You Had An Option, Sir - Fear and loathing on Parliament Hill

This article first appeared in the McGill Tribune on October 16, 2007.

Last year during the federal election, the Liberals put out a now-infamous campaign ad. Behind a backdrop of thundering drums, a soothing female voice intoned that Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers in our cities. The ad caused a national uproar and even spurred a few Liberals to come forward and declare that the negative ad had gone too far. The video was soon pulled, but it illustrates one of the most effective tactics that the Left has used against the Conservative Party. Leftist fear-mongers from coast to coast denounced the party and Stephen Harper for having a frightening and secret social agenda. Nearly 20 months later, can anyone claim that these accusations still carry any weight?

The reputation that Conservatives have concerning social policy is driven largely by the state of conservatism south of the 49th parallel. Indeed, Republicans in the United States are largely associated with social conservatism due to the support they receive from powerful Christian fundamentalist groups. What many Canadians don't understand is that the political climate in Canada is completely different from that in the U.S. In fact, the current state of political discourse in Canada indicates that traditional social conservatism is, for the most part, dead.

Now, I've heard some crazy accusations about Prime Minister Harper in my time, including a rant asserting as fact that Mr. Harper was a priest before entering politics (he was not). But anyone who thinks that Mr. Harper is a social-conservative has fallen prey to partisan spin. Stephen Harper biographer William Johnson indicates in his book that it is clear Harper was always much more of an economic conservative than a social conservative. Further, Harper has long held the position that moral issues are issues of individual choice and conscience, and should not be prescribed by a party line. That doesn't seem very frightening to me.

In fact, the argument could be made that Stephen Harper has actually neutralized social conservatism in our country. Over the last two years or so, Harper has diluted the strength of social conservatism in his party by addressing two of the most fundamental issues for social conservatives: abortion and same-sex marriage. In 2005, the first policy convention of the Conservative Party of Canada resulted in a decision to set official party policy against any type of legislation regulating abortion. Last summer, in line with his idea that 'the moral is personal', Harper held a free-vote on whether the issue of same-sex marriage should be re-opened in the House of Commons. The fact that this vote was defeated by a margin of over 50 MPs is less important than the fact that Harper knew it would be defeated in advance and held the vote despite this knowledge.

The incremental dilution of social conservative influence in the Conservative Party is noticeable. While there are still annual protests condemning abortion on Parliament Hill, legislation regulating or criminalizing abortion is now seen almost as a fringe idea, particularly among younger conservatives. The issue of same-sex marriage, once a hotbed of contention in conservative circles, has been quelled in a democratic manner by the House of Commons vote, and is no longer subject to frequent debate. The recent lack of a socially conservative voice in Ottawa led Rick Mercer to quip recently that Harper had managed to "successfully spay and neuter" every last social conservative in the party, comparing them to an endangered species that David Suzuki would have to create a roundtable to protect.

During their time in power, Harper and his team have shown a willingness to adopt moderate social polices that Canadians can agree with. The Left will continue to use scare tactics in order to extort votes from citizens, but it is clear that this strategy is quickly losing both its attractiveness and efficacy. A sober look at the facts indicates that the Conservatives have taken a temperate approach to social issues and shown an unwillingness to infringe on the views of an MP's conscience, an attitude that no one should fear.