Is Stephen Harper killing Canadian conservatism?

In my reading of the various media and blogs out there the question comes to mind is Harper doing for the Conservative Party of Canada and conservatism in general what George Bush is doing for the Republicans in the US? Garth Turner thinks that Canadian conservatism has a much different flavour to it that the flavour that Harper is presenting. Turner's thesis (and this could just be sour grapes) is that Canadian conservatism tends to be more progressive socially and conservative fiscally. This got me thinking about what Harper is doing to the face of Canadian conservatism and what damage he's inflicting on the CPC while he's doing it. The big question is does Harper's vision of Canada resonate with Canadians?

Of course we can't look inside Harper's head and see what he's really thinking so we must use his words and actions to infer what's going on up there. From these words and actions we can then infer what vision, if any, Stephen Harper has for Canada under the label "Conservative" (and "conservative"). We can then look at what affect that may have on him and his party electorally in the short term at the very least. Speculation on the longer term effects is also possible.

First lets look at the blending of the old Reform/Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Prior to the merger the Reform/Alliance Party grew from populist roots to pushing the PC's from the national stage. Generally populist in it's platform, there were always a faction of the party wanting to push a theo-conservative agenda. Under Preston Manning's leadership, the party managed to, just barely, keep these elements in check. This occurred probably because Manning realized that such elements would hinder the electoral prospects of his new party outside of its western base and despite Manning's own leanings towards theo-conservatism. The old Reform party couldn't shed its image as a western regional party though, partly because many of its policies didn't resonate with people outside of the west.

So the party tried some change, new name, new leader. Well two new names really, but no one thought of the implications of calling a party the Conservative/Reform Alliance Party (CRAP) so the name was hastily changed to the Canadian Reform/Conservative Alliance Party. The Alliance was to entice the still existing PC's to join forces and create a "united right". It didn't work. In fact the new leader, Stockwell Day, had none of Manning's saavy and began a series of gaffes that took the new party from soaring in the polls to struggling to maintain the seat the Reform Party had in Ontario. Stockwell Day spent no time hiding his theo-con roots and had such a choke hold on the day to day affairs of his MP's that several broke ranks and sat as independents for a while. After a tumultuous year as leader, Day stepped down and Stephen Harper became leader.

Harper was able to lure the PC's into the Alliance forming the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). Seen by many PC's as a takeover of their party by the Reform Party, the response of the Canadian voter to the new party was a bit underwhelming. Even united, the political right had problems unseating a scandal ridden Liberal government as Canadians were still unsure about Harper and the CPC. There was no taste for the policies of the old Reform/Alliance so the Liberals squeaked back to power with a minority government. With power so close at hand, Harper tried (sometimes succeeding) to look like a moderate conservative. The kind of conservative that Canadians could vote for. One that wasn't going to change health care but provide good-old fashioned fiscal responsibility and honesty to government. During this time there was some evidence that the more progressive elements of the party were being shunted to the sidelines, but not a lot of people took notice. The one major shove, being Belinda Stronach, being written off as political opportunism.

With the Liberals imploding between the sponsorship scandal and the fighting between the Chretien and Martin camps within the party, Harper had his chance to grasp for power. With the 2006 election, Harper managed to successfully muzzle his more nutty MP's and keep the rest on a five point message of talking points. With the Liberals in disarray and the voters wanting change Harper got his trip to 24 Sussex, but with only a minority government. Now the real face of Stephen Harper began to emerge and the type of conservatism he's trying to shape the country in.

It is useful at this time to look at what did progressive conservatism (or Canadian conservatism) look like prior to the Reform/Alliance takeover. It tended to the fiscally conservative side of things for sure, but with enough pragmatism to ensure that not a lot of lower income people got hurt for them to want to vote for someone else. Social programs such as health care were to remain, with some tinkering around the edges, but for the most part the agenda was on lowering taxes and making life easier for business to make money. Social issues beyond common crime weren't really on the table since they weren't that critical to the economy so were a can of worms best left unopened. Friendly relations with the US were important, but only in such as they were our largest trading partner and there was money to be made down there. The usual concerns were brought up about being too cozy with Uncle Sam, but that pragmatism came in again and tended to keep the PC's from going too far.

So why did the PC's do to lose power, and so quickly. Three things had happened. First, then leader and PM Brian Mulroney was seen as one of our more slimy PM's and there was great public sentement to get rid of him and his ilk. Second, the Liberals, ever the pragmatists, saw an opportunity for votes in a shift to the right and third, the Reform Party was formed in Alberta. This created a perfect electoral storm that the PC's never recovered from. The now centre rightish Liberals stole the dissatisfied progressive members of the PC's to their banner and the more right wing, including the theo and neo-cons flocked to the Reform Party. This caused the PC party to collapse at the polls and it never recovered, making it ripe for the pickings ten years later.

With the takeover of the PC's by the Reform/Alliance, some of the progressive conservatives who had switched to the Liberals switched back, and with the revelation of the sponsorship scandal, they returned in droves. What they've found though is not the party they left. In the merger, which was full of possibilities, it would seem that the worst aspects of both parties were highlighted while the good in both were wiped out. So instead of a socially progressive, fiscally responsible, grass-roots populist party they got an extremely socially conservative, top down party where unwavering loyalty to the leader was of prime importance. Even so, a thin veneer of moderation was there, enough to keep the so-called Red Tories hanging around.

Come to election night in January 2006. The voter, tired of a waffling PM and scandal laden Liberal party, cautiously voted for the seemingly moderate CPC. This was enough for the thin veneer of moderation to fall off the party. Since his election, Harper has shown that he's not a moderate. Within the party he's shown that it's his way or no way. In a party with supposedly open nominations, hard core theo and neo-con candidates were given free rides to nomination through snap nomination meetings called by party central office. MP's are muzzled and debate at the caucus level is virtually non-existent. So much for the grass roots populism of the old Reform/Alliance party.

In terms of policy, the pragmatism of the old PC party just isn't there. The "principled stand" which are the buzzwords for ideological blinders are the key to Harper's regime. Programs are cut, not because they aren't providing value for dollar, or are even bad or unnecessary, but simply because they don't fit the model of ideological purity the theo and neo-cons want. There is no room for negotiation, no looking at the big picture. Just simple black and white thinking about what government is about and Harper sees that there should be practically no government. The obvious exception to this is in the field of morality. Here the theo-cons see a large role for government. From telling us who we should marry to telling us how we should celebrate holidays, the theo-cons want to legislate their brand of morality on the rest of us.

All this tends to fly in the face of what Canadians traditionally have come to expect from progressive conservatism. In fact, progressive conservatism is more reflective of the values of Canadians than the conservatism being rammed down everyone's throats by Harper. Even in the Conservative stronghold of Alberta, only 30% of provincial Conservative party members voted for a candidate with views similar to Harper's. This shows a large disconnect between the conservatism on offer and what the Canadian people would like to see from conservatism. Harper either has to fix this disconnect or there will be problems for him and his party. The moderate conservatives that make up the bulk of Canadian conservatism will start to look at alternatives at election time as the vision of Canada the theo and neo-cons is not what they're looking for.

In the short term this has negative implications for the electoral hopes of the CPC. With the Liberals under new management despondent Canadian conservatives have somewhere to vote, for now, until the CPC can rid itself of the extreme right views that seem to permeate the upper leadership and hence the party. There are some long term negative consequences of Harper's manner or leadership and policies. Eventually, in the eyes of the public, the entire definition of conservative will be the theo and neo version. This will not bode well for conservatism in Canada as people will begin to reject it wholesale as being too radical for them. This in turn will do conservative parties no favours as they will have an uphill climb to counteract their perceived image. If the pragmatism and social conscience remains out of conservatism, it won't have a long run outside of Alberta.

So is it too late? I don't think so. An actual shift towards the centre will gain the CPC huge votes. This won't happen until there's a radical change in leadership and that isn't likely to happen until Harper wants to quit given his stranglehold over the party apparatus. The next election will be telling for sure as it will be partly a referendum on Canadian conservatism. A loss for the CPC will be a rejection of the radical right and a sign of the long spiral down. Unfortunately the leadership of the CPC is too blinded by their own ideology to realize this and they won't be able to correct it.