The myth of Kevin O’Leary

It was a disturbing juxtaposition — the public funerals for three of the men murdered in the carnage of Quebec City was showing on the office television screen, just as video of Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary blasting away with an automatic weapon at a shooting range hit my Twitter feed.

“Look at that thing smoking,” said O’Leary, after unleashing a barrage using an automatic rifle. “Still have my shooting chops from my days as a military cadet,” ran the caption on the tweet.

The stunt was designed to buttress the TV pitchman’s reputation among people who are impressed by anyone hitting a large target with a gun that fires 600 rounds a minute.

Surely it would be harder to miss?

At any rate, O’Leary upset some soldiers and veterans when he said “there’s nothing proud about being a warrior.”

He further made himself a target for gun owners when he described the AR-15 rifle as a weapon that sprays bullets “like a water gun” and is only used to “kill people.”

“Kevin O’Leary is not a Conservative,” thundered leadership candidate Erin O’Toole in response.

“Mr. O’Lear y s ounds exactly l i ke his Liberal f ri ends who brought in the long- gun registry,” said O’Toole.

Presumably t he video was meant to inoculate him against suggestions that he demonizes gun owners.

But to release it just days after a mass shooting where the blood of the victims is still being wiped off the walls displayed a remarkable lack of judgment ( O’Leary later tweeted to say he was taking down the video “out of respect” for the victims).

The day before, one of the most able and decent Conservative MPs of recent years, former Harper government minister Chuck Strahl, was on Parliament Hill to endorse the candidacy of Andrew Scheer.

Strahl said he had reached his decision by weighing Scheer’s track record, his j udgment, his ability to speak French and his poten- tial to unite the party.

“Who can keep it all together? I’ve seen this show before and it’s not a pretty sight,” he said, referring to Canadian Alliance caucus split in 2001, in which he was a central figure.

O’Leary scores poorly on all Strahl’s criteria. In particular, there are concerns that leadership based around his personality cult will fracture the party.

Lisa Raitt has already launched a Stop Kev -in O-Leary website, claiming that he promotes irresponsible, divisive and negative politics. She has also taken aim at another candidate, Kellie Leitch, saying her “Canadian values” test for immigrants “embraces the other half of Donald Trump.”

Yet for all the concerns that O’Leary and Leitch are beyond the pale of acceptable conservatism, polling suggests they are among the top three candidates.

The gun video and bluster will appeal to Conservative members who believe Trump will make America great again; doubling down on extreme vetting in the wake of the Quebec shootings will probably give Leitch a bump in the polls from people who get their news from Rebel Media.

The surprise is not the political celebrity of Kevin O’Leary, based on name recognition that enabled him to sign up 9,000 new members and raise $ 300,000 since launching last month.

It is the lacklustre cam- paigns of candidates like Scheer, O’Toole, Raitt, Chris Alexander and Michael Chong. This group of five senior party figures is clustered as a second tier of indistinguishable candidates. None of them has been able to cannibalize enough support from the others to break away from the pack and mount a serious challenge to O’Leary.

Increasingly, it appears that if the Conservative party is not destined to be led by O’Leary, other candidates and their supporters will have to rally around Maxime Bernier, who has run a textbook campaign and raised more money than anyone else.

Given the amount of cash and energy expended to get this far, it is unlikely deals will be done before the convention in May. Even then, no- one can guarantee their supporters will t ransfer their affections to their preferred candidate, so it remains O’Leary’s contest to lose.

His appeal to Conservatives appears based on the belief that he is best placed to beat Justin Trudeau in 2019. He appeals to fiscal conservatives, who make up around half the membership, with his focus on the Liberal government’s debt and deficits.

Whoever wins the leadership, the message that the Trudeau government is to blame for an economy that is failing to create jobs and wealth has to be the drum they beat going into the next election.

But the concerns about O’Leary are not groundless. He makes much of his strength — that he is better placed to deal with President Trump than Justin Trudeau. In interview after interview, he explains how, as prime minister, he would sit down business leaders, aboriginal groups and premiers and tell them how things are going to be under his “administration.”

But, having just finished a book called The Myth of the Strong Leader by Scottish historian Archie Brown, I’m not convinced that a leader who dominates his colleagues and concentrates all decision- making into his own hands is in the national, or the party’s, interest.

“While some leaders who come i nto that category emerge more positively than negatively, in general, huge power amassed by an individual leader paves the way for important errors at best and disaster and massive bloodshed at worst,” Brown concludes.

At least Stephen Harper, who clearly qualified as a dominating leader, was steeped in the traditions of the party he led.

The Conservative Party of Canada remains a loose confederation of warring tribes. I’m not convinced it would survive having Kevin O’Leary as leader.