<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
By Jonathon Van Maren<\/p>\n
For better or for worse, it would appear that the last week\u2019s \u201cbackbench revolt\u201d has definitively proven that Canadians who hold social conservative, and specifically anti-abortion, views, have no political party to vote for that holds the slightest bit of sympathy for their worldview. Mr. Harper has made it crystal clear that his brand of \u201cconservatism\u201d (which seems to elude definition) does not involve the \u201cconservation\u201d of human life<\/a>, or even, it seems, of his sizeable so-con voting base. His \u201cconservatism\u201d even precludes a discussion of issues carefully selected by pro-life MPs for their reflection of a Canadian consensus (aka sex-selection abortion).<\/p>\n The problem of the systematic disenfranchisement of social conservatives is one that is not uniquely Canadian. It\u2019s not much of an American problem, certainly, but the Tories in our \u201cparent\u201d country Great Britain has certainly reacted to social conservatives in much the way that Mr. Harper has. I had the opportunity recently to interview the British Mail on Sunday<\/em> columnist Peter Hitchens, and our conversation wandered over to today\u2019s neutered and managerial brand of conservatism that seems to have replaced the conservatism that recognized that its success was inextricably linked to that of social conservative values.<\/p>\n The term \u201cconservative,\u201d Hitchens noted, \u201cisn\u2019t meaningless, but it\u2019s misapplied to political parties who claim to represent it. The difficulty is that voting in universal suffrage tends to be tribal rather than rational. People vote for the party that calls itself conservative long after it\u2019s ceased to be so, and as a result they do themselves great damage because they perpetuate a party that is in fact their enemy. Canada had sort of a revulsion against that when their Conservative Party more or less collapsed, but somehow it seems to have pulled itself together again. That\u2019s partly because the substitute party didn\u2019t really have any ideological coherence of its own. A revolt against rather than a revolt for, I think.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This, of course, is what Mr. Harper is banking on: That anti-abortion voters will keep on marching to the polling booth and putting their x next to the big blue C, with a few tightly muzzled pro-life candidates to vote for to ensure Stockholm syndrome. Meanwhile, Harper\u2019s opposition to any discussion on abortion is, unbeknownst to most, written right into his party platform (page 19, point 62) and enforced by the PMO. Even a motion with as much public support as Langley MP Mark Warawa\u2019s request for a verbal condemnation of sex selection abortion doesn\u2019t make it past the draconian anti-so-con Conservative gate-keepers.<\/p>\n Rather than keeping his base somewhat sated, Harper is instead earning the kudos of bloggers like Warren Kinsella, a Liberal Party loyalist who wrote happily that<\/a> Harper, \u201chas ruthlessly crushed any and all attempts to kickstart the abortion debate. Harper has been more resolute on the abortion issue, in fact, than any prime minister in a generation.\u201d Kinsella\u2019s enthusiastic advice for Harper is to \u201cThrow a few of the nobodies overboard and make everyone watch as the sharks tear them to pieces.\u201d Except, of course, Kinsella has not thought of the percentage of Harper\u2019s voting bloc that those \u201cnobodies\u201d and their views represent. Then again, considering his loyalties, perhaps he has.<\/p>\n