Harper bets that cynicism works
For all the talk of Conservative leader Stephen Harper being at war with Canada’s left, much that’s happened before and after this campaign began suggests he’s as much at war with his support on the right.
And while Harper is rightly being hammered by some on the right, this might actually be a winning formula.
Of course, this being only the second week of an 11week campaign, it’s far too early to be making any bold predictions of a Harper win.
Seventy per cent of the voting population — at least according to the polls — want nothing to do with a second Harper majority government. There is potential for that number to increase after testimony this week from respected former Harper chief of staff Nigel Wright at the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy. Just how much Harper knew about Wright’s $90,000 cheque to cover the costs of Duffy’s allegedly improper expenses might have a huge influence on who gets elected Oct. 19.
So now would seem an odd time for Harper to offend his philosophical base by doing things that seem provocatively un-conservative.
The thought crosses one’s mind after a column in the National Post last week by decidedly conservative Sun Media columnist John Robson, explaining why he simply can’t consider voting Conservative.
“I cannot vote for them. I just can’t,” Robson wrote. “They should be my natural choice, but their coarse, vindictive, proudly unprincipled cynicism must not be rewarded with electoral success, regardless of the consequences.”
Robson cited Harper’s home renovation tax credit as “bad economics” aimed at stimulating one of the few sectors of the economy actually doing well.
“The cliché that Harper shrank government suits partisans on all sides, but it is false,” Robson wrote. “Worse still, it rests on the premise that anything you want should be subsidized ... If you’re going to get socialism, at least get it from honest socialists.”
The staunchly conservative columnist then went on to note Harper’s flurry of pre-election campaign giveaways in an attempt to buy taxpayers’ votes with their own money.
Robson is hardly the only one.
The Hill Times noted Monday that Conservative cabinet ministers, backbenchers, and senators “announced $14.09 billion in federal government spending between June 23, when the House rose, and Aug. 2, when the federal election was called, according to the 670 announcements.” (Senators? Didn’t Harper say in last Thursday’s debate that he did not control senators?)
The newspaper noted Harper forces made 109 federal government spending announcements on July 31 alone — just two days before the writ was dropped. Vote-rich Ontario benefited most with 171 announcements, followed by 138 in B.C. — where the NDP seems to now be pulling ahead at the expense of the Conservatives and Liberals. In Quebec — a province the Conservatives have pretty much written off — there were only 71 announcements, the Hill Times calculated.
Interestingly, Saskatoon was the city with the secondmost announcements at 15 — one less than the 16 made in Winnipeg. There were 27 announcements in Saskatchewan, valued at $98 million, mostly made by incumbent MPs like Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle), Gerry Ritz (Battlefords-Lloydminster), Kelly Block, (Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek) and Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Lanigan).
But while there may be outrage — maybe even occasionally coming from the political right — such tactics hardly ever turn out to be political suicide.
In fact, the notion that people sincerely don’t like government giveaways is one of the biggest fallacies in politics. Going back nearly 30 years to Grant Devine’s 7-7-7 mortgage program (capped seven per cent interest on $70,000 for seven years) and billion-dollar farm bailouts, people (yes, even anti-big-government conservative types) love them and will eagerly vote for them.
Such targeted announcements appeal to the greedy nature in all who feel they deserve to get their fair share (or maybe even a little more) from government.
Maybe this all sounds cynical, but more likely it is nothing more than the tawdry side of populist politics ... or at least, as populist as Stephen Harper is ever going to get.
Besides having far more appeal than anyone will admit, such spending is an effective contrast from opposition parties that have to play by the rules of “responsible” government.
And it works particularly well when your party can simultaneously argue to its base or to the older, blue collar demographic that your left-wing opponents are about to shut down 100,000 jobs in the oilsands or invite ISIS in for tea.
Or at least, it’s certainly enough to keep the philosophical right at home ... not that they were about to dash off and vote for Tom Mulcair or Justin Trudeau, anyway.
Don’t write Harper off just yet.