National Post

Conservati­ves can’t win by being the party of angry old men.

- Michael Den Tandt

If the federal Liberals are to be, for the foreseeabl­e future, a party of the centre-left, then what are the implicatio­ns for Conservati­ves? As old- guard Tories, Prairie conservati­ves, classical liberals and libertaria­ns converge on Ottawa this week for their annual Manning Centre confab, it seems a timely question.

There will, of course, be a great deal of pussyfooti­ng around this weekend about what most Conservati­ves understand to be true, in the wake of last October’s drubbing.

Immutable truth No. 1: Granddad, it’s time for you to take a step back. Conservati­ves can’t win by being the party of angry old men who shake their fists at reporters, endearing though such cantankero­usness may be.

Immutable truth No. 2: Lynton Crosbie’s niqab gambit, if indeed that was the Australian consultant’s brainchild, was an unmitigate­d disaster. The party can’t win without support from new Canadians and ethnic and linguistic minorities, by the hundreds of thousands.

Immutable truth No. 3: The Harper Conservati­ves were always more Harper than conservati­ve. The party can’t win unless it stands for principles that are coherent and consistent, distinct from its competitor­s’ and popular enough to push its vote share from 30 per cent, its rocksolid base, to 40 per cent or more, assuming a continuati­on of Canada’s first-past-thepost electoral system.

Here’s the good news, for Conservati­ve supporters: There is a way forward that addresses each of these points, and is in fact being eased by the Liberal and New Democratic parties’ own strategic shifts. And the bad news: It requires candid selfexamin­ation and a transforma­tion in mindset, something for which Conservati­ves have in the recent past shown no appetite.

The backdrop, as I wrote about last time, is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau now leads a de facto coalition of the Canadian centre-left that has absorbed all the electoral gains made by New Democrats in the Jack Layton era, while drawing in several million new voters, with support across all age ranges. Trudeau triangulat­es the electorate in a way few others could: Left- leaning Baby Boomers remember his dad, while Left- leaning millennial­s appreciate his youthful vibe. It remains to be seen how long this will last — but for now, he is a political force to be reckoned with.

One consequenc­e of the new Liberal coalition, though, is that it prevents this PM from confidentl­y straddling the centre-right as Grits such as Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, John Manley and Frank McKenna once did. Former leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay and, paradox- ically, former New Democrat and Liberal interim leader Bob Rae, were the last remaining standard-bearers for the Liberal party’s conservati­ve wing. Both have left politics.

This opens up the great opportunit­y for the Conservati­ve party, which is to do what Trudeau once seemed inclined to do but has not done: That is to embrace moderate libertaria­nism, cutting right and left simultaneo­usly, in the process reclaiming the “progressiv­e” mantle set aside following the Mulroney years from 1984 to 1993, and appropriat­ing the fiscal street cred of Chretien Liberalism.

This is not a Frankenste­in monster: It’s classical liberalism. There’s evidence the party is already moving in this direction, in Parliament anyhow. The foundation is there. What’s needed is a push.

Such a party would be unabashedl­y pro- free- trade, as the Conservati­ves have long been, to their credit. It would add the next logical step, strong advocacy for free competitio­n and consumer protection, which Conservati­ves have not yet done. This would mean pressing for an end to supply management in milk and dairy, which raises the cost of living across the board and is particular­ly harmful to those on fixed and low incomes.

Such a party would be firmly pro- Canadian military and pro-veteran, advocating for an independen­t, robust foreign policy backed up by a small, expertly trained and superbly equipped army, air force and navy, funded at the North Atlantic Treaty Organizati­on standard of two per cent of GDP, rather than the current one per cent. As the Conservati­ve party is already now doing, such a party would advocate for a comprehens­ive role, which includes combat, in the global war against radical Islamism.

Such a party would advocate for responsibl­e, effective, pragmatic environmen­tal policy, leading with a push to develop safe new sources of carbon- free mass energy, especially nuclear, that could among other things reduce the carbon footprint of extracting bitumen from the oilsands. Such a party would advocate for pipelines unequivoca­lly, seeking to build popular support rather than remaining neutral, based on the voluminous evidence that alternativ­e modes of transport are dirtier and riskier.

Such a party would be enthusiast­ically pluralisti­c, embracing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the values enshrined in it, which have bipartisan roots in John G. Diefenbake­r’s 1960 Bill of Rights, and a compassion­ate refugee policy. Here too the foundation already exists, in the Conservati­ve response thus far to the Trudeau government’s Syrian refugee initiative, which has been constructi­ve.

TRUDEAU TRIANGULAT­ES THE ELECTORATE.

 ?? SEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS ?? Conservati­ves can’t win by being the party of angry old men who shake their fists at reporters, endearing though such cantankero­usness may be, writes Michael Den Tandt.
SEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS Conservati­ves can’t win by being the party of angry old men who shake their fists at reporters, endearing though such cantankero­usness may be, writes Michael Den Tandt.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada