Jeez. Looks like the Queen of Oak Bay might be out of commission for a while. Too bad the BC Ferry Corp doesn't have a spare ship or two that they can throw into action in the meantime....

“You’ve got a problem. The problem is you.”

Johnny Rotton.


The failure of Stephen Harper to capitalize on the woes of the federal Liberal party seems to have conservatives in this country in a conniption fit. Their general consensus, based on perusing various opinion columns and websites, is ‘blame Canada.’

We live, apparently, in a ‘decayed’ ‘one-party state.’ To listen to the political right, the failure of Canadians to rise en masse against the Liberal party is a sign of some kind of collective character flaw, a symptom of a passive, sheep-like citizenry with a North Korean-style tolerance for subjection.

Well, first of all, the closest jurisdiction we have to a one party state in this country is Alberta. They last changed governing parties in 1969. And the last time before that was 1935. If seems that if we’re talking about a right-leaning one party state, there’s no problem.

But let’s put that aside. Why is it that Canada leans, at the federal level, to the Liberal Party? One thing that doesn’t seem to have occurred to the political right is that they are the problem; if there’s one bunch you can blame for Liberal supremacy in Canada, it’s our conservatives.

Look at the last 20 years. Brian Mulroney rose to power in 1984 by building an alliance between western conservatives, Ontario business types, and Ottawa-suspicious Quebeckers. As soon as he got into power, the sulking started, led by Preston Manning. You see the same thing on the political left as well. The hard-liners and interest groups don’t get a top-to-bottom transformation of society in six months so they go into a snit. Parties, or movements, that are interested in holding power generally exhibit some patience and discipline, and an ability to keep broad alliances intact.

No doubt the Progressive Conservatives would have been defeated in 1993 without Manning’s Reform splinter; a lot of pent-up animosity had developed, and Lucien Bouchard’s Nigel Tufnel act didn’t help. But Chretien’s rise to power was way easier than it should have been. He faced a fractured opponent for the duration of his Prime Ministership. (Mulroney, who hand-picked the betraying Bouchard, was also a key backer of Belinda Stronach. What a great judge of character. How did this guy, with his unerring ability to back the wrong horse, not end up scouting for the Vancouver Canucks in the 1970’s?)

Chretien was blessed with ten years of right-wing bitching and bickering. The PCs elected Joe Clark leader, a move similar to Harold Ballard bringing back the ancient Punch Imlach to shore up the Toronto Maple Leafs’ fortunes in the 1980s.

Except that Imlach had actually once been a winner.

The Reform Party, meanwhile, put jet-skier Stockwell Day at the helm, at which point a key segment of the Reform caucus bolted in exasperation.

And somehow the rest of us are to blame for this?

The federal Liberals are a tough team to beat. They’re like the Manchester United of Canadian politics. Meanwhile, our conservatives are like some banana republic national soccer team; gesticulating hysterically at each other every time they let in a goal, running out the bulk of their games in a dysfunctional funk.

I think a key problem is that conservatives in this country have made no effort to capture the patriotic voter market the way conservatives in other countries have. “Try looking, and acting, as if you like the place,” wrote former Chretien aid Warren Kinsella in a recent National Post column directed at Harper, “and Canadians will let you run it.”

Compare the Canadian right to that in the United States. Republicans are bullishly pro-America. You will never see Democrats outflank Republicans on the matter of patriotism. Whether it’s defending America from communists, terrorists, or Canadian pharmacists, the Republicans are the ones for the job.

American conservatives will tell you that Democrats are dragged down by the likes of allies like Michael Moore, who comes across to some as not liking his own country. I think they’re onto something; moreover, I’d say the same is true in Canada, where right-wing commentators constantly crap on their own nation.

This country essentially exists because British Loyalists came north rather than join the thirteen colonies in revolution. It was a conservative statement. Yet it’s also a rejection of the American path. Conservatives could accept this.

They could, in fact, claim it as a Conservative legacy, like John A. MacDonald’s railroad. After all MacDonald pushed the rairoad through because he was worried about the western territorial ambitions of America. Is it a coincidence that he remains, after some 120 years, the most successful Conservative politician the country has ever had?

This doesn’t mean the Canadian right needs to start striking anti-American poses. They like the U.S., and that’s fine. So do I. But don't you need to like your own country more? Otherwise, why stay? They could adopt that great line of my friend Smash: “we’re both right, just in different ways.” They could steal some Liberal thunder by playing the worn out Canadian identity card to their advantage.

But they don’t like the phrase...’Canadian identity.’ Too C.B.C....too Toronto Star....too Pierre Trudeau... And ‘Canadian values?’ The mere words will earn you a chorus of contempt from the National Post editorial board.

The conservative view of Canada seems one of embarrassment. To the right in this country we are a nation of defeatist underachievers, unambitious losers and envious sneerers.

The thing is, if this is true, no one epitomizes it better than they do.