Wednesday November 29, 2000
Federal Election 2000 Analysis
Why Ontarians Voted for Tyranny and Corruption Instead of the Alliance
* Eastern Canadians Frightened of Alliance
* Political Advisors Gave Usual Deadly Advice
* Referendum Policy a Disaster in the East
* Many CA Candidates Withheld Views From Voters
* Referendum Policy Must be Re-examined
* Long Knives Out for Day?
* Most Pro-Life MPs Re-elected
* A Nasty Liberal Campaign
* Now What?
It became obvious just before the 2000 federal election that the Liberals were headed for another majority. What was not expected was the huge size of the majority that Jean Chretien would achieve. How could this have happened so many are asking.
Eastern Canadians Frightened of Alliance
Overall, eastern Canada was frightened by what they did not know about the Canadian Alliance, but on much more than the social issues which the opposition and the media targeted. On the social issues, the Alliance failed to adequately appeal to small-c conservatives, especially in rural Ontario. Their lack of any real policy on abortion and other “controversial” life and family related matters cost them dearly. Once again repeating the past two failed federal election strategies, the Reform/Alliance was afraid to even discuss these issues. Stockwell Day and most social conservative candidates were disturbingly either unwilling or unable to skillfully articulate why they personally believed as they did and why some specific change in these areas would be a benefit to the nation.
Political Advisors Gave Usual Deadly Advice
To be fair, political advisors, who do not understand these issues or who are strong social liberals, once again tragically convinced most of the eastern candidates to shut up on the social issues. This left them wide open to damaging speculation about “hidden agendas” and charges of lack of leadership. It prevented the party from exploiting to its advantage a major difference between itself and the other parties, which the other parties could not duplicate for short-term political advantage. It was also a cynical strategy that assumed that the Canadian public (as opposed to the media) would pillory candidates who dared to give sincere, well-reasoned arguments as to why there is room for some change on the abortion and other social matters. It also conveyed a strong message that the social conservative candidates lacked confidence in their own beliefs. It is doubtful voters would have thought less of a party and candidates who stated up-front that they really cared about strengthening family life and restoring respect for the beliefs and desires of all Canadians, rather than just the politically correct ones. Without any of this, conservative-minded voters with affiliations to other parties were easily able to justify in their consciences continuing to vote for the old parties. They were not given convincing reasons by Reform/Alliance why they should change their voting habits.
Referendum Policy a Disaster in the East
The Alliance’s referendum religion has been a consistently poor sell in eastern Canada. It probably turned off many eastern voters so much that they opted to re-elect a corrupt demagogue rather than entrust the nation’s future to a process that no one seemed to understand or able to explain or justify why it was even necessary. The opposition easily exploited it as a creation to avoid responsibility and leadership, to cover not having a policy on some important issues and to hide agendas that the Alliance had no confidence it could justify to the public. Day and many of the candidates frequently referred to referenda and citizen initiatives when the abortion issue came up. Even though the party has no official position on abortion, it would have been more productive, especially considering recent Compass and Gallup polls, to confidently point to the fact that a majority of the Canadian public want some protection for the unborn. This would have provided a clear alternative to the other parties’ hard-core, pro-abortion position and exposed the deceit that their position was based upon. It especially would have given some closure to the issue and allowed Day and the Alliance to more easily focus on the other concerns.
The Alliance’s precious two Ontario seats were won by candidates who were unafraid to voice their pro-life beliefs. Being open and solid on the issue was clearly no hindrance to these candidates. In fact their pro-life stance was a significant benefit since the gains they received from the many pro-life voters in their areas exceeded the smaller numbers who might have been offended by this principled stand.
For the most part, Canadians – as we are so often told – do not regard abortion as a major issue when voting, thus there is no harm in being solidly pro-life and then getting on with a good campaign on other issues. The problems arise when apparent denying, dithering and backpedaling over one’s deeply held beliefs occur. When this happens the charge of a “hidden agenda” easily results and voters begin to wonder about the sincerity of the candidate, regardless of his/her stand on life.
Many CA Candidates Withheld Views From Voters
Campaign Life Coalition workers were shocked by the outright refusal of so many Alliance candidates to provide voters with any information about their views on the questions in the election questionnaire. Andrew Faust, CA candidate for Scarborough-Agincourt responded with only “My private views on abortion are just that, private!”. The report to Campaign Life on David Brown, CA for Ottawa Centre was he “didn’t want his views known.” Nestor Gayowsky, CA for Ottawa-Vanier stated “I reserve the right to keep my own counsel and keep my own thoughts private”. The campaign manager for Gurdish Mangat, CA for Bramalea-Gore stated “the candidate’s personal views are private”. Many CA candidates simply refused to respond at all.
The irony of candidates from a supposedly populist party adamantly refusing to tell voters where they stood on certain important issues seemed to be completely lost on the candidates.
Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition, advises that in future all candidates must be told to tell voters where they stand on issues such as abortion and not hide behind “referenda”, “citizen’s initiatives”, “consensus” and “party policy”. Many voters are offended by what they interpret as a lack of forthrightness, creating the impression of a “hidden agenda” and dishonesty.
Referendum Policy Must be Re-examined
The Alliance’s referendum policy must be re-examined by the party. Old guard Reformers are intensely possessive about this creation of their party, but they must face the writing on the wall.
The old saying is three times and you’re out. If the policy is not substantially modified and made less of a centerpiece of Alliance policy, the Alliance’s hopes of becoming the government of the nation are probably over. Strengthening of democratic principles in our political system are seriously needed, but the history of democracy has never mandated that referenda must be emphasized for democracy to function well. The Alliance’s many other parliamentary and government reform policies are far less contentious, much more acceptable to the public and more naturally compatible with our traditional Canadian parliamentary system.
Long Knives Out for Day?
Social liberals and others who never wanted Day in the first place may be scheming to replace him with one of their own. A few newspaper columnists have already been calling for this. Rather than replace the leader who is due a fair chance to grow in the job and prove himself, it would be far more productive to clean house in party headquarters and invite all those who cannot accept the Alliance’s official pro-family (social conservative) policies to leave. It is a mystery why this hasn’t been done already. A house divided, as the Alliance clearly was during this election, is inevitably a house that collapses. Day’s popularity was still the major driving force behind the significant gains for the Alliance, despite any errors that he made during the campaign. He is true to the philosophy of Alliance rather than the power-seeking political opportunists that other challengers are likely to be. And no, Preston Manning, as fine a man as he is, would not have produced any better results in the election, because he repeatedly failed to make rural Ontario a special priority in his strategy.
Having faced an election call only 8 months after the formation of the party, and 3 months after the selection of a new Leader, the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance was the only party to significantly increase its popular support, and the only party to see an increase in support in every region, winning more than 3 million votes. The Alliance increased its number of seats in 4 provinces and the Alliance’s popular vote increased by 6.2%, or 750,000 votes, since the 1997 election (an increase of one-third), compared to a gain of only 2.4% by the Liberals, or 225,000 votes. All other parties lost support compared to the last election. Moreover, the CA finished well ahead of the Liberals in every western province, placed second to the Liberals in 80 Ontario ridings and ranked slightly above the PCs in the Quebec popular vote. Day failed to achieve the breakthrough that was hoped for in the east but initial expectations were probably set far too high.
Most Pro-Life MPs Re-elected
The pro-life movement was pleased to see pro-life most MPs re-elected in the Liberal and Conservative parties as well as the Alliance.
While the Progressive Conservative Party was the biggest loser in the election – seeing their support drop by 6.7%, losing nearly 900,000 votes – the four pro-lifers in the party – MPs Elsie Wayne, Norman Doyle, Greg Thompson and Bill Casey retained their seats and now represent one third of the PC Party in the House of Commons. Wayne and Doyle are especially solid and outspoken on the right to life. They never hesitate to state that they would like to see an end to abortion in Canada – and that is both their personal and political opinion.
One of the most disappointing losses was that of Alliance MP Eric Lowther. Joe Clark defeated Lowther in the riding of Calgary Centre. Mr. Lowther was a pro-life leader in the House of Commons and was outstanding as the Alliance’s Families Critic. His presence in the House and within the Alliance will be sorely missed.
A Nasty Liberal Campaign
The Liberals waged an unprecedented negative campaign that unfortunately the disorganized, inexperienced and divided Alliance was not able to counter. Some media and party leaders are naturally blaming Day’s religious and social conservative beliefs for the failure of the Alliance to achieve substantial gains. But, as we all know, it was the opposition and the media who belabored these issues to an extreme. The great problem was that Day and many of the candidates did not seem prepared and did not respond as they should have. The same happened in the debacle over two-tiered health care. Day did not clearly (or was not given the opportunity to) articulate a clear position on the issue and thus was often forced to defence – always a losing position – costing the trust of the public and ultimately votes.
Now What?
Jean Chretien and his inner circle have a history of disregarding and abusing Parliament, imposing a constant radical social change agenda on the country and unilaterally giving away Canadian sovereignty to the U.N. Democracy has experienced an on-going serious decline under the Liberals. Respect for life, family and democracy will undoubtedly continue to decline under the Liberals, as currently lead.
A few trends can be expected. One questions how much longer Liberal MPs will tolerate the indecency of being the lapdogs of a dictatorial MP rather than servants of the people. Many who voted for the Liberals obviously do not agree with many of the objectionable policies of Jean Chretien and his henchmen. They remember a Liberal party of the past that they are hoping will eventually re-emerge. The public should demand that Liberal MPs represent the true best interests of Canadians and reject the abusive, far too frequent orders of the party whip.
Jean Chretien, Joe Clark and the other senior Catholic politicians must finally be held accountable by their church leaders for the great scandal of their implementation of policies seriously at odds with their faith. Canadians must insist that the church act on this contradiction that has resulted in Canadian “Catholic” political leaders imposing a deadly anti-life, anti-family agenda on Canada and other parts of the world, while still calling themselves “Catholic”, and still allowed to receive Catholic sacraments.
The CA has re-organization and strengthening to do. It’s role as the official opposition will be more important that any opposition in Canadian history. Hopefully, it will communicate regularly with pro-life, pro-family groups and give more credibility to their experience and advice on the most important issues in the world. Hopefully, it will come to recognize and act on the huge dangers of the Liberal’s internationalist agenda.
There is a long, difficult road ahead but one that must be taken for the good of our nation.
We should above all pray for our nation and it’s leaders. That especially can bring about unexpected changes of heart and many unexpected blessings.