Why Peter MacKay is not the right Conservative party leader
When I was a political science undergrad at Dalhousie University, one of my professors characterized the troubles facing the Progressive Conservative (PC) party as part-and-parcel of the “Tory Syndrome.” That was in the early 1980s. Has much changed in the interim?
The syndrome, carefully examined in a book by Queen’s University’s George Perlin, typically kicked-in after the party, provincially or federally, had lost a hard-fought electoral contest. Political party in-fighting would promptly ensue, fundraising levels would slump and volunteers would jump ship, and the party would inevitably begin the painful process of effectively tearing itself apart. In many of the cases identified by Prof. Perlin, the then-leader of the party – after much internecine blood-letting – would be unceremoniously dumped.
We may very well be seeing that all play out again, perhaps in slower motion, under Andrew Scheer’s leadership of the federal Conservatives. And Peter MacKay, former deputy leader of the party, seems to be pouring gasoline on the party’s nascent leadership fire.
How else could you denote his flammable comments in Washington recently. When asked about the Oct. 21 federal election, he said harshly: "To use a good Canadian analogy, it was like having a breakaway on an open net and missing the net." Ouch!
But the fact of the matter is that Peter MacKay is not the right person for the party’s top leadership position. Besides his French being reportedly worse than Scheer’s (not to mention past controversies around using a search-and-rescue helicopter for private benefit while Defence Minister and uttering degrading comments about one-time companion Belinda Stronach), his political and personal negatives are just too high.
Remember, too, that some party members were rankled when MacKay – no doubt sensing a Liberal red tidal wave in 2015 – decided to sit out that election campaign. And when asked about his missing the open net remarks, one current Alberta MP said curtly: “Big words for someone who didn’t even suit up and get on the ice.”
It’s not like MacKay is all that well-liked within party circles. He has always been seen as someone from the progressive “Red Tory” side of the party and thus distrusted (and even dismissed) by the old Reformers and Canadian Alliance folks who now control the party apparatus. In short, MacKay was never really seen as one of them.
Today’s Conservatives are most assuredly not the party of Peter’s father, the long-serving PC member Elmer MacKay. Instead, it is a party firmly in the hands of the old Reform Party of Canada. Indeed, MacKay’s moderate conservatism is simply anathema to the party’s core base of supporters, particularly in Western Canada.
Even within the ranks of the more Red Tory-minded supporters (scarce though they are), MacKay’s name is not always held in high esteem. For many, he was the guy who betrayed the PC party and facilitated the dreaded Reform Party takeover in 2003 – even after pledging to party leadership candidate David Orchard in the early 2000s that he would do nothing of the sort.
Ever since then, there have been serious trust issues and doubts about MacKay’s leadership qualifications. Translation: he is not particularly well-liked by either the old PC guard or the newer Reform-Alliance crowd.
Of course, that raises a very interesting question: Would the Conservative party today even want MacKay as leader? One would be hard-pressed to think that partisans would welcome him back with open arms today.
He’s got another serious liability as well. Name me a single political figure from Atlantic Canada in recent memory, besides Nova Scotia’s Robert Stanfield, who has come close to winning the prime ministership? Exactly.
There’s a good chance, then, that if MacKay does throw his leadership hat into the ring, Perlin’s “Tory Syndrome” will once again raise its ugly head. So, for the good of the Conservative party, to say nothing of its prospects in the next federal election, he would be better off putting any leadership bid into the political deep freeze – indefinitely.