Canadian Cincinnatus

Just say NO to Kevin O’Leary

I don’t know how many times we have the relearn the lesson that celebrities make bad politicians. Whether it is Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, and now Donald Trump in Washington, the results are almost never good. They come with no executive experience, no coherent governing philosophy, and no understanding of how political consensus is to be achieved. Being the leader of a country like Canada is not be an entry-level job. Making Kevin O’Leary Canada’s next Prime Minister is a really bad idea.

But what about Ronald Reagan, I hear you say. Wasn’t he a B-list Hollywood celebrity who ended up being a successful President? Yes, but he was also a successful two-time California governor first. That matters. He also read and thought deeply about conservatism. By the time he became Governor, he was well versed in conservative thought.

In contrast, most celebrities lack an intellectual compass. This is because they haven’t thought anything through. Our first clue that Kevin O’Leary has this problem are all his wildly inconsistent pronouncements. Unfortunately, ideological ignorance often works to the advantage of celebrity-politicians – at least initially. Because they boldly say things that no ordinary politician will dare utter, many voters get the impression that they are not afraid to ‘tell it like it is’. People really hate it when politicians speak in scripted, focus-grouped phrases. It comes across as cowardly and disingenuous – as it often is.

What adds fuel to the celebrity-politician’s bombast is that they often do not understand what is politically possible and what is impossible. As a result, they make bold promises that can’t be delivered, but they don’t know it. This faux courage, delivered with a showman’s flair, gives the celebrity-politician a charisma that most career politicians can only wish for. Unfortunately, the source of this boldness is ignorance and inexperience.

Also, their celebrity status confers upon them a false sense of familiarity. With Arnold, a lot of Californians said to themselves, I saw Terminator 2 and Kindergarten Cop, I know what Arnold is like. Er, no you don’t. Arnold is an actor delivering lines written by other people. This phenomenon is worse if they come from reality TV. This is because many people think reality TV is real. It is not. It is scripted. There is the old joke about a good Samaritan telling an accident victim, “Don’t worry, I am not a doctor but I play one on TV.” The same can be said about O’Leary and Trump. They play businessmen on TV. (And before anybody protests, yes, I know they are businessmen in real life. But here’s the thing: their TV shows do not tell you anything about what kind of businessmen they actually are.)

At this point, some of you may be wondering where I am coming from. I have been very supportive of conservative insurgents in the past. I was a big-time supporter of Preston Manning and the Reform Party, and I even supported (and still look back fondly over) Toronto’s crack mayor, Rob Ford. But here’s the thing, while Manning and Ford were outsiders, by the time they took center stage they were not politically inexperienced. In addition, both possessed a consistent set of political principles that gave their actions a unifying theme.

Preston Manning may not have been elected prior to 1993, but he had been in politics since 1967, when he and his father, Ernest Manning, began working on the long-term prospects of Canadian conservatism. They noticed that about every twenty years or so a grass-roots rebellion against Ottawa erupts in Alberta, but each time it fizzles out due to lack of unifying principles and leadership. They reasoned that the next eruption would take place sometime in the late 1980’s but if they were ready for it, a political realignment might be possible for Canada. They were right. If you are interested, read Murray Dobbin’s “Preston Manning and the Reform Party.” This hostile but informative book explains how the Reform Party was able to burst onto the Canadian political scene, seemingly fully-formed. Whatever you can say about Manning, he was not just ‘winging it’. Nor was he ignorant of what he was doing.

At first glance, Rob Ford sounds like just the kind of radical insurgent I am railing against. Not so. What is often forgotten is that Ford was a City Councillor for 10 years prior to becoming mayor. In his time on City Council, Ford focused like a laser beam on his two signature issues, fiscal conservatism and serving constituents. His dedication to constituent concerns were legendary. He dealt with every concern personally, often answering the initial call himself. He gave out his home phone number to every resident who asked, even after he became mayor. Jimmy Kimmel said that when Ford was in the limo with him being driven to the studio, he was busy on his cell phone talking to constituents! While Ford’s mayoralty was ultimately destroyed by his substance abuse issues, his first couple of years were very productive. This was due to the experience and knowledge he acquired from a decade of working in city politics.

Another problem with celebrity-politicians is that the source of their charisma is often the source of their downfall. Because they are ignorant of what can and cannot be done, they drive heedlessly into traps, either failing to deliver on their bold promises (the best case), or creating foreseeable disasters (the worst). As well, the unconventional behaviour that is the source of their initial appeal begins to wear on the voters after a while. This is because the people insist on statesmanlike behaviour just as much as they like boldness and originality. The celebrity-politician rarely appreciates this. They think they have rewritten the rules, when in fact the rules were just temporarily suspended. When their probation period ends, the immutable rules of politics return – often with a vengeance.

This is why I am against Kevin O’Leary. If he were elected party leader and loses to Trudeau, we will have missed a golden opportunity. But if he beats Trudeau (as he brags he can do), the resulting Charlie Foxtrot might bury the Conservative Party of Canada for a generation. This I believe will be the current fate of the Republican Party, who chose a reality TV clown as its standard-bearer. I don’t want Canadian conservatism to suffer the same fate as our American cousins. Speaking as the former two-time riding association president in the Conservative Party, if O’Leary is selected to be our party’s leader, I will personally have much more spare time on my hands during the next federal election campaign. I will probably still vote Conservative (while holding my nose), but only because I think O’Leary is incrementally less of a celebrity airhead than Justin Trudeau.

Advice from a Canadian conservative to an American Republican

I turned eighteen in 1979, the year Pierre Trudeau suffered his first electoral defeat at the hands of Progressive Conservatives (PC) led by Joe Clark (aka “Joe Who”). Unfortunately, all throughout the 80’s the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was so bad that it wasn’t until the 1993 Federal Election - when Preston Manning and the Reform Party arrived on the scene - that I actually voted for somebody for the first time in my life.

Throughout that bleak period, I never voted PC – not once. Conservative friends would ask me, do you want the Liberals back in power? My response was who cares? The PC’s and the Liberals are just a choice between Tweedlededee and Tweedlededum. The 1980’s may have been a flowering of conservativism throughout the world - the US had Ronald Reagan, Great Britain had Margaret Thatcher - but in Canada we got a clunker in the form of Brian Mulroney. A venal, petty, unprincipled, and vindictive Red Tory, I could never vote for a man so hell-bent on hard-coding left-wing principles into Canada’s Constitution.

My guiding principle during those frustrating years is that politicians need to earn my vote. I have no obligation whatsoever to support anybody, regardless of their party affiliation. Politicians ultimately derive their power from the people not the other way around.

As a result, in the 1984 election, I voted for the Party for the Commonwealth of Canada. Decades later I discovered they were a front for Lyndon LaRouche. They only received 87 votes in my riding (one of them being mine), but it didn’t matter. They weren’t a serious party and my message - that I hated every mainstream option - was delivered. In 1988, I didn’t vote at all. After Brian Mulroney’s disastrous second term – where, in addition to his attempts at constitutional meddling, he enacted draconian gun-control laws (Bill C-17) - I felt vindicated. I hadn’t soiled myself by voting for him.

So if you are a Republican who thinks Donald Trump doesn’t have Presidential Timber, and you hate Hillary as well, then my advice is to not vote for either. You owe them nothing. It is up to them to convince you that they are worthy of your support. Don’t let anybody tell you it works the other way around.

But here’s the good news. As a Republican, you have a lot to be proud of. In spite of this year’s disastrous presidential season, the GOP is at a historical level of strength. The Republicans control 31 state legislatures outright, split 4 legislatures with the Democrats, hold 31 governors’ mansions, and have an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives. As well, the majority of Senators are Republicans. And while the Congressional Republican leadership has been disappointing (to put it mildly), the new Speaker of the House is much better than the man he replaced. Paul Ryan may be disappointing in some ways, but he stands head and shoulders above the execrable John Boehner, a man of no virtues or talents.

So if I were you, I would tune out the presidential election. Regardless of who wins, the conservative cause has already lost that race. Rather, I would concentrate all my attention, energy, and money on local, state, and congressional races where you can make a real difference. These elections matter and there is a lot at stake.

Now that we know that the new President is guaranteed be bad (even if we don’t know his or her name yet), it is more important than ever to maintain control of Congress. This is especially true of the Senate, where, thanks to the success of the 2010 midterms, the Republicans have a lot of seats to defend. If I were a conservative activist looking for something to do, I would find a senate candidate to support. If there is none in your state, is there a close senate race in a nearby state? Perhaps there is a RINO who needs to be primaried.

To put things into perspective, I did not have this option as a Canadian conservative in the 1980’s. Thanks to iron party discipline, I could only choose between a Liberal trained seal or a Mulroney PC trained seal in my riding. And because provincial and municipal elections are held separately, there was very little reason to even go down to the polling station on Election Day. But because the American system of government is more decentralized, there is a lot you can do even if you hate all the options at the top of the ticket.

Please note that none of the things I advise involve lost causes or tilting at windmills. There are real, consequential elections out there that you can affect in a practical way.

So cheer up – and get to work.

Toronto Sun columnist slags Stephen Harper

Postmedia columnist Anthony Furey penned a column entitled “Harper stalwarts missing in Tory leadership poll, and that says something”. The conclusions he makes are based on a Mainstreet Technologies poll about the relative popularity of the contestants in the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race. His conclusion about the three most popular leadership candidates? “All three are on the progressive end of the spectrum. And none of them are overly associated with the Harper brand.”

OK, let’s analyze Furey’s argument. The three most popular candidates among likely Conservative supporters are Interim Leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose (the first choice for 26% of the respondents), TV personality Kevin O’Leary (with 20% support), and Peter MacKay (16%). While it is true O’Leary has had nothing to do with the Harper government – he has never been elected to anything, is Furey really saying that Ambrose and MacKay are not associated with Stephen Harper’s government? Really?

Let’s look at Rona Ambrose first. First elected to office in Edmonton – Spruce Grove in 2004, Harper has given her the following appointments to his cabinet: Minster of the Environment (Feb 6 2006 to Jan 3, 2007), President of the Privy Council (Jan 4, 2007 to Oct 30, 2008), Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Jan 4, 2007 to Oct 30, 2008), Minister of Labour (Oct 30, 2008 to Jan 19, 2010), Minister of Western Economic Diversification (Nov 5, 2010 to May 18, 2011), Minister of Public Works and Government Services (Jan 19, 2010 to July 15, 2013), and Minister of Health (July 15, 2013 to Nov 4, 2015). Given the fact that she was in Stephen Harper’s cabinet from the moment he formed government until the moment he was defeated, often holding important portfolios, sometimes holding multiple portfolios, in what way exactly is Rona Ambrose not “overly associated with the Harper brand”? She’s also apparently a family friend of the Harpers.

I suppose the argument could be made that Peter MacKay is not a Harperite because he came from the Progressive Conservative wing of the Conservative Party while Harper represented its Reform Party roots. Such a conclusion however must overlook the fact that when Stephen Harper merged the Canadian Alliance Party (which he headed) in 2003 with the Progressive Conservative Party (which MacKay headed), he needed a friend on the other side. That friend – and co-architect - was Peter MacKay. We forget today that MacKay had to overcome stiff resistance in the PC ranks to prevail. As a result of his efforts, Harper was forever grateful, sticking by MacKay through thick and thin. His cabinet appointments (all made by Harper) include: Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (Feb 6, 2006 to Jan 19, 2010), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Feb 6, 2006 to Aug 14, 2007), Minister of National Defence (Aug 14, 2007 to July 15, 2013), and Minister of Justice/Attorney General of Canada (July 15, 2013 to Nov 4, 2015). In addition to holding these top cabinet posts, he was the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party for Stephen Harper’s entire reign as party leader! Yep, another outsider to the Conservative Party.

However Furey bases his conclusion also on those who appear at the bottom of the poll. They are: “Tony Clement (7%), Jason Kenney (6%), Michael Chong (3%), Kellie Leitch (2%), and Lisa Raitt (1%).” As Furey points out, “the biggest takeaway is just as much of an also-ran Kenney appears.” This is true. Jason Kenney was one of Stephen Harper’s rising stars and one of his chief lieutenants (spearheading the Conservative Party’s largely successful outreach efforts in Canada’s ethnic communities). The fact that long-time, high profile Harper ministers like Clement, Kenney, and Raitt are doing poorly does support Furey’s conclusion. On the other hand, undercutting Furey’s thesis is the fact that Michael Chong is polling 3%. He was placed in the doghouse by Stephen Harper in 2006 because Chong publicly contradicted Harper over Quebec. Harper, being a man with a long memory, kept him there. Unfortunately, his long stint in purgatory doesn’t seem to have helped him catch the anti-Harper vibe that is allegedly out there.

Furthermore, the fact that Kellie Leitch is at 2% undercuts Furey’s message that progressivism is the new black in the Conservative Party. Before being elected federally she was closely associated with Ontario PC MPP Christine Elliott as well as that quintessential Red Tory, John Tory. Also undercutting his conclusion is that Stephen Harper was known as somebody who steadfastly steered his party away from stereotypical social conservative issues like opposition to gay marriage and abortion. If there were tensions in Harper’s government over social issues, it was by socially conservative backbenchers who felt stifled and ignored (though Harper kept the lid on this discontent by being good on guns).

Ladies and gentlemen, does this article sound like it was honestly written?

The data in the public opinion polls certainly doesn’t support its conclusion. Rather, it seems Harper is not a factor at all in the race to succeed him. Some of his lieutenants are doing well, some aren’t. Some people not associated with Harper are doing well, some aren’t.

One reason I like The Toronto Sun is the attitude that one of its founders, Peter Worthington, inculcated in the paper. He said in his obituary (which he wrote himself before he died):

“As editor, I had strong views on what editorials should be — one handed (no on this, that or the other hand), a strong point of view, marshal your arguments, and let others challenge them.

If, later, you change your mind, acknowledge it and inform the reader. I liked irreverence, eccentricity, controversy, cheerfulness, mischief and independent thinking.”

I agree. Too bad this article falls short of Worthington’s standard.

Justin Trudeau’s destructive promise to lower the retirement age back to 65

One of the reasons I consider Stephen Harper to be best Canadian Prime Minister in my lifetime was his willingness to go out on a limb for politically problematic but beneficial reforms. One such policy was gradually raising the retirement age in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) from 65 to 67.

Because this was to be phased in gradually over time, it didn’t have an immediate impact on the bottom line of the federal government. As a result, it didn’t seem like a big deal, but it is. It has a huge effect on something even larger, Canada’s unfunded liability burden. While Canada’s federal debt is $616 billion as I write this, Canada’s unfunded liabilities are measured in the trillions of dollars. One reason this amount is less talked about is that it is not money that has already been borrowed. It is the tally for promises made, but not yet paid. A big part of this total comes from promises made to future retirees by the CPP.

The good news is that a relatively small modification to government promises can have an outsize effect on how much the government owes in the future. Think of this as a pivot point or a fulcrum that you can use to move a large boulder with a lever. One such pivot point is the retirement age. Raising it by a couple of years can have a big effect in the unfunded liability column. While such a change doesn’t make the CPP solvent for all time (only raising Canada’s birth rate can do that), it is an important step in the right direction. By raising the retirement age by two years, Harper saved Canada untold billions of dollars and pushed the insolvency date for the CPP much further into the future.

And because it was to be phased in gradually over time, Stephen Harper was able to implement it relatively easily. Perhaps this is why conservatives did not hail it as a great reform like we should have. We shrugged, taking Harper’s leadership for granted. As a result, we made it easy for Justin Trudeau to backtrack on it.

That Justin Trudeau is reversing this beneficial change to Canada’s entitlement system shows how shallow he really is. Say what you will about Jean Chrétien (and there is a great deal negative that can be said about him), Chrétien was wily enough to know a good policy when he saw one. While he may have promised to repeal the GST and renegotiate NAFTA when he campaigned against Mulroney and Campbell, he never really meant it. His method was to get all the political benefit by publicly opposing these measures while owning all the benefit from these wise policies when he broke his promises.

In the real world, a Machiavellian schemer is usually better for a country than a glib underwear model. Of course, an uncharismatic but steadfast reformer is better still.

Bitter Mulroney-era losers are still hanging around

When the Reform Party (which had morphed into the Canadian Alliance) and the Progressive Conservative Party finally merged in 2003, not all the Progressive Conservatives came along. There was a small rump of PC’s left over - still too seething with resentment over Preston Manning coming along and spoiling their party - to bury the hatchet. They formed the Progressive Canadian Party.

In the last federal election, the Progressive Canadian Party fielded eight candidates. The most successful of these won 2.3% of the vote. (Five of the candidates each received less than 1%.) Yup, a political powerhouse to be reckoned with. But if you are bitter enough, lack of success will not deter you. For instance, over the weekend I received the following e-mail from the leader of the PC Party:

“Open Letter to Canadian Conservatives

The election result on October 19, 2015 is reason for Canadian Conservatives to think deeply. 

What is clear is that the party formed by the "merger" of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was rejected by Canadians who recognized the result of the merger was not the renewed Progressive Conservative party Tory voters had   thought they were voting for in elections since 2003.

New Conservative Party policy, politics, outlook and direction and political culture was imported from the Canadian Alliance and its predecessor the Reform Party.  Progressive Conservative policy, politics, outlook and direction and political culture was pushed aside and ignored.

Some former Canadian Alliance members are publicly revisiting Preston Manning's infamous "The West wants in" diatribe by claiming "The West wants out."  They echo Stephen Harper's firewall federalism, showing their contempt for democracy and insulting all Canadians in all parts of Canada, North, South, East, and West.  The party Stephen Harper shaped is not about Tory and Canadian conservative principle.

Integrity, parliament, and Canada matter: that is the message of the 2015 election. The party led by Stephen Harper, and previously by Stockwell Day and Preston Manning under other names, fails on all three counts.  They framed the ballot question in the 2015 election and Canadians voted to replace the party, leader, and government in power since January 23, 2006.

Progressive Conservatives remaining in the new Conservative Party are justified in feeling betrayed by the policy and leadership of the merged party.  It is time to reshape the Conservative Party of Canada to create a renewed Progressive Conservative Party of Canada or bring the CPC to an end..

Those of us who share the "progressive Conservative" vision of the Tory party Sir John A. Macdonald first spoke of in 1854 have reason to take heart in the decision of Canadians on October 19, 2015.  

The national vision of the party of Confederation, of nation-building, and of Sir John A.'s National Dream of One Dominion from Sea to Sea is endorsed by Canadians who put the divisive politics of the last ten years to rest.

Canadians have moved on.  It is time for what was purposely called briefly the "Conservative Party" to do so as well.

It is time for progressive - conservatives to restore vision in a party based on the principles which first built a strong, united Canada.

The Progressive Canadian party exists to provide a principled Tory home for Progressive Conservatives who have decided enough is enough should the Manning Centre Conference leave the directions of the Conservative Party of Canada unchanged.

We invite you to join us and we offer you leadership by example of what Sir John A. Macdonald's  "progressive Conservative" party should look like to Canadians today.  The PC Party on the ballot is a way forward to a renewed Tory government in a strong united Canada as Progressive Canadians and Progressive Conservatives.

Respectfully,

The Hon. Sinclair Stevens, Leader,

The Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party)”

How fitting that this party is currently being led by a Brian Mulroney-era cabinet minister whose career in the Mulroney government ended because of conflict-of-interest allegations. I am old enough to remember that disgraceful scandal play out on television.

Stevens talks as if Stephen Harper is some kind of failed leader. And yet, Harper was in office almost a year longer than Brian Mulroney. In addition, when Harper lost, he left his party in much better shape than Mulroney left his. When Harper resigned, his Conservative Party still retained 99 seats and was the undisputed official opposition. When the Mulroney/Campbell PC’s were crushed in 1993, they had only 2 seats left, and wouldn’t have even qualified to remain an official party except that the ever-crafty Jean Chrétien realized that it was useful for him to keep this rump of a party on life support.

And let’s not forget all the many anti-conservative betrayals that Prime Minister’s Mulroney and Campbell perpetrated on this country. They enacted draconian gun control laws; instituted a widely despised a value added tax; ran up huge deficits year after year; and to top it all off, attempted twice to change Canada’s Constitution. With the latter attempt, the Charlottetown Accord, Mulroney tried buy off every special interest group in sight. As a result, this amendment would have constitutionally enshrined multiculturalism, left-wing labour laws, socialized medicine, and an apartheid regime for our natives.

It is a natural human tendency to feel sorry for the downtrodden and the dispossessed, and to try to help them on their feet. Normally, such impulses are entirely virtuous and benign. However, in this case, given their treacherous past, any mercy would be misapplied. I think it’s better to put the boots to these people while they are on the ground so they never rise up again. Good riddance you losers!

Gun control angle in the La Roche shooting

I have been trying to discover what type of firearm the killer used in the horrible shooting at the La Roche Community School in northern Saskatchewan. I assume that the gun was non-restricted, partly because news items have been silent on this matter. (If it has been a handgun or an AR-15-type rifle, they would have touted it in their headlines.) The only reference I could find was in this National Post article where an eyewitness student said he heard a yell, “There’s a shotgun! There’s a shotgun!” So it appears I am right in my assumption that the murder weapon was non-restricted.

If this is the case, it is important to remember that when then-Justice Minister Allan Rock introduced Bill C-68 into Parliament in the mid-nineties, he touted one of its features - the long-gun registry - as an indispensable crime-fighting tool. Though the long-gun registry is long gone, a shotgun is just the type of firearm that would have been required to be registered under C-68.

Or maybe not. If you are engaged in ‘subsistence hunting’, the registration requirement for long guns was waived. Because the only people who could legitimately claim to be subsistence hunters are natives, this loophole was clearly inserted for their benefit. But if the gun registry was as important a crime-control measure as Allan Rock claimed it to be, why would Rock deny the protective umbrella of the long-gun registry to Canada’s Indian communities?

The real answer is of course fear. After the Oka crisis, Canadian politicians were well aware of how well-armed Canadian aboriginals are. Because of the resistance they showed themselves to be capable of, these same gun-grabbing politicians knew well enough to give Canada’s Indian reserves a wide berth. Once bitten, twice shy. Therefore, because they knew the Indians wouldn’t comply with any gun registry, they gave them - and themselves – a face-saving out. In other words, Rock likely added the ‘subsistence hunting’ clause into Bill C-68 out of cowardice.

Just an unflattering little fact to keep in mind in case the hoplophobes try to use the La Roche atrocity as a pretext to resurrect the long-gun registry.

A warning from a Canadian conservative to the Republican Party

I think the Republican establishment should be thanking Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

Why? Because the real existential danger to the Republican Party is not Ted Cruz nor is it Donald Trump, it is a viable conservative third party rising up from the grass-roots that is the biggest threat to their existence. Since 1856 was the last year when a major political party was replaced in the US, many of my American readers might be forgiven for being skeptical of my warning. But don’t be. As a Canadian conservative, I have seen it happen with my own eyes.

I keep returning to the Canadian Federal Election of 1993 because it holds so many lessons for the current American political scene. To understand how, a little history is in order. In 1984 federal election, Brian Mulroney won the highest majority government in Canadian history. But in 1993, his successor in the Prime Minister’s office, the hapless Kim Campbell, proceeded to lose in the biggest landslide in Canadian history after a mere 4 months in office. In that year, the Canadian Parliament had 295 seats and the Mulroney-led Progressive Conservative (PC) Party held 169 of them. After election night, they were down to two. You read that right; they retained only two seats. So what happened?

The short answer is hubris. Mulroney’s government took conservative voters for granted, adopting a where-can-they-go-they’ll-just-hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-us-at-the-end-of-the-day attitude. Sound familiar?

To elaborate, after signing the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement in 1988, Prime Minister Mulroney did nothing further even remotely conservative. Instead he enacted draconian gun control laws; he instituted a widely despised a value added tax; he ran up huge deficits year after year; and to top it all off, he attempted twice to change Canada’s Constitution. With the latter attempt, the Charlottetown Accord, his MO was to buy off every special interest group in sight. As a result, his amendment would have constitutionally enshrined multiculturalism, left-wing labour laws, socialized medicine, and an apartheid regime for our natives. Through absolutely heroic efforts by a small number of opponents (including a young Stephen Harper), the Charlottetown Accord was defeated in a popular referendum in 1992. Seeing the writing on the wall, Mulroney resigned.

This led to the rise of the genuinely conservative Reform Party, which led to vote splitting on the right for the next ten years. But in the end, a decade of Liberal rule was worth it because for the first time in a long time, Canada had a real conservative party. I know my American readers will find what I am about to say hard to believe, but Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives were even worse than today’s GOP. That’s right, worse. Think of the Republican Party but with no Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, or even Marco Rubio. Nothing but interchangeable John Boehner and Mitch McConnell clones as far as they eye can see. It was that bad.

But we got over it, as you will. The new Conservative Party (sans the ‘Progressive’ in its name) was built largely by Stephen Harper from a merger of the Reform Party and the old Progressive Conservative party (with the old PC’s being very much the junior partner in this arrangement).

Now one can object that the US political system is quite a bit different from Canada’s. True, but the two most relevant details that enabled all this are the same. The first is that the Mulroney PC establishment was widely hated and despised by the base (and indeed everybody else). And second, both countries have a first-past-the-post voting system – ideal for vote splitting. The US however has one big advantage. Individual Congressmen are much freer with regard to their own domestic and foreign policy. In Canada, party discipline rules. As a result, all PC Members of Parliament appeared fungible to the public so all were punished equally. In the US, voters can tell the difference between Jeff Sessions and Paul Ryan.

All of this is to say that the most important objective for the Republican leadership should be to prevent a right-wing populist third party from arising. Insisting that Donald Trump declare his loyalty to the Republican Party was OK. But when it started to look like Trump might win, the establishment took leave of its senses. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol promised to leave the GOP and Jeb Bush promised to sit out the election. What fools! If they actually did what they are threatening, they would only be furthering the end of the Republican Party.

There were even reports that the RNC might conspire to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. This would be the absolute pinnacle of folly. Nothing would precipitate their demise more than if the party establishment stabbed the voter-selected winner in the back - and was seen doing so. This would be like Henry Clay’s ‘corrupt bargain’ with John Quincy Adams, which propelled Andrew Jackson to the White House four years later (and created the modern Democrat Party). In order to head this fate off, the GOP must runs its nomination contest absolutely scrupulously. Any trickery, or even perception of trickery, would be fatal because of the little trust the public has in them. If the Tea Party ever thought that the Republican Party refused to give them a fair shake, then it’s goodbye GOP. Another historical analogy would be the 1968 Democratic Convention, which elected Hubert Humphrey even though he had not entered a single primary. As I recall, that didn’t end well for the Democrat Party’s New Deal establishment.

In a recent USA Today column, Glenn Reynolds claimed that the liberals have chosen Donald Trump as their Destructor. For the Republican Establishment, they only have to look in a mirror to see their own Destructor.

If any Syrian refugee commits a terrorist act in Canada, Justin Trudeau will own it

Justin Trudeau promised to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada in the recent Federal Election. Flush with electoral victory, Trudeau seems eager to carry out that promise and to do it before Christmas. There have been stories in the news suggesting that proper vetting will be impossible because of the haste. (How much vetting can be done at all when people are coming from a place of complete anarchy is another question. I doubt anything but the most rudimentary screening is possible.)

One of the Prime Minister’s principal responsibilities is for the safety and security of Canada. While it is nice to help out refugees when we can – and we should do so when it doesn’t imperil us, the Paris Massacre graphically illustrates the dangers involved in bringing in more of this bunch. Even prior to the horrible events of Friday evening, it was already obvious to anybody paying attention that the Syrian mob - called refugees by the press - are surly, criminally violent, ungrateful, and thoroughly hostile to Western values. They have openly mocked those providing them relief, chanting ‘Allah u akbar’, implying – and often directly stating – that Islam will conquer Europe. Somehow, I think these people will not be amenable to assimilation, even if our multicultural elites were even contemplating such a course of action.

There is one reasonable path Trudeau could follow now but won’t. He could bring in 25,000 refugees from ISIS held territory in Syria AND Iraq. If he brings in Yazidis, Assyrian Christians, and even Shia Muslims, who are considered apostates by ISIS, there is far less chance that the radical Sunnis of ISIS will slip through the net. I suspect that fear of being referred to as an Islamaphobe will prevent Trudeau from giving preference to people who are now among the most persecuted in the world. Christian males under ISIS domination are being crucified, beheaded, and burned alive. Christian women are raped, forced to convert to Islam, and are sold into slavery. We don’t need Amnesty International to inform us of these atrocities, because ISIS proudly posts videos of the barbarity. They even posted videos of their slave auctions.

With all of this occurring right before our eyes, importing 25,000 Syrian refugees so quickly into Canada when we have absolutely no reason to do so is what is called an unforced error. If Justin Trudeau intends to keep this promise in spite of the Paris Massacre, he is demonstrating his naiveté and unfitness for higher office. He would be showing everybody that he just isn’t living in the real world. The world is not the make-believe Barney-the-Dinosaur universe that he would like it to be. It just is what it is.

In spite of his good wishes, if just one of these Syrian ‘refugees’ commits a terrorist act in Canada, Trudeau will own it. All of it.

Cincinnatus and Mike Downtown

Any Canadian gun owner who sat out the last election has only himself to blame if his guns are confiscated

I was scheduled to go to a pistol match on the Saturday before the last Federal Election, but I cancelled out. Instead, I cleared my schedule and spent the entire weekend dedicated to my candidate’s GOTV efforts. The recent polls had me worried. When I told the match organizer what I was doing, as well as my friends at the match, they shrugged. Election? I’d rather go out shooting.

It seems that the recent political successes that Canadian gun owners have enjoyed has also lulled us into complacency. The bad old days of Alan Rock and Kim Campbell are gone for good. Or so many think.

I got the same apathetic reaction from a fellow shooter while discussing politics over a beer. He told me that Harper has to go. He’s too annoying. I told him that Stephen Harper has been the best friend Canadian gun owners have ever had. He got rid of the long-gun registry - the lack of which is a significant obstacle to any future gun-grab scheme - and he cut useless red tape meant only to harass shooters. My friend said he will vote Conservative - like he always does - but he thinks the Conservatives need a new leader.

I responded that loyalty is an important virtue in politics – both for politicians and the voters. Nothing can be achieved without it. Whatever Harper’s faults (and I agree they became increasingly manifest in his last few years in office), he has been steadfastly loyal to shooters. In response, we needed to come through for him. Because if we don’t - and by come through, I mean donating and volunteering, as well as just voting – why would anybody else champion our cause in the future?

Well, what I feared might happen is beginning. The Federal Election was held on Oct 19. From a press release from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), dated merely five days later:

“THE RCMP TEST THE WATERS ON THE FIRST NEW ROUND OF FIREARM PROHIBITIONS.  

October 24, 2015 – As reported by CSSA in the last several months, the RCMP has been eager to impose new prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles at the earliest opportunity.

Little known to most firearm owners, an unsuccessful attempt was made by the RCMP’s Canadian Firearms Program to prohibit the common-as-dirt SKS rifle, a non-restricted firearm imported into Canada by the hundreds of thousands over the last 40 years. Its solid reliability, inexpensive ammo and very reasonable price have made it a stalwart in a large portion of Canadian gun safes. Every year, thousands of game animals are humanely harvested and millions of rounds of ammunition are sent downrange by this humble firearm.

Yet, one broken gun sold by a large retail store sparked an all-out pogrom against the ubiquitous rifle by the RCMP. Some adroit stick handling prevented this from achieving fruition and while the tale is not well known by consumers, it is common knowledge in the firearm industry. As is often the case, lobbying is a prophylactic exercise where success is measured by what doesn't happen.

The story below – reported by the CBC – is the opening salvo in an attempt by the RCMP’s Firearms Program to ban the following firearms: the SKS, the Ruger Mini-14/Mini-30, the Tavor TAR 21, the CZ-858 and the Norinco M-305 rifles.

Do not ignore this message and do not be fooled by political rhetoric. THIS IS REAL, and the storm is only beginning.”

That old phrase, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is nowhere more true than in politics.

All I can say is that my conscience is clear, but I wonder how other Canadian gun owners can sleep well at night.

 

Memo to Canadian Conservatives: don’t refight the last war

In the National Post, Kevin Gaudet, discussed the qualities that the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada should possess. To him, Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is as important as intellectual intelligence (IQ). He is of course right that EQ is an indispensable asset in politics. But I get the sense that what Gaudet has in mind for next party leader is an anti-Harper.

Gaudet was responding to a Maclean's article written by Conservative strategist, Ken Boessenkool, who, according to Gaudet, pined an even more for an anti-Harper. Again according to Gaudet, Boessenkool wants the next leader to be “young, female, and not from the West.” Gaudet was right to criticize this as a laundry list that would eliminate many qualified candidates essentially for affirmative action reasons.

To me, in looking for the anti-Harper, both Gaudet and Boessenkool are trying to refight the last war. They saw Justin Trudeau exploit Harper’s personality flaws – that Harper is an unempathic, unfeeling, control freak – and they don’t want that to happen again. Justin Trudeau won by being warm and fuzzy and young and sunny. They want some of that same mojo.

But here’s the thing they both miss: Stephen Harper is gone. The problem they are trying to solve has already been solved - by Harper’s resignation as party leader. The challenge now isn’t finding Mr. Goodbar, but positioning yourself to beat Trudeau four years from now.

How do we do that? Remember the Theory of Presidential Opposites that I propounded in my last column. Justin Trudeau won by being the anti-Harper. In order to beat Harper, we need to find the anti-Trudeau, not an anti-Harper to counter their anti-Harper.

But say, didn’t the last election prove that Canadians respond positively to Justin Trudeau? Yes they did. This shows that the Canadian electorate right now wants politicians like Justin. But the next election isn’t right now. It’s four years from now.

By that point, Justin’s good qualities will have become shopworn and taken for granted - just like Harper’s did after nine years. (If you recall, Harper is sober, hard-working, unpretentious, smart, competent, and thrifty.) What we really need to be looking for is somebody that can exploit those weaknesses of Justin Trudeau that will have become obvious to everybody four years from now. What are they?

Well we already have a good idea. Trudeau is shallow, facile, unread, unserious, and all surface – just like he was portrayed in the Conservative propaganda ad quoting Trudeau as saying, “and the budget will balance itself.” Four years from now, the budget won’t have balanced itself. To exploit that fact, the Conservatives need a leader with opposite qualities, so that the contrast with Trudeau will be maximized, and entirely to our benefit.

But what if four years from now, Trudeau will have proven that he has inner reserves of intellect and seriousness that we have not yet recognized? If that’s the case, he will win reelection - especially with the mainstream media covering his back. But even if this proves to be the case, our position will still be maximized with an anti-Trudeau at the helm, because all politicians, even good ones, begin to grate after a while. Exhibit A is Stephen Harper himself. And of course, if Trudeau is what he seems to be, he will be ripe for defeat – but only if we position ourselves correctly today.

But still, even granting all that, wouldn’t it be better if the next leader lacked Harper’s personality flaws? Of course it would. It would be even better if the next leader lacked all personality flaws entirely. The thing is, real human beings don’t come that way. Everybody has weaknesses as well as strengths. I believe history will conclude that Stephen Harper’s strengths greatly outnumbered his weaknesses. And just as in the leadership process that selected Harper, Conservatives will be choosing from the imperfect bunch of candidates who put themselves forward.

One of the keys to success in strategy is the ability to look past the emotions of the day and look dispassionately into the future to assess the likely situation (and emotions) that will be the case then. Therefore, in evaluating today’s leadership candidates, we should think about how they will do four years from now, and not today.