By design or by accident, Houston got it right
HALIFAX — Apparently, Tim Houston should have dumped Elizabeth SmithMcCrossin the minute he learned of her participation in the day-long blockade that closed the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick border last week.
At least that seems to be the prevailing opinion among Nova Scotians — outside Cumberland County — who were outraged by the blockade and saw Smith-McCrossin’s still ambiguous part in it as an open-and-shut case that carries the capital (political) punishment.
Not to be contrarian — my old friend Parker Donham owns that title in Nova Scotia, anyway — but whether by accident or by design, Houston got it right.
A little context is, as always, required.
Inside of a week, the Nova Scotia government inflated then — last Tuesday — burst the Atlantic Bubble by keeping travel restrictions in place between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The last-minute flip landed with a flop on Nova Scotian communities bordering New Brunswick, where economic, familial and other bonds between the two provinces are strongest.
Anger in Smith-McCrossin’s Cumberland North constituency required expression and the blockade ensued on Wednesday. (As an aside, but not for nothing, the Liberal narrative that the blockade included anti-vaxxers is both irrelevant and odious. It echoes the Republican line that the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol was infiltrated by Antifa.)
Whether Smith-McCrossin was an instigator, active participant or supporter is uncertain, but her involvement in the event is not in dispute.
Houston, who as leader of Nova Scotia’s Tories, is ostensibly — but not actually — Smith-McCrossin’s boss, immediately denounced the blockade but fell short of condemning her part therein.
REFUSED TO APOLOGIZE
A day later, the Tory caucus met — virtually, of course — where, we are told, SmithMcCrossin “refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and — when explicitly asked by her Caucus – refused to apologize to Nova Scotians.”
Accordingly, Houston, now armed with the blessing of his caucus, showed her the door.
The dogs of political war howled that Houston’s action was too late. He’s a weak leader, they said, because he didn’t give Smith-McCrossin the proverbial boot first chance.
Houston’s delay may have been based on a desire to save his MLA and retain her seat in the legislature. Or, he may have waited to hear her side and involve his caucus in the decision. In the latter case, Houston did the right thing by design; in the former, by accident.
Whatever her transgression, as an MLA elected under the PC banner, SmithMcCrossin is entitled to a hearing — due process — by her caucus colleagues.
That may seem like a quaint and outdated concept in our current political ecosystem, where “strong” leaders are expected to be decisive, act unilaterally and with dispatch to summarily vanquish any member who embarrasses the party or crosses whatever line demarks its political limits (or its ideological limits, although those tend to be pliable).
Houston and the PC caucus properly extended the right of due process to Smith-McCrossin. As fairness demands, they gave her the opportunity to tell her side of the story.
CONSENSUS NOT DIRECTIVE
Critics of Houston’s delay — by 24 hours — are, wittingly or otherwise, promoting a brand of political leadership that, while familiar, reeks of absolute authority vested in the dear leader.
As we’ve all apparently forgotten, premiers, prime ministers and party leaders were once — correctly — considered first among equals and should be again. As such, they lead their cabinets and caucuses by consensus not directive.
That makes for better decisions but, too often, for lousy politics.
Leaders who won’t declare — on demand — their party’s position are seen as evasive or indecisive, even if they only want to consult their caucus before committing.
Houston’s 24-hour delay in dumping Smith-McCrossin is sign of weakness only if you discount both due process and the role of caucus in determining its membership. The leader can kick anyone out of the party, but the caucus is entitled to a say on its membership.
Smith-McCrossin, who ran a credible campaign for the Tory leadership in 2018, was afforded the due process to which she was entitled. The matter was brought before the one tribunal where it belonged — the PC legislative caucus.
In this case, whether by design or by accident, Houston got it right.
His detractors can find no place for due process in politics and seem oblivious to the benefits of consensus that’s supposed to guide caucus — and cabinet — decisions.
Given the nature and character of recent political leadership in this province, and beyond, you can understand how due process and consensus have become unfamiliar concepts in the public life of the place.