Michael Taube yesterday threw out unconvincing rebuttals of my major points.

Policy and cultural differences exist among Canadian conservatives, yes. But I fail to see how he can be so pessimistic about the chances of burying the hatchet. Remember, everyone coexisted in a single entity before the founding of the Reform party in 1987. (So this merger could probably be more accurately characterized as a "reunification.") The split occurred in the first place because the Progressive Conservatives were seen — rightly or wrongly — as ignoring the concerns of Western Canada. The new party cannot make that same mistake or it will split again.

As Taube said yesterday, the reunification is occurring because of fear that a Liberal onslaught is coming in the next national election. This is probably true; rarely is self-interest not the motivating factor in politics. But, who cares? If it is indeed circumstances that forced the merger, fine. It was bound to happen sooner or later, if not before the next election (expected in the spring) then after. Might as well combine forces, start getting to know each other, and be as strong as possible now. And it was the leaders of the parties, Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay, who were forced into doing this by the fear of annihilation — I believe a critical mass of Canadians and party members have wanted this for a long time.

Taube has too great a fear of the power and influence of the so-called "Red Tory" faction in the PC party — the people who will (assuming they join) be the most left-wing element in the new entity. Given the Alliance's much larger membership base going into this merger, Red Tories will have little influence over policy.

I also think Taube makes the mistake of placing too much emphasis on the actions of party activists and too little on average conservative-minded voters. He is right that fiscal and social conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, Reformers, and Blue Tories were united to create the Canadian Alliance party. But conservative voters, on the other hand, especially in Ontario and Eastern Canada, still vote for both parties. Some people will simply never break with the PCs — even if they disagree with their policies. Reasons for this are numerous: Their grandfathers voted for the party and they don't want to break with tradition; they see the Alliance as a Western-based protest movement; they prefer the PCs positions on social issues, etc.

Taube seems intent on finding reasons for the reunification to fail. I prefer to focus on the positives. We can debate semantics and details until we're blue in the face — the fact is conservatives are tired of fighting each other. Taube offers no alternative plan that would lead to forming a conservative government. Preserving the status quo, as he would have us do, would leave conservatives in opposition forever.

If we ever want to win, Canada's conservative family must be put back together.

— Adam Daifallah is a member of the editorial board at Canada's National Post.

I find it amusing that Adam Daifallah interpreted my critique of Canada's right-wing merger as "unduly pessimistic." Then again, considering my debating partner's unduly optimistic position, perhaps I should wear it as a badge of honor.

Yesterday, Daifallah declared the differences between the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives "are minimal and there's no reason they can't be reconciled." But the proof he provided is anything other than pudding.

First, he's right that both parties want to cut taxes and increase defense spending. Then again, most parties on the right support these principles anyway. Second, the CA basically led the way on support for legislating debt repayment and a national sex-offender registry, with the PCs lagging behind. Third, the Reform party (which became the CA) was miles ahead of the PCs on democratic reforms such as more free votes and private members' bills. Unlike the PCs, the CA is also supportive of electoral reform.

On health care, I acknowledge both parties want to put more money in Canada's ineffective public health care system. But I'm confident CA leader Stephen Harper, an intellectual fiscal conservative, would favor more private options than left-leaning PC leader Peter MacKay.

So, there are in fact major policy differences in the two parties. Meanwhile, Daifallah brushes aside a major difference, which is social conservatism. The CA is far more tolerant of religious conservatives, traditional family values, and pro-lifers than the PCs. It doesn't mean there aren't social conservatives in the PCs — there are — but Red Tories are not as keen to defend them.

With these differences, how do you create a Conservative party that respects the rights of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? The CA has been able to do it, but the PCs haven't been close in a long time.

Next, Daifallah dismisses polls that show the second choice of CA and PC voters is the Liberals. That's his right. But in the words of G.K. Chesterton, "His ideal world is always the world that he wants, and not the world that the world wants."

The mutual distrust of some CA and PC voters will remain intact even if a Conservative party is created. The distrust could be so strong that some won't join the new hybrid. As well, even after a merger, the second choice of most Canadian conservatives will still be the Liberals.

Second, Daifallah missed the reason why CA and PC voters didn't vote for their second choice - virtually all were able to vote for their first choice. Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system only enables us to vote once. Unlike countries with PR, such as France, Australia and New Zealand, we can't vote strategically for a first or second choice.

Having reached the end of the debate, let's sum this up.

Can the CA-PC merger succeed where other attempts have failed, and bring all like-minded conservatives into one tent while keeping the extremists out? Yes, and I hope it does. I hope my concerns turn out to be wrong. I hope Red Tories are kept out of the process, so they can't create a second right-wing split. I hope Harper becomes the new leader and bridges the gap between ex-CA and PC members.

If the right unites in Canada, I will tip my hat to Daifallah. If the merger fails, I hope he will do the same for me.

— Michael Taube is an editorial writer for the Windsor Star.