Whither the Red Tories?
In Canada today we don't seem to be on the same wavelength as the U.S. This is not so much because of the oft-noted items, same-sex marriage and marijuana. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has made it much more likely that same-sex marriage is coming to the U.S., just as it is to Canada; and the notorious 9th Circuit on the West Coast has ruled that it is permissible to cultivate and possess (not sell) marijuana for medical purposes. This agrees with Canada's experiment in allowing marijuana for medical reasons, and is at least a step on the way to the limited de-criminalization that the federal government of Canada is proposing.
The bigger difference, I think, is over Iraq, and bigger questions of whether there is a big world war on or not, whether to deploy force to do something about it, and indeed whether to commit significant resources to a country's armed forces. Canada seems to be saying "no" to all these things (although we do have a security act somewhat mirroring the U.S. Patriot Act, which has led to a reporter being investigated over the Arar case).
Whether to join the Iraq campaign or not was a bit of an academic question for Canada. We were already committed in Afghanistan (where we are doing our part at least until August), and that is about it; we are over-stretched. Many of the countries in the U.S. "coalition" are making a token effort, and that is the most Canada could have done as well. As far as I can tell, this is OK with voters. There is a clamour for better health care, and maybe for "help for the cities" (which is partly derived from urban planning/Smart Growth, and partly a disguised way of talking about helping the urban poor). I don't hear any clamour for more or bigger or more effective armed forces. The Liberals cancelled a contract to replace the Sea King helicopters more than 10 years ago, and they have yet to make definite decisions on how to proceed.
So I guess Canadians aren't convinced there is a true two- or more sided "war on terror." Of if they think there is one, they assume the U.S. will do what has to be done. I suspect there is widespread relief that we are not involved in Iraq, given the way it has gone.
Another difference between the countries. The President's SOTU address last week seems to confirm that in some ways Americans are back in the 60s: do a lot on national defence, because God knows we have powerful enemies; spend a lot on other things as well, including old-fashioned domestic pork-barreling; and don't worry as the deficit mounts.
Canadians still seem to favour balanced budgets, and long-term plans to eliminate debt. Tax cuts are welcome, but they shouldn't disrupt debt reduction; that became Paul Martin's mantra as Minister of Finance. Thus the idea of aid to cities is in trouble; probably too expensive. There will be more cash for health care, no doubt; I don't know if there will be new policies, re-structuring, or anything like that. McGuinty in Ontario promised a lot of spending, and pretended he thought the deficit was fairly low. As soon as a deficit of $5.6 billion was confirmed (on a total budget of around $60 billion), he started breaking spending promises. I gather this is more or less OK with the public. The Tories, on their way out, were in a bit of a G.W. Bush/drunken sailor mode; McGuinty is going to do the responsible thing.
Can McGuinty make any of the tough choices to actually eliminate the deficit? That remains to be seen.
All this is preliminary to the federal race for the leadership of the new Conservative Party. Some old-time Red Tories have already given up on the new party: Joe Clark and two other MPs (along with some Senators?) say they will sit as Independents; Scott Brison has crossed to the Liberals (as has an ex-Reform/Alliance member Keith Martin). Stephen Harper led the Alliance Party, and is identified more closely with economic issues/less government/libertarianism than with a conservative stance on social issues. Yet he seems to have more time for "dinosaurs" from his former party than for Red Tories.
The two Ontario candidates for leadership may both claim some Red Tory support. Belinda Stronach claims Mike Harris as one of her high-profile supporters, and the media is presenting this as an example of "tooth and claw" conservatism: government should help the rich help themselves, and try to avoid helping anyone else. She wants "the most competitive taxes in the world," and "less red tape". She specifically proposes a tax break on mortgage interest payments, as in the U.S. (one of the issues Ernie Eves, borrowing from the more conservative Jim Flaherty, ran on in Ontario). She wants to increase military spending, and increase transfers for health care from the federal government to the provinces. On social issues she says yes to same-sex marriage, but no to de-crim of marijuana because of issues this will raise with the U.S.
What makes me think "Red Tory" in connection with her campaign is the reference to health care and same-sex marriage, and the presence on her team of Janet Ecker, former Ontario Minister of Finance among other portfolios. Ecker has been known as closer to Ernie Eves ("not necessarily tax cuts") than to Mike Harris.
On the other hand, as I suggest above, increased military spending may be seen as an outlying policy position on the right for Canadians today.
Tony Clement now presents himself as a less ideological member of the former provincial Tory government. And here are some names from his team that belong to the old federal Red Tories: "His campaign team has been reported to include former federal Tory cabinet ministers Doug Lewis and Ron Atkey, as well as Stanley Hartt and Hugh Segal, both former chiefs of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney."
Clement has criticized the mortage interest tax deduction plan as an attempt to bribe voters with their own money, and one reason the Tories were defeated in Ontario. He has his own tax cut scheme: make the first two or three hundred thousand dollars in earnings, for every young person, tax free.
Clement also suggests he does not favour same-sex marriage.
|
