What's interesting about this account of an unruly Conservative caucus meeting is less the account itself than the fact that it exists.
Granted, Stephen Harper has been out of the country, so everyone might be feeling a little more relaxed than usual. But until recently, it wouldn't have mattered whether he was at home or abroad; Conservatives had such iron-clad discipline that it was unthinkable they'd give blow by blow accounts of dissent behind closed doors (if there was any dissent behind closed doors, which is dubious in itself).
It's true, as everyone's busy pointing out, that Brian Mulroney's role in the party is one of the few issues guaranteed to drive a wedge between those with Progressive Conservative roots and those with Reform ones. The PMO made a major miscalculation when it stirred the pot by publicizing the severing of relations with Mulroney, whoever initiated it. But you have to suspect the breakdown of Conservative discipline has more to do with other, bigger mistakes Harper has made.
The PM is not the sort of personality one normally feels a strong personal attachment to, but a big part of his success as party leader has come from convincing Conservatives to put their unyielding faith in him. The successful sell has been that he's a steady hand and a strategic mastermind capable of standing up to the Liberals (and possibly destroying them altogether). Come along for the ride, Conservatives were told, and we'll emerge as this country's party of government. Just don't question what we're doing or deviate from the party line, especially in public.
For a party whose membership had been through a thoroughly humiliating decade prior to Harper's leadership, and was seriously doubting its ability to ever win another election, that was a sacrifice they were prepared to make - at least until it stopped paying off.
Different Conservatives have no doubt had their faith eroded by different developments. For some, it might have been last fall's shoddy election campaign, when the Conservatives - running against the weakest version of the Liberals they'll ever face - blew a chance at a majority government with an endless series of strategic blunders, not least declining to release a serious platform. For others, particularly with a background in the Reform movement, it was probably the big-spending January budget, coupled perhaps with the appointment of Senators shortly beforehand.
The single biggest factor, though, was surely the manner in which Harper blew up his own reputation as a successful tactician in November and December of last year.
Forget, even, that the government's economic update nearly brought it down immediately after it had been returned to power.
It's fitting, given recent events, that the long-term hit to Conservatives' strategic interests was summed up so effectively this past weekend by a long-time ally of both Mulroney and Harper:
"The Liberals have only one person to thank for their good fortune - Stephen Harper.
"If Harper hadn't tried to put the Liberals out of business, by ending public subsidies to political parties in last fall's economic update, the Liberals might have done it to themselves.
"Instead, Ignatieff leads a united party to Vancouver at month's end, to a convention that's been transformed into a coronation. And a party that would have been drained financially by the fundraising demands of several leadership camps is instead raising millions toward the next election. The Liberals are also going to Vancouver resurgent in the polls, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, the two keystone provinces of Liberal dynasties since Laurier's time. ...
"Looking back on the seven-day parliamentary crisis, the question is why Harper risked so much when the Liberals were already broke and in disarray. Quite apart from rescuing the Liberals from the incompetent Dion, and sparing them a divisive leadership campaign, Harper's actions renewed suspicions in the country of a certain meanness of spirit, to say nothing of hidden agenda."
An error of that magnitude would erode confidence in any leader. But if your leader is a one-man show, running a government that's increasingly removed from your party's founding principles, and his one big selling point is that he's a strategic genius - well, it's a pretty big problem. At the very least, it might make you a little less committed to upholding the image of flawless party unity by turning down journalists' requests to speak on background about what Conservatives really think.
None of this is to say that this spells impending doom for Harper or his government. Jean Chretien governed his entire final term, and much of the one before that, with pretty much every sordid details of Liberal caucus meetings being faithfully relayed to reporters by Paul Martin's supporters. But once that culture has been established - as Martin (and Stephane Dion) subsequently found out, it's very hard to change it.
On the bright side, though, it means that Conservatives are finally starting to consider the fact that their party is bigger than Stephen Harper. It would be much more impressive if they were going on the record to voice their concerns, and Mulroney's membership is a fairly marginal issue on which to take a stand. But it would be remiss not to acknowledge that they're starting to behave more like a real party than a cult of personality.
