their three seats.
Fatal to the myth is the fact that polls have had the Tories ahead of the CA
in fortress Alberta, both in an August '02 Ekos poll (by a 25% to 23% margin)
and in polls around the time of the Stockwell Day debacle. Clearly, there is
a significant level of support in multiple regions on which the Tories can
build a credible alternative to the Liberals. In contrast, the CA is
virtually non-existent in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and close to that in
Ontario. While a Tory defeat of the Liberals is not probable, but merely
plausible, there is no plausible scenario by which the CA or the NDP could
be seen as having the potential to defeat the Liberals. Any "out with the
bums" anti-Liberal movement, in order to succeed, would have to coalesce
around the Tories.
Given that combining the right-of-centre vote consistently leaves the right
10% to 20% behind the Liberals, the only way the right can defeat the
Liberals is if a sufficient number of Liberal supporters come over to it. The
Unite the Right movement has yet to produce this their mythical voter who
says, "I like the CA or the PC, but they're not united, so I'm going to vote
Liberal." This mythical voter does not exist. What does exist is a large pool
of voters who fear that an Alliance victory would lead to an Alliance
government trying to reform Canada to fit into its followers' vision. Would
a united right which features key elements of the CA's desire to drastically
reform Canada attract the needed Liberal support? Absolutely not. Would
a CA-PC coalition or some deal not to run candidates against each other
attract these Liberal votes? Who would be PM if such a coalition would
win? Whose policies and visions of Canada would be implemented? Would
Paul Martin rightly smash this as a sloppy idea indicative of a foolish group
that doesn't deserve to govern? The reality is that if the CA is seen by voters
as the alternative to the Liberals, then the soft Liberal vote will stay Liberal
precisely because of the visions for Canada discussed above. Most Canadians,
be they Tory, Liberal, or NDP by inclination, do not wish to radically reform
Canada the way that the Alliance does, and will vote to prevent the Alliance
vision from being implemented. If that means voting Liberal, then so be it. Liberal
strategists clearly understood this in the last election as they constantly
used the Alliance as their foil; rarely did they mention the other parties,
even in areas, aside from Quebec, where other parties were the main
opposition. Jean Chretien recently tried to play this card to his caucus
when he stated that he might call a snap election and then the choice is
between himself and Stephen Harper. He could so arrogantly say this because
he knows, and most Liberals know, that no matter how corrupt and arrogant
they are, most Canadians will still choose a corrupt Liberal government
which shares their vision of Canada than a "clean" Stephen Harper who
doesn't share that vision. This dynamic, however, does not hold true if the
Tories are presented to voters as the alternative to the Liberals. Although
there are key differences, both the Tories and the Liberals agree that
Canada fundamentally needs to be "conserved" as is. As long as most
Canadians also agree with this, then many right-of-centre Liberal voters
could comfortably vote Tory. Freed from fear that voting NDP would help the
Alliance overtake the Liberals, combined with a fading memory of Bob Rae and
Glen Clark, NDP support would also rise and nibble away at the Liberals'
left flank. The passionate Alliance believers will remain, of course, but
their support level seems to be about 6% as that was what the party
bottomed-out at during the Stockwell Day leadership crisis. As the
Alliance's fundamental inability to expand becomes apparent, its more
moderate supporters would return to the Tories, as a large number already
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 