Why Grits Will Rule Again

The Conservatives will lose the next election in spite of the Sponsorgate mess, still within political memory (although only just).

The Tories will lose for, like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Before proceeding, let me make it clear that I am no Liberal. I was when a young man but Pierre Trudeau cured me for life of that ailment. For the record, I've voted Green in the last three elections and probably will again.

The Tories will lose because the public doesn't much like Stephen Harper or his politics and will look elsewhere. But it goes much deeper than that.

The Tories have never been the natural governing party; at least not since the First World War. They have been the party of privilege, of white Protestants, of the British connection and old ways of doing things. This tradition became acutely obvious after the Second World War, when George Drew became Tory leader in 1948, replacing John Bracken who had made the party inclusive of the Prairies when he forced the amalgamation of the Conservative Party with the Progressives, which he had lead in Manitoba.

Drew was an "empire" man and so "Ontario" that he got little support in Western Canada. In the 1949 and 1953 federal elections, Drew's Tories were defeated handily by the Liberals, led by Louis St. Laurent. Drew alienated potential supporters in Quebec when he called French-Canadians a "defeated race." His support for conscription during the Second World War also hurt his prospects among French-Canadian voters.

Canada was changing -- indeed there were winds of great change happening in Quebec, which would bear fruit with the election of Jean Lesage as Liberal Premier of that province in 1960. He brought with him the Quiet Revolution, described by historian Claude Belanger thusly:

"The Quiet Revolution was a period of intense social change, of modernisation of Quebec and of a profound redefinition of the role of Quebec and French Canadians within Confederation. The background to the Quiet Revolution years was the Duplessis regime which had been characterised by isolation, social conservatism and generally negative autonomist stands. The energies and hopes unleashed during the Quiet Revolution years shook the very foundations of Canada and are still being felt today. The slogan which best represents the Lesage years was 'Maîtres chez nous.' The underlying belief in Quebec, during this period, was that French Canadians should not be content to play a second class role in socio-politico-economic matters and that the key to a full, 'normal' development of the community rested in the utilization of the only tool which collectively French Canadians controlled: the state of Quebec..."

Diefenbaker's formula

In 1957, the Tories, having abandoned Drew for the prairie populist John Diefenbaker, were handed a glorious opportunity as the Liberals, arrogant after 22 years in power, got into a scandal of considerable proportions and acted much as though nothing had happened. To the great surprise of all, Diefenbaker won a minority government in 1957, which he converted to a huge majority in 1958.

This happened for two reasons. For the last time Maurice Duplessis, premier of Quebec on the Union Nationale ticket, undoubtedly feeling the hot breath of Liberals in his own bailiwick, supported the Tories and gave them all the Union Nationale election machinery with which to work.

But the Liberals had just chosen a new leader, Lester Pearson, who gave an ill-advised speech in Commons that asked Diefenbaker to give power back to the Liberals without an election because of a recent economic downturn. Diefenbaker seized on the error by showing a classified Liberal document saying that the economy would face a downturn in that year. This contrasted heavily with the Liberal's 1957 campaign promises, and would make sure the "arrogant" label would remain attached to the Liberal party.

The fall of Diefenbaker had many reasons including cancelling the popular Avro Arrow fighter plane, thus pissing off Ontario where it would have been built. His fall, however, illustrated how fractured the party was. These weren't just superficial cracks as the Liberals often display, but went right to the core of the party.

The Liberals always seem able to replace their leaders if not seamlessly, at least with the wounds capable of being healed. The Tories take no prisoners. In fact this ability to change leaders without an accompanying blood bath is a basic characteristic of the Liberals; to them, the all-important thing is to win -- to the Tories, it's to throw open the gates of the coliseum and see the gladiators kill each other off.

The Mulroney moment

The next time the Tories tasted power it was simply a strange interregnum presided over by Joe Who? from where? whose government lasted eight months and is only remembered because in the budget debate Clark couldn't count and lost what was a confidence motion.

It wasn't until 1984 that the Tories won again, but this time it was for two reasons. The people were sick to death of Trudeau and his arrogant acolytes. And Mulroney made a Faustian bargain with Quebec separatists while promising Western Canada that he would get rid of the hated National Energy Program. He won again in 1988 by focusing on one issue: free trade with the United States, an issue upon which he was able to divide the opposition.

What was clear at this point was that the Conservative party could only win under exceptional circumstances. That they weren't a "national" party as were the Liberals was clearly demonstrated when in the 1993 election they were reduced to two seats.

After 1993 we saw the stunning rise of Preston Manning's Reform Party and the eventual amalgamation of that western-based party with the (mostly) Ontario Conservatives. Again, it was obvious that there was not a Canadian Conservative party to do battle on even terms with the Liberals and hadn't been one since the days of Sir Robert Borden.

Alberta's bad image

Let's pause here for a moment. Perhaps it's more creditable to have a party that sacrifices winning for open debate and bloodletting than have one that is so intent upon and so used to power that it can hold together no matter how stormy the political landscape.

But my point is not to criticize or praise anyone but merely make the point that the Liberal Party of Canada has a history of binding its wounds and moving back into contention while the Conservative party has not. There is a reason for this.

The Conservatives, while they will have Red Tories (such as Joe Clark) from time to time, still represent money and privilege. Or perhaps I should say appear this way. Ordinary, middle-class Canadians do not, naturally, feel comfortable with the Conservatives. Their huge political strength in oil-rich Alberta puts into clear view the type of people the Tories appeal to. Their image becomes brash and insensitive, right wing and rich, throw 'em in jail and hang 'em high. This isn't how Conservatives in other regions see themselves.

I don't say that the Tories can't win the next election. They can if an issue grabs the public that points to the Tories for a solution. Without an overpowering issue -- such as "throw the bastards out" in 1957 and 1979, or the divisive Free Trade Agreement -- the Conservatives simply don't have a tradition of putting victory ahead of all other considerations coupled with a belief that if they don't govern the country, it will be catastrophic.

The Liberals have that basic arrogance and combine it with a tradition of keeping their differences to themselves, not converting them into an often-entertaining public display of nastiness.

Bet as you wish. I'm a chalk bettor and my bet's on the Grits.