Conservatism: The Long And Short Of It?
August 30, 2009 · By Sean
When the Prime Minister made the appointments to the Senate, it stirred up his critics both within and without the party. This got me thinking about a Conservative Division within the party. Obviously we expected to see the Liberal hypocracy and NDP demonizing, and much to my regret, it’s becomming obvious to expect the complaints coming from within the party.
Truth be told, I have no problems with contentious critiquing of the party from within the party. In fact, I continue to regard it as a very healthy activity within a healthy organization. What really disappoints me (and sometimes makes me livid), is when Conservatives and conservatives (C&c’s) utterly abandon Long Term Vision in favor of Short Term Vision.
The Short Of It
This is perhaps the most destructive force within any political organization. Taking the short-sighted path, people become so concerned about the minutia of a given event/plan/decision that they completely lose sight of the greater picture.
Take the recent appointments to the Senate. Stephen Harper is being attacked by C&c’s for abandoning his principles for the sake of power. These conservatives have become so disenchanted and disenfranchised with the direction that Stephen Harper is taking the Conservative Party of Canada that they have decided to try to tear down the Leader of the Party in whatever way possible because now is more important than the future in their eyes. Either that, or they have simply lost patience. Personally, I can forgive a loss of patience; this Minority Government situation has exhausted everyone with it’s neverending threats. Conservatively, I can not forgive taking the easy road and blaming it all on one man and making him the target of all their frustrations.
Too often, the impatient hawks of the party seek immediate gratification of their wants and goals and will tolerate nothing short of direct, full-frontal pursuit of those goals with no apology and no regard for the ramifications of these actions. Their own personal frustrations have so tightened their nerves that as soon as Conservatives sit in the PMO it is NOW the time to unload all their demands upon Canada.
Let’s take a hypothetical walk down that path for a moment. Say under the current circumstances (read as hestitantly granted minority government), all of the conservatives social and economic agenda items (both the extreme and not) are unleashed on Canadians in one big blast message. What would the outcome be? If you consider that honestly, we’d be in another election with the Liberals and the NDP rolling around on the floor laughing their asses off at how stupid Conservatives are and then walk away with a stunniing Liberal Majority.
Many of the hawks within the party wouldn’t be bothered by this as they’d rather die on their principles and claim they held true to their beliefs. This I personally believe leads to heart attacks and other medical complications.
The Long Of It
Many C&c’s (myself included) believe in keeping their eye on the long term or “The Big Picture” and choose to ignore (but not necessarily forget) the little frustrating details along the way. Just as these conservatives recognize that as Rome wasn’t built in a day, so too goes Conservatism in Canada. They understand that incrementalism is a necessary strategy when bringing change to Canadians. They also understand that sometimes sacrifices have to be made along the way in order to move forward. What’s the sense in taking 8 steps backward in order to take one step forward in order to hold on tightly to an otherwise minor detail?
Those who take the Long View are often criticized as having sold out their values or become corrupted by power. These same people see themselves as having the maturity experience has taught them to recognize that sometimes there has to be compromise. Sometimes you have to lose a battle in order to win a war; a philosophy akin to the Churchill/Coventry myth. This isn’t to say that these C&c’s are willing to sacrifice everything because that would, in fact, be a betrayal of conservative principles. These conservatives also recognize that battles lost in the past can be revisited in the future when there is time and mandate to correct them; the trick is getting to that time and place.
Again using the Senate appointment example. The desire is to democratize the Senate. The caveat is to get enough Senators in the Senate to allow that to happen. How do you go about achieving that goal? Well, taking the long view we have to accept that we are required to work and act within the existing system until we have the numbers and the means with which to start making significant change to how the Senate works. So, the Prime Minister must appoint sympathizers to the Senate. That only Alberta excercises a kind of electoral system to show preference in representation that the Prime Minister can use is, sadly, an unfortunate reality. Fortunately, the Prime Minister has shown that he is happy and willing to recognize that and respect that system. That being said, until other Provinces get on board with that, the Prime Minister is left with only his discretion as to who makes it into the Red Chamber.
In light of that truth, complaining about the appointments, or the fact they ARE appointments by a man who said he wouldn’t do that is entirely irrelevent.
I think that it all comes down to a simple elegant truth: Patience vs Impatience. Whoever coined the phrase “Long-term gain for short-term pain” had the right of it.
T
The appointment of Jacques Demers is brilliant, a self confessed illiterate now a senator has shown the flaws in an appointed senate.
Do not think for one second that PM Stephen Harper did not expect the the backlash of Jacques appointment, a balance to the Liberal senator “The Big M”.
agree and agree – PMSH is the absolute best CPC leader one can imagine – he sees the long picture and puts in place a plan to get us eventually to our goal – causing many lieberal heads to explode along the way – a win-win situation
Let’s use a football analogy … we all understand the rules of the game. We also know that we now have the football, and have had it for just over 43 months. Most of us agree that our next major goal is to get a majority, call that a touchdown. And most of us (except for the Gerry Nichols of the world) agree that Harper has moved the football down the field, OK fine.
Where the C’s and c’s disagree is how far Harper SHOULD have moved the football by now, and how FAST he should move the football in the future. If he tries to move too fast, throwing hail mary passes and the like, the chances of an interception increase substantially. The Libs take over, high-fiving themselves over Harper’s foolish impatience.
The bottom line is, as members of the C team, or the c movement, we have to put a ton of trust in Harper’s judgement. Obviously most of us only know a small fraction of what he knows about the best plays to call in different situations. So hang in there everybody. Enjoy watching the Libs suffer, as they try every dirty trick in their bag to try and wrest the football from Harper’s hands.
Hear hear
I really don’t have a problem with the otherside bashing the PM for making Senate appointments. You know that Liberals would have gone ahead with their candidates and not imposed agreements on limiting time spent in the Senate. How is this not reform? Does every initiative have to be “all or nothing”? Seems to me a little at a time works and eventually the public will come to realize that the Chamber Pot should be reformed or abolished. Good on PM Harper – courage under fire. Cheers.
Good post!
Taking the long road is the high road. No-one in the Conservative leadership in power is taking on my favourite high profile gripe that would require a change in legislation. The problem is that it would draw confrontation from some opposition forces (but not all). Suddenly this would give the opposition an election issue.
Right now the Liberal’s do not have a wedge issue. This is no time to give them one. From time immemorial politicians need to pussyfoot and at other times the leaders need to lead on the issues.
As I learned in school years ago. Politics is the art of the possible. Who says Conservatives don’t know about art!
I agree with you. This is a win-win situation both for the short- and long terms. If people do not like the appointments, it furthers discussion of senate reform, which is the C&c’s agenda. Meanwhile, the senate will have people who support reform and who support the present government. The coalition proposals for scary senate appointments were a huge game changer as well, and totally justifies PMSH’s “changed” approach.
Again using the Senate appointment example. The desire is to democratize the Senate. The caveat is to get enough Senators in the Senate to allow that to happen. How do you go about achieving that goal? Well, taking the long view we have to accept that we are required to work and act within the existing system until we have the numbers and the means with which to start making significant change to how the Senate works. So, the Prime Minister must appoint sympathizers to the Senate. That only Alberta excercises a kind of electoral system to show preference in representation that the Prime Minister can use is, sadly, an unfortunate reality. Fortunately, the Prime Minister has shown that he is happy and willing to recognize that and respect that system. That being said, until other Provinces get on board with that, the Prime Minister is left with only his discretion as to who makes it into the Red Chamber.
—-> Oh defining democracy as democratic when you can impose your will? LOL
Liberal Tory same old story.