Cynics Unlimited

With less than a week left before Election Day, the question of Stephen Harper’s victory appears not to be a matter of if, but how. In a previous post, the possibility of a Harper minority (versus a Liberal minority) was discussed – now, with a 9-11% lead (depending on which poll you believe), Harper may be headed for a majority. Instead of crowing about this prospect as he disastrously did last election, the Canadian Conservative Party leader quickly set out to assure the public that a Conservative minority would not be “scary”:

“The reality is we will have for some time to come a Liberal Senate, a Liberal civil service — at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals — and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals … There’s certainly no absolute power for a Conservative government … we’ll have checks on us and limits on our ability to operate that a Liberal government would not face.”
-Stephen Harper, TorStar Interview (January 19, 2006)

Ironically, it is Stephen Harper who should fear a majority government. Absolute power over the House of Commons will greatly exacerbate the upcoming conflict between Harper’s core/historic constituency and his new-found audience of mainstream Canada. Prior to this election, the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada (and its previous post-Mulroney variants) tended to appeal to a few special interests.

• Western Separatists/Nationalists
• Social Conservatives
• Neo-Conservatives

Throughout his days as part of the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance, Harper relied on these groups both politically and financially. In fact, all three parties became regional phenomena in a Bloc-esque manner: most analysts dismissed them as a having no chance to form a government, but to their respective regions they were the majority, and in fact it was perceived the entire region was being suppressed rather than the respective political party.

Then along came Paul Martin.

The spectacular decline of the scandal-ridden Liberals has left the door open for new blood on Parliament Hill. At the same time, the Canadian Conservative Party seems to have created a palatable mix of fiscal conservative policy and political frugality that resonates outside its Western base. Unwavering support for U.S. military intervention has turned to wary caution:

“we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win”
-Stephen Harper, Montreal Gazette Interview (2003)

Harper has since promised backed off the idea of sending more troops abroad. An open invitation to debate abortion has become a cautious defense of a status quo:

“I have always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy”
-Stephen Harper, Date unknown (at least a few years old)

“I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future. We’re saying very clear in our platform we’re not going to support or initiate abortion legislation and frankly I don’t want this Parliament to have an abortion debate.”
-Stephen Harper, Global National Interview (January 18, 2006)

Western nationalism has become Canadian nationalism:

“Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan… Collect our own revenue from personal income tax… Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts… Each province should raise its own revenue for health… It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta…”
-Stephen Harper, Letter to Ralph Klein (2001)

“Canada needs a government that will stand up for our values of freedom, fairness, and compassion. That means a democratic government at home that respects all of our provinces, and defending our national interests and values abroad through a stronger military and a tougher stand on international trade disputes”
-“Stand up for Canada”, Conservative Party of Canada Website (2006)

So, what to make of this? Many will probably see this as indicative of Harper’s “hidden” agenda and that he is simply lying in wait until being elected to unleash a torrent of Bush-fed, extreme right wing tyranny. What’s more likely is that Harper is finally in the position to make his true/evolved pitch as a pseudo-libertarian with a very minimal social agenda. Even in the days of the Canadian Alliance he was on record cautioning then-leader Stockwell Day to limit the influence of socially conservative voters; now he seems ready to ditch them entirely and appeal to the mainstream.

However, the Conservative Party of Canada leader must remember that Canadian voters are not voting him in so much as they are voting Paul Martin out. Stephen Harper still needs to prove to angry voters (and in particular Toronto voters who probably still won’t embrace the Conservative platform for this election) that he can run the country competently. In doing so, he will ultimately alienate the special interests who have sustained him up to this point.

If Stephen Harper accomplishes this under a minority government (in which it would be essential to gain the necessary support from the NDP to pass any measures) then he can simply blame Jack Layton’s group and not appear to have “sold out” his core audience. With a majority, however, Harper would have no excuse to have not pushed the same-sex marriage and abortion issues he pimped to build his political fortunes. If he does not manage to convince the mainstream voters (re: Ontarians/Quebecers) that he should be a mainstay, he may find himself with no audience at all and will join Kim Campbell in the dubious club of short-term, one-shot Prime Ministers.

Harper’s best scenario would be to win a minority government and gently shake off his more extremist factions by virtue of his need to cooperate with the left (i.e. he can blame Jack Layton). In the meantime he can implement enough of his fiscal measures to validate the beliefs of his less extreme audience while convincing skeptical Ontarians/Quebecers that there is no evil “hidden” agenda. As long as Harper throws one economic goodie at each region of the country he could sail to an easy and painless majority thereafter.