Mike Brock puts the question out there -- should Harper stay or should he go? Mike puts forward cogent arguments for his position, but I respectfully disagree.
My short answer is that Harper has to stay. The Conservative Party would self-destruct if its leader felt compelled to step down because polls say so, or because his PR team hasn't scored points in the MSM.
I've said previously that the reason the Liberals weather storms is because they gather under an umbrella and push on. Conservatives scatter and scurry for cover.
It isn't Mike's fault. It isn't Harper's fault. It isn't the MSM's fault -- it is the nature of conservatism. We don't do 'group think' the way socialists do. We tend to say what's on our mind -- thinking principle first, party second.
I keep seeing calls for ordinary people like Mike, or MPs like Randy White, to be muzzled. Yesterday I saw Mr White on television saying Gurmant Grewal being on 'stress leave' was bizarre (my word) and that part of being a parliamentarian is dealing with stress because that's what it's all about. Randy White was absolutely right -- but in speaking out, it sounded like he was challenging his leader's decision. That's poison for the Conservative Party -- but it is part of being a conservative. White wasn't going to obfuscate and equivocate -- it isn't who he is. He was asked a question and it never occurred to him to answer anything but his truth -- not the 'party' truth -- Randy White's truth.
There are so many different conservative truths that no leader is ever going to mirror all of those sometimes polarized ideals. To pretend that a new face would somehow change things is to ignore the conflicted history of the various conservative incarnations.
If Harper can't sell the Conservatives to conservatives, maybe he shouldn't be leader -- it isn't my call -- but there are those who would prefer to purge the party of its Reform roots, and ousting Harper might well do that. Along with him might go all the social conservatives and grassroots reformers who are insulted that their party finds them a liability.
We might end up having two right-wing parties. What a novel idea.
Divide and conquer is usually a strategy to defeat an enemy --- unfortunately for conservatives, it is our self-inflicted modus operandi.
canadianna
4 comments:
Perchance, C, Canadian conservatives need the kind of wake-up moment that will force them all to realise that the enemy is not each other, but the Libranos. It's time for consistency, which I suppose is an endorsement of Mr Harper. It's also time to focus on the CPC's message on what it would do should it be given the opportunity to govern. The health care ruling due Thursday could be the real impetus to show how the Libranos have seriously damaged the system (we can only hope) and enable a serious attack from all three opposing parties.
Excellent point. You are consistently one of the best of the new Canadian conservative bloggers.
Beautifully said. Conservatives perhaps need to be reminded that they must engage the debate in the realm of ideas, not personalities, lest the whole thing degenerate into a quagmire of ad hominem fallacies.
The day after a tied confidence vote the media called into question Harpers leadership.
Grewal tapes A minister and PM staffer making promises of future rewards, again it's Hapers leadership that is the problem.
I could go on but what this means is that, "they", the Liberal media conglomerate are collectively worried about the prospect of having Harper defeat their friends.
"They" know a defeat is very possible, "they" know the country will demand a cold accountant type to clean house, not some warm fuzzy bubblehead, drunk uncle type PM.
What do "they" do with the cold calculating image they unfairly gave Harper upon realizing it may be what Canadians need right now? Change it to an angry, punitive one.
I should do my own post but I love this Blog.
Off to look for Ogopogo now. (ha ha)
Post a Comment