Flashback a few months ago, Charest was lagging in the polls and the natural option seemed the PQ. The Charest/Harper lovefest was the obvious option for Harper, desperate to increase his prospects in Quebec. The ADQ was a nice afterthought, ideologically similar, but certainly not a realistic alternative. The assumption, if Charest wins, Harper wins. I would suggest that dynamic doesn't necessarily apply anymore.
The fact of the matter, Charest and the Liberals do cling to power, so that hardly translates into a defeat for the Harper strategy. Again, given the prospects for Charest as early as a few months ago, last night isn't the doomsday scenario for the Quebec Liberals. The big loser, by all accounts was the PQ, which articulates the real goal of Harper's "outreach". It's hard to say Harper lost anything, if you look at the long faces of BQ members today. Harper's drive to majority has to include an erosion in BQ support, last night's result certainly represents opportunity. The BQ is on the defensive, mission accomplished.
The unknown variable, the ADQ, is a pleasant surprise for Harper. A good percentage of the ADQ support may be a "protest" vote, but that doesn't detract from the rise of a rural-based, conservative agenda, which emphasizes many of the same themes as the Harper Conservatives. There is a natural fit here that no one would deny, again, how is that a bad development for Harper? Dumont's campaign actually lays the foundation for the Harper approach in the next election. Quebecers may be far more receptive, given the ADQ legitimacy. A party that wants to move beyond the "old divisions" and produce "real results" for Quebecers meets the federal option that will invariably paint Dion and Duceppe in the same light.
Harper now has two parties that will be sympathetic in the next election. The naked hypocrisy prevents Charest from straying, and Dumont is likely to indirectly endorse the Conservative option. Where this leaves the Liberals is any one's guess, but I don't see much in last night that screams Dionmania. Advantage Harper, not in the way he planned, but possibly just as attractive.
9 comments:
Actually, I do not think any federal party has the advantage at the moment.
Mr. Charest did not win last night's election he just managed to prevent his party from losing it. He was flatly rejected by the Quebec electorate and the only thing that saved him was the PQ was rejected even worse.
The Harper strategy was to follow a Charest triumph with one of his own. Mr. Charest did not triumph. In fact he is mortally wounded and he probably only managed to stave off the inevitable.
So Mr. Harper will be unable to follow Mr. Charest. In fact considering the continued unpopularity of Mr. Charest and the fact he is inextricably linked with Mr. Harper I would say that Mr. Harper will be trying to break that link as soon as possible to prevent some of that unpopularity from rubbing off on him.
As for Mr. Dumont, he supported and campaigned for the Yes side in the last Quebec referendum. Despite his obvious ideological similarities with Mr. Harper I doubt he wants to be seen getting too close to a seperatist, especially since his whole strategy for the past year was to boost the federalists in Quebec.
Mr. Harper is a man from Calgary without any allies to turn to in Quebec. That is not good news for him nor is it an advantage for him.
"The Harper strategy was to follow a Charest triumph with one of his own. Mr. Charest did not triumph. In fact he is mortally wounded and he probably only managed to stave off the inevitable."
ottlib
That was the strategy, but the rise of the ADQ means you can't draw a conclusion based on Charest's fate.
Harper can't cozy up to the ADQ, but he can surely use the same themes that were so successful. Dumont and Harper both stress family and a social conservative agenda. Quebecers have just heard Dumont tour the province preaching his policies, when Harper basically echoes much of the ideology, why wouldn't we expect open minds.
And, don't forget this fact, Dion is seen as a old-guard Liberal, while Duceppe is the PQ federal representative. One of the themes of this election, Quebecers have rejected the old dichotomy. Who speaks to a new federalism, who wants to limit the federal role? Who can claim to represent a new approach, and frame his rivals along old lines? Don't think for a moment Harper won't play footsie with soft nationalists.
I see opportunity for Harper, and that was his goal from the beginning.
"Harper can't cozy up to the ADQ, but he can surely use the same themes that were so successful."
That assumes that Quebecers voted for the ADQ and not against the LPQ and the PQ.
Up until last night Quebec was the most progressive province in the nation. Did that all change during a 35 day campaign? I think not.
I think folks are overestimating the rise of conservatism in Quebec based on last night. The ADQ also called for lower taxes, less spending on social programs and more private health care, which are the very things that made Mr. Charest so unpopular when he tried to do them. Does it make sense that Quebecers support such policies when they just hammered a government that tried to pursue them?
"One of the themes of this election, Quebecers have rejected the old dichotomy."
True but a result in a provincial election cannot be extrapolated to a federal election. Ontarians crushed the Peterson Liberals and gave Bob Rae a majority but that did not translate into increased support for the federal NDP.
As well, Quebecers had a non-establishment party as an alternative. They do not have such a luxury federally.
"Who speaks to a new federalism, who wants to limit the federal role?"
Mr. Harper gave us the nation vote and the recent budget and both generated a rather large backlash across the country. I am not certain that Canadians will be in a mood to give more at this time.
As well, these issues are not the only ones that concern Quebecers. Other issues such as the environment, social spending, crime, health care and child care are very important and are areas of potential weakness for the Conservatives in what is still a very progressive province.
ottlib
Fair points. I don't believe Quebec has gone conservative, much of the ADQ votes seems protest in nature. Having said that, Harper can capitalize on the change theme, a new approach, especially when compared to two old stalwards in the debate.
Can Harper paint Quebec blue? No, but I don't think that was ever the intention. Could Harper pickup 10-20 seats, no one should dismiss that potential. I'm not predicting anything, but I see possibilities.
Steve V:
It is hard to claim one is the agent of change when one is already the sitting government, and the longer he holds that position the harder it becomes. So I am not sure Harper is as well positioned to use that card now as he was in the last election, especially given the litany of examples since the CPC came to power of how they have not only shown themselves to be no better ethically than the Liberals (not to mention all the "But the Libbys did it too/first!" whining whenever Harper and the CPC were challenged on their misdeeds) but arguably worse in a much shorter period of time.
There is also the problem that if Harper gets closer to trying to woo ADQ supporters that he can be tarred/tagged with playing to the xenophobic elements in Quebecois society as well as soft nationalists, just as Mulroney was willing to do with the consequences that came from it being so negative (BQ, massive resurgence of Separatism within Quebec when Mulroney left office from the diminished level when he came to office) that any real believer in federalism would find it beyond acceptability both within and without Quebec.
I think Ottlib's read on this is closer to reality than what I've seen from CPCers claiming this is unqualified good news for Harper and his prospects of a majority. This was a protest vote against an unpopular incumbent AND against hard core separatism thanks to the PQ promise of referendum if given government. This was no more an endorsement of the ADQ policies (especially since until last night the ADQ was essentially synonymous with its leader Dumont and nothing more) than the Jan 2006 results were an endorsement of CPC policies by the wider electorate. There is also the reality that Quebec has no living experience in any minority, let alone one this weak with a LOO that has never had to govern a caucus of more than five suddenly having to handle 41, and a caucus made up of wildly divergent levels of both government and life experience at that. Not to mention the fact that twice in the election campaign he had to ask for resignations from candidates for rather xenophobic rooted comments.
I think we saw an earthquake in Quebecois politics, and anyone that thinks they know what it all means this soon is kidding themselves I'd say. I certainly don't think I know which way it is going yet, just that I think anyone that does believe they already know it has deluded themselves, which is sadly consistent with far too many online CPCers to begin with. So their belief in this being such a positive for Harper is sadly one more example of their inability to truly understand what they are discussing, not to mention their willingness to assume things on blind/total faith instead of actual solid facts/reality as the underlying source for such confidence. It is going to be very interesting to see how this shakes out over the next several weeks to months, both in Quebec itself and in terms of federal politics.
Scotian
I think a lot will depend on how Dion reacts. If Dion stubbornly holds to the old lines then Harper can provide an interesting contrast. Having said that, you are right that nobody can predict the fallout, it's all just speculation, which is why I introduce "possibilities". IMHO Harper has benefited, but there is nothing concrete in that assessment.
BTW, your reference to Mulroney is correct, with regard to fallout, but I think we also need to remind ourselves of the successes in the short-term. Harper is drawing from the same script, with no regard to the long term consequences.
"BTW, your reference to Mulroney is correct, with regard to fallout, but I think we also need to remind ourselves of the successes in the short-term. Harper is drawing from the same script, with no regard to the long term consequences." Steve V 6:34 PM, March 27, 2007
I know that, however this is getting so similar in feel to what we had from Mulroney that I expect some nasty echoes resonating in the wider voting public, especially the more independent ones that hold no single party affiliation. This is again one of those things I am hoping is still true of Canada, that we as a citizenry take our politics much more seriously and pay more attention on average than our American neighbours, by a significant amount. Therefore while we in the political junkies world know Harper is truly working from the Atwater/Luntz/Rove playbook and for many in the wider it is unconfirmed speculation/political accusation and therefore not to be treated as true until properly confirmed to their sensibilities there is still enough strong resemblances to Mulroney's operating style to make many uncomfortable. I also think this will reinforce the "hidden agenda" undercurrent as well, especially given the fact Harper has never laid out anything resembling a grand overarching vision of this country, let alone how to get there. No, we have only been seeing short term goals and thinking since the defeat of 2004 of the CPC.
It is also something I will be paying close attention to. While I said last night at Red Tory's that I saw this as a win overall for federalism, it was only by knocking back the hard core "we want a new country and nothing less will do" crowd to about 29% of the voting public. I see Dumont as more of the "we are quite happy to be "Canadians" so long as we have the de facto powers of a nation, or near enough as to seem little/no different" crowd or soft nationalists. I also have always had a bad vibe from him, and the more I looked at him the more I couldn't pin down exactly what was causing it, this despite the many concerns I had with him on both policy and operational aspect of his politics. The fact that he has been more of an opportunist (he supported the 1995 referendum as I recall more because of the opportunities for power and to shape the Quebec dialogue it could grant him than any true conviction/dedication to the indepent Quebec country being formed)) than a true ideological believer has some up sides, but it also means he is able to form some very dangerous for the nation alliances to pursue gain greater power now that he has gotten this far, and Harper is the kind of politician that would be compatible for Dumont and vice versa. That makes me uncomfortable, but Dumont still has to show he can first run a caucus of any size of consequence, and he once that is done demonstrate he can operate as a LOO (if not effectively in substance then in appearance and symbolism at the minimum) especially in a minority government situation being a first in well beyond living memory.
I don't know what to make of it, but I do think from what I have seen of Dumont over the last decade that he is not a given as a benefit to Harper now, indeed, I can see him working actively against him not just in Quebec but throughout Canada if things start coming apart for the ADQ as a real true party instead of SuperMario and his one man approach to date. This is especially true if it happens after a few weeks where Harper first starts sounding a bit cocky about implications of Dumont's wins and positions. They do have a lot of commonalities and being within reasonable distance of each others previously stated positions on devolution of federal powers to Provinces, the social conservative nature of a significant part of their respective bases, and the ADQ being the closest analogue to a conservative party elected in Quebecois politics. However, Mario Dumont is truly untested material here, and while he has shown himself to be an effective salesman, can he truly organize and manage a large political organization? After all, until last night there was no true ADQ party, just the skeletal framework needed to run in the various ridings with a plethora of candidates signed up as ADQ members earlier this year. That speaks volumes to party infrastructure both in terms of assets and in terms of long term active/involved membership.
This is part of why I say this is going to be an interesting if not fascinating period to watch, and that anyone making quick assumptions of what the patterns/dynamics at work here mean even within the Quebecois Provincial level are likely overreaching and those trying to translate this to federal politics are clearly overreaching by a long shot. I do think the various parties need to take into account that something earth shattering happened last night and that it will have federal repercussions, but I also think they need to be conservative in the non-political sense of the word in how they read this. I think this was far more a double protest vote to what was felt to be a known/safe quantity these days (SuperMario and the ADQ having been around a while now, despite that lack of major expansion/development until last night) by those tired of both referendums and Charest, and how that truly translates into the federal realm is far less obvious to me than it seems to be for some others.
Anyhow, that's my take on this for the moment; my views of course may change as further information becomes available. Unlike some I don't stop taking in new info and reevaluating my prior positions whenever something relevant comes to my awareness. That is after all the only way to approach life IIMHO, the day you stop learning and integrating new information even when it invalidates prior beliefs is the day you stop being able to resist being controlled by outside forces of one sort or another (its not like there is not a wide selection one can point to from politicians to media people to all kinds of more conspiratorial cabals) and become someone that has also surrendered what is supposed to be one of God's greatest gifts, that of reason/intelligence.
So I see both good Christian (which is still the dominant single faith in this country and on this continent) and secular/practical grounds/arguments for always learning and never presuming to know anything absolutely beyond the point of learning something new about it, even if it may contradict earlier beliefs. It is too bad so many of NA's movement conservatives of the religious variety have lost sight of that aspect of what their Creator gave them according to their own Holy Book, not to mention the inherent hubris/presumption to ever think/claim one knows the mind of God in any of his workings/decisions or at least in the Christian sect I was raised in (Roman Catholic and a decade as an unmolested 'that I need to say that speaks volumes for what the Church has done to itself over the last few decades and especially the last one' alter boy) thought so along with mny of the Protestant ones I have been exposed to over my lifetime. It is after all how our species has gotten this far collectively, so it seems a good model to follow in life and probably in politics as well...:)
Well said!
Steve V:
*blush* Why thank you, I was a bit tired when I wrote that which is why I missed a couple of clear typos. I gather from your lack of specificity that the whole post was well said rather than just some of it, and if I am taking this correctly then I am really complimented indeed. Again, thanks.
Post a Comment