How About Postponing the Election of the New Leader: Sequel

Saturday, 8 July 2017

As or after the Conservative Party launched its leadership race, on February 23/17 (infra.), I wrote a note titled How About Postponing the Election of the New Leader, in which I advised the party brass to postpone the election for the reasons I provided in my note.

Assuming   the brass read the note, surely enough, they did not, and in event, would not have cared for my advice, that of a presumptuous voter who pretends to know more about leadership races than themselves and to care more for the well-being and success of the party than they, who are endowed with the political wisdom to know what is best for the party.

Well, after the initial tragi-comic performance of the buffoon candidate O’Leary, the party members, of which by then I had become one, in order to stay in the thick of it, proceeded to anoint Andrew Sheer, “the apple-cheeked” Saskatchewan MP and former Speaker of the House of Commons, “who “survived” a 13-ballot battle to defeat Maxime Bernier, with 51% of the votes cast.

Having immigrated to Canada from a country and a community with many superstitions, the first thing that struck me about the outcome is the number 13, which is believed to be an inauspicious number.

Putting aside quackery, the selection of Sheer, in a large measure as a result of the support he received from the right-wing of this right wing party, the ultra- social conservatives confirmed my worst fears.

For one thing, it confirmed my fears that Sheer would not be able to buck the ideas and wishes of these folks and if he tried, he may well be sent to the dog house and this, in a party that has a history of doing just that to its leaders, as was the case with Diefenbaker, Stanfield and Clark.

Unfortunately, the man has little, if any, experience in the kinds of endeavours and undertakings which a Prime Minister -in-waiting ought to possess. The best, the Globe and Mail managed to say about him, as I seem to recall, was something like his accessibility, availability, any way something of this nature.

Now you may say, well then what about Trudeau, a high school drama teacher; an empty suit? Whether or not his suit was empty or quarter full or whatever, he is nevertheless a photogenic, youthful looking actor who knew, if nothing else, how to massage of the electorate with the kinds of gestures and promises that turned people on, a breath of fresh air after the 11 year reign of a rigid, stingy, mean spirited and destructive conservative government, albeit one which did have its quit good points that got overwhelmed by the bad ones.

Unfortunately, Mr. Sheer lacks Trudeau’s acting talents, and he will not be running against the Harper government which finally turned off the electorate thoroughly but not before 11 years in power, which I consider to be a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Even more unfortunately, Mr. Sheer’s core supporters and constituencies are not exactly the kind of people that can come up with election promises that are susceptible of eliciting the enthusiasm of the electorate and turn them on. Balanced budgets, punitive law and order policies, eliminating public service jobs, will go only so far. And  in these times of strange ,at times verging on the bizarre,  love with multiculturalism and (the redundant term) diversity; the policy of  stripping the Canadian citizenship  of naturalised immigrants with dual citizenship convicted of terrorism  was not likely turn on the electorate.

Finally, judging from the contents and the quality of the messages circulated by the party headquarters to its faithful on the issues of the day, I am afraid; the party is still suffering from the very same kinds of learning disabilities that afflicted it in the past, even when it was in power.

Clearly, the party has got a lot of work to do to learn how to become a progressive enlightened party that appeals to the electorate across the political spectrum from the right to the centre.

For what they may be worth to Mr. Sheer and his team of advisors and consultants, here are a dozen  things  the party should be getting on with, if they are going to have a chance  to win the electorate  on positive grounds, rather because of Trudeau’s shenanigans; his propensity to smile too much, enough to get on people’s nerves; his flip comments such as Canada being a country  “without a core “ or “a mainstream”; “because it’s 2015”, an arrogant and dismissive one at that; his mindless sloganeering such as “diversity is our strength”, when imams in Toronto and Montreal and according to Tarek Fatah in the Islamic centres of Canada, are cursing Jews and praying for their extermination to the last one, and for the victory of the jihadist to defeat non-Muslims and in particular Jews and Christians and to conquer their lands and one could go on and on.

First, restore the word Progressive into the name of the party. Getting rid of the word was a big mistake. Words mean something and the term “progressive” has a lot of resonance to it. If nothing else, it will remind the party apparatchik to stop acting like backwoods politicians while making Canadians friendlier towards the party and make them feel good about joining it, supporting it and advocating on its behalf. 

Second, always appeal to the best instincts, higher values and ideals of Canadians. So far you have been appealing to their low instincts.

Third, be factually correct in your arguments. Factual accuracy does not take away diminish or undermine the value and effectiveness of your arguments. Quite to the contrary, it enhances your credibility and trust- worthiness.

Fourth, do not overstate your case by adding jingoistic and at times vituperative language.

Fifth, do your homework before writing or speaking against something.

Sixth, get on with the times. When the Supreme Court says pretty damning things about the behaviour of the government in a particular case particularly where serious violations of the Charter are in issue, don’t act like hicks and ignore the Court’s judgement particularly on matters concerning Charter rights.

Seven, it will not harm you, from time to time, to take the high road  and agree with the government, it will only enhance your stature with the public.

Eight, side with the right causes, before the government does. For example, you could have lent your public support to the initiatives and to the lawsuit against the government on the issue of solitary confinement.

Nine, empathise with the people who are deeply pained and suffer as a result of the actions, decisions of federal public authorities and institutions, even if you agree with these actions and decisions. The grieving relatives do not care about the politics of it. They are human beings in distress, even if their son or daughter happens to be a criminal in solitary confinement. 

Ten, be compassionate and caring and show it the right way.

Eleven, where you do not agree with a particular decision of the government, give people a constructive alternative as to how it could and should have been done and with better results.

Twelve, impress the electorate with the substance of your approach to issues: sober, well-reasoned, constructive and compassionate. Even if it disagrees with you, they will nevertheless be impressed and remember the way you went about it; and thereby offer the electorate a genuine choice so that push comes to shove they will not vote for you holding their noses. And that will give you a lot of political capital to start with.

Finally, get a sense of humour and use it well. John Crosbie for whom I voted in St. John’s, to put the Smallwood government out to pasture, was very good at disarming his opponents or defusing a situation with the right kind of a joke. Good political jokes make the electorate feel good.

For example what would you say, when the Canadian penitentiary officials tell you  something ridiculous  like: the inmate was placed in solitary confinement for two months where he spent 23 hours a day in a cell which receives no natural light or air, in order to protect him  from the gang of inmates that were attacking him?

And I could go on but achieving the foregoing prescriptions or even some of them, gives you enough to do for starters.

Of course, as the maxim goes, at the end of the day, it is not the opposition but the party in power that defeats itself. And, while there is still plenty of time for the Trudeau government to do just that, it may well fail to do enough to cause its defeat.

This will certainly happen, if the opposition turns out to be  yet another version of the Harper party, with; the same lack of fresh, bold, constructive , imaginative and ameliorative social, economic and political ideas and agenda that will capture  neither the imagination  or the good feelings of the electorate; peddling, the same old tired clichés and refrains.

Canada deserves a first rate enlightened opposition, just as it deserves peace order and good government.

Just as a lot of people faced with the prospect of having Dion as Prime Minister, held their noses and voted for Harper; likewise a lot of “progressive conservatives” faced with "the same old bunch" of conservatives, will also hold their noses and vote for Trudeau.