Battle to define Tory brand is on
Jean Charest is once again running for the leadership of the Conservative party of Canada. Yes, again. He ran for less than a day in 2020. His launch ad was briefly published online, offering a glimpse into the pitch Charest’s would have made to party members.
“The choice we’ll make will be important not only for the party but also for Canada’s future. I’ll have a chance to offer a vision on the future of the party, but most of all on the future of Canada. The choice we’ll make is a choice that will determine if we will win the next general election.”
That word “win” will be central to Charest’s campaign. Expect Charest to claim that the next election is winnable only with him as the leader — a winner who can bring the party and the country together.
That’s all fine but Charest will need to first define what it means to be a Conservative and convince enough supporters that his definition is the only viable path to power.
If the third time is indeed a charm, this third leadership race in six years will be a referendum on the party’s future. One that should force a decision on what the Conservative brand should stand for to succeed. Since it’s often more important to be different than to be better, the more polarized the positions of the two leading candidates will be, the better. It might split the party but it will bring much needed clarity on what the Conservative brand stands for.
There was much talk of the party’s need to “rebrand” when Andrew Scheer stepped down in 2019. In most organizations, that’s usually important work done prior to choosing the person who will best embody the new brand promise.
Political parties don’t operate this way. Members pick the leader they believe best represents their views. And when the rules of the leadership race create an opening, one can come from behind and get elected even if the new leader’s positions aren’t representative of the majority.
This way of selecting a leader is not necessarily problematic. But it is particularly challenging for the Conservatives since the party’s most engaged members keep choosing leaders that are a hard sell to Canadians. They’re either perceived as too socially conservative, or they can’t be trusted after running as true blue and then pivoting to the middle.
Those hoping for this race to help unite the party might get their wish in the end but not before the fissure between the social conservative and progressive wings of the party deepens. Poilievre and Charest, two fluently bilingual political pros, aren’t known for pulling their punches. The clash will force a choice about what it means to be a Conservative. Whether the party goes the way of the populist right or small-c conservatism on Sept. 10, voters in the general election will finally know where the party stands on issues that matter to them.
Others will enter the race. Patrick Brown, the former Ontario PC leader, could change the dynamics. His ideology, a composite of leftleaning Red Tory views and rightleaning Blue Tory values, might get him elected but it did not work for O’Toole in the end. He’ll have to pick a lane.
Having two clear choices is the only path forward to shape the future of the Conservative brand. Party supporters, which must include a significant number of new members this time around, should welcome having to choose between two polar opposites. It might reposition the Conservative brand in a manner that alienate some members but it’s the only way voters in the next general election will be able to choose between a Conservative party that can confidently say “I’m a PC” and a Liberal party that can only say “I’m a Mac.”