Michael Taube is unduly pessimistic about the proposed
merger of Canada's conservative parties.
He is correct that the two existing parties (the Progressive
Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance) do have policy
differences. However, these differences are minimal
and there's no reason they can't be reconciled. Taube
might dispute this, but the proof is in the pudding.
During the last national election, held in November
2000, the party platforms were very similar. Both
were pledging to: cut taxes; legislate repayment of
the national debt; spend more money on health care;
create a national sex-offender registry; reform the
federal student-loan program; increase defense spending
and bring democratic reforms to parliament.
The issues where the platforms differed were minimal:
the environment, unemployment insurance, the future
of native Canadians, and agriculture policy being
the most prominent.
Additionally, the two parties have different views
on how the Canadian federation should be constituted.
The Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform party,
saw the country as a collection of ten equal provinces
while the PCs adhered to what's known as the "two
founding nations" policy — viewing the country
as a partnership between French-speaking Quebec and
the rest of (English) Canada. The Alliance is also
seen as more socially conservative.
Many would say the gulf is widest on social issues,
but even they shouldn't be impediments to merging.
Pro- and anti-abortion members as well as pro- and
anti-gay marriage advocates coexist already in both
parties. If U.S. Republicans can keep everyone in
one tent, so can conservatives in Canada.
Taube says that votes between the two parties are
not interchangeable, because polls show that the "second
choice" of Alliance and PC voters is Liberal.
These polls prove nicely Benjamin Disraeli's conclusion
that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies
and statistics.
The "second choice" argument is fallacious
because it omits the fact that voters would be asked
to support an entirely new entity that does not now
exist. And the best refutation of this point is that
when given the chance, these people chose not to vote
Liberal! So there are no grounds to assume that they
would if a more attractive right-of-center choice
were to present itself.
Indeed, the new party should be a case of sum of
the whole being greater than its two parts. Conservative
voters who have either a) stayed home because they
knew neither party could win, or b) voted Liberal
because they saw the divided right as evidence that
conservatives weren't fit to govern, will support
the new party.
A previous attempt to unite the parties (in fact,
there were several) failed, Taube says. True, but
the cause wasn't lack of will — it was because these
efforts were perceived as being disingenuous takeover
attempts by one side. This time, the leaders and members
of both parties are solidly on board.
Lastly, fringe elements from both sides will be pushed
out of the new party; creating a single, powerful,
mainstream entity able to form a government.
— Adam
Daifallah is a member of the editorial board at
Canada's National
Post.
