Has the conservative political brand ever been in such a sorry state? The plight of conservative parties in what have been the two great showcase democracies – the United States and Britain – offers testimony.
In Britain the party of Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher has disgraced itself in a way that finds few parallels. Liz Truss’s meltdown was the shortest reign of any prime minister. She managed to crash the economy in that time.
Before her, Theresa May was run out of office by an unruly caucus. Self-inflicted embarrassments then toppled Boris Johnson but not before, falling under the suasion of populist forces, he spearheaded Brexit. The toll that decision is taking on the economy is becoming heapingly obvious.
In the United States, the Republican Party has shamed the conservative political brand even more. The party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan has been devoured by bigots, authoritarians, truth shedders, immigrant demonizers and democracy defiers.
The extreme has become the mainstream. “There is no longer a Republican Party,” Eric Trump, son of Donald, declared last month. “It’s the Trump party.” Indeed it is. Old-time Republicans are aghast but can do little given the degree to which the troglodytes have seized control. Their grip is likely to deepen next week in the midterm elections, where Republicans are expected to increase their standing.
Other countries where conservative parties have veered in the hard-right populist direction include Brazil where Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally who very much followed his script, went down in defeat Sunday to the leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
In Canada, the Conservative brand has hardly suffered to the degree that it has in the U.K. and the U.S, but the party has lost three straight elections. With the thrashing of Jean Charest in the recent leadership race, it has dispatched traditional, more moderate Tories to the boneyard.
In Pierre Poilievre, the party has a new leader of demagogic tendencies, his refusal to speak to the press being one of several illustrations. Mr. Poilievre derived his support from a populist base. He is heavily indebted, if not beholden to it.
The empowerment of radical and fringe elements in the various conservative formations has been expedited by insufficiently regulated, hate-generating social media platforms. Moises Naim, author of The Revenge of Power, says the “three Ps” have been allowed to flourish on the right: populism, polarization and post-truth.
It’s hard to recall a time when the U.S. and the U.K., Canada’s two historic allies, were simultaneously so deeply troubled. Their plight, given the role played by the corrosive right-side forces, serve to make the Canadian way look good by comparison (bearing in mind exceptions such as the truckers occupation of Ottawa).
Canada’s success derives in no small measure from having avoided ideological entrapment on the left or right. Our political construct mitigates against a collapse of the moderate middle and extreme polarization. The NDP provides a barrier against any far left drift of the Liberals, who have governed two-thirds of the time since 1900. This isn’t the case in Britain, where Labour swung so far left under Jeremy Corbyn that it was unelectable.
When it comes to weakened political brands, however, the Liberals can hardly be ones to crow. Despite achieving multiple victories under Justin Trudeau, the party’s support level is very low by historical standards. The Prime Minister is a target of widespread animosity.
That said, the party today is considerably better off than it was in 1958, when it was reduced to 48 seats; in 1984 when it was reduced to 40; and most notably in 2011, when it fell into third-party status before being rescued by Mr. Trudeau.
While conservative parties in Britain, Canada and the U.S. have been plagued in recent years by internal strife, there has been no such division in the Trudeau Liberals. In comparison with the long-running destructive infighting that took place among leaders John Turner, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, and the dissension under Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, party unity today is impressive.
So far, Mr. Poilievre has been effective in bringing together his party. He would do well to learn from what has happened in other jurisdictions, and make clear that there is no place for zealots in his Conservative formation.
The times provide yet more evidence that ideology in politics – whether it be hard-right populism, socialism, libertarianism, communism, fascism – does not work.
The best governing “ism” is pragmatism. The best ideology is no ideology.
Lawrence Martin