I wish Stephen Harper hadn't given up the presidency of the National Citizens Coalition back in 2001 for the world of partisan politics.
Why? Because Stephen Harper could have done more good for the conservative movement, and ultimately for the country, had he remained with the NCC. Certainly he could have done more good than he is currently doing as the country's Prime Minister.
I say that because as NCC president, Mr. Harper had ideological convictions. He believed in less government; he believed in individual freedom and in equality for all Canadians. And as head of the NCC, the country's largest independent pro-free enterprise organization, he had an ideal platform to promote those values.
But, sadly, when Mr. Harper became a politician - or more particularly after he became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada - he jettisoned those values. Suddenly, he became like virtually every other politician to whom power is more important than principle.
Consider that:
When he headed the NCC, Mr. Harper was adamantly opposed to granting any sort of special status to Quebec. He also helped to finance court challenges to Quebec's anti-English language laws. Prime Minister Harper, on the other hand, openly caters to Quebec nationalists and has gone so far as to recognize the Québécois as a nation.
As NCC president, Mr. Harper pushed for broadly based and significant tax cuts for all Canadians. Prime Minister Harper, in contrast, has delivered only small, politically inspired tax cuts, aimed at winning key demographic voting blocs.
During his time at the NCC, Mr. Harper was a vehement opponent of election gag laws that infringe on political free speech. He even led a court challenge to a Liberal-enacted election gag law that imposes severe restrictions on how much money citizens or groups can spend on political advertising. Yet, Prime Minister Harper has refused to scrap this election gag law. Worse, he has imposed his own restrictions on what citizens can contribute to political parties.
There's no doubt Stephen Harper the NCC president would have strenuously opposed Stephen Harper the Prime Minister for drifting to the political left. For instance, he was quick to criticize conservative leaders such as Mike Harris or Preston Manning whenever they strayed from their ideological roots.
Of course, the Prime Minister's supporters will justify all these flip-flops by suggesting he had to give up his NCC values once he went into politics. After all, Canada, they would argue, is a left-wing country. Canadians are simply not ready for a true conservative prime minister.
I don't buy that argument. And by the way, neither did Mr. Harper. As he once wrote in the NCC's newsletter: "Every major success enjoyed by conservatives in national politics in the past decade has resulted from the timely and unapologetic advancement of conservative ideas."
But let's, for the sake of argument, concede the point that Canada is not politically ready for undiluted conservatism à la Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan.
If that's true, it's all the more reason why Mr. Harper should have stayed at the NCC, where he didn't have to worry about winning seats in Quebec or keeping Red Tories happy, or working in a minority government.
Had he remained NCC president, Mr. Harper, with his credibility, his intelligence and his media savvy, could have helped sell conservatism to Canadians, paving the way for a true conservative PM.
In short, instead of focusing on winning elections, Mr. Harper could have focused on something more important - winning the war of ideas.