Gomery, And Then Some

I haven't been active much this year in blogging, because I've been scouring (is that the right word?) a couple of different political forums under an unclever little pseudonym that I won't reveal here (for the moment anyway).

Anyhoo, it occurred to me this morning over coffee that 40 years (give or take, if you consider the Mulroney era Progressive Conservatives to have been Liberals in blue suits, as I do) of Liberal corruption may be actually helping the Liberals in their time of need.

There has been so little competition in the marketplace of political ideas in Canada, and each successive government has so closely resembled the last in terms of approach to policy making and stated ideals, that the Canadian electorate has been conditioned to accept the fact that all parties and all politicians are the same.

The upshot is that the Conservatives (and NDP and Communist and Rhino and Marijuana Parties) face an uphill battle convincing the public that, given the circumstances were reversed, they wouldn't be just as corrupt as the Liberals have been. There's no easy way to prove the negative. Which works in the Liberal's favour, as the perceived corruption of all politicians cancels out the Liberals' very real corruption. (Note that the Bloc doesn't necessarily face the same obstacle, as they've managed to cast themselves effectively in the role of Quebec's champion in the fight against federal corruption, which in their mythology is inherent in all other federal political parties, Liberals, Conservatives and NDP included.)

My conjecture: the challenge for the "other" parties is to make whatever political hay the Gomery report will allow* and then move forward with policy propositions that distance themselves from the Liberal positions, even if current political wisdom views such positions to be politically suicidal. The goal at this point has to be to present your party as a genuine alternative to the Liberals, and to emphasise that your proposals are ethical and have merit. Merely complaining about Liberal roguery in the past will have little effect.

One proposal that (as always) immediately comes to mind is that the Conservatives come out forcefully in favour of allowing private for-profit medical treatment as an alternative to the public system. The trick is not to fall into the Liberal/NDP linguistic trap wherein the argument is framed by the term "American-style two-tiered healthcare system". It has to be recast from the conservative viewpoint, as a choice between forcing wealthy people with the ability pay their own way into the queue (and necessarily in front of others who can't pay), and freeing up needed resources within the public system by allowing "people of privilege" to seek their care elsewhere. A few pointed questions: Why are the Liberals in favour of a woman's right to choose, unless she's wealthy and wants the option to pay for medical services? Why is the government in favour of allowing private care for the frivolous (cosmetic surgery) while denying that option for the serious (heart surgery)? Why are the Liberals insistent that the governemt has no business in the bedroom, but has every right to sit in at the doctor's office, and to demand that it be de facto consulted about the correct course of care?

The immediate reaction to this suggestion in some circles will be negative, under the presumption that a forceful stand in favour of private medicine will drive soft conservative voters away from the Conservative party. But will it really? After a decade of conservative infighting and bloodshed, are there any soft conservative voters left? Not many, in my modest opinion. The only direction to go is up, but this won't be achieved by ceding moral and ethical authority on critical issues to people you're trying to portray as corrupt.

*Which is scant, in that the average Canadian who hasn't been following the story (about 98% of us outside of Quebec) sees this scandal as nothing more serious than the Liberals pissing another $250 million into Quebec. And for what? The Liberal party appears to have benefitted to the tune of only a couple of million bucks all totalled. Which, I guess, makes them appear to the average Canadian to be inept in their criminality, and loveably so.

Update: Welcome LIB readers! Thanks for the link, Bob. Check out Bob's great take on the same topic here.