November 05, 2003, 8:01 a.m.
Has the Canadian right’s merger got the right stuff?

	Recently, I wrote on NRO about the decision of Canada's two right-of-center parties, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, to merge into one entity, to be called the Conservative Party of Canada. At the time of the announcement more than two weeks ago, I was quite bullish about the prospects of this new party. I still am today. I've seen political activists who have sat on the sidelines for years express a willingness to get involved again (many have already done so) because of the merger announcement. Polls have been released showing that the party would have considerable support in each region of the country minus Quebec, which traditionally only votes for a political party if it's led by a politician from their own province. In order for this merger to be ratified, members of both existing parties must separately approve the deal through a plebiscite. The Progressive Conservatives (known as the Tories) need a two-thirds majority to get the deal through, while the Canadian Alliance needs only 50 percent. I have little worry that the CA will push the deal through; its members are overwhelmingly support creating a single conservative party. The Tories, on the other hand, are more divided. Joe Clark, a former prime minister and twice leader of the Tories, is opposing the deal, and an anti-free-trade zealot named David Orchard is organizing against the merger agreement. Orchard finished second in the recent Tory party leadership race, and he has considerable support inside that party — some say as much as 25 percent. Nevertheless, if I were a betting man I'd say this deal will go through. The new party will have its hands full getting ready in time for the next federal election, expected in the spring. Remember, the right in Canada has been divided for more than a decade; we're talking about melding together two entities that have warred bitterly for three or four elections. The task of getting everyone united in this new amalgam will be formidable, especially given the policy issues that divide conservatives across Canada's diverse regions. While the job ahead will be challenging, I am confident that the new party will work for several reasons: 1) Canadian conservatives understand the need to find common ground and try to put their differences aside. Despite some differences (namely on social policies) they understand the need to work together inside one big tent like the U.S. Republicans. Members of both parties understand that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. 2) After languishing in the electoral wilderness since 1993, conservatives are craving a return to power. They are willing to do this for the sake of gaining power, and they understand they simply must work together to win. It may take two or more elections for this to happen, but best to start the drive toward forming a government now. 3) Canadians want this. They want to see that conservatives are capable of running the country. By feuding for the past ten years, conservatives have shown that they can't get their act together. As a result, they have (deservedly) failed to gain the respect of voters. The new party will show the electorate that conservatives are ready to earn their trust. For the sake of Canada and conservatism, this merger must and will work. — Adam Daifallah is a member of the editorial board at Canada's National Post. The proposed merger of the Canadian Alliance (CA) and Progressive Conservatives (PC) has rejuvenated the spirits of frustrated Canadian conservatives. Finally, they say, after 16 years of separation, all conservatives will be under one roof, supporting one leader and one policy agenda. If it were only that simple. The CA-PC merger, while well meaning, will unite two political parties with surprisingly little in common. I think the optimistic position of conservatives like Adam Daifallah should be replaced with a more realistic vision — the parties' differences far outweigh the similarities, meaning the merger could quickly become a failed experiment. Here are some problems with the merger: 1) The CA mostly combines classical liberal ideology with doses of libertarianism and social conservatism. It challenges many motherhood issues, and calls for lower taxes, smaller government, free speech, electoral reform, and a more extensive free-market economy, among other things. Some PC politicians and supporters espouse the CA's viewpoints. But many don't. The PC party also includes Disraelian thinkers with nationalist streaks, who oppose free trade with the U.S. They want a stronger role for government and the bureaucracy. They waver on issues of property rights and individual freedom. And they have an apprehension towards social conservatism. While neither party approach is perfect, both are certainly different. 2) A CA vote is not the same as a PC vote. At one time, when the CA was still known as the Reform party, votes with the PCs were interchangeable. That's no longer the case. Opinion polls have shown that the second choice for CA and PC voters are not the opposite factions, but rather the governing Liberals. There is a belief among voters that the two parties are different, and it's a valid belief. 3) In 1999-2000, two United Alternative conferences (initiated by Reform) were held for the purpose of creating one conservative party under one tent. Reform/CA members were active participants, as were Blue Tories, or right-leaning conservatives, from the PCs. The conferences succeeded in bringing together like-minded Canadian conservatives, and established solid political and economic policy positions. The CA-PC merger attempts to bring together conservatives who didn't want to join the first time around. I fail to understand the benefits of going to the well a second time. 4) The merger will include two problematic factions — the Red Tories (left-leaning conservatives who have largely controlled the PCs for a century) and Reformers (a significant group within the CA with roots in western populism). Some have argued that Canada's new Conservative Party will minimize the influence of both factions. I disagree — both are entrenched in each respective party, and both have enough influence to cause dissention and internal strife. For years, I supported efforts to unite Canada's right. With the creation of the Canadian Alliance, I felt that goal was finally accomplished. A merger with the PCs will bring some good people to the table, but also a lot of excess and unnecessary baggage. To me, the risk of merger is far greater than the reward of unification. — Michael Taube is an editorial writer for the Windsor Star.

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!