There’s an old jibe about the candidate who stood for nothing but office. But normally such a person claimed to have beliefs, however flexible. In the current federal Conservative leadership race, at least two candidates seem to be empty vessels on purpose.
I say “at least two” because there are others whose substantive positions are not yet clear and may never clarify. Even Pierre Poilievre who, as I wrote some weeks back, needs to add some policy substance to his feisty proclamations in favour of freedom.
Another new entrant, Scott Aitchison, is campaigning boldly against division, in a stiff rebuke to all those wanting politics to get even nastier. But the whole point of politics is to advance contending positions on which voters can divide. Just as it would be a collapsed or fake democracy in which “divisions” in the House invariably saw everyone on the same side. Indeed, in significant measure, politics has become nasty precisely because it has abandoned attacking positions for assassinating character.
So for now my preoccupation is Jean Charest and Patrick Brown. Or rather, with their preoccupation with winning. And yes, you want some way to win so you can put your ideas into practice. But these two post-modern candidates seem to be looking for some way to have ideas so they can put their win into practice.
They remind me of the Pompidou Centre, inside out with all the plumbing, duct work, wiring and structural supports showing. Which always used to bother me about Preston Manning, as a politician and when his inside-out think tank devoted to partisan gain held inside-out “networking” conferences. Again, of course, it’s important to make contacts, explore ideas, and discuss possible collaborations in gatherings of like-minded folks. But having the substantive focus of the conference be openly an excuse for the mechanics was weird.
Ditto Manning’s infamous claim that the Reform Party, like a hockey team, needed left-wingers, centres, and right-wingers since it was never about accomplishing any particular thing, let alone implementing a coherent philosophy, just about winning. Perhaps it was only “infamous” to me. But I must point out that it didn’t work because liberal voters prefer real liberals to fake ones, while resolute Reform voters mostly thought Manning was just pretending to be a fake conservative. Again, very post-modern. But not effective.
So what of Charest and Brown? It’s not even clear that they are winners. Charest did secure two majorities and one minority in Quebec elections, based partly on slippery promises. But his previous tenure as leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party, admittedly under difficult circumstances, was such a principle-free debacle they called in Joe Clark to euthanize it.
As for Patrick Brown, his time as Ontario Tory head was cut short by some Frank Magazine-level scandalmongering. Then he got elected mayor of Brampton, narrowly. But in any case political victory, like happiness, is something you only get as a result of attempting something worthwhile. There’s no cheat shortcut.
So if either man wants to claim they’re the ones to sell good ideas to the public, or even the happy possessors of ideas all of which are inherently attractive so they won’t need good persuasive skills, let them reveal those ideas. But if all they claim is winnable winnability in order to win, there’s no there there.
In fact, Wikipedia says Brown, a carbon tax guy provincially, “identifies himself as a ‘pragmatic conservative,’” which means he’s neither. He’s certainly on record as casting right-wing votes he didn’t believe in to placate the rubes in his riding. So now he’ll apparently cast left-wing votes he doesn’t believe in to placate the sophisticates in ridings he wants to win.
Does Charest? Does Brown? Are they Red Tories from conviction? Or do they stand for nothing but office? Because such a thing is not just unworthy, it’s unworkable.
