In a recurring feature, Susan Delacourt, a small-l liberal, and Matt Gurney, a small-c conservative, bring their different perspectives — and shared commitment to civil disagreement — to the political debates of the moment.
SD: The Ontario budget was delivered this week, and the headline number — $9.8-billion deficit — got me wondering, what is a conservative these days in Canada? As the admitted, small-l liberal in this conversation, maybe I’m not the best expert on conservatism, but I don’t know what exactly unites the right in this country at the moment. Doug Ford seems to have far more in common with Justin Trudeau than he does with Pierre Poilievre, and I’m not just talking about budget deficits.
MG: I can answer this two ways. The easier but less thoughtful way is to just note that Doug Ford isn’t a conservative. As far as I can tell he doesn’t have a political ideology, he just has a general aversion to getting yelled at. If Ford had grown up around a different kitchen table hearing a different set of folksy bromides, he’d be the same guy leading a different party. Probably the best way I’ve ever heard Ford described is “natural salesman” — he just wants to tell you what he thinks you need to hear to close a deal. It’s why he flip-flops so much. But I’m going to avoid the temptation to talk about Ford and take on your bigger question — what unites conservatives. There’s no single snappy answer to that, because I think there are a bunch of tribes of conservatism. I’m one of the wretched lonely weirdos that thinks public safety and national security is the most important issue. I have dozens and dozens of fellow travellers across this great land of ours. But honestly, what unites conservatives today? Federally, at least, it’s the smell of impending victory.
SD: “Don’t yell at me” would make a great campaign slogan — not for Poilievre, though, who seems to enjoy the yelling part of politics. Maybe that is the signature point of division between the Ontario and federal conservatives. If Poilievre does become the next prime minister, I predict he will have a tough time being as fiscally conservative as he promises to be. Like it or not, we live in a country now that expects government to spend its way out of problems (which I acknowledge has been taken to a high art by Trudeau’s Liberals and the pandemic). Poilievre also represents an Ottawa-area riding, where cuts to government translate into cuts to jobs, and I don’t know how well that will fly.
MG: My gut feeling is that if we talked to anyone who has held high elected office in this country, and between the two of us we’ve talked to a bunch of them already, they’d all agree that EVERYTHING was harder to do than they’d expected. I’ve yet to speak to a former mayor, premier, PM, cabinet minister, you name it, whose post-politics takeaway was, “That was easier than I thought!” But I do agree on the big picture point. But I think the other point you raise — Poilievre seems to enjoy the yelling — is important. There are real structural and fiscal limits to any PM’s flexibility, but a willingness to pick a fight and then hold your ground isn’t something to underestimate. I also think the public might be angry enough to support some bolder action. I wouldn’t be shocked if PMPP moves big and moves fast — as early as he can in his mandate.
SD: All the public tributes to the late Brian Mulroney naturally got people talking about whether Poilievre would be a conservative of that brand. Short answer, no. I’m not the only one who noticed that Mulroney got Jean Charest to deliver a eulogy — not the current Conservative leader, who spent a whole campaign calling Charest a liberal. Seemed to me that the former prime minister was casting a belated vote in that contest. I also know that many haven’t forgotten that the conservative movement splintered under Mulroney in the 1980s and 1990s. You’re probably correct— the discipline of anticipated power may be uniting the right at the moment. But beyond that, I don’t know what threads Poilievre is going to pull to lead a national conservative movement. If that’s what he wants, that is.
MG: I’m curious, too. One of my theories about the end of Stephen Harper’s time in office is that by about 2013 or so, he had exhausted the list of things that he could do that ticked two different boxes: broadly supported by the diverse conservative coalition, and, broadly palatable to the public at large. There are absolutely things a Tory PM who was willing to pick fights and break things could do and would probably find at least some public support for that. But right now, we know better what the Tories wouldn’t do — prop up the media, impose a carbon tax — than we do what bold ideas a re-elected Tory government would want to pursue. I’m assured we’ll hear about them eventually. We’ll see? Riding the anger wave hasn’t stopped working for them yet.
SD: I think the anger will turn off voters, ultimately, but that may be my optimism speaking. I note, to your point, that anger seems to be the driving theme of the Canada Strong and Free Network’s big conference coming up in Ottawa in the next couple of weeks. “Leading by Conviction” is the title and here’s a blurb from the program: “We have a seasoned elite that sees conservatism as a threat to the global liberal project. Socialists never play by the rules and never fight fair. The pushback will be ferocious.” Sounds like fun. I also note that Doug Ford is not among the attendees (that’s where I first met him, as it happens).
You might be interested in
Breaking News Headlines & Top Stories | The Star
Breaking News Headlines & Top Stories | The Star
MG: You’re right about the anger, but there’s nothing new under the sun there. Every politician lays the foundation of their eventual undoing. The relevant issue for the here and now is whether the anger will rally enough people, for long enough, for PP to win. Voters will tire of it eventually. If it takes a decade, though, I doubt Poilievre will care much.
