An Unwelcome Dose of Reality for Brigette DePape

Canadians becoming more conservative

As Canada's far-left gathers to annoint Brigette DePape their patron saint in a protest at the Conservative Party convention in Ottawa, news emerges that DePape would likely consider to be an unwelcome invasion from reality.

A poll conducted by Harris-Decima and Manning Institute offers some insight into the Tories' May 2 majority win: Canadians are becoming more conservative.

This is news to DePape. Appearing in an interview on CBC, DePape declared that "Stephen Harper says conservative values are Canadian values. They are not."

Yet when actually asked by someone -- and it's pretty clear that DePape never bothered to ask anyone outside of a specific ideologically-insulated circle -- Canadians indicated that they were far more conservative than DePape would give us credit for.

For example, only 15% of interviewed Canadians indicated they turned to government as their preferred agent of problem-solving. 38% indicated they count on themselves first, and 18% indicated they turn to their families first. However, only 20% indicated they turn to government last.

54% of Canadians indicated they count on themselves to solve their own personal economic problems. 31% indicated they turn to their families first. Only 3% indicated that they look to the government first.

Conversely, Canadians look to government to solve problems such as crime.

Meanwhile, Canadians are becoming decreasingly confident in the government's problem-solving abilities.

In other words, this poll indicates nearly the precise opposite of what DePape droningly insisted in her interviews on CTV and CBC. Clearly, she isn't nearly as in touch with Canadian values as she would like to pretend.

Conservative values are Canadian values, whether Brigette DePape likes it or not.

Preston Manning is predicting that these values are quickly becoming less identified with the Conservative Party, and more identified with Canadians ourselves.

"As these conservative values become mainstream values, people will less and less identify them with Conservatives. People will just say these are Canadian values," Manning declared.

Adam Daifallah, however, has it one step better. Daifallah has dubbed May 2011 as "the conservative spring" in Canada. He notes that the Conservative majority was built largely off of small-profile moves like abolishing the Court Challenges program, a program many Canadians were actually unaware of altogether.

Canada's already had a spring uprising of sorts, as Canadians are becoming increasingly confident in asserting their own values, as opposed to having them dictated by demagogues such as Brigette DePape.

It's an unwelcome dose of reality for DePape and her fawning supporters. Their refusal to acknowledge it will only continue to drive them further away from the heart of Canadian political culture, into a barren ideological wasteland of their own creation.

After all, these are people without the imagination to so much as ask Canadians what their values are. They prefer to dictate them.

Canadian Conservatism's Troubled Symmetry

Two provinces, two parties, two different directions, and one big problem for Canadian Conservatives

While Alberta's Wildrose Alliance was meeting this past weekend to elect Danielle Smith the new leader of the party, another provincial conservative party was meeting to elect its leader.

The Action Democratique du Quebec met and elected Gilles Taillon as its new leader -- only the second in its entire history.

There are many similarities between the circumstances faced by the two parties, and each leader.

Each party has few seats in the provincial legislature, and each faces the monumental task of building its organization. Unfortunately for the ADQ, this is where the similarities stop.

The Wildrose Alliance is coming off of an exciting and vibrant leadership campaign in which ideas were strongly contested between the two competitors: namely, whether the party would proceed in a libertarian or social conservative direction (the party chose the course of libertarianism).

The ADQ, meanwhile, is stumbling out of a leadership contest in which personal animosity and smear politics seemed to be the order of the day.

While the Alliance leadership campaign attracted national attention, the ADQ contest was largely invisible on the national stage.

If Smith's election as the leader of the Alliance is truly one of the most exciting developments in the history of Canadian conservatism, the election of Taillon as the ADQ leader was purely underwhelming. This is unfortunate not only for the ADQ, but for Canadian conservatism as a whole.

In Daifallah's estimation, Taillon's prospects as the leader of the ADQ are sorely limited by a number of factors.

"Taillon is well-known, but he’s an uninspiring choice for a party looking to renew. He’s the oldest of the three major Quebec party leaders, questions about his health abound and he lost his seat in the National Assembly in the last election," Daifallah notes. "His politics are decidedly centrist. If he has his way, there will likely be little difference between the ADQ and the Parti Québécois. A number of prominent conservative ADQ members have already quit since Sunday."

"Taillon’s centrist approach is particularly unfortunate given that more and more Quebecers are coming to realize the unsustainability of their massive welfare programs and statist business model," Daifallah continues. "The prospects in Quebec for a party advocating smaller government and more personal responsibility should improve in the coming years."

The problem is that, unless Taillon steers his party back away from the centre, Quebec will have no such party to take advantage of such an ideological shift in the province.

Quebec is one of two provinces in Canada with no active provincial Conservative party. In Saskatchewan the banner of conservative politics is being carried by Brad Wall's Saskatchewan party. Although a provincial Progressive Conservative party remains registered, it doesn't run candidates.

If one considers provinces where a provincial Conservative party remains active but is politically marginal, the case of British Columbia stands out as well.

Likewise, the decimation of the New Brunswick PCs -- a ship since righted by Bernard Lord -- by the Confederation of Regions party isn't as far in past as many New Brunswick Tories would like to pretend.

If Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Alliance are successful, Alberta could soon be added to this list. Historically when Albertans have changed governments they practically erase the preceding government. Social Credit and the United Farmers of Alberta were once mighty political forces. Today Social Credit is entirely peripheral to Albertan politics.

The problem that quickly emerges is not for Canadian conservatives, but rather for Canadian Conservatives. While cross-party cooperation in matters of federal politics is far from ruled out, it can be politically perilous for conservative politicians -- particularly in Saskatchewan, and possibly soon in Alberta -- to be seen working too closely with the federal incarnation of a party they have either worked so hard to depose (as would be the case in Alberta) or has a troubled history (as is the case in Saskatchewan).

It can be particularly unseemingly in terms of the recruitment of federal candidates out of provincial ranks. While such a transition is far from unheard of -- in particular, federal Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was formerly the General Manager of the Saskatchewan party.

By comparison, however, the Liberal party and NDP each have provincial parties in every province in Canada. While the Liberal party isn't particularly strong in Alberta, or especially in Saskatchewan, it can freely shuttle candidates back and forth between provincial and federal parties. A clear example is Dr Eric Hoskins, who was an unsuccessful federal candidate before running for the McGuinty Liberals in St Paul's.

In Quebec and Saskatchewan the Tories may get occasional help from the Saskatchewan party or the ADQ, but it has to do the bulk of its organizing and recruitment entirely on its own.

Provincial parties also offer the potential advantage -- or disadvantage -- of having another party to help build the brand image. If there is a shift underway the likes of which Daifallah suggests, the Conservative party currently has no provincial party there to help them take advantage of this shift.

It's on this note that it would perhaps be partially irrelevant if Quebec had a conservative leader like Danielle Smith -- at least for capital-C Conservatives. For small-c conservatives, it would be like a dream.

But like any political movement, conservatives fare best when they work together. Anything that impedes that kind of cooperation should properly be viewed as an impediment -- even if an impediment that some conservatives will view as a necessary evil.

It's long been past time for Canadian conservatives to learn to moderate themselves from within their provincial parties, as opposed to having to build entire vote- and activist-splitting alternative parties.

Is Revolution the Big Idea in Alberta?

Paul Hinman's victory brings expectations of rolling Tory heads

Albertan conservatives discontented with Ed Stelmach's Progressive Conservative government seem to have a new star in town.

The town is Calgary. And the star is Paul Hinman.

If Doug Firby is to be believed, Hinman's victory over Progressive Conservative candidate Diane Colley-Urquhart indeed represents the first shot in what Dan Arnold describes as "Alberta's revolution" -- and leading the revolutionary are magnates of the Albertan oilpatch.

"[It is] a resounding indictment of besieged Premier Ed Stelmach, who has failed to win the hearts of Calgary’s oil patch power elite – the same group who backed Jim Dinning in the December 2006 leadership contest that Stelmach won," Firby writes. "Stelmach will now almost certainly face serious questions about his ability to continue much longer as political head of the province."

Firby notes that what truly makes Hinman's win special is that it was done without much of the traditional partisan infrastructure in place.

"All the more remarkable is that Hinman won the seat, even though he had lost the party’s only seat in the last general election, bringing to an ignominious end his largely ineffective term as leader of the Wildrose Alliance," Firby continues. "In fact, the party was still nominally leaderless when the grumpy voters of Calgary-Glenmore went to the polls this week."

Adam Daifallah worries that Hinman's victory may be the first step in a long-overdue "political realignment" in Alberta.

The Alberta Conservatives, who have governed the province uninterrupted since 1971, look tired, complacent and vulnerable like never before," he writes. "To finish in third place, behind the normally irrelevant Liberals, in a Calgary riding is a serious embarrassment."

"Alberta is Canada's most conservative province; Calgary the country's most conservative big city," Daifallah reasons. "This fact partly explains the loss: Ed Stelmach's Tories have abandoned any semblance of conservatism. (One could argue that conservatism in Alberta was abandoned after Ralph Klein's first term as premier, but I digress.)"

Daifallah notes that the leadership candidacy of Danielle Smith is particularly troubling to the Alberta PCs.

"There is a clear constituency for a fiscally conservative message in Alberta at present -- not just due to Stelmach, but also because of what's happening in Ottawa," Daifallah continues. "As standard bearer for conservatives' sense of discontent, Smith would instantly become the darling of the Canadian right and make the Wildrose Alliance a serious challenger for power."

In the wake of Hinman's victory, the Wildrose Alliance seems to be drawing more than just media attention -- speculation is that their caucus in the Legislature may double with the addition of spurned former Tory Guy Boutilier.

Boutilier was recently ousted from the PC caucus for being too vocal about the government dragging its feet on a retirement home in Fort MacMurray.

"He represents true conservative values," Boutilier said of Hinman. "Right now, I represent my constituents of Fort McMurray and true conservative values."

To compare Hinman's victory to the 1988 Deborah Grey victory in Beaver River that foreshadowed Preston Manning and the Reform party's 1993 arrival as a political force in Ottawa may be a bit of a stretch.

But in the wake of the victory, Hinman and whomever winds up leading the Wildrose Alliance may be well advised to take Preston Manning's advice to the founding convention of the Canadian Alliance -- "Think big".

Right now, the Wildrose Alliance is a party with no leader, little money, and no track record of success.

In 1993, the Reform party had a leader with little public recognition, little money and no track record of success. That year they elected 52 Members of Parliament and four years later they were Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

They were able to do this because Preston Manning had the courage to think big. If the Wildrose Alliance elects a leader who shares that courage, they may yet be able to shock Albertans -- and Canada -- by unseating Canada's longest-serving government.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Albertosaurus Talks - "Glenmore: Changeout or Old Fashioned Switch?"

Dan Shields - "Paradigm Shift in Alberta?"

Duceppe Rumours Not Going Away Quietly

Nor will Gilles Duceppe

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah addresses the rumour that Gilles Duceppe may resign as leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

A meeting Duceppe has scheduled with his aides for August 13th has fuelled rumours that Duceppe may step down as BQ leader. Naturally, the BQ has denied that Duceppe is planning to resign.

Daifallah draws an interesting conclusion from these rumours: if Duceppe decides to leave the Bloc, the Conservatives could break through in Quebec in a future election.

That such a "breakthrough" would, in Daifallah's words, merely be a "respectable" showing in Quebec still speaks volumes about the current state of the Conservative party. In the wake of a backlash against Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Quebec over arts funding, a Mulroney- or Diefenbaker-style Quebec landslide is clearly out of the question.

But Daifallah is right about a great many things: the Canadian electorate's honeymoon with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seems to be coming to a conclusion, and there may be room for the Conservatives to grow in Quebec.

Duceppe's departure from the Bloc Quebecois could only help the Tories in that regard.

As Daifallah notes, Duceppe may be for the Bloc Quebecois what Elizabeth May publicly fantasizes about being for the Green party -- it's greatest asset:

"Duceppe is the Bloc's best asset by a country mile. He's universally respected, even outside Quebec. He has now fought five elections as party leader and knows the ins and outs of campaigning. He performs well in debates and has shown a knack for pushing the right buttons at the right time. Quebecers are comfortable with him -- they know what they are getting. Predictions that his and the Bloc's support would suffer after his embarrassing botched attempt to leave Ottawa and run for the Parti Quebecois leadership proved to be utterly wrong."

Daifallah also notes that the Bloc lacks a credible successor to Duceppe:

"What's worse for the Bloc is that there is no obvious successor to Duceppe with the credibility to keep the party strong. The most likely next chief is Pierre Paquette, a socialist economist whose profile has steadily increased in the last couple of years. But Paquette has nothing close the same level of charisma as the current leader."

With the well-liked and well-respected Duceppe out of the picture, Daifallah muses, Quebecers would likely reconsider the Harper Conservatives.

But Gerry Nicholls disagrees. He notes that many had predicted the BQ's political demise after Lucien Bouchard left the party. More than ten years later, the Bloc remains as strong as ever.

Nicholls surmises that the Bloc endures simply because its supporters don't consider themselves to be Canadian, and thus have "have no emotional connection to either the Liberals or Conservatives" who, he notes, are viewed as being "led by outsiders".

For the hardened Quebec separatist, this may certainly be true. Even Stephane Dion could be viewed by such individuals as an "outsider", being allegedly tainted by his authoring of the Clarity Act (or, rather, his re-authoring of Stephen Harper's similar proposed legislation).

But Quebec's provincial political climate seems to put the lie to Nicholls' sentiments. In the 2008 federal election, the Bloc won 49 of 75 seats in the Province -- a disheartening 65% of its ridings.

Yet in the Quebec Provincial election held later that year, the Bloc's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, won only 51 of 125 seats in the National Assembly -- the 41% of ridings won is still less than encouraging, but not as bad as the federal results.

If Stephane Dion could be branded an outsider for the clarity act, Jean Charest could be viewed as every bit the outsider for his involvement with the Charlottetown Accord -- which was rejected by 56% of Quebecers. Yet Jean Charest has not only not been branded an outsider, he's been Premier of Quebec since 2003.

And even as rumours that Duceppe is preparing to resign the leadership of the Bloc Quebecois, rumours also abide that Jean Charest is planning a return to federal politics. The combination of a Duceppe departure and Charest return would certainly make for some intriguing results.

But even in the here and now, a Duceppe departure would have tremendous implications for Canadian politics. As Gerry Nicholls admitts, Adam Daifallah may be right to predict big gains for the Conservative party should such an event transpire.

But, as it remains, the rumour of Duceppe's impending departure is precisely that -- a rumour. It isn't going away quietly. Nor would Gilles Duceppe.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Far and Wide - "Duceppe Leaving?"

Chucker Canuck - "The 24-Hour Retirement of Gilles Duceppe"

Canadian Conservatism Needs to Save Itself

Adam Daifallah annoints Tim Hudak as conservative saviour

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah all but annoints Tim Hudak as the saviour of conservatism not only in Ontario, but perhaps in all of Canada:

"Tim Hudak's ascension to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is an important development in the Canadian conservative movement for several reasons. Most importantly, it represents a clean break from the rudderless and inept leadership that has guided the party for more than five years. Let's not mince words: Ernie Eves and John Tory were unmitigated disasters as leaders. Hudak represents a clear return to the conviction-based politics that vaulted the Tories to power -- and kept them there -- in the 1990s."

It would be unreasonable to suggest that Tory and Eves, as leaders, could not have done more.

That being said, it's unreasonable to overlook the fact that, as leaders, Tory and Eves had to work with what Harris had left behind him when he resigned as leader. It wasn't a pretty sight.

Mike Harris left behind him an extremely unpopular incumbent party, which had failed to deliver on its espoused fiscally conservative principles, had made controversial moves in relation to education and relations with municipal governments, and had often stirred up a wasp's nest of public protest against it.

To saddle Tory and Eves firmly with the failure of the Ontario Tories to retain power -- or win it back from Dalton McGuinty in the years since -- is partially unfair. While one cannot overlook their own failures as leaders, one also has to remember the position Harris had left them in.

Yet Daifallah seems to believe that only a leader practically hand-picked by Harris can deliver the Ontario Tories from the ignominous position they currently find themselves in.

"For the first time in recent memory, during the course of the leadership race no candidate ran on an explicitly centre-left platform. Hudak, runner-up Frank Klees and maverick Randy Hillier all staked out clear conservative ground. Christine Elliott ran a formidable campaign and was essentially forced into positioning herself as the centrist candidate due to crowding on the right. (Frequent cheerleading from the Toronto Star also helped burnish her image in that regard.)"

Daifallah seems to do everything but label Elliott Liberal-lite.

"Elliott miscalculated in making the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- a cause championed by Hudak and Hiller -- a wedge issue. This didn't sit well with Hudak's and Hillier's supporters, whose second-choice votes she needed to gain in the preferential ballot voting system. Her announcement that she would implement a flat tax if elected -- effectively outflanking Hudak on the right -- sent an electroshock through the other camps. In the end, Elliott proved to be a master of the air war, but lacked the ground game necessary to mount a serious challenge."

But Daifallah would be foolish to insist that the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not, in and of itself, designed to be a wedge issue.

Hudak used that policy as a method to determine those who were, allegedly, true conservatives from those who were simply "Liberal lite" -- a label he applied to both Elliott and Klees.

"The significance of the Hudak victory should not be downplayed. The Ontario Tories now have a leader who, unlike his predecessor, won't shy away from drawing clear distinctions between himself and the McGuinty Liberals. Hudak believes in ideas -- he won't be afraid of making bold proposals going forward. His mandate of presenting policies that respect conservative principles yet recognize the current difficult economic context will neutralize Liberal attempts to paint him as a reincarnation of Mike Harris."

And yet Hudak's branding of himself as a "common sense conservative" has already done so much to accomplish this very act.

Distancing himself from Harris will be a difficult act for someone who enjoyed such fervent support from Harris to do. And, really, one may wonder what reason Hudak would have to want to distance himself from who has proven to be his most valuable supporter.

"The McGuinty government is vulnerable on almost every important issue: Ontario's economy is in shambles, taxes are up, spending has soared with no correlative improvement in service quality, unemployment is skyrocketing and the deficit and debt have ballooned. Admittedly, not all of these problems are Dalton McGuinty's own fault, but in politics, the party in power wears the good news and the bad, regardless of its cause.

The next provincial election is still more than two years away. Anything can happen in that time, and it is still unknown whether McGuinty will run for a third term. But if he does, he will be ripe for defeat as an out-of-touch, tired leader who bungled the economy. In the meantime, the way Hudak conducts himself as opposition leader will have important ramifications far beyond Ontario politics."

Hudak has yet to accomplish anything during his (to date short) audition to be Premier of Ontario.

Yet Daifallah already seems to have Hudak pegged as a successor to Stephen Harper's leadership of Canadian conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism:

"Small-c conservatives across the country are disheartened by the Harper government's numerous capitulations on a whole host of red-meat issues. They are desperately looking for a new champion for the conservative cause. If Hudak can make conservative policies stick and bring the Ontario Tories up in the polls -- and, in the unlikely event that the 2011 election occurs before the next federal campaign, win a government -- it will give great comfort to principled conservatives to know that their ideas still have traction. It would also discredit the Harper government's calculation that the public is only interested in statist solutions to the current economic situation."

Yet Daifallah seems to be overlooking what the historical trend in Canadian politics has tended to be.

That is, when Liberal governments reign in Ottawa, Conservatives tend to win power in Provincial elections. When Conservative governments are in power in Ottawa, Liberals and the NDP tend to win in the provinces.

While the Saskatchewan party claimed victory in the first post-Harper election in the Land of Living Skies and Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives won in Newfoundland, it's worth noting that Rodney MacDonald's Conservatives were defeated by the NDP, Gordon Campbell's Liberals retained power in British Columbia and Gary Doer's NDP won the 2007 vote in Manitoba.

To expect that Hudak alone will be enough to buck this trend in Ontario and deliver salvation to the federal Tories is, in and of itself, a bit of a pipe dream. Hudak has to be up to the task, and we have yet to see if he actually is.

"Tim Hudak as Canadian conservatism's saviour? Someone needs to assume the role, and I know he would relish it."

Not only does Daifallah's analysis of Hudak's emerging role within Canadian conservatism seem overly Wagnerian, it's also deftly out of touch with the roots of the conservative movement in Canada.

Lloyd Mackey provides a reasonable list of the differing philosophical strains on conservatism. He classifies them as following:

1. Fiscal conservatism - This is the strain of conservatism that prefers controls on government taxation and spending. This is also the very strain of conservatism that Daifallah seems to appeal to most in this article.

2. Social conservatism - Social conservatives prefer family-friendly policies and government regulation -- if not outright prohibition -- of abortion. This particular strain of conservatism has found itself at odds with Human Rights Commissions as many of its most vociferous proponents find themselves paraded before them on an ongoing basis.

3. Democratic populism - Democratic populism insists that the spirit of democracy is found in the will of the people. It favours the "common sense of common people", and has been most strongly represented nationally by Preston Manning.

4. Progressive Conservatism - Progressive conservatism, as embodied by leaders such as Joe Clark, John Diefenbaker and the late Robert Stanfield, advocates using conservatism to moderate political and social change.

5. British Toryism - Proponents of British Toryism favour the preservation of existing institutions, including current parliamentary structures and offices such as Canada's various vice-regal offices such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.

6. Libertarianism - Libertarians prefer that government stay out of the lives of its citizens as much as possible. Libertarians favour as much freedom as possible for citizens, and tend to be the strongest voices in favour of small government.

Of Mackey's six strains of Canadian conservatism, only one -- British Toryism -- arguably sets the table to favour the salvation of Canadian conservatism by a single leader.

Where the other strains of conservatism -- notably libertarianism and democratic populism -- weigh in on this topic, they weigh in against such an option.

Where Daifallah would argue that Tim Hudak is the one man who can save conservatism in Canada, democratic populists would rebel against the notion of any single leader leading Canadian conservatism without a strong consensus to back his direction. That was the act that Preston Manning accomplished so masterfully as leader of the Reform party.

Libertarians would point out the sheer scope of the power, influence and authority conservatives would have to grant such an individual upon being annointed as a conservative "messiah". Libertarians would reject such a notion outright.

Small-p, small-c progressive conservatives would find the urge to reject Hudak as a conservative saviour almost irresistable. To such individuals, Hudak represents the kind of ideologically-isolated neoconservatism that is utterly offensive to their particular values, even as fiscal and social conservatives would likely react favourably to Hudak in such a role.

Contrary to whatever Adam Daifallah may like to believe about Tim Hudak, no one man can save conservatism. Not in Ontario, and not in the rest of Canada. Rather, conservatives must save conservatism together by maintaining the common bonds between its varying -- although often over-simplified, by Lloyd Mackey's own admission -- strains.

Conservatism must save itself.

The Complex Puzzle of Canadian Federalism

Daifallah suggests more "sex" is the answer for federalism

Writing an op/ed on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah hits on what amounts to a key observation about the continuing battle between separatism and federalism in Quebec:

Federalism, he concludes, simply isn't glamour enough to compete with separatism on an emotional level:

"With apologies to Lisa Raitt, the biggest problem with federalism in Quebec is that the arguments in its favour are inherently unsexy. Who isn't at least mildly intrigued by the idea of founding a new country? It conjures up all sorts of romantic notions and fuzzy feelings. Defending federalism is defending the status quo -- which is almost always more difficult.

In the debate over Quebec's place in Canada, federalist forces will always be starting a few steps behind. In politics, emotion moves people, not ideas. Federalism is the greatest system of organizing government the world has seen. Yet Quebec federalists have continually failed to put forward an emotionally compelling alternative case to compete with the idealistic discourse of the sovereignists. 'Look how great things are' can't compete with 'Think of how great things could be.'"

Sadly, the appeal to "how great things could be" may not only be lacking in federalists in Quebec.

Earlier this year, Ken Dryden gave a series stirring speeches during a speaking tour in which he urged Canadians to be ambitious.

But that Canadians would need to be urged to be ambitious at all is, in itself, a troubling prospect. Canadians have been raised being told about the innumerous accomplishments of their country: in wartime, in science and technology, in art, and just in the act of building a country in one of the most inhospitable climates in the world.

Of all the things Canadians may lack, ambition shouldn't be one of them. But if federalists outside of Quebec can't muster that level of ambition, one cannot fault federalists within Quebec for failing to aspire to the same standard.

"I attended law school in Quebec City for three years. Part of my reason for doing so was to better understand Quebec and its political dynamic. I had been told that in order to truly appreciate Quebec politics, one must recognize that it is really two provinces: Montreal, and everywhere else. This proved to be true.

Quebec City is an ethnically homogeneous, culturally conservative city that sees itself as the epicentre of francophone North America -- and it is. It is confident in itself and in the status of the French language; there are so few English speakers that the Anglo 'menace' is not apparent. I'm convinced this fact is partly the source of its conservatism."

But one also has to keep in mind that the conservatism of Quebec City and its locales has been badly perverted.

That conservatism, especially in the post-Duplessis era of the province, has been transformed into a fervour for separatism. The Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois have earned their bread and butter by assembling a fragile electoral coalition of socialist progressives and cultural conservatives with nationalism acting as a glue to bind them. They've managed to seduce each with disturbing ease.

But even more disturbing is the blatant partisanship of many federalist organizations in Quebec. The director of one pro-Liberal federalist group recently lauded the decline in Conservative polling numbers as a good thing -- even though the Bloc Quebecois has made gains at the Tories' expense.

Somehow, partisanship between Canada's two political contenders has somehow come to mean more than fighting separatists -- otherwise, such individuals would be plenty content to combine forces with the Tories and fight the Bloc together.

But this would forget that many Quebeckers consider themselves Quebeckers first, and Canadians second:

"The francophone students I encountered at law school were generally confident, proud people who, while firmly attached to Quebec, were not strongly motivated by the sovereignist cause. It would be inaccurate to say they felt a strong attachment to Canada. Their loyalty first and foremost was to Quebec and likely always will be. But I never got the impression that there was a burning desire to forge ahead with the sovereignist project and hours of discussions confirmed this. Indeed, I only encountered one student who openly admitted he would take up arms and was willing to die for Quebec sovereignty.

These young people didn't grow up knowing Rene Levesque and don't hold grudges toward English Canada. Like many young people today, they are less attached to borders and the concept of nationality in general. With the rise of the Internet and social networking websites, the link between language and culture and territory has been broken. One can correspond, watch and read news and live in French just about anywhere now, not just on Quebec territory."

Yet, while the conditions that may spark cultural agitation between Quebec and English Canada remain low, Daifallah notes that the risk of such agitation is almost always present:

"In theory, then, all this should be good news for federalism. However, support for sovereignty in the polls remains constantly at 40% and above. Linguistic and political tensions have been low for at least the past decade. But the next time there is any sort of provocation or crisis, that number could easily grow to over 50% again. Why?

The reasons are many. Nationalist sentiment in Quebec will never completely die. Respect for the federal and provincial division of powers can keep passions at a low ebb. But the federalist camp has never made a serious and gripping case for Canada in Quebec. They have been too timid, too lazy or unwilling to tackle the sovereignist storyline head-on. Until this changes, there will never be a serious dent in support for sovereignty. The intensity of the passion for the sovereignist cause may be dissipating, but sovereignty continues to be the default option for disgruntled Quebecers. Making Quebecers realize that both federalism as a form of government and Canada as a country are sexy -- in part due to Quebec's being a part of it -- is the only way to change that."

Simply put, federalists in Quebec spend far too much time appealing to the rational intellects of Quebeckers -- not in and of itself a bad idea -- and not enough time appealing to emotion.

Federalist Quebeckers left themselves vulnerable to charges that Canada was simply an economic relationship between the various provinces. As Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau seemed to suggest in 1995, such a relationship could be reestablished with something so simple as admitting Quebec into NAFTA -- even if they simplified the ease with which Quebec could be admitted.

Only when it became apparent that the Referendum campaign was sliding disastrously in the direction of the separatists did federalists -- from across the country -- appeal to the emotions of Quebeckers with a massive rally in Montreal.

Daifallah clearly makes the case that in the complex puzzle of Canadian federalism, one key piece -- emotion -- is clearly missing.

In order to put Canada's separatist demons to bed for good, Canadians have to find the will to be a little more emotional about their country -- at least at a few times when an international hockey championship isn't on the line.

The High Road is a Hard Road

Meghan McCain's same-sex marriage appeal likely to win few friends in GOP

In a recent post on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain has issued some advice to the Republican party that some people in the GOP will almost certainly not like.

She insists that Repblicans need to support same-sex marriage.

"Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart," McCain writes.

She goes on to note how important the Log Cabin Republicans are to the GOP, re-connecting them with some of their most important values.

"The Log Cabin Republicans’ mission 'is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians,'" she continues. "The group is centered on core Republican values, such as limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, an economy based in free markets, and a strong national defense. And in the spirit of the GOP’s founding beliefs—personal freedom and liberty—they are dedicated to securing full equality for gays and lesbians in America to create a stronger, larger, and more-unified GOP."

Even Ronald Reagan, the United States' prototype arch-conservative, was wise enough to recognize how important organizations like the LCR are to the party.

"Yeah, you read that right," McCain continued. "The ultimate Republican rock star bucked the conventional wisdom of his advisers as they were planning his presidential campaign and helped fight the [California] anti-gay proposition because he knew it was wrong. Reagan’s argument centered around the idea that parents already had all the rights they needed to protect their children and that the government did not need to interfere. It was a perfect example of the Great Communicator doing what was right, but not in a way that further divided voters."

Few conservatives have made the case for conservative support for same-sex marriage quite as eloquently as Canadians Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin. In Rescuing Canada's Right Daifallah and Kheiriddin argue that conservatives should support same-sex marriage as well as adoption rights for same-sex couples precisely because they're pro-family policies.

Kheiriddin and Daifallah's appeal made them highly suspect to religious conservatives within Canada's conservative movement. Fortunately, religious conservatives have been comparatively marginal within Canadian conservatism.

However, Meghan McCain isn't as fortunate. Her pro-same-sex marriage appeal will likely draw the ire of American religious conservatives, and give her detractors -- individuals such as Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham -- more ammunition to usse against her.

It doesn't change the fact that supporting same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. Certainly, the Republicans could support same-sex marriage for political gain, but this is the wrong reason.

The right reason is to follow the example of Ronald Reagan and support the Log Cabin Republicans because it's right. It's precisely the kind of right thing that ideologues like Coulter, Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh will not allow the party to do, except over its own dead body.

"At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated," McCain writes. "If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric."

What Meghan McCain has done promises to make her life in the GOP extremely difficult. But the high road -- the right road -- is rarely an easy one to follow.

The high road is usually a hard road. Hopefully, Republicans share McCain's courage to walk it.