News

In 2004, Canadian politics was given a new shape. The federal Liberal Party did not notice. That is why it has less public support than ever before. It will recover only if it recognizes the necessity of moving into a role that fits a different world.

The change had two components. Jean Chrétien's last hoorah removed corporations from financing Liberals as the supposedly natural governing party. And the Progressive Conservative party died; the alternative to the Liberals became a purely conservative, right-wing party.

There had been little ideological difference between the Liberals and the PCs who chose John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, even Brian Mulroney, as their leader. One party had rather more social reformers among its supporters, but in specific policies, they mostly shared the political centre. The way one party moved depended chiefly on how its rival was wavering. Pierre Trudeau was often to the right of Mr. Stanfield. The Diefenbaker-led PCs brought the Liberals down in 1957 by becoming more progressive than an administration grown complacently conservative.

Now, all is different. The unhyphenated Conservatives under Stephen Harper have a firm ideology. He is avowedly rooted in the neo-conservatism of the late 20th century. He will trim his sails to the current storm, but there is no doubt where he will try to go. He will diminish government as much as he can. He will lessen the welfare orientation of our national society by shifting responsibilities to the provinces.

The Liberal Party flourished by spreading across the centre and leaning with the wind. That sport is over. The other party now sits firmly across the whole right side of politics. The only room is to the left. That much is crystal clear. What to do about it is not.

The surviving Liberal organization puts its faith in electing a new leader to show it the way. It is clutching at hope in defiance of experience. In 2003, the leader was chosen, thanks to his funding, by coronation and without policy discussion. The two outcomes were dithering government and, later, such a dearth of active talent that two outsiders could disrupt the party by their ambition to lead it as soon as they entered it. There is no present sign the third time will be luckier.

The recovery of a shrunken party requires new members. They will not come to the party as it is. That is recognized in the desperate talk of imitating the right by "uniting the left." The parallel is false. The reformers from the West who created the new Conservative Party brought ideas that, whatever their dangers, were refreshing to PCs who had lost their way. There is no invigoration for Liberals to be drawn from the tired platitudes of the NDP. Certainly, if the Liberal Party does recover, it will eventually draw votes from the NDP or Greens. But that will come by evolution, not merger now.

Nor will the tactics of the past work again. Recovery requires a strategy for new times.

Some critics may question whether there is enough substance left in the Liberal Party for its renewal to be possible. Only the delegates to the convention in May can remove the doubt. They need to show the capacity and enthusiasm to articulate a sense of purpose that not only determines their choice of leader, but sets the direction he or she is to take.

Realism calls for urgency today. So does experience. The convention following the 1957 defeat promptly adopted the "New Statements of Liberal Policy" that set the party's direction through the years of gathering membership and on to the programs implemented by the Pearson government.

Barack Obama cleverly asked Americans to choose common sense over ideology. The Liberal Party has shown it can sometimes govern with a public purpose driven not by ideology, not by creed or greed, but by common humanity. The broadest motivation of public action in Canada is the sense that our society could and should be fairer, opportunities more equal. From that base, Liberals can surely draw a common-sense priority for government today.

In my view, the dominant aim should be to enable all families to nurture their youth in health, with early care and learning, and the stimulating opportunities that can make good lives possible in the contemporary economy. What is essential is that the convention delegates determine some such underlying policy. If they do, the Liberal Party can revive. If not, if there is little but the contest for leadership power, other Canadians will need to devise a new politics without the Liberal Party.

Tom Kent served as principal assistant to prime minister Lester Pearson.