Speaking to the Manning Centre Conference -- something of a CPAC north -- Preston Manning sought to sooth the jittery nerves of many Canadian conservatives by insisting that conservatism isn't dead in Canada.
"Conservatism took a hit in the United States. They lost the election, and you could argue the Republicans lost their way," noted Manning. "In Canada, they won the election — not with a majority, but with a strong minority."Of course, there is a difference between a conservative party governing -- as currently remains the case in Canada -- and an actual conservative government.
Conservative governance has to be reflected in its policies. And while Hugh Segal recently noted that there is, traditionally, room for flexibility within the Canadian Conservative party, the National Post's Terence Corcoran notes that conservative commentators such as Terence Corcoran disagree with him.
Manning, for one, is under no delusion regarding the debate between market intervention and free market principles taking place within Canadian conservative circles right now, although he believes that Canada will emerge from the current economic crisis favouring less government.
But Manning, for one, also knows that having a conservative party in power doesn't necessarily mean conservative governance. After all, he was able to build his Reform party out of (primarily) western Canadians who judged the then-governing Progressive Conservative party as not conservative enough.
Canadian Alliance party founder and Mike Harris right-hand man Tom Long seem to invoke the political lesson of the 1993 PC collapse when he noted the inherent danger in the Conservative party attempting to push policies that are too far removed from the beliefs of the party faithful.
"Conservatives are often their own worst enemies. We have an internal debate going on in our heads, where we basically self-censor," Long said. "We've tried going out and selling things we don't believe in. How's that working?"Long, it would seem, is much closer to Terence Corcoran's line of thought -- that the Conservative party needs to pull further to the political right -- as opposed to Hugh Segal's call for moderation, which is actually the camp that Preston Manning has historically fallen into.
That the Manning conference could even manage to put together a conference such as this, and attract speakers from as far off as the British Conservative party, is itself testament to the fact that conservatism, as a political philosophy, is not dead in Canada.
But Canadian conservatives need to re-imagine the ties that bind their diverse movement together. Debates such as the Segal-Manning/Corcoran-Long debate currently unfolding at the conference are going to be important steps toward that.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI am glad "It's Alive!". My only fear is that its mad architect's (Marty Feldman & co.) may have forgotten to marry the heart with the brain before they turned the current on. One also hopes they ensured it comes with "vision". 'Cause, as you well know, the last thing any of us need is yet another "Abby Normal" political entity loose in the polity!
Preston Manning always called for his own particular brand of "social conservativism" which was supposed to be closer to social liberalism than what we generally consider social conservatism.
ReplyDeleteWhen Manning founded the Reform party, he sought to found it out of disaffected Conservatives and Liberals who wanted to apply conservative values, including fiscal prudence, to existing social programs while still maintaining them.
Things didn't work out the way Manning had hoped they would. Stan Waters, the co-founder of the Reform party, wound up taking his core of Liberals with him when it became apparent he wouldn't be elected leader of the party.
Preston Manning always called for his own particular brand of "social conservativism" which was supposed to be closer to social liberalism than what we generally consider social conservatism.
ReplyDeleteWhen Manning founded the Reform party, he sought to found it out of disaffected Conservatives and Liberals who wanted to apply conservative values, including fiscal prudence, to existing social programs while still maintaining them.
This is very interesting. Where did you learn about Manning's more moderate stance, and the Liberals that were first attracted to the Reform Party and its desire to apply fiscal prudence and other conservative values to already-existing social programs? I'd like to see this for myself...
I've found it curious how dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives like Peter Lougheed, Robert Stanfield, or Roger Gibbins could be just as concerned with the direction their provinces or country are taking, or how they espouse stances that might otherwise be more moderate than what one might expect from Mike Harris or Tom Flanagan.
Manning's own concerns seem to be food for thought, too.
Actually, Jared, this is my mistake.
ReplyDeleteStan Roberts was the disaffected Liberal. He was formerly a Liberal MLA in Manitoba.
Embarrassingly, I get the two mixed up every now and again.
Manning speaks at length about his belief in balancing fiscal conservatism and social policy in The New Canada.